■ ' ;■■■■>■-'-■■ QJnrnell Caw ^rtjiuil Bbrarj} Cornell University Library KF8840.F75T7 1901 v.1 A treatise on federal practice, 3 1924 020 181 842 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/cu31 9240201 81 842 A TREATISE ON FEDEEAL PRACTICE INCLUDING PRACTICE IN BANKRUPTCY, ADMIRALTY, PATENT CASES, FORECLOSURE OF RAILWAY MORTGAGES, SUITS UPON CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES EQUITY PLEADING AND PRACTICE, RE- CEIVERS AND INJUNCTIONS IN THE STATE COURTS BY ROGER jLQSTER, of tee new yore bab, Author of Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Treatises on the Federal Judiciary Acts op 1875 and 1887, the Federal Income Tax of 1894, and Lecturer on Federal Jurisprudence at the Law School of Yale University. THIRD EDITION REVISED AND ENLARGED IN TWO VOLUMES YOL. I. CHICAGO: CALLAGHAN AND COMPANY. 1901. v/m COPYRIGHT, 1890, BY ROGER FOSTER. COPYRIGHT, 1892, BY ROGER FOSTER Copyright, 1901, BY ROGER FOSTER. STATE JOURNAL PRINTING COMPANY, Printers and Steheotypers, madison, wis. TO Z\iz fll>emori(> of m\> ffatber, DWIGHT FOSTER, FORMERLY JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, I DEDICATE THIS BOOK BEGUN AT HIS SUGGESTION, 'ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT LIVE TO CORRECT ITS FAULTS. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. The passage of the Evarts Act creating the Circuit Courts of Appeals, which radically changed the jurisdiction and practice affecting appeals and writs of error, and the many recent de- cisions explaining the right to and practice in removals from the State to the Federal courts, have rendered a second edition necessary. The reception given by the bench and bar to the first edition has encouraged the author to enlarge the scope, and he hopes the usefulness of the book. Many of the original sections have been rewritten, and new sections have been added to the original chapters, including all material statutes and de- cisions passed or reported before the October term of 1891, and many decisions since that date which have been added while the book was in the press. New chapters have been added, on Practice in Admiralty, by Charles C. Burlingham, Esq., of the New York bar; Prac- tice in the Court of Private Land Claims, by ex-Judge E. A. Bowers, now of the bar of Washington, D. C. ; and Practice in the Court of Claims. The chapters on Jurisdiction, Evidence, Costs, Practice at Common Law, Removal of Causes, and Writs of Error and Appeals, have been entirely rewritten and nearly doubled in size. A large number of forms and rules and a few recent statutes have been added to the Appendix. It is hoped that the book will now serve as a full guide to the practitioner in every branch of Federal practice in civil causes. The author has been greatly aided by the Notes to the Re- vised Statutes by Messrs. Gould and Tucker, and by the Im- portant Federal Statutes Annotated, by Mr. Eussell H. Curtis. The references to the Supplement to the Revised Statutes are to the first edition. New York, January 11, 1892. PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION. The decisions during the nine years since the publication of the second edition of this book have made clear much that was then obscure concerning the, jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts under the Judiciary Act of 1887 and of the Supreme Court and Circuit Courts of Appeals under the Evarts Act of 1891. This reason alone would have seemed to justify a new edition; but the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 made it a necessity. The en- tire work has been rewritten in the light of the subsequent cases and statutes. By the transfer of many instances from the text to the notes and the omission of a number of long quotations, the writer is enabled to make room for much new matter, although he has added only about three hundred pages to the book. A new chapter on Practice in Bankruptcy has been included. He has also added, wherever they seemed ap- propriate, references to the leading cases in the different States upon points of equity pleading , and practice, including those which are still important under Codes of Civil Procedure. He hopes that the book now contains everything except a knowl- edge of the local rules of court that is necessary to qualify a practitioner in the courts of equity of New Jersey, Massachu- setts, Delaware, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama and the District of Columbia, as well as in all the courts of the United States; besides the treatment of a number of topics such as parties, service of process by publication, multifarious- ness, injunctions, receivers and others equally important under Code practice. New York, August 2, 1901. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. Table of Cases xxix Table of Statutes clxxvi Table of Equity Rules clxxxiii Table of Rules of Supreme Court. clxxxiii Table of Rules of Circuit Court of Appeals clxxxiii Table of Rules of Court of Claims clxxxiv Table of Rules of Court of Private Land Claims. clxxxiv Table of Admiralty Rules clxxxv General Orders in Bankruptcy.,, clxxxv CHAPTER L jurisdiction. § 1. Equitable jurisdiction in general 1 § 2. General survey of the jurisdiction of courts of equity 3 § 3. Constitutional provisions affecting the jurisdiction of the Fed- eral courts 5 § 4 The distinction between law and equity in the Federal courts 6 § 5. General rules affecting the jurisdiction in equity of the Fed- eral courts ,. 6 § 6. State statutes cannot impair the jurisdiction nor regulate the practice of Federal courts of equity. 10 § 7. State laws creating new rights are enforced by Federal courts at law or in equity 12 § 8. State statutes of limitation 15 § 9. Property in the custody of a State court 17 § 10. Property in the custody of another Federal court 25 §11. Illustrations of equitable jurisdiction in the Federal courts... 26 § 12. Illustrations of cases where the Federal courts have refused to assume equitable jurisdiction 32 § 13. Federal courts, which have jurisdiction in equity 39 § 14. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 41 § 14a. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of Appeal 44 § 15. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States 44 §16. Value of the matter in dispute 49 § 17. Suits arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 57 § 18. Controversy between citizens of different States 63 § 19. Citizenship 66 § 20. Under grants of different States 70 § 21. Ancillary jurisdiction 71 A TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. § 22. Limitations upon jurisdiction by residence 75 § 23. Special limitation upon jurisdiction of Circuit Court for South- ern District of New York , 81 §24. Suits by assignee 81 § 25. Jurisdiction of the District Courts of the United States 86 § 26. Territorial jurisdiction and terms of the Supreme Court, Cir- cuit Courts of Appeal, Circuit and District Courts of the United States 89 § 27. Sources of Federal equity practice 120 CHAPTER IL PERSONS WHO MAY BE PLAINTIFFS OR DEFENDANTS IN A SUIT IN EQUITY. § 28. General rule as to persons capable of being plaintiffs 122 § 29. States as plaintiffs .' 122 § 30. Alien enemies as plaintiffs 122 § 31. Married women as plaintiffs 123 § 32. Suits on behalf of infants 123 § 33. Suits on behalf of idiots, lunatics and persons of weak mind. . 125 § 34 Capacity of foreign executors, administrators and receivers to sue 126 § 35. Who may be defendants to a bill in equity 127 § 36. The United States as a defendant 128 § 37. Liability of States to suits by private persons 135 § 38. Liability of a State to a suit by another State 143 § 39. Suits against infants 144 § 40. Suits against idiots, lunatics and persons of weak mind 146 § 41. Suits against married women . . ., 147 CHAPTER IIL PARTIES. § 42. General rule as to parties 148 § 43. Parties with no interest in the subject-matter of the suit 149 § 44. Persons who on account of their interest need not be made parties to a suit in equity. 150 § 45. Cases where the law has furnished a representative 155 § 46. Suits by a complainant on behalf of himself and others sim- ilarly situated 161 § 47. Illustrations of bills filed by representatives 163 §48. Suits against one or more of a class 164 § 49. Suits by or against one or more as representatives of a class claiming a common right 165 § 50. Omission of defendants not within the jurisdiction of the court 167 § 51. Formal parties who may be omitted when without the juris- diction 170 § 52. Parties whose interest is separable 170 § 53. Parties indispensable to a decree v . ...... . 174 § 54. When numerous interests have been created for the purpose of preventing the plaintiff from obtaining equitable relief. .... 180 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI" Page. § 55. When a person consents to the relief sought , . . . 180 § 56. When the plaintiff waives his right against a person 181 |$ 57. When the interest of an absent person is evidently very small 181 § 57a. When the absent persons are unknown 181 § 58. When the right of administration is in dispute 182 § 59. Relaxation of rules as to parties in special cases 182 § 60. Restatement of the rules as to parties 183 § 61. Objection for want of parties 184 § 62. Objection for joinder of improper parties 185 CHAPTER IV. BILLS. § 63. Informations 188 § 64 Definition and classification of bills 190 § 65. Frame of a bill in equity 192 § 66. The address and introduction 192 § 67. The narrative part of a bill 195 § 68. Scandal and impertinence 196 § 69. Certainty 198 § 70. Inconsistency and bills with a double aspect 202. § 71. Multifariousness in general 205 g 72. Multifariousness by misjoinder of plaintiffs ' 207 § 73. Multifariousness by misjoinder of defendants 210 § 74. Multifariousness without misjoinder of parties. 215 § 75. Objections to multifariousness 218 §76. Special provisions of the Federal equity rules and practice... 219 § 77. Bills to enjoin the infringement of patents 222 §78. General rules of equity pleading 227 § 79. The common confederacy clause 230 § 80. The charging part 231 § 81. The jurisdiction clause " 231 § 82. The interrogatory clause 231 § 83. The prayer for relief. 233 § 84. Waivers and offers 235 § 85. The prayer of process 239 § 86. The signature to a bill ■ 240 § 87. Affidavit's to bills 240 § 88. Bills of interpleader 241 § 89. Bills in the nature of interpleader. 245 § 90. Bills of certiorari. , 245 CHAPTER V. STJBPCENAS TO APPEAR AND ANSWER. § 91. Definition and form of subpoena 246 § 92. Issue of the subpoena 249 § 93. When a subpoena is necessary 250 § 94. Personal service of a subpoena 250 §95. Service upon corporations 254 b XU TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. § 96. Substituted service of a subpoena 258 § 97. Statutory service of a subpoena 260 § 98. Exemptions from service of subpoena, or other process legal or equitable, other than arrest. 266 CHAPTER VL APPEARANCE. § 99. Definition of an appearance 269 § 100. What constitutes an appearance 269 § 101. Effect of an appearance 271 §102. When an appearance must be made 273 CHAPTER VIL TAKING BILLS PRO CONFESSO. §103. When a bill may be taken pro confesso .. .' 274 §104. Practice in taking a bill pro confesso. 276 CHAPTER VIIL DEMURRERS. § 105. Definition and general characteristics of a demurrer. 281 § 106. Admissions by a demurrer. 282 § 107. Demurrers to parts of bills '..... 285 § 108. Classification of demurrers to the relief 287 § 109. . Demurrers to the discovery 290 § 110. Of what defects advantage should be taken by demurrer. . ,\ . 292 § 111. When a demurrer should be filed • 292 § 112. Title of demurrer. ... 292 §113. Protestation. 293 § 114. Statement of the extent of the demurrer 293 § 115. Statement of the causes of demurrer. 293 § 116. Demurrers ore tenus 295 § 117. Prayer of judgment 296 § 118. Certificate of counsel 297 § 119. Motions to take demurrers off the file 297 §120. Setting demurrer down for argument 298 § 121. Argument of demurrer 298 § 122. Overruling a demurrer 299 § 123. Sustaining a demurrer. 301 CHAPTER IX PLEAS. § 124. Definition and classification of pleas 303 § 125. Pleas in abatement in general 305 § 126. Pleas to the jurisdiction 307 § 127. Pleas to the person 307 § 128. Pleas to the bill 308 § 129. Pleas of pendency of another suit 309 TABLE OF CONTENTS. X1U Page. § 130. Pleas of want of parties 313 § 131. Pleas of statutes 313 § 132. Pleas of matter of record 315 § 133. Pleas of matter in pais 333 § 134 Pleas to the discovery 334 § 135. When a plea must be filed 336 §136. Frameofaplea 336 § 137. Answers with pleas 336 § 138. Proceedings of the plaintiff when a plea is filed 338 § 130. Motion to take a plea off the file , 330 §140. Argument of a plea J 330 § 141. Motion for a reference of a plea 334 § 143. Hearing upbn pleas . 334 § 143. General remarks upon pleas. .■ 336 CHAPTER X ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. § 144 Pleading defenses in an answer i 337 § 145. Defenses peculiar to patent cases 338 § 146. Admissions and denials independent of discovery.' 341 § 147. Impertinence and scandal 343 §148. Discovery 343 § 149. Proceedings to compel answer 348 § 150. Frame of answer 348 § 151. Signature and oath to answer 350 §153. Motions to take answers off the file 351 § 153. Exceptions for insufficiency 353 § 154. Supplemental answers 355 §155. Disclaimers 358 CHAPTER XL REPLICATIONS. § 156. Definition and history of replications 358 § 157. When a replication should be filed 359 § 158. Effect of a replication „ 360 § 159. Frame of a replication , 360 CHAPTER XII AMENDMENTS. § 160. Amendments in general .... -. 363 § 161. When bills can be amended 363 §163. Form and effect of amendment of a bill 366 § 163. What amendments to bills may be made 367 § 164 Amendment by pleading matters subsequent to the filing of the bill.. 370 § 165. Proceedings upon an amended bill 371 § 166. Amendments of demurrers, pleas and replications 373 §167. Amendment of answers..' .-. 373 § 168. Practice in obtaining leave to amend 375 XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIII. CROSS-BILLS. Page. § 169. Definition and origin of cross-bills 377 § 170. "When a cross-bill should be filed 377 § 171. When a cross-bill should not be filed 380 § 172. Frame of a cross-bill 384 § 173. Proceedings upon cross-bills 387 / CHAPTER XIV. BILLS OF REVIVOR; SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS; BILLS OF REVIVOR AND SUPPLE- MENT; AND BILLS IN THE NATURE OF THE SAME. § 174. Abatement 391 § 175. Effect of abatement 393 § 176. When a suit may be revived and effect of revivor 395 § 177. Who may revive a suit 396 g 178. Manner of revivor in general 397 § 179. Definition of bills of revivor and parties to the same 398 §180. Frame of a bill of revivor 399 § 181. Proceedings upon bills of revivor 400 § 182. Bills in the nature of bills of revivor in general 403 § 183. Frame of bills in the nature of bills of revivor and proceedings upon them 405 § 184. Bills of revivor and supplement 406 § 185. Supplemental bills in the nature of bills of revivor 406 § 186. What renders a suit defective , 407 § 187. Supplemental bills 408 § 188. Parties and frame of a supplemental bill 411 § 189. Proceedings upon supplemental bills 413 § 190. Bills in the nature of supplemental bills in general 416 § 191. Frame of a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill 418 § 192. Proceedings upon bills in the nature of supplemental bills. . . . 418 CHAPTER XV. INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. § 193. Definition and classification of interlocutory applications 420 § 194 Definition and classification of motions 420 § 195. Motions of course 420 § 196. Special motions without notice 421 § 197. Notice of motion 423 § 198. Argument of motions 427 § 199. Petitions in general 429 § 200. Petitions for leave to sue in forma pauperis, at common law and in equity 431 § 201. Petitions of intervention 434 § 201a. Practice upon interventions 440 § 202. Form of petitions and practice upon them 446 §203. Orders 447 § 204 Judges who may grant orders * 450 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV CHAPTER XVL INJUNCTIONS. Page. § 205. Definition, classification, and objects of injunctions. . , 452 § 206. Injunctions to enforce trusts and other purely equitable rights 452 § 207, Injunctions to restrain corporations from violating their char- ters 1 453 § 208. Injunctions to enforce the specific performance of covenants and other contracts affecting land 455 § 209. Injunctions to restrain a multiplicity of suits 456 § 210. Injunctions to prevent irreparable injury for which the remedy at law is inadequate, in general. 457 § 211. Injunctions to stay proceedings in other courts 458 § 212. Injunctions to restrain the alienation of property 463 § 213. Injunctions to prevent waste 464 § 214. Injunctions to prevent the continuance of a nuisance 465 S 215. Injunctions to restrain trespass 467 S 216. Injunctions to restrain the infringement of patents 470 § 217. Injunctions to restrain the infringement of copyrights 474 §218. Injunctions to restrain the unlawful use of trade-marks 477 § 219. Injunctions to prevent the opening of letters. 479 § 220. Injunctions to compel the performance or prevent the breach of contracts not affecting land 479 § 221. Injunctions to compel the delivery of personal property tor- tiously withheld , , 480 § 222. Injunctions authorized by statute. 480 § 223. When injunctions will not issue 482 § 224. Distinction between the judicial writ and the writ remedial. 486 §225. Distinction between mandatory and prohibitory injunctions. 487 § 226. Distinction between provisional and perpetual injunctions. . . 488 § 227. Distinction between common and special injunctions 489 § 228. Time and place of applications for interlocutory injunctions. . 489 § 229. Injunctions not prayed for in the bill 490 § 230. Special practice of the Federal courts in the issue of injunc- tions. 491 § 231. Notice of application for interlocutory injunction 495 § 232. Affidavits upon an application for an injunction 496 § 233. Rules of decision upon applications for interlocutory injunc- tions. . : 498 § 234. The writ of injunction 500 § 235. Dissolution and modification of interlocutory injunctions. . . . 502 § 236. The imposition of terms upon the issue, denial, dissolution, or continuance of an injunction 506 § 237. Perpetual injunctions 509 § 238. Appeals from injunction orders. 511 CHAPTER XVIL RECEIVER& § 239. Definition of receiver 514 § 240. When receivers will be appointed. 514 XVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. § 241. Rules regulating the appointment of receivers 520 § 242. Ancillary receivers. 521 § 243. Terms upon the appointment of receivers, and preferences in foreclosure suits. 524 § 244. Property over which receivers may be appointed 536 § 245. Powers of receivers in general 538 § 246. Powers of receivers of railroads. 541 § 247. Receivers' certificates 545 § 248. Advice to receivers 549 § 249. Litigation by receivers 550 § 250. Duties of receivers 556 § 251. Liability of a receiver •. 558 § 252. Manner of applying for the appointment of a receiver 564 g 253. "Who may apply for the appointment of a receiver. 567 § 254. Manner of the appointment of a receiver 567 § 255. Who should be appointed receiver. 567 § 256. The receiver's security 570 § 257. Receivers' accounts 572 § 258. Compensation of receivers. '. 573 § 259. Removal of receivers 575 § 260. Discharge of a receiver 576 CHAPTER XVIII. THE WRIT OP NB EXEAT REPUBLICA. § 261. Definition of the writ of ne exeat republica, and when it will issue. 570 § 262. Against whom the writ will issue 580 § 263. Practice in obtaining the writ of ne exeat 581 CHAPTER XIX. EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. § 264. Evidence in general 685 §265. Admissions 587 § 266. Constructive admissions 589 § 267. Documentary evidence in general 590 § 268. Federal statutes regulating admission of documentary evi- dence 593 § 269. Definition and use of an affidavit 608 § 270. Manner of verifying an affidavit 609 § 271. Title of an affidavit 609 g 272. Form of an affidavit 610 g 273. Execution of an affidavit 611 § 274. Competency of witnesses. 612 § 275. Subpoenas ad testificandum 617 g 276. Service of a subpoena ad testificandum 618 § 277. Compelling a witness to testify 621 § 278. Testimony taken in equity which may be used in other courts 622 § 279. Bills to perpetuate testimony 623 tiBLE OF CONTENTS. XV11 Page. § 280. Bills to take testimony de bene esse 625 §281. Bills of discovery 625 § 282. Testimony taken before a cause is at issue 628 § 283. The time for taking testimony in equity 628 § 284 Testimony taken within the jurisdiction of the court after a cause is at issue 629 § 285. Testimony taken after a cause is at issue and beyond the juris- , diction of the court 634 § 286. Depositions be bene esse under the acts of Congress 634 § 287. Form of deposition under acts of Congress 641 § 288. . Commission issued under a dedimus potestatem 644 § 289. Proceedings under a dedimus potestatem 647 §290. Letters rogatory 650 " CHAPTER XX. DISMISSING BILLS OTHERWISE THAN AT A HEARING. § 291. Dismissal of bills by the plaintiff 655 § 292. Dismissal of bills for want of prosecution 657 § 293. Dismissal for want of jurisdiction 658 § 294. Dismissal for failure to perfect or revive a suit 661 §295. Election 661 CHAPTER XXL THE HEARING. § 296. Bringing a suit to a hearing 664 § 297. Manner of hearing a cause 665 § 298. Rules of decision upon a hearing....' 666 § 299. Objections which cannot be made at the hearing 668 §300. Action of the court upon a hearing 670 CHAPTER XXIL ISSUES AT LAW. § 301. Power of courts to direct issues at law 672 § 302. Matters concerning which an issue is directed 673 § 303. Time when an issue is directed 674 § 304 Manner of trying an issue 674 § 305. Effect of the finding of a jury upon an issue 676 § 306. Proceedings after the trial of an issue 678 CHAPTER XXIIL PROCEEDINGS IN A MASTER'S OFFICE. § 307. References to masters in general 679 § 308. Who m'ay be appointed master 680 § 309. Bringing on a reference 681 § 310. Parties entitled to attend a reference before a master 682 § 311. Proceedings before a master in general 683 §312. A state of facts 685 § 313. Evidence before a master 686 XVU1 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. § 314. Masters' reports and compensation 687 § 315. Exceptions to masters' reports 689 § 316. Sales by masters 692 CHAPTER XXIV. DECREES. § 317. Definition and classification of decrees 703 § 318. Final and interlocutory decrees 702 § 319. Decrees in personam 704 § 320. Decrees in rem 706 § 331. Absolute and conditional decrees 706 § 322. Decrees nisi , . 707 § 323. Decrees in the nature of decrees nisi 711 § 324 Time of entry of decree 711 § 325. Frame of decree 714 § 335a. Motions at the foot of a decree 716 § 325b. Enrollment of decree 716 CHAPTER XXV. COSTS. § 326. Definition of costs and distinction between costs at law and in equity 718 §327. Who are given costs , 718 § 328. Classification of costs 724 § 329. Costs as between party and party . , 725 § 330. Attorney's fees 725 § 331. Clerk's fees 729 § 332. Marshal's fees 738 § 333. Witnesses' fees ; 744 § 334. Miscellaneous disbursements 748 § 335. Costs out of the fund 751 § 336. Costs as between solicitor and client 753 § 337. Taxation of costs 754 § 338. Security for costs 755 CHAPTER XX VL ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE AND ORDERS. § 339. Enforcement of decrees and orders, in general 757 §340. Executions 757 § 341. Contempts 760 § 342. Notice of application for attachment 765 § 343. Hearing upon applications for attachments 766 § 344. Order of commitment 768 g 345. Writ of attachment 769 § 346. Execution of writ of attachment , 769 § 347. Sequestration 772 § 348. Writ of assistance 773 § 349. Action by court itself 774 § 349a. Bills to carry decrees into execution 775 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XIX CHAPTER XXVIL CORRECTION OP DECREE OTHERWISE THAN BT APPEAL. Page. § 350. Correction of decrees in general 778 § 351. Amendment of decrees without a rehearing 778 § 352. Petitions for a rehearing ; 780 § 353. Supplemental bills in the nature of bills of review 784 § 354. Bills of review 786 § 355. Provisions peculiar to bills of review for matters of fact newly discovered 789 § 356. Provisions common to all bills of review 790 § 357. Bills in the nature of bills of review 795 § 358. Bills to impeach decrees on account of fraud 796 § 359. Bills to suspend or avoid the operation of decrees and judg- ments 799 VOLUME II. CHAPTER XXVIII PRACTICE AT COMMON LAW IN CIVIL ACTIONS. § 360. Common-law practice in general 801 § 361. Writs and process in general 808 § 362. Writs of prohibition 811 § 363. Mandamus 814 § 363a. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to issue a writ of mandamus to an officer of the United States 820 § 364. Practice on application for mandamus 824 § 365. Writs of certiorari 828 § 366. Writs of habeas corpus in general 831 § 366a. Suspension of writ of habeas corpus 839 § 367. Practice on application for habeas corpus 840 § 368. Appeals in habeas corpus proceedings 847 § 368a. Writs of quo warranto 851 § 3686. Writs of scire facias 853 § 369. Attachment of property 857 §370. Arrests .- 859 § 371. Consolidation at law and in equity 860 § 372. Evidence, testimony, depositions, and inspection 862 § 373. Abatement and revivor 867 g 374. Trials 870 § 375. Rules of decision at common law 876 §376. New trials 885 § 377. Bills of exceptions 888 XX TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. §378. Judgments . 895 § 379. Correction of judgments by courts that rendered them 898 § 380. Executions and proceedings supplementary thereto 900 8 381. Condemnation proceedings 905 CHAPTER XXIX REMOVAL OP CAUSES. * § 383. Removal of causes from one Federal court to another 908- § 383. Cases which may be removed from a State court to a Circuit Court of the United States 910- § 384. Separable controversies 920' §385. Practice on removal in general 92ft § 385a. Petition for removal • 927 g 3856. Bond on removal *931 § 385c. Proceedings in State court on removal not dependent on preju- dice or local influence 93S § 385d\ Time of removal not dependent on prejudice or local influence 935 § 386. Practice on removal for prejudice or local influence 937 § 387. Practice on removals of suits containing controversies be- tween citizens of the same State, claiming land under grants of different States 949- § 388. Practice on removal of suits against revenue officers, and offi- cers of either House of Congress 947 §389. Practice on removal of cases arising under the civil rights laws 949 § 390. Filing of record 950 § 391. Practice after removal 953- § 392. Effect of removal 960 §393. Remand 962 CHAPTER XXX PRACTICE IN ADMIRALTY. By Chakles C. Borlikgham, of the New York Bar. § 394. Libel. , 96® § 395. Security for libelant's costs 968 §396. Parties 969 § 397. Mesne process — Joinder of process in rem and in personam . . . 969- § 398. Prbcesst'ra rem 970> § 399. Cases in which the res cannot be arrested 970 § 400. Process in personam 971 g 401. Return of process and defaults 97£ § 402. Release of property from custody ,of marshal — Claim 973- § 403. Security for defendant's costs 974 § 404. Stipulation for value — Sureties 974 §405. Bond to the marshal 975 § 406. Appraisement 975 § 407. Petition to bring in additional parties under Rule 59 97 & §408. Answer, when filed — Defenses: Contributory negligence, lim- itations, laches •. 97& TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXI Page. § 409. Tender 978 § 410. Exceptions — Amendments 978 § 411. Cross-libel 979 § 412. Interrogatories." 980 § 413. Trial 980 § 414. Evidence — Depositions 983 - § 415. Interlocutory decree and reference 982 § 416. Final decree 983 § 417. Sales 984 § 418. Sales as perishable 984 § 419. Costs 985 § 420. Intervenors 985 § 421. Petition against proceeds of sale 986 §422. Priorities 986 § 423. Appeals — what appealable; to what court 986 8 424 Appeals, when and how taken 987 § 425. Practice on appeals 987 § 426. Petition of appeal 987 § 427. Bond on appeal 988 § 428. Assignment of errors 989 §429. Bill of exceptions — Record on appeal 989 § 430. New proofs on appeal ; 990 § 431. Practice upon appeals to the Supreme Court 991 § 432. Prohibition 991 §433. Mandamus 992 § 434. Limitation of liability — Petition 993 § 435. Same— Monition 993 §436. Same — Proof of claims 994 § 437. Same — Answer; trial 994 § 438. Proceedings on seizures 995 § 439. Proceedings in prize causes 996 CHAPTER XXXL COURT OF CLAIMS. § 440. Organization of Court of Claims 999 § 441. Jurisdiction of Court of Claims 1001 § 442. Statutes concerning decisions on jurisdiction of Court of Claims 1010 § 443. Statute of limitations in Court of Claims 1017 § 444. Petitions and parties plaintiff in Court of Claims 1019 § 445. Pleadings by defendant in Court of Claims 1027 § 446. Amendments in Court of Claims 1029 § 447. Attorneys in Court of Claims 1030 § 448. Evidence before the Court of Claims 1031 § 449. Motions and notices in Court of Claims 1041 § 450. Abatement and revivor 1042 § 451. Discontinuance and withdrawal of papers 1043 8 452. Trials in Court of Claims 1043 XX11 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page. § 453. References by Court of Claims 1046 § 454. New trials 1047 § 455. Judgments in Court of Claims 1050 § 456. Costs in Court of Claims 539 639 v. Pomeroy, 4 McLean, 56 626 v. U. S. Stamping Co., 32 Fed. R 549 686 Bellaire v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 146 U. S. 117 924 Belloat v. Morse, 2 Hay w. (N. C.) 157 370 Bellocq v. U. S., 13 Ct. CI. 195 1050 Bellociue v. U. S., 8 Ct. CI. 493 1029, 1030 Belmont Nail Co. v. Columbia I. & S. Co., 46 Fed. R. 8 519 v. Columbia I. P. S. Co., 46 Fed. R. 336 66, 656 Belt v. Bowie, 65 Md. 350 213 v. U. S., 15 Ct. CI. 92 1025 Bemis, In re, 104 Fed. R. 672 1147 Bender, In re, 108 Fed. R. 873 1089 Bender v. Hayes (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 953 1262 Bendey v. Townsend, 109 U. S. 665 725, 881 Benedict, In re, 4 West. L. Month. 449 840 Benedict v. St. Joseph & W. R Co., 19 Fed. R. 173 Benefactor, The, 103 U. S. 239 518 993, 994 Benites v. Hampton, 123 U. S, 519 1257, 1259 Benjamin v. New Orleans, 169 U. S. 161 1166 v. New Orleans (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. 417 85 Benjamin's Heirs v. Dubois, 118 U. S. 46 Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235 Bennet v. Going. 1 Molloy, 529 1205 911 752, 753 203 v. Vade, 2 Atk. 325 Bennett v. Attkins, 1 Y. & C. 247 720 v. Bennett, Deady, 299 838, 840. 606 — ■ — v. Butterworth, 11 How. 669 6, 802, 894 v. Colley, 2 M. & K. 225; S. C, 5 Sim. 181 516 v. Devine, 45 Fed. R. 705 55, 930 v. Forest, 69 Fed. R. 421 55 v. Ha mill, 2 Sch. & Lefr. 56G, 576 708, 797 v. Hoefner, 17 Blatchf. 342 279 v. Honywood, Ambler, 708 163 v. Neale, Wightw. 324 338, 673 Bennett v. Schooley, 77 Fed. R. 352 782-, 786, 790 Benson, In re, 58 Fed. R 962 Benson v. Hadfield, 4 Hare, 32 v. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457 843 308 836. 850 580 Bentley v. Joslin, Hempst. 218 Bentlif v. London & C. F. Corp. Ld.. 44 Fed. R. 667 912 Benton v. U. S., 5 Ct. CL 692 1030 v. Woolsey, 12 Pet 27 189, 190, 1279 Bergen, In re, 2 Hughes, 513 859, 860 Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 655 843 Bergman v. Inman P. & Co., 91 Fed. R. 293 50, 85 Berger v. Sperry, 95 U. S. 401 194 Bergere v. U. S., 168 U. S. 66 1065 Bernard in v. Northall, 77 Fed. R. 849 58 Bernards Township v. Stebbins, 109 U. S. 341 28, 660 Bernhard v. Bruner, 65 I1L App. 641 379 Berney v. Sewell, U. & W. 647 515 Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 Fed. R. 885, 887 50, 51, 85 Bernie v. Vandever, 16 Ark. 616 681 Berrv v. Lake E. & W. R Co., 70 Fed. R. 679 879 v. Sawyer, 19 Fed. R 286 344, 590 Bertha Z. & M. Co. v. Carico, 61 Fed. R. 132 807, 923, 934 v. Vaughn, 88 Fed. R. 566 22, 84 Berthold v. McDonald, 22 How. 334 1073 Berwind v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 98 Fed. R. 158 221 Betancourt v. Mutual R. F. L. Ass'n, 101 Fed. R. 305 66, 68 Bettes v. Dana, 2 Sumn. 383 403 Betts v. Barton, 3 Jur. (N. S.) 154 655 v. Lewis, 19 How. 72 661 Bibb v. Allen, 149 U. S. 481, 488 644, 647, 650 Bickett v. Morris, L. R 1 H. L. So. 47 487 Bickford v. McComb, 88 Fed. R 428 179 v. Skewes, 8 Sim. 206 611 Bicycle Stepladder Co. v. Gor- don, 57 Fed. R. 529 78, 661 Bidwell v. Huff, 103 Fed. R. 362 29 v. Toledo Canal St. Ry. Co., 72 Fed. R. 10 271 Bief v. Dyer, Chan. Cal. xl 3 Bigby v. U. S., 103 Fed. R. 597 1015 Bigler v. Waller, 12 Wall. 142 Bigelow, Ex parte, 113 U. S. 328 1233, 1238 834 TABLE OF CASES. t References are to pages. xli Bigelow v. Chatterton (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R 614 586 v. Nickerson (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. E. 113 103, 120 Biggs v. Barry, 2 Curtis, 259 886 Bigley v. The Venture, 21 Fed. R. 880 981 Bignold v. Augland, 11 Simons, 23 241, 243 Billing v. Flight, 1 Madd. 230 325 Billings v. Aspen M. & S. Co., 51 Fed. R. 338 172, 173, 175, 438, 1293 Bills v. N. O., St. L, & C. R, Co., 13 Blatc.hf. 227 953 Bingham, In re, 94 Fed. R 796 1131 Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382 194 v. Cabbot. 3 Dall. 19 1280 Bininger, Re, 7 Blatchf. 159 812 Binks v. Binks, 3 Bligh, P. C. 593 776 Birch v. Corbin, 1 Cox Eq. 144 242 Bird v. Halsy, 87 Fed. R 671 644 Birdsall v. Manufacturing Co., 1 Hughes, 64 462 v. Perego, 5 Blatchf. 251 367 Birdsell v. Hagerstown Ag. L Mfg. Co., 1 Hughes, 64 462 v. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485 153 Birdseye v. Heilner, 26 Fed. R 147 335 v. Shaeffer, 37 Fed. R 821 938, 958 Birdsong v. Birdsong, 2 Head ' (Tenn.), 289 435 Birkenhead Docks v. Laird, 4 De G. M. & G. 732 714 Bischoff v. Wethered, 9 Wall. 812 318 Bischoffsheiin v. Baltzer, 20 Fed. R. 890 32 v. Baltzer, 10 Fed. R. 1 636, 645 v. Brown, 29 Fed. R. 341 865 Bishop y. Willis, 2 Ves. Sen. 113 448 Bissel v. Canada & St. L. Ry. Co., 39 Fed. R. 225 922 Bissell v. Spring Valley Tp., 124 IT. S. 225 319 Bissell C. S. Co. v. Goshen S. Co. (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R 545" 505, 513 Black, In re, 97 Fed. R 493 1147 Black v. Black, 53 Fed. R. 985 854, 1238 v. Henry G. Allen Co., 42 Fed. R 618, 624 202.227,228,230,241 v. Jackson, 177 U. S. 349 1162, 1213 v. Lamb, 1 Beasley (N. J.), 108 672 v. So. Pac. R Co., 39 Fed. R 565 993 v. Thome, 10 Blatchf. 66 81, 338, 659, 705 Blackburn v. Crawford, 3 Wall. 175 644, 650 Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mine Co., 175 U. S. 571 56, 59, 63, 660, 1173 v. Selma R Co.,3 Fed. R 689 696 v. Selma, M. & M. R. Co., 2 Flip. 525 207, 306, 307, 308 Blacklock v. Small, 127 U. S. 96 64, 84 Blackman v. Central R & B. Co., 58 Ga. 189 436 Blain v. Home Ins. Co., 30 Fed. R. 667 735 Blair, In re, 99 Fed. R 76 1084 1095 (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R 662 1155 Blair v. Illinois S. Cd, 42 N. E. R 895; S. G, 159 111. 350 v. Lippincott Gl. Co., 53 Fed. R. 226 v. Silver Peak Mines, 84 Fed. R. 737 - v. St. Louis, H. & K. R Co., 20 Fed. R 348 v. St. Louis, H. & K R Co., 19 Fed. R 861; s. c, 22 Fed. R 471 525, 527, 529, 530, 536 v. St. Louis, H. & K. R. Co., 23 Fed. R. 521 , 532, 533, 535 v. St. Louis, H. & K. R Co., 23 Fed. R. 704 v. Turtle, 5 Fed. R 394; s. C, 23 Alb. L. J. 435 Blake v. Blake, 18 W. R 944 v. Bogle, Macq. Pr. of H. of L 244, note 869, 1223 v. Greenwood Cem., 14 Blatchf. 342 v. Hawkins, 19 Fed. R 204 385 154 289 557 527 268 705 486 734, 737 62 72 609 1136 30 v. McKim, 103 U. S. 336 v. Pine M. I & C. Co. (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. R 624 Blake Cr. Co. v. Ward, Fed. Cas. No. 1,505 Blakey v. Boonville Nat. Bank, 95 Fed. R 267 Blakeley v. Biscoe, Hempst. 114 Blakemore v. Glamorganshire Canal Nav., 1 Myl. & K. 154, 162 453, 455 Blakeney v. Dufaur, 15 Beav. 40 569 Blalock v. Eq. Life Ass. Soc, 73 Fed. R 655 953 Blanchard v. Cawthorne, 4 Sim. 566 536, 537 v. Cooke, 144 Mass. 207 278 v. Dwight, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 192 v. Putnam, 8 Wall. 420 Blandy v. Griffith, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 434 v. Christopher. 11 Sim. 409 v. Gwillim, 6 Ves. 285 v. Harrison, 4 Madd. 233 931 805 790 612 350 345 xlii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Blandy v. Lake, 6 Ves. 171 350 Blankfein, In re, 97 Fed. R 191 1116 Blanks v. Klein (C. C. A.), 49 Fed. R. 1 1250 v. Klein (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R. 395 754 Blease v. Garlington. 92 U. S. 1 585, 630, 633, 634, 1279, 1281 Bleecker v. Bond, 3 Wash. 529 593, 594 Blessing v. John Traeger S. I. Works, 34 Fed. R. 753 ' 223 Blewitt v. Blewitt (Miss.), 12 S. R. 249 390 Blight v. Fisher, Pet. C. C. 41 618, 763 Bliss v. Brooklyn, 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 596 473 v. Brooklyn, 10 Blatch. 217 755 Blitz v. Brown, 7 Wall. 693 1249 Block v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R Co., 21 Fed. R. 529 v. Darling, 140 U. S, 156 234 55, 930, 1212 593, 594, 599, 1038 Blodgett v. Hobart, 18 Vt. 414 385 Blois v. Betts, 1 Dick. 336 Blomfield v. Eyre, 8 Beav. 250 v. TJ. S„ 7 Ct. CI. 406 571 234, 491 566 Blondheim v. Moore, 11 Md. 365 Blossom v. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 196,207 _ 693,694,696 v. Milwaukee & C. R Co., 1 Wall. 655 700, 1208 Blount v. TJ. S., 21 Ct. CI. 274 1014 v. Walker, 134 U. S. 607 1187 Blow v. Taylor, 4 Hen. & Munf. (Va.) 159 Blower v. Morrets, 3 Atk. 772 Bloxam v. Met. Ry. Co., L. R 3 Ch. 337 Blue Bird Min. Co. v. Largey, 49 Fed. R. 289 57, 59 v. Murray, 45 Fed. R. 388 909 Bluefield W. & Imp. Co. v. Sanders (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 333 Blumenthal v. Shaw (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 801 Blumlein, In re, 45 Fed. R. 236 504 395 54 587 1203 46, 1199 539 1288 Blunt v. Clitherow, 6 Ves. 799 v. Smith, 7 Wheat. 248 Blydenstein v. N. Y. S. & Tr. Co., 59 Fed. R. 12 317, 920 Blythe v. Hinckley, 84 Fed. R 228 252, 275, 276, 389, 390 v. Hinckley, 173 U. S. 501 1172 Board, etc. German Reformed Church v. Von Puechelstein, 27 N. J. Eq. 30 296 Board of Com'rs v. Gorman, 19 Wall. 661 758, 991 Board of Com'rs of Hamilton County v. Sherwood (C. C. A.), 64 Fed. R. 103 873 Board of Com'rs v. Peirce, 90 Fed. R. 764 61 Board of Com'rs of Tippecanoe County v. Lucas, 93 IT. S. 108, 113 1203, 1204 Board of Com'rs of Grand Coun- ty v. King (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 202 818 Board of Education v. Scoville, 13 Kan. 17, 30 243 Board of L v. McComb, 92 TJ. S. 531 174, 485 Board of Trustees v. Blair, 70 Fed. R. 414 64 Boatmen's Sav. Bank v. State Sav. Ass'n, 114 TJ. S. 265 1158 v. Wagenspack, 12 Fed. R 66 1205 Bock v. Perkins, 1 39 IT. S. 628 60, 760 Bodemiiller v. U. S., 39 Fed. R 437 45 Boddy v. Kent, 1 Meriv. 361 391, 661 Bodwell v. Crawford, 26 Kan, 292 482 Bodwell v. Wilcox, 2 Caines(N. Y.), 104 435 Boehm v. TJ. S., 20 Ct. CI. 142 1016 v. Wood, T. & R. 332. 340 584 Boesch v. Graff, 133 U. S. 697 690, 784 Bofinger v. U. S„ 18 Ct. CI. 148 1013 Bogart v. Hinds, 25 Fed. R. 484 224, 283 Bogb v. Gasser, 149 IT. S. 17 892 Bohanan v. Nebraska, 118 U. S. 231 1256 Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223; s. C, 55 N. W. R 1119 469 Boise County v. Gorman, 19 Wall. 661 1245 Bolden v. Jensen, 69 Fed. R. 745 972 Boles, In re, 48 Fed. R. 75 839, 1196 Bolles v. Bolles, 44 N. J. Eq. 385, 14 Atl. R. 593 v. Town of Amboy, 40 Fed. R 168 Bollin v. Blythe, 46 Fed. R 181, 183 Bollman, Ex parte, 4 Cranch, 75 212 883 , Ex parte, and Ex parte Swartwout, 4 Cranch, 75, 97 Bolton v. Bolton, 2 S. & S. 371 v. Bolton, Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 468 v. Gardner, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 273 v. Liverpool, 1 Myl. & K. 88 1024 829, 842 831, 835 661 372 325 291 TABLE OF OASES. xliii References are to pages.. Bolton v. London School Board, 7 Ch. D. 766. 771 500 v. Martin, 1 Dallas, 29 266 Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604 870, 871,873,874 v. Howell, 11 N. Y. 233 275 Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U. S. 278 928, 1231 Bone v. The Norma, Newb. Adm. 533 743 Bonifield v. Thorp (D. C.), 71 Fed. R 924 " 589 Bonner, In re, 151 U. S. 242 835, 846 Bonner v. U. S., 9 Wall. 156 1013 Book v. Justice Min. Co., 58 Fed. E. 827 387 Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403 906, 916 Boogher v. Insurance Co., 103 U. S. 90 871 Boon v. Chiles, 8 Pet. 532 152 v. Collingwood, 1 Dick. 115 584 Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. 176 325, 1276 Boone County v. Burlington & M. R. Co., 139 TJ. S. 684 314 Boone's Heirs v. Chiles, 8 Pet. 532 170, 173, 176 Boonville Nat. Bank v. Blakey (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R 891 1085, 1104. 1155 Booth, In re, 96 Fed. R 943 1132 Booth v. Booth, 2 Atk. 343 66a v. Clark, 17 How. 322 127, 552 v. Denike, 65 Fed. R. 43 809 v. Leycester, 1 Keen, 247 655 Bootle v. Blundell, 19 Ves. 494 593, 675, 676 Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 TJ. S. 408 1163, 1166 Bornemann v. Norris, 47 Fed. R. 438 902 Borland v. Haven, 39 Fed. R, 394 13 Bors v. Preston, 111 U. a 252 660, 1280, 1284 Bosanquet v. Marshatn, 4 Sim. 573 371 Boske v. Comengore, 177 U. S. 459 592, 843, 1163 Bostock v. North Staffordshire Ry. Co., 3 Sm. & Gift 283 453, 455 Boston D. Co. v. Florence Mfg. Co., 114 Mass. 69 485 Boston El. Co. v. El. G. I* Co., 23 Fed. R 838 857 Boston M. Co. v. Eagle M. Co., 115 U. S. 221 1272, 1273 Boston S. D. & Tr. Co. v. Am. R. Tel. Co., 67 Fed. R 165, 168 436, 441, 574, 915 Boston S. D. & Tr. Co. v. Cham- berlain (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R 847 65, 573, 574, 911 d 753 533 Boston W. H. Co. v. Star Rub- ber Co., 40 Fed. R. 167 150 Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 TJ. S. 3 1184, 1201 Boswell v. De La Lanza, 20 How. 29 1288 v. Otis,'9 How. 336 262 Bosworth v. St. Louis T. R. Ass'n, 174 U. S. 182 555, 589 Bottomley v. U. S.. 1 Story, 153 738, 744, 754 Bottle Seal Co. v. De La Vergne B. & S. Co., 47 Fed. R 59 586 Bouldin v. Phelps, 30 Fed. R. 547 585 Bound v. S. C. R. Co., 43 Fed. R. 404 533, 572 v. S. C. R Co., 46 Fed. R. 315 693, 695 v. S. C. R. Co., 55 Fed. R 186 692, 1245 v. S. C. R Co., 59 Fed. R 509 v. S. C. R Co., 62 Fed. R 536 Boudereau v. Montgomery, 4 Wash. 186 646, 648, 649, 650 Boudinot v. Symmes, Wall. C. C. 139 " 348 Bouldin v. Phelps, 30 Fed. R 547 1059, 1060 Boult v. Blunt, Cary, 72 486 Bourke v. Amison, 32 Fed. R. 710 250, 253, 254 Bourne v. May bin, 3 Woods, 724, 741 572 Boussmaker, Ex parte, 13 Ves. 71 122 Bowden v. Burnham (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R. 752 50, 85, 806, 809, 858 v. Johnson, 107 U. S. 251 1217 Bowdoin College v. Merritt, 59 Fed. R. 6 270, 444, 460 v. Merritt, 63 Fed. R. 213 64, 660 Bowe v. U. S., 42 Fed. R. 761 130, 1025 Bowen v. Chase, 7 Blatchf. 255 943 v. Chase, 94 U. S. 812 39 Bower-Barff R. I. Co. v. Wells R I. Co., 43 Fed. R 391 343, 353 Bowers v. Atlantic G. & P. Co. > (S. D. N. Y., Coxe, J.), 104 Fed. R887 v. Supreme Council Am. L of H., 45 Fed. R. 81 Bowie v. Talbot, 1 Cranch, C. C. 247 Bowles v. Stewart, 1 Scho. & Lefr. 209 Bowman v. Bell, 14 Sim. 392 v. Bowman, 30 Fed. R 849 52, 918, 930 v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 115 U. S. 611 49 v. Long, 27 Ga. 178 386 76 963 639 150 565 28; xliv TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. Bowman v. Sheldon, 5 Sand. (N. Y.), 657 Bowman's Devisees v. Wathen. 2 McLean, 376 Bowyer v. Bright, 13 Price, 609 218 16 413, 782 244 5,27 1291 878 ,900 981 839 v. Pritchard, 11 Price, 103 Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210 v. Gundy, 9 Pet. 275 v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 546 Boyd, Ex parte, 105 U. S. 647 Boyd v. Clark, 13 Fed. E. 908 v. Gill, 19 Fed. R. 145 922, 924 v. Hawkins, 2 Dev. (N. C.) Eq. 195 365, 366 v. Heinzelman, 1 Ves. & B. 381 664 v. Mills, 13 Ves. 85 352 v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U. S. 135 852, 1183 v. U. S„ 116 U. S. 616 592 Boyden v. Burke, 14 How. 575 601 Boyer v. Boyer, 113 U. S. 689 282 Boyle, In re (Idaho, 1899), 57 Pac. R. 706 Boyle v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R 930 698 v. Great N. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. R 539 432, 756 v. Stuttgart & A. R R (C. a A), 84 Fed. R. 9 1220 v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 648 11, 1202 Boynton, In re, 10 Fed. R. 277 1086 Brace v. Taylor, 2 Atk. 253 288 Bracken v. Martin, 3 Yerg. (TenD.) 55 v. Milner, 104 Fed. R 522 v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R. 347; S. O., 56 Fed. R. 447 Braddock Br. Co. v. Pf andler V. M. Co. (C. C. A), 106 Fed. R. 604 Bradford v. Felder, 2 M'Cord (S. C), Ch. 170 v. Union Bank of Tenn., 13 How. 57 v. Williams, 3 How. 574 Bradley, Ex parte, 7 Wall. 364 662 1148 265 551 371 380 Bradley v. Reed, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 519 v. Reed, 12 Pitts. L J. 65 Bradley & H. Mfg. Co. v. Charles Parker Co., 17 Fed. R. 240 Bradshaw v. Miners' Bank (C. C. A.), 81 Fed. R. 902 Bradstreet, Ex parte, 4 Pet. 102 , Ex parte, 6 Pet. 774 -, Ex parte, 7 Pet. 634 815, 816 464 505 471 71 815, 816 815 816, 992, 1287 Bradstreet, Ex parte, 8 Pet. 588 816 Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 12 U. S. 227 1212, 1213 v. Higgins. 114 U. S. 262 724 Bradshaw v. Miners' Bank (C. C. A), 81 Fed. R. 902 1206 Bradstreet v. Neptune Ins. Co., 3 Sum. 601 318 Braduin v. Harpur, Ambler, 374 171 Brady v. Bay State Gas Co., 106 Fed. R. 584 566 v. Daly, 175 U. S. 148 1165 v. McCorker, 1 N. Y. 214; s. c, 1 Barb. Ch. 343 150 Brad well v. Weeks, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 325 123 Bragasa, In re, 103 Fed. R. 936 1147 Bragassa v. St. Louis Cycle Co. (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R. 77 1147 Bramhall v. U. S., 6 Ct. CI. 238 1049 Bramston v. Carter, 2 Simons, 458 250, 371 Branch v. Texas Lumber Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R. 849 1272 Brande v. Gilchrist, 18 Fed. R 465 377, 378 Brandon v. Brandon, 5 Madd. 473 538 Brandon Mfg. Co. v. Prime, 14 Blatchf. 371 285, 385, 386 Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U. S. 262 1228, 1235, 1236 Brandreth v. Lance, 8 Paige (N. Y), 24 453, 485 Brannen v. U. S., 20 Ct. CI. 219 1033 Brant, In re, 96 Fed. R 257 522, 564 Brantford City, The, 32 Fed. R. 324 ' 989 Brash ear v. Mason, 6 How. 92 820 Brasher v. Van Cortlandt, 2 J. Ch. (N. Y) 247 146, 239, 248 Brassey v. N. Y. & N. E R. Co., 19 Fed. R. 663 519 Bray y. Cobb, 91 Fed. R. 102 1101, 1105, 1106, 1109 v. Cobb, 100 Fed. R. 270 1125, 1130 Brazoria County v. Youngstown Br. Co., 80 Fed. R. 10 297 Breeden v. Lee, 2 Hughes, 484 35, 468 Breedlove v. Nicolet, 7 Pet. 413 1283 Bremena v. Card, 38 Fed. R 144 972 Brent v. Hagner, 5 Cranch, C. C. 71; 6 Op. A. G. 223 129 Brevard v. Summar, 2 Heisk. (Tenn.) 97 863 Brewer v. Jacobs, 22 Fed. R. 217 876 Brewster v. Shuler, 38 Fed. R 549 734 v. Wakefield, 22 How. 118 171, 1161, 1219, 1220 Brice, In re, 93 Fed. R 942 1084, 1086 TABLE OF CASES. xlv References are to pages. Brickill v. Hartford, 57 Fed. R 216 805 v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 55 Fed. R 565 689 Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R. 17, 42 267, 763, 767 Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken L. & L Co., 1 Wall. 116 1186 Bridgeport El. & I. Co. v. Meader (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R 115 22 Briges v. Sperry, 95 U. S. 401 213, 956 Brigg v. The Light Boats, 11 Allen (Mass.), 157 128 v. Stroud, 58 Fed. R 717, • 720 310 v. French, 2 Sumn. 251 70 v. Stroud, 58 Fed. R 717 270, 303 v. Wilson, 5 De Gex, M. & G. 12 437 Brigham v. C. C. Thompson Lumber Co., 55 Fed. R 881 958 v. Luddington, 12 Blatchf. 237 127, 179, 264, 552 Brig Harriet, The, Fed. Cas. 6,096 968 Brigham City v. Tolteo Ranch Co. (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R. 85 1217 Brigstocke v. Roch, 7 Jur. (N. S.) 63 624 Bright v. Milwaukee & St. R R Co., 14 Blatchf. 214 951 v. U. S., 6 Ct CI. 118; s. 0., 8 Ct. CI. 326 1005, 1015 v. IT. S., 12 Ct, CI. 646 ' 1046 Brinckman, In re, 103 Fed. R. 965 1088 Brine v. Insurance Co., 96 IT. S. 627 12, 13, 667, 711, 881 Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 J. Ch. (N. T.) 139, 155 211, 296, 301 Brinkley v. L. & N. R Co., 95 Fed. R. 345, 354 433, 1239 Brisco v. Minah Consol. Min. Co., 82 Fed. R 952 151 Briscoe v. Commonwealth Bank, 9 Pet 85 1270 v. Southern Kan. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R 273 92, 98, 118 Brisenden v. Chamberlain, 53 Fed. R 307 66, 915, 935 British Q. Min. Co. v. Baker S. Min. Co., 139 IT. S. 222 873 Britton v. Brewster, 2 Fed. R 160 205 v. Hill, 12 C. E. Green (N. J.), 389 468 Broadis v. Broadis, 86 Fed. R 951 72 Broadway Ins. Co. v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co., 101 Fed. R 507 923, 965 Bronchon v. Wilson, 91 Fed. R 617 14 Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238 988, 1227, 1236, 1238, 1241 v. Brockett, 3 How. 691 677, 1284 Brockway, In re, 12 Fed. R 69 1146 Brockway v. Oswego, 40 Fed. R 612 825, 827 Brodbine, In re, 93 Fed. R 643 1122 Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503 12, 15, 36, 313 Brodhead v. Shoemaker, 44 Fed. R 518 917, 946 Brodie v. Barry, 3 Meriv. 695 515 v. Ophir Silver Mining Co., 4 Fish. 37 715 v. St, Paul, 1 Ves. Jr. 326 723 Bromley v. Jeff ersonville, 3 Mo- Lean, 336 300 v. Smith, 1 Simons, 8 162 Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 498 265 v. La Crosse & M R Co., 1 Wall. 405 1246 v. La Crosse & M. R Co., 2 Wall. 283 386, 436 v. Railroad Co., 2 Black, 524 434, 703, 1204 ■ v. Schulten, 104 IT. S. 410 898, 899 491 1117 504 1118 Brook v. Evans, 29 L. J. Ch. 616 Brooke, In re, 100 Fed. R 432 Brooke v. Clarke, 1 Swanst. 550 Brooks, In re, 91 Fed. R. 508 Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean, 250 497 v. Byam, 1 Story, 296, 311 341, 342, 346, 347, 353 v. Byam, 2 Story, 553 718, 719, 720 v. Clark, 119 IT. S. 502 924, 925 v. Farwell, 2 McCrary, 220; S. a, 4 Fed. R 167 267 v. Fry, 45 Fed. R 776 858 v. Jenkins, 5 McLean, 433 644 v. Laurent(C.C. A.),98 Fed. R 647 86 v. Miller, 28 Fed. R 615,617 30,31 v. Mills County, 4 Dill. 524, 527 310 v. Missouri, 124 U. S. 394 1184 v. Norris, 11 How. 204 1228 Brooks & Hardy v. O'Hara Brothers, 8 Fed. R 529 195, 203, 496, 497 Broulatour v. U. S., 7 Ct. CI. 555 1005 Browder v. McArthur, 7 Wheat. 58 1275 Brown, Ex parte, 116 IT. S. 401 816 Brown v. Aspden, 14 How. 25 1275 v. Bedford City L. & I. Co. (Va.), 20 S. E. R 968 208 v. Bell, 4 Hay. (Tenn.) 287 387 v. Clark, 3 Woodeson's Lect. 378 126 xlvi TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 95 U. S. 157, 161 314, 1288 v. C. & O. C. Co., 4 Fed. R 770 v. Davis (C. C. A.), 62 Fed. R519 v. Deere, M. & Co., 6 Fed. E. 487 v. Deere, 6 Fed. R 484; S. a, 2 McCrary, 425 v. Dowithwaite, 1 Madd. 448 v. Duluth & N. Ey. Co., 53 Fed. R. 889, 894 v. Evans, 18 Fed. R. 56 901, 904, 1227 v. Evans. 8 Saw. 502, 510 v. Ellis, 95 Fed. R 1 v. Frost, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 243 v. Galloway, Pet. C. C. 291 v. Grove (C. C. A,), 80 Fed. E. 564 v. Guarantee T. & S. D. Co., 128 U. S. 403 215, 217, 219 806 206 510 509 156 163 1066 47 638 693 ■ v. Hall, 6 Blatchf. 405 340 v. Hazlehurst, 54 Md. 26, 28 538 v. Higden, 1 Atk. 291 372 v. Huger, 21 How. 305 137 v. L. C. & M. W. R Co., 2 Wall. 283 387 v. Lake Sup. I. Co., 134 U. S. 530 275. 280, 292, 517 v. McConnell, 124 U. S. 489 1233 v. Marion Nat. Bank, 146 U. S. 619 1201 v. Metz, 33 111. 339 766 v. Murray Nelson & Co., 43 Fed. E. 614 63, 64, 932, 933, 937 v. Pac. M. S. S. Co., 5 Blatchf. 525, 535 162, 435 -v. Phila., W. & B. E. Co., 9 Fed. R. 183 807, 899 v. Piatt, 2 Cranoh, C. C. 253 629 v. Pierce, 7 Wall. 205, 212 341, 342 v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 587, 805 v. Pond, 5 Fed. E. 31 806 v. Ricketts, 2 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 425 360, 425 v. Ricketts, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 555 163 425 47 614 1207 4,627 • v. Robertson, 2 Phil. 173 v. Smith, 88 Fed. R 505 v. Spofford, 95 U. S. 474 —J- v. Swann, 9 Pet. 1 v. Swann, 10 Pet. 497 v. The Independence, Crabbe, 54 602 v. Tillinghast, 84 Fed. E. 17 157 v. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389 52, 54, 923 v. U. S„ 171 U. S. 631 88, 1170, 1192 1141 290 286 142 728 Brown v. TJ. S., 5 Ct. CI. 571 1017 v. U. S., 15 Ct CI. 392 1015 v. Vermuden, 1 Ch. Cas. 272 166, 167, 214 v. Walker, 84 Fed. R 532 788, 1294 v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591 616 v. Webster, 156 U. S. 328 50, 55 Browne v. Browne, 1 Wash. 429 66 v. Chavez, 181 U. S. 68 856, 870, 884 Brownell v. Curtis, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 210 330, 352 Brownsville v. Loague, 129 U. S. 493, 501 818, 823, 828 Brownsville Mfg. Co. v. Lock- wood, 11 Fed. E. 705 Brownsword v. Edwards, 2 Ves. Jr. 243, 245 v. Edwards, 2 Ves. Sen. 243 Brown University v. Ehode Isl- and College, 56 Fed. R 55 Broyles v. Buck, 37 Fed. R 137 Bruce v. Manchester & K. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514 49, 53, 594, 1213, 1215 v. TJ. S., 17 How. 437 597, 598 Bruce Bros. v. Evans, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. R 163 469 Brugger v. State, Inv. Ins. Co.. 5 Sawyer, 304 28, 217 Brundage, In re, 100 Fed. R 613 1114 Brundage v. Goodfellow, 4 Halst. Ch. 513 Brunker, Ex parte, 3 P. Wms. 312 Brule, In re, 71 Fed. R 943 Brunswick, Duke of, v. King of Hanover, 6 Beav. 1 Brush El. Co. v. Brush-Swan El. Co., 43 Fed. R 701 v. Ball El. L. Co., 43 Fed. R 899 224, 289 v. California El. L. Co. (C. C. A.). 51 Fed. R 557; S. C, 52 Fed. R 945 v. California E. L Co. (C. C. A.), 52 Fed. R. 945 v. El. Imp. Co., 45 Fed. R 241 v. El. Impi Co., 49 Fed. R 73 Brush-Swan El. L. Co. v. Thom- son-Houston El. Co., 48 Fed. R. 224 Bryan v. Bernheimer, 181 U. S. 188 1085, 1086, 1155 Bryan et al. v, Kennett et al., 113 U. S. 179 1057 Bryan v. Parker; 1 Y. & C. 170 673 v. Spruill, 4 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 27 199 v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 249 1027 277 581' 762 128 387 658 154 472 154 154 TABLE OF CASES. xlvii References are to pages. Bryan v. V. S., 6 Ct. CI. 128 1015 Bryant, Ex parte, 167 U. S. 104 836 Bryant v. Leyland, 6 Fed. R. 125 627. 628, 864 v. Thompson, 27 Fed. R 881 957 v. W. U. Tel. Co., 17 Fed. R 825 486 Bryar v. Campbell, 177 U. S. 649 1262 Buchanan v. Bay State Gas Co. (U. S. C. C D. DeL, Oct. 15, 1896) 522, 566 v. Hodgson, 11 Beav. 368 329 > v. Howland, 2 Fish. 341 498 v. Eoy's Lessee, 2 Ohio St. 257 " 263 Bucher v. Cheshire R. Co., 125 U. S. 555 881, 883 Buck v. Buck, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 170 152 v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334 60, 760 v. Fawoett, 3 P. Wms. 242 797 v. Hermance, 1 Blatohf. 322 429, 498 v. Piedmont & A. L. Ins. Co., 4 Fed. R 849 23, 567, 568 Buckeridge v. Glasse, 1 Cr. & Phill. 126 208 Buckeye E. Co. v. Donau Br. Co., 47 Fed. R. 6 517 Bucki & Son L. Co. v. Atlantic C. L. Co. (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R. 765 1258 Buckingham v. Burgess, 3 Mc- Lean, 368 638, 641 v. McLean, 13 How. 150 704, 1207, 1234, 1257, 1282 Buckingham, Duke of, v. Duch- ess of Buckingham, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 527 510 Buckles v. Chicago, M. & St. Paul Ry. Co., 53 Fed. R. 566 448, 899 v. C, M. & St P. R. Co., 47 Fed. R. 424 755 Buckley v. U. S., 4 How. 251 608 v. Strickler, 32 Neb. 602 270 Bucklin v. U. S., 159 U. S. 680 1160 Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586, 593 82 Buckstaff v. Russell, 151 U. S. 626 1212, 1282 Buddicum v. Kirk, 3 Cranch, 293 648, 651 Budzisz v. Illinois Steel Co., 170 U. S. 41 1163 Buel v. Farmers' L. & T. Co. (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R. 839 1206, 1216 v. Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312 1189, 1209, 1230 Buell v. Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 1 Cin. L. B. 51 865 Buelow, In re, 98 Fed. R. 86 1137 Buena Ventura, The, 175 U. S. 384, 395 998 Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 8 Fed. R. 457 218, 239, 248, 250, 272, 289 Buffalo v. Town of Pocahontas, 85 Va. 222 210 Buffalo B. R. Co. v. U. S., 16 Ct CI. 238 1024 Buffalo Ins. Co. v. Prov. & Ston- ington S. S. Co., 29 Fed. R 237 745 Buffalo Natural Fuel Co., In re, 73 Fed. R 191 1199 Buffington v. Harvey, 95 U. S. 99 793, 794 Buford v. Strother, 3 McCrary, 253; s. c, 10 Fed. R. 406 75, 918, 919 Building & L Ass'n of Dakota v. Logan, 66 Fed. R. 827. 828 1236 Building & L. Ass'n v. Price, 169 U. S. 45 55 Bull v. Bank of Kasson, 123 U. S. 105 82 Bullen v. Michel. 2 Price, 399 675 Buller v. Slidell, 43 Fed. R. 116 802 Bullinger v. Mackey,14 Blatchf. 355 360 Bullock v. Knox, 96 Ala. 195 212 v. Richardson, 11 Ves. 375 233 v. Wallingford, 55 N. H. 619 600 Bun bury v. Bunbury, 1 Beav. 318 463 Bunce v. Gallagher, 5 Blatchf. C. C. 481 5 Bunker v. Stevens, 26 Fed. R 245 720 Bunt v. Sierra Butte G. Min. Co., 138 17. S. 483 875 Burch v. Cavanaugh, 12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N. Y.) 410 468 Burck v. Taylor, 152 TJ. S. 634, 647 912, 931, 933, 935, 955, 1025 Burdell, Ex parte, 32 Fed. R. 681 748 Burden v. Johnson, 107 U. S. 251 1221 Burdett, In re, 127 U, S. 771 814 Burdick v. Hale, 7 Biss. 96 931, 937, 959 Burdsall v. Curran, 31 Fed. R 918 779 Burford, Ex parte, 1 Cranch, C. C. 456 771 , 3 Cranch, 448 829, 842 Burgess v. Graffam, 10 Fed. R. 216 369 v. Martin, 111 Ala. 636, 20 S. R. 506 241 v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20 667, 668, 877, 879, 881, 883 Burgunder v. Browne, 59 Fed. R. 497 923, 952 Burka, In re. 104 Fed. R. 326 1130 , 107 Fed. R. 674 1086 xlviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Burke v. Bunker Hill & S. Min. & C. Co., 46 Fed. R. 644 909, 930 v, Davis, 63 Fed. R 456, 458, 13 A. G. Op. 216 29, 1024 v. Short, 79 Fed. R. 6 710 v. U. S„ 13 Ct. CI. 231 1030 Burkett v. Randall, 3 Mer. 466 673 Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co. v. Dunn, 122 U. S. 513 964 v. Simmons, 123 U. S. 52 692, 704 Burlington G. L. Co. v. Burling- ton, C. R. & N. Co., 165 U. S. 370 468 Burnett v. Chetwood, 2 Meriv. 441 476 v. Craig, 30 Ala. 135 468 Burney v. Morgan, 1 Sim. & S. 358. 362 162 Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776 525, 526, 529, 531, 534, 535 v. Dalling, 3 C. E. Green (18 N. J. Eq.), 132 338 v. First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R. 163 911, 920 v. No. Chicago St. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R. 168 1248, 1249, 1250, 1254 v. No. Chicago St. Ry. Co. (C. C. A), 88 Fed. R 627 873 v.Rangely.l Woodb.&M.7 69 v. Rangeley, 2 W. & M. 417 723 Burnley v. Jeffersonville, 3 Mc- - Lean, 336 337 Burns, The, 9 Wall. 237 1218 Burns v. Doyle, 28 Wis. 460 610 v. Rosenstein, 135 U.S. 449, 455, 456 689, 754 v. U. a, 4 Ct. CI. 113 1026 Burpee v. First Nat. Bank, 5 Biss. 405 346, 347 Burr, Ex parte, 9 Wheat. 529 815 Burr v. Des Moines R. & Nav. Co., 1 Wall. 99 873 Burrell v. Pratt, 35 Fed. R. 834 590 v. Hackley, 35 Fed. R. 833 590 Burrill v. Crossman (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R. 747 977 Burrow v. Kansas City, F. S. & M. R. Co., 54 Fed. R. 258 745, 748 Burrowes v. Lock, 10 Ves. 470 720 Burrows v. Jamereaux or Jami- neau, Mosely, 1; S. C, 2 Stra. 733; s. C, 2 Eq. Gas. Abr. 525, pi. 7; s. 0., 12 Vin. Abr. 87, pi. 9; S. C, Sel. Cas. in Ch. 69; s. C, 1 Dick. 45 316 Burrus, Petitioner, In re, 136 U. S. 586 7, 833, 838 Burrus, In re, 97 Fed. R 926 1135, 1150 Burt v. C. Gotzian & Co. (C. C. A), 102 Fed. R. 937 1232 v. Smith (C. C. A.), 71 Fed. R. 161 59 Burton v. Burton. 79 Cal. 490 1070 v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125 1284 v. Platter (C. C. A), 53 Fed. R. 901 870 v. Simmons, 2 Cranch, C. C. 195 . 642 v. Smith, 4 Wash. C. C. 523 156 v. West Jersey F. Co., 114 U. S. 474, 476 892, 1284 Busey v. Smith, 67 Fed. R. 13 54 Bussard v. Catalino, 2 Cranch, C. C. 521 638, 642, 747 Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387, 391 83, 84, 950, 957 v. Crooke Min. & Sm. Co., 150 TJ. S. 82 1275 Buskirk, Ex parte (C. C. A.), 73 Fed. R. 14 i 764, 899 Butchers' &D.S.T. Co. v, Louis- ville & N. R Co. (C. C. A), 67 Fed. R 35 57,237,306,487 Butler v. Boston S. S. S. S. Co., 130 U. S. 527 993 v. Douglass, 3 Fed. R. 612 668 v. Eaton, 141 U. S. 240 ■ 1256 v. Fayerweather, 91 Fed. R. 458 622, 768, 835 v. Freeman, Amb. 301 516 v. Gage, 138 U. S. 52 1186 v. Goreley, 146 U. S. 303 1024 v. Kenzie, 41 Tenn. Ch. 110; s. C, 15 S. W. R. 1068 280 v. Poole, 44 Fed. R. 586 856, 870, 884 60 32 6 68 v. Shafer, 67 Fed. R. 161 v. Shaw, 21 Fed. R. 321 v. Young, 1 Flip. 276, 278 Butler.Lessee of, v.Farnsworth, 4 Wash. 101; 1 Abb. (U. S.)Pr. 211 Butterfield v. Usher, 91 U. a 246 1208 Butterworth v. Bailey, 15 Ves. 358 . 368 v. Hill, 114 U. S. 128 31, 250. 251, 253, 254, 271, 280 v. Hoe, 112 U. S. 50 823 Butz v. City of Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575 878 Butz Thermo-El. Reg. Co. v. Jacobs El. Co., 36 Fed. R. 191 483 Buxton v. James, 5 De Gex & Sm. 80 314, 475 v. Lister, 3 Atk. 383 -477 Buzard v. Houston, 119 U. S. 347 35 Byers v. Fowler, 12 Ark. 218 902 v. McAuley. 149 U. S. 608 19,917 Byrne, In re, 97 Fed. R. 762 1133 Byrne v. Byrne, 2 Soh. & Lef. 537 " 489 v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co., 55 Fed. R 44 802 Byron, In re, 18 Fed. R. 723 , 836 TABLE OF CASES. Xlix References are to pages. c. 655 492 952 919 49 1173 581 325 198 C. A. Treat Mfg. Co. v. Standard S. & L Co., 157 U. S. 674 1164 C. & A. Potts & Co. v. Creager, 71 Fed. R 574 786, 1295 C. & A. R. Co. v. Rolling M. Co., 109 U. S. 702 C, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. B., C. R. & N. R Co., 34 Fed. R 481 C. & S. Bank v. Corbett, 5 Saw. 172 Cable v. Ellis, 110 U. S. 389 Cabot v. MoMaster, 61 Fed. R 129 v. McMaster (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R 533 Cabrera, Ex parte, 1 Wash. C. C. 233 Caesar v. Capell, 83 Fed. R. 403 v. Capell, 83 Fed. R. 409 Caffrey v. Oklahoma Territory, 177 TJ. S. 344 1162, 1211, 1213 Caha v. U. S., 152 U. S. 211 586 Cahn v. Qung Wah Lung, 28 Fed. R 396 726, 734 Cahoon v. Ring, 1 Cliff. 592 676 Cake v. Mohun, 164 U. S. 311 573, 574 Calderhead v. Downing, 103 Fed. R. 27 Calderon v. O'Donohue, TJ. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y., per Wheeler, D. J., June, 1891 Caldwell v. Robinson, 59 Fed. R. 653 v. Taggart, 4 Pet 190 179, 183 v. Walters, 4 Cranch, C. C. 577 502, 503 Calhoun v. TJ. S., 14 Ct. CI. 193 1049 California v. Chue Fan, 42 Fed. R 865 915, 950 v. San Pablo & Tulare R Co., 149 U. S. 308 1261 v. Southern Pac. Co., 157 TJ. S. 229 41, 175 California EI. Works v. Finck, 47 Fed. R. 583 California F. S. Co. v. Improved F. S. Co., 51 Fed. R 296 California Nat. Bank v. Ken- nedy, 167 U. S. 362 California Paving Co. v. Mo- litor, 113 U. S. 669 764, 1177 California Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Cheney Electric Light, Tel..& Power Co., 56 Fed. R 257 211, 957 Calkins v. Bertrand, 8 Fed. R 755 719, 722 v. TJ. S., 1 Ct. CI. 382 1027, 1028 Callan v. May, 2 Black, 541 1 209, 1235 Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617 690 921 863 129 164 212 58 Callicot, Re, 8 Blatchf. 89 833 Calloway v. Dobson, 1 Brock. 119 374 Calverley v. Williams, 1 Ves. Jr. 211 383 Calvert v. Gray, 2 Cooper's Ch. 171, n. 495 Calvin v. Jacksonville, 158 U. S. 456 52 Cambell v. Mayer, 33 Fed. R. 795 330 Camblos v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 9 Phila. (Pa.) 411; s. a, 4 Brewst. (Pa.) 563 488, 489 Cambria I. Co. v. Ashburn, 118 U. S. 54 945 Cambridge Waterworks v. Som- erville D. & B. Co., 14 Gray (Mass.), 193 213, 216 Cambuston v. U. S., 95 U. S. 285 904, 1288 Camden v. Mayhew, 129 U. S. 73 " 698, 760 Camden & Amboy R. Co. v. Stewart,4C.E.Green(N.J.),69 657 Camden & A. R Co. v. Stewart, 19 N. J. Eq. 343 197, 198 Camden & S. Ry. Co. v. Stetson, 177 U. a 172 865 Cameron v. Hodges, 127 TJ. S. 322 " 66, 958 v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat 591 171, 182, 318 v. U. S., 146 TJ. S. 533 1168, 1211, 1213 v. TJ. S., 148 TJ. S. 301, 304 10 Cameron Town M. Fire, L. & Windstorm Ins. Co., In re, 96 Fed. R. 756 1087 Camfleld v. TJ. S. (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R 101 1276 Cammeyer v. Newton, 94 TJ. S. 225 129 Camp, In re, 91 Fed. R. 745 1137 Camp v. Receivers Niagara Bank, 2 Paige (N. T.), 283 551 Campbell v. Bowne, 5 Paige (N. Y.) 34 392 v. Boy reau, 21 How. 223 870, 873 v. Campbell, 4 Halst. Eq. (N. J.) 740 380 v. Campbell, 2 M. & C. 123 v. City of New York, 35 Fed. R 14 407, 416 v. Collins, 62 Fed. R 849 944 v. Gardner, 11 N. J. Eq. 423 699 v. Hall, 16 N. Y. 575 321 v. Haverhill, 155 U. S. 610. 620 16, 17, 894 v. Holyland, L. R 7 Ch. D. 166 709 v. Iron-Silver Min. Co. (C. .C. A.), 83 Fed. R 643 885 TABLE OF CASES. Eeferences are to pages. Campbell v. James, 2 Fed. E. 888, 348 313 v. James, 3 Fed. E. 513 904, 905 v. James, 5 Fed. E. 807 715 v. James, 31 Fed. R 525 1293, 1295 v. Laclede Gas Co., 119 U. S. 445 599 v. Mackay, 1 M. & Cr. 603 206 v. Mayor of New York, 33 Fed. E. 795 298, 666 v. Mayor of New York, 45 Fed. E. 243 339 v. New York, 35 Fed. E 14 416, 417 v. Porter, 162 U. S. 478 1160 v. Eankiii, 99 Fed. E. 19 1249 v. Seaman, 63 N. Y. 568 467 v. Tousey, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 64 128 v. TJ. S., 107 U. S. 407 1014, 1026 v. Wilcox, 10 Wall. 421 1291 Campbell Pr. &Mfg. Co. v. Mar- den, 70 Fed. E 339. 340 782 Campbell Pr. P. & Mfg. Co. v. Duplex Pr. P. Co. (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. E. 282 1232 Campbell Pr. P. Co. v. Prieth, 77 Fed. B. 976 473 Camon v. U. S., 171 U. S. 277 1059, 1060 Camprelle v. Balbach, 46 Fed. E 81 728 Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall. 561 172, 175 Canal & C. St. E. Co. v. Hart, 114 U. S. 654 900 Candler v. Pettit, 1 Paige (N. Y), 168 370 Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U. S. 619 1162 v. U. S,, 118 U. S. 355 1290 Canton S. E. Co. v. Kanneberg, 51 Fed. E. 599, 600 154 Cape Ann G. Co. v. TJ. S., 20 Ct. « CI. 1 1030 Cape Fear T. & Tr. Co. v. Pear- sail (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. E 435 Capital City Bank v. Hodgin, 22 Fed. E 209 Capital Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 172 U. S. 425 Caples v. Texas &P. Eyi Co., 67 Fed. E 9 Captain John, The, 41 Fed. E. 147 740, 741, 742, 744 Car Float, The (C. C. A), 61 Fed. E 364 967 Card v. Hines. 33 Fed. E. 189 Carey v. Brown, 92 U. S. 17 v. Houston & T. G Ey. Co. 150 U. S. 170, 179 1164, 1171, 1174, 1264 v. Houston & T. C. Ey. Co., 45 Fed. E 438, 443 237 981 921 58 910 967 158 Carey v. Houston & T. C. Ey. Co., 161 U. S. 115 72, 1166 v. Houston & T. C. Ey. Co., 52 Fed. E. 671 72 v. Jones, 8 Ga. 516 347 v. Lovell Mfg. Co., 39 Fed. E. 163 728 v. Eoosevelt, 81 Fed. E. 608 155 v. Eoosevelt (C C. A.), 102 Fed. E 569 321 v. Williams (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. E 906 588, 593 Carley. In re, 106 Fed. E. 862 1113 Carlsbad, City of, v. Tibbetts, 51 Fed. E 852, 856 167, 239, 661 Carne v. Euss, 152 TJ. S. 250 53 Carlisle v. Cooper, 3 C. E. Green (N. J.), 241 662 v. Cooper, 64 Fed. E 472 722, 907 Carlisle, Countess of, v. Lord Berkley, Amb. 599 i 570 v. TJ. S., 16 Wall. 147, 6 Ct. CI. 398 1016 Carll, Ex parte, 106 TJ. S. 521 Carman v. Emerson (C. C. A.), 71 Fed. E. 264 762 Carmichael, In re, 96 Fed. E. 594 1088, 1146 Carmichael v. Eberle, 177 TJ. S. 63 1276, 1279 v. Texarkana, 94 Fed. E 561 214, 217 Carnochan v. Christie, 11 Wheat. 446 378, 379 Caro v. Met. El. Ey. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 138 468 Carolina, The, 14 Fed. E 424 972 Carolina Cooperage Co., In re, 96 Fed. E. 950 1133, 1150, 1151 , In re, 96 Fed. E. 604 1148, 1150 Carpenter -v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,. 47 Fed. E 535 v. Northern Pac. E Co., 75 Fed. E. 850 v. Providence- Washington Ins. Co., 4 How. 185 v. Providence- Washington Ins. Co., 16 Pet 495 668, 878 v. Strange, 141 U. S. 87 3, 318, 693, 704, 705, 775 v. TJ. S., 42 Fed. E 264 130 v. Westinghouse Air-Brake Co., 32 Fed. E. 434 Carpentier v. Montgomery, 13 Wall. 480 Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 TJ, 87 Carr v. Fife, 4 Fed. E 713 v. Fife, 45 Fed. E 209 v. U. S., 98 U. S. 433 Carrier, In re, 47 Fed. E. 438 Carrington v. Florida R. Co., 9 Blatchf. 468 957 942 47 589 257 1077 847 .909 958 128 1144 TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. 757 675 337 258 45 Carrington v. Holly, 1 Dick. 280 656 v. Lentz, 40 Fed. R 18 856 v. Stimson, 1 Curt. 437 639 Carroll v. Parran, 1 Bland (Md.), — 790 v. Safford, 3 How. 441 32, 878 Carroll County v. Smith, 111 TJ: S. 556 883 Carron Iron Co. v. MoClaren, 5 H. L. C. 416 256, 704 Carson v. Combe (C. C. A.), 86 Fed. R 202 51t v. Donaldson, 45 Fed. R — 909 v. Dunham, 121 U. S. 421 927, 929, 932, 958, 964 v. Hyatt, 118 U. S. 279 64, 912 Carson & R L. Co. v. Holtz- olaw, 39 Fed. R 578 55, 930, 941, 943, 944 Carstairs v. Mechanics' & Trad- ers' Ins. Co. of N. Y., 13 Fed. R823 Cart v. Hodgkin, 3 Swanst. 161 Carte v. Ball, 3 Atk 496 Carter v, De Brune, 1 Dickens, 39 v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 317 v. Ingraham, 43 Ala. 78 239, 248 v. McCaughry, 105 Fed. R 614 837, 842 v. New Orleans, 19 Fed. R 659 435 v. Roberts, 177 U. a 496 500, 512, 1163, 1193. 1195 Carter & Co. v. Wollschlaeger, 53 Fed. R 573 472,473 Cartwright v. Clark, 4 Mete. (Mass.) 104 379 Carver, In re, 103 Fed. R 624 837 Carver v. Jarvis-Conklin Tr. Co., 73 Fed. R. 9 798, 912, 919 v. U. S., Ill U. S. 609 1015 Carwick v. Young, 2 Swanst. 239 662, 664 Cary v. Domestic S. Co., 26 Fed. R 38 Gary, In re, 10 Fed. R. 622 Cary, Re, 10 Fed. R 622 Casamajor v. Strode, 1 Sim. & Stu. 381 Casborne v. Barsham, 5 M. & C. 113 Case v. Beauregard, 99 U. S. 119 v. Beauregard, 101 U. S. 688, 690 36, 670 v. Clarke, 5 Mason, 70 70 v. Hall (C. C. A), 94 Fed. R 300 890 v. Kelly, 133 U. S. 21 585, 667, 884 v. Olney, 106 Fed. R 433 935 v. Redfield, 4 McLean, 526 225 496 765 448 491 676 36 Casey, Ex parte, 1 Fed. R. 86 899 Casey v. Cincinnati Typ. Union, 45 Fed. R. 135 215, 429, 469, 486, 498 Caskey v. Chenoweth (C. C. A), 62 Fed. R 712 270, 271 Caspary v. Carter, 84 Fed. R. 416 865 Cassius, The, 41 Fed. R 367 985 Caster v. Wood, 1 Baldw. 289 355, 375 Castle v. Bullard, 23 How. 172 874, 1284 Castro v. De Uriarte, 12 Fed. R. 250 806 v. Hendricks, 23 How. 438 1064, 1065, 1071 v, U. S., 3 WalL 46 1079, 1236, 1252 Cate v. Woodbury, 3 App. D. C. 60 537, 540 Cates v. Allen, 149 U. S. 451 15, 918 v. Producers' C. O. Co., 96 Fed. R 7 60 Cathcart v. Hewson, 1 Hayes, 173 756 Catherwood v. Gapete, 2 Curt. 94 859 Catton v. Earl of Carlisle, 5 Madd. 427 403, 416 Catlett v. Pac. Ins. Co., 1 Paine, 594 70, 593, 594, 602 Catterall v. Purchase, 1 Atk. 290 795 Causin v. Chubb, 1 Cranch, C. C. 267 740 Cavanna v. Bassett, 3 Fed. R. 215 1141 Cavender v. Cavender, 8 Fed. R. 641 588 v. Cavender, 3 McCrary, 383 735 v. Cavender, 114 IT. S. 464 300 Cawthorn v. Chalie, 2 Sim. & S. 127 281 Cayuga, The (C. C. A), 59 Fed. R 483 982 Cecil Nat. Bank v. Thurber (C. C. A), 59 Fed. R 913 627 Cellina, Village of, v. Eastport Sav. Bank Co. (C. C, A), 68 Fed. R 401 797 Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Arlington Mfg. Co., 47 Fed. R 4 483, 633 v. Cellonite Mfg. Co., 40 Fed. R 476, 478 691 v. Chandler, 27 Fed. R 9 728 v. Chro wlithian C. & C. Co., 24 Fed. R 275 472 v. Goodyear D. V. Co., 13 Blatchf. 375 485,486 v. Russell, 35 Fed. R. 17 634 Central Appalachian Co. v. Bu- chanan (C. C. A), 90 Fed. R 454 528 lii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Hitch- cook (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R 209 526, 528 v. Paul, 93 Fed. R 878 446 Central L. & Tr. Co. v. Camp- bell Com. Co., 173 U. S. 84 1219 Central Nat. Bank v. Fitzger- ald, 94 Fed. R. 16 22, 215 v. Hazard, 30 Fed. R. 484 548 v. Stevens, 169 U. S. 432 21 v. Tayloe, 2 Cranch, C. C. 427 866 Central Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 104 U. S. 54 1283 Central Pac. R Co. v. Dyer, 1 Saw. 641 209, 215 Central R. Co. v. Bourbon County, 116 U. S. 538 1269 v. Pettus,113U. S. 116 161,163, 434, 533, 718, 724, 725, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755 v. Wright, 164 U. S. 327 882 Central R & B. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 56 Fed. R 357 19, 520 Central R. & B. Co. of Ga. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 79 Fed. R 158 559 Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's P. C. Co., 139 U. S. 24 875, 1201, 1287, 1289 Central Trust Co. v. Benedict (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R 198 72 v. Bridges, 57 Fed. R 753 72 v. Carter (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R 225 72 v. Central la. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R 889 530, 724 v. Charlotte, C. & A.R Co., 65 Fed. R. 264 530, 532 v. Chicago, K. & T. Ry. Co., 54 Fed. R. 598 156 v. Cincinnati, J. & M. R Co., 58 Fed. R 500 547, 574, 698 v. Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 82 Fed. R 1 512, 1164 v. Clark (C. C. A.), 81 Fed, R 269 527, 534, 551 v. Colorado Mid. Ry. Co., 89 Fed. R 560, 564 543 v. Condon (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R 84, 111 752 v. Continental Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 86 Fed. R 517 559 v. East Tenn., V. & G. R Co., 30 Fed. R 895 25, 530 v. East Tenn., V. & G. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. R. 523 " 562 v. East Tenn., V. & G. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. R 658 25, 525 v. East Tenn., V. & G. Ry. Co., 70 Fed. R 764 530 530 559 531 701 531 686 547 77, Central Trust Co. v. East Tenn., V. & G. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R 624 v. East Tenn. Land Co., 79 Fed. R 19 v. Grant Locomotive Works, 135 U. S. 207 445, 703, 788, 1205, 1226, 1283 v. Grantham, 83 Fed. R 540 72 v. Hennen (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. R 593 v. Hubinger, 87 Fed. R 3 v. Louisville & T. Ry. Co., 81 Fed. R 772 v. Madden (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 451 442, 443, 530 v. Marietta & N. G. R. Co., 48 Fed. R 14 436 v. Marietta & N. G. R Co. (C. C. A.), 48 Fed. R 850, 860 1204, 1205 v. Marietta & N. G. R Co., 63 Fed. R 492 431, 438, 445 v. Marietta & N. G. R Co., 75 Fed. R 41 v. Marietta & N. G. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R 193; s. a, 75 Fed. R 209 v. McGeorge, 151 U. S. 129 272, 437, 86i v. Ohio Central R Co., 23 Fed. R 306 540 v. Richmond N. I. & Br. Co., 54 Fed. R 723 533 v. Sheffield & B. C. & L Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 526 547, 548 v. Sheffield & B. C. L & Ry. Co., 60 Fed. R 9 695, 696 v. St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R 426 253, 560 v. St. Louis, A. &T. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R 551, 553, 554 525, 561, 1240 v. St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. R. 385 > 460 v. Texas & St. L Ry. Co., 22 Fed. R 135 522, 523, 530 v. Texas & St. L. ~ 23 Fed. R 673, 674 v. Texas & St. L. 23 Fed. R 703 v. Texas & St. L Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R 704 ■v. Texas & St. h. Ry. Co., 24 Fed. R 153 v. Texas & St. L. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R 448 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R 675 572, 573 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Rv. Co., 23 Fed. R 863 532, 544, 546, 550, 550 Ry. Co., 535 Co., 530, 534 527 Ry. 566 690 TABLE OF OASES. liii References are to pages. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St L. & P. Ry. Co., 26 Fed. R 74 560 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. R 175 689 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R 618 25, 521 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 30 Fed. R 332 531 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R. 187 573, 574 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R 566 531 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R 684 726, 727 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 34 Fed. R. 259 544, 559 v. Valley R Co., 55 Fed. R. 903 752 Centre v. Keen, 2 Cranch, C. C. 198 641, 642 Certain Merchandise, In re, 64 Fed. R 576 1239 Cervantes v. TJ. S., 16 How. 619 1080 Cessna v. U. S., 169 U. a 165 1059, 1065 v. Wabash, St L. & P. Ry. Co., 46 Fed. R. 26 545 v. Wabash, St L. & P. Ry. Co., 46 Fed. R 156 441, 443 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.. 57 Fed. R 441, 444 690 v. Western N. C. R Co., 89 Fed. R. 24 410, 412, 460, 776 v. Worcester C. Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R 712 711 Chable v. Nicaragua Canal Const Co., 59 Fed. R. 846 560, 866 Chace v. Vasquez, 11 Wheat. 429 1208 Chadbourne v. Coe, 45 Fed. R 822 176 v. Coe, 51 Fed. R 479 169, 170 v. German Am. Ins. Co., 31 Fed. R. 625 724 Chadwicfc v. Boardwood, 3 Beav. 316 333 v. IT. S., 3 Fed. R 753 593, 594, 608 Chaffee v. Hayward, 20 How. 208 1257 Chaffee & Co. v. U. S., 18 Wall. 516 895 Chaffin v. Hull, 39 Fed. R 877 203 v. Kimball, 23 111. 36, 38 276, 279 v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567 1298 Chaires v."U. S., 3 How. 611 1293 Chalie v. Pickering, 1 Keen, 749 564 Chalmers, Estate of, N. Y. L. J. April 8, 1897 691 Chamberlain v. Agar, 2 V. & B. 259 333 v. American Nat. L. Ins. Co., 11 Hun (N. Y.), 370 933 Chamberlain v. Browning, 177 U. S. 605 v. Lamed. 33 N. J. F,q. 295 v. Mensing, 47 Fed. R. 435 1215 698 808, 811 967 v. The Torgorm, 46 Fed. R 202 Chamberlaine v. Chester & B. Ry. Co., 1 Ex. 869 454, 455 Chambers, In re, 44 Fed. R 786 898 Chambers, Calder & Co., In re, 98 Fed. R 865 1103, 1124 Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350 1204 v. McDougal, 42 Fed. R 694 552, 553, 928, 930, 932, 933 v. Prince, 75 Fed. R 176 70 Chamberlain, Ex parte, 55 Fed. R 704 553 Chamley v. Lord Dunsany, 2 Soh. & Lef. 690, 718 379, 381 Chancey v. May, Prec. Ch. 592 163 Chandler v. Thompson, 30 Fed. R 38, 45 863, 886. 887, 893 Chandos, Duke of, v. Talbot, 2 P. Wms. 372 , 147 Chanute City v. Trader, 132 U. a 210 1263 Chapin v. Fye, 179 IT. S. 127 1186, 1187,1189,1232 v. Sears, 18 Fed. R 814 217 v.Walker, 6 Fed. R 794 337,378 v. Walker, 2 McCrary, 175 378 Chaplin v. Young, 6 L. T. (N. S.) 97 537 Chapman, In re, 99 Fed. R 395 1093 , 156 U. S. 211 843 Chapman v. Barger, 4 Dill. 557 75, 918, 919 v. Barney, 129 IT. S. 677 67, 161, 376, 724, 807, 963, 1288 v. Derby, 2 Vern. 117 4 v. Forsyth, 2 How. 202 1148 v. School Dist. No. 1, Deady, 108, 110 198, 289, 307, 337, 343 Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch, 306 Chappell v. Purday, 4 Y. & C. 485 v. Sheard, 1 Jur. (N. S.) 996 v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 81 Fed. R764 v. IT. S., 160 U. S. 499 906, 907, 1174, 1175 v. W. Com., 155 IT. S. 102 62, 910 Charles E. Hires Co. v. Consum- ers' Co. (C. G A.), 100 Fed. R 809 Charles Ritfer Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 376 Charnley v. Sibley (C. C. A.), 73 Fed. R 980 806, 885 85 152 475 907 512 510 liv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Charhock v. Court, [1899] 2 Ch. 35 469 Chase, In re, 50 Fed. E. 695 1199 Chase v. Driver (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R 780 699, 1206 v. Dunham, 1 Paige (N. Y), 572 364 v. Edwards, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 283 612 v. Sanborn, 6 Off. Gaz. 932 474 v. Sheldon R. M. Co., 56 Fed. R. 625 50, 85 v. U. S., 155 U. S. 489 134, 1161 Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co., 128 U. S. 544 815; 888, 889, 891, 894 v. Blake, 95 Fed. R 804 1240, 1241 Chatfleld v. Boyle, 105 TT. S. 231 1215 v. O'Dwyer (C. C A.), 101 Fed. R. 797 1155 Chattanooga Medicine Co. v. Thedford, 58 Fed. R. 347 383 Chattanooga R. & C. R. Co. v. Cincinnati. O. & T. P. Rv. Co., 44 Fed. R 456 925, 933 Chattanooga T. Ry. Co. v. Fel- ton, 69 Fed. R. 273 522 Chavez v. U. S„ 175 TJ. S. 552 1060 Cheang-Kee v. U. S., 3 Wall. 320 1287 Cheely v. Clayton, 110 U. S. 701 316 Cheesman v. Hart, 42 Fed. R 98, 105 447, 886 v. Shreve, 37 Fed. R. 36 60 Chefong Al Moy v. U. a, 113 17. S. 216 ' 1274 Chemical Nat. Bank v. City Bank, 160 U. S. 646 v. Hartford Deposit Co., 161 U.S. 1 Cheney v. Bilby (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. 52 v. Gopdwin, 88 Me. 563; S. C, 34 Atl. R 420 215 v. Hughes, 138 IT. S. 403 1255 Cherokee County Com'rs v. Wil- son, 109 U. S. 621 1274 Cherokee Indians v. Cherokee Nation, 19 Ct. CL 35 1027, 1029 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1 144 v. Southern Kan. Ry. Co., 135 U. S. 641, 651 205, 216, 301 Cherrey v. Monro, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 618 288 Cherry v. Meuro, 2 Barb. Ch. 610 180 Chertsy Market, In re, 6 Price, 261 452 Chesapeake & O. C. Co. v. Knapp, 9 Pet. 541, 563 802 v. Union Bank of George- town, 8 Pet. 259 1202 58 393 237 Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Dixon, 179 U. S. 131 925 v. Patton, 5 W. Va. 234 468 v. U. S., 19 Ct. CI. 300 1030 v. U. S., 20 Ct. CI. 49 1013 v. White, 111 U. S. 134 959 Chester v. Life Ass'n of Am., 4 Fed. R. 487 376, 394, 506 Chetwood, In re, 165 U. S. 443, 453, 462 19, 829 Chetwynd v. Lindon, 2 Ves. Sen. 450 293 Chiatovitch v. Hanchett (D. Nev.), 78 Fed. R. 193 935 Chicago, In re, 64 Fed. R. 897 916, 923 Chicago v. Hutchinson, 15 Fed. R. 129 921 Chicago-Joplin Lead & Zinc Co., In re, 104 Fed. R 67 1087 Chicago & Alton R Co. v. Union R M. Co., 109 U. S. 702, 717 298, 329, 360, 390, 655 v. N. Y., L. B. & W. R Co., 24 Fed. R 516 922 v. N. Y, L. E. & W. R Co., 34 Fed. R. 516 487, 488 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Norton County (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R. 458 237, 238 v. Burlington, C. R & N. R Co., 34 Fed. R 481 487, 488, 496 v. Nebraska, 170 U. S. 57 1184 v. Republic County (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R 411 237 Chicago, B. & Z. R. Co. v. Re- public County (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R 413 238 Chicago C. Co. v. Fogg, 53 Fed. R 72, 76 55, 56, 661 Chicago C. R Co. v. Howison, 86 111. 215 508 Chicago Deposit Vault Ry. Co. v. McNnlta, 153 U. S. 554 545 Chicago Dollar Directory Co. v. Chicago D. Co. (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R. 463 1238 Chicago, D. & V. R Co. v. Fos- dick. 106 U. S. 47 692, 693 Chicago, I. & N. P. R Co. v. Minnesota & N. W. R Co., 29 Fed. R 337 945 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Becker, 32 Fed. R 849 920 v. Hartshorn, 30 Fed. R 541 237, 290 v. Metalstaff (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R 769 , 875 v. Pullman P. C. Co., 50 Fed. R. 24 292 v. Third Nat. Bank, 134 U. S. 276 369. 372, 377 v. Tompkins, 176 U. a 167 1279 TABLE 01" CASES. lv References are to pages. Chicago, R I. & Pao. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 178 U. S. 245 910 v. St Joseph Depot Co., 92 Fed. R. 32 319 Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R Co. v. Macomb, 2 Fed. R 18 234, 281, 291, 293 Chicago, St. P., M. & O.i R Co. v. Roberts, 141 U. S. 690 965, 1201, 1203 Chicago Trust & Sav. Bank v. Bentz (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R. 645, 647 459 Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Os- borne, 146 U. S. 354 1178 Chicago & O. R. Co. v. McCam- mon (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R 772 700 Chicago & V. R. Co. v. Fosdick, 106 U. S. 47, 83 708, 710, 1204, 1255, 1256, 1276 Chickasaw Nation v. U. S., 19 Ct. CI. 133 1033 Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 529 13, 807 Childress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642 85 Cbilds v. N. B. Carstein Co., 76 Fed. R 86 179 Chiles, Re, 22 Wall. 157 760 Chils v. Gronlund, 41 Fed. R. 505 888, 895 Chilton v. Braiden's Adm'x, 2 Black, 458 14 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 42, 47, 135 v. Johnson, 84 Fed. R 384 333, 336 Chittenden v. Darden, 4 Woods, 437 857 Chorbin v. U. S., 6 Ct. CL 430 594 Choteau v. U. S.. 20 Ct. CI. 250 1027 v. Barlow, 110 U. S. 258 1281 Chowick v. Dimes, 3 Beav. 200 394, 506 Christian, In re, 82 Fed. R. 199 835 Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 133 TJ. S. 233 142, 175 v. U. S., 7 Ct. CI. 431 1003 Christie, Matter of, 5 Paige (N. Y), 242 609, 612 Christie v. Craig, 2 Mer. 137 464 v. Davis C. C. Co., 92 Fed. R3 972 Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290, 305 318 v. Russell, 14 Wall. 69 71 Christy, In re, 3 How. 292 812 Christy v. Pridgeon. 4 Wall. 196 878' Church v. Citizens' S. R Co., 78 Fed. R 526 218, 221 v. Hubbard, 2 Cranch, 187 602 v. Marsh, 2 Hare, 652 448 Cilley, In re. 58 Fed. R 977 917 Cilley v. Patten, 62 Fed. R. 498 64 Cincinnati Br. Co. v. Bettman, 102 Fed. R. 16 61 Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. MoKeen, 149 U. S. 257, 259 1176, 1178 v. Thiebard, 177 U. S. 615- 620 512, 1164 Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. Snell, 179 U. S. 395 " 1184 Circassian, The, 6 Ben. 512 742 Citizens' Bank v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319 52, 54, 56 v. Farwell (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R539 1256 v. Farwell (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 570 801, 857, 871, 872 Citizens' Bank of Salem v. De Pauw Co. (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R 926 1091 Cittredge v. Claremont Bank, 3 Story, 590 306 City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477 878 City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 570 244, 245 v. Skelton, 2 Blatchf. 14 456, 459 City Nat. Bank v. Hunter, 129 IT. S. 557 1219 City Ry. Co. v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 166 U. S. 557 62 Claasen,Inre,140IT.S.200,208 1244 Clafiin v. Bannett, 51 Fed. R 693 374, 754 v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 110 U. S. 81 945 Claiborne v. Waddel, 50 Fed. R 368 65 Claiborne County v. Burks, 1 U. S. 400 884 Clapp v. Otoe County (C. C. A,), 104 Fed. R. 473 819 v. Spokane, 53 Fed. R 515 52 Clara A. M'Intyre, The, 94 Fed. R 552 539 Clare v. National City Bank, 14 Blatchf. 445 724 v. Wood, 1 Hare, 314 590 Clarey v. Marshall's Heirs, 4 Dana (Ky.), 95, 96 789 Claridge v. Hoare, 14 Ves. 59 304 Clark, Ex parte, 128 U. S. 395 843 Clark v. Am. Dock & L Co., 25 Fed. R 641 746 v. Am. Mfg. & Em. Co. (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R. 962 1094 v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436 137 v. Central R R. & B. Co., 66 Fed. R. 803 526, 529 v. Dever, 139 U. S. 96, 102 879, 918 v. Five Hundred and Five Thousand Feet of Lumber (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R 236; S. G, 70 Fed. R 1020 966 lvi TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Clark v. Freeman, 11 Beav. 113 v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 81 Fed. R. 282 v. Hall, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 382 334 • v. Hancock, 94 U. S. 493 • v. Kansas City, 172 U. S. 485 176 392, 779 1262 1202 v. Kansas City, 176 U. S. 114 1202 v. Keith, 106 U. S. 464 1298 v. Killian, 103 U. S. 766 787, 788 v. Lord Rivers, L. R. 5 Eq. 91. 97 204 v. Periam, 2 Atk. 337 202 v. Reyburn, 8 Wall. 318 708 v. Rippon, 1 B. & Aid. 586 1162 v. Scott, 5 Fisher, 245 338 — - v. Sibway, 142 U. S. 682 1212 v. Smith, 13 Pet 195 12, 13, 881 v. Sohier, 1 W. & M. 368 885 v. U. S., 11 Ct. CI. 698 1003 v. U. S., 99 U. S. 493 1017 v. Wooster, 119 U. S. 322, 324 30, 31 Clark's Ex'rs v. Van Riemsdyk, 9 Cranch, 153 344, 588, 589 Clarke, Ex parte, 100 U. S. 399 832, 835, 845, 856 ,1R. & M. 563 491 Clarke v. Byne, 13 Ves. 386 242 v. Central R & B. Co., 54 Fed. R. 556 543 v. Clarke, 178 U. S. 186 145 v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164 71, 191 399 — - v. McDade, 165 U. S. 168, ' " 171 1184, 1207 v. Morey, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 69 ' 122 v. Price, 2 Wilson Ch. C. 157 479, 480 v. Tipping, 4 Beav. 588 380 v. White, 12 Pet. 178 480, 487 Clarkhuff v. Wisconsin, L & N. R. Co., 26 Fed. R. 465 964 Clarkson v. Manson, 4 Fed. R 257 55 Clason v. Morris, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 524 280 Classev. Rippon, IB. & Aid. 586 867 Claxton v. Adams, 1 MacAr. (D. C.) 496 639 Clay v. Deskins (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 330 316 v. Field, 138 U. S. 464, 479, 480 53, 1215 v. Smith, 3 Pet. 411 1290 v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. R 472 432 Clay brook v. Owensboro, 23 Fed. R 634, 636 488 Clay Center v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 145 U. S. 224 1213 Clayton v. Utah, 132 U. S. 632, 637 1168 Cleaver v. Traders' Ins. Co., 40 Fed. R 711 957 v. Traders' Ins. Co. (D. Md.), 40 Fed. R. 863 724, 726 Cleland v. Casgrain, 92 Mich. 139; s. C, 52 N. W. R 460 624 Clement v. Griffith, C. P. Coop. 470 425 Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall. 299 360, 376, 1283 Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419 763, 1261, 1262 Cleveland, C. & S. R. Co. v. Knickerbocker Tr.Co.,64 Fed. R 623 532 v. Knickerbocker Tr. Co., 86 Fed. R. 73 527 Cleveland F. & B. Co. v. U. S. Rolling S. Co., 41 Fed. R 476 150, 224 Cleveland F. Co. v. Vulcan B. Co., 72 Fed. R. 505 284 Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Reed, 1 Biss. 180 15, 313 Cleveland R M. Co. v. Rhodes, 121 U. S. 255 1280 Clews v. Woodstock Iron Co., 44 Fed. R 31 257 Cliffie, In re, 94 Fed. R 354 947. 1097, 1098, 1113 Clifton v. U. S., 4 How. 242 608 Clinch v. Financial Corpora- tion, L. R 4Ch. App. 117 Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434 v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 122 U. S. 469, 474 Clinton Bridge, The, 10 Wall . 454 Clinton E. Warden Co. v. Cali- fornia F. S. Co. (C. C. A,), 102 Fed. R 334 Clintonia, The, 11 Fed. R. 740 Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114 Cloud v. City of Sumas, 52 Fed. R 177 Clough v. Curtis, 134 TJ. S. 361 819, 824, 1169 Clum v. Brewer, 2 Curt. 506 503 Clyde v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 55 Fed. R 445 v. Richmond & D. R Co., 56 Fed. R 539 v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 57 Fed. R. 436 v. Richmond & D. R Co., 59 Fed. R 394 686 162 40 894 315 1233 742 608 82 32, 435 527 178 TABLE OF CASES. Ivii References are to pages. Clyde v. Richmond & D. R Co., 65 Fed. R 336 25, 66^ 444, 534 v. U. S., 13 Wall. 38 1013 Clyde Mattox v. U. S., 146 U. a 140, 147 887, 888, 1289 Coates v. Merrick T. Co., 41 Fed. v. U. S., 53 Fed. R.989, 991 Cobb v. Clough, 83 Fed. R 604 v. Globe M. L, Ins. Co., Hughes, 453 Cobbeltiom v. William, Chan. Cal. II 3 Coburn v. Cedar L. L. & C. Co., 138 U. S. 196, 233 355, 380, 387, 431 v. Cedar V. L. & C. Co., 25 Fed. R. 791 ■ v. Factors' & Tr. Ins. Co., 20 Fed. R 644 Cochrane v. Deener, 95 U. S. 355 v. O'Brien, 2 Jones & LaT. 280 Cock v. Evans, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 287 Cocker v. Bevis, 1 Ch. Cas. 61 v. F. H.& B. Co., 1 Story, 169 Cockcroft, Ex parte, 104 U. S. 578 Cocks v. Varnay, 42 N. J. Eq. 514 Codrington v. Houlditch, 5 Sim. 286 v. Johnstone, 1 Beav. 530 Coe v. East & Ir. R Co, of Ala. (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R. 489 v. East & W. R Co. of Ala., 53 Fed. R 531 v. Louisville & N. R Co., 3 Fed. R 775 487, 488, 489 v. N. J. Midland Ry. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 37 524, 546, 547 v. Turner, 5 Conn. 37 215, 218 v. Western R Co., 65 Fed. R 16 Coeur d'Alene Am. Mining Co. v. Mining Union of Warden, 51 Fed. R 260 Coeur d'Alene Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Spalding (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R 280 460, 919 Coffain v. Cole, 67 Vt. 226 234 Cotteen v. Brunton, 5 McLean, 256 499 Coffey v. U. S., 116 U. S. 442 319 995, 1283 v. 17. S., 116 U. S. 436 1285 Coffin v. Chattanooga W. & P. Co., 44 Fed. R 535 v. Heath, 6 Met. (Mass.) 76 Coffman, In re, 93 Fed. R 423 Coghlan v. South Carolina R Co., 142 U. S. 101 Cohen v. Com'rs of Goldsboro, 77 N. C. 3 468 646 1025 241 952 933 978 438 243 375 799 646 1217 212 401 538 1225 522 754 429 436 708 1137 585 Cohen v. Solomon, 66 Fed. R 41 1 22 v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 379 57, 1161, 1183 Cohn, In re, 98 Fed. R 75 1114 Cohn v. Jones, 100 Fed. R 639 843 v. Louisville, N. O. & T. R Co., 39 Fed. R 727 944 Coiron v. Millaudon, 19 How. 113 175, 1255 Coit v. Campbell, 82 N. Y. 509 402 v. N. C. Gold Am. Co., 9 Fed. R 577 591, 865 Col. E. Ry. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. '(C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R 312 1203 Colburn v. Duncombe, 9 Sim. • 151 152 v. Hill (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R 500 862, 923, 964 v. Hill (C. C. A.), 103 Fed. R 340 701,965,967 Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107 459, 463 Cole S. M. Co. v. Virginia & G. H. W. Co., 1 Saw. 470 487, 488 v. Virginia & G. H. W. Co., 1 Saw. 685 449, 504 Coleman v. Martin, 6 Blatchf. 119 359, 434 v. West H. Ry. Co., 8 W. R. 734 " 491 Colgate v.Compagnie Francaise, 23 Fed. R 83 353, 591, 628, 865 Collector of Customs, In re (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 276 1199 Collier, In re, 93 Fed. R 191 1097 Collignon v.Hayes, 8 Fed. R 913 473 Collin Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson & Hutter's Trustee, 54 Fed. R. 731 160 Collins v. Campbell, 62 Fed. R 850 939 v. Scott, 76 Fed. R 613 937 v. Wellington, 31 Fed. R 244 925 Collins Co. v. Coes, 8 Fed. R 517 782 Collins & Farwell v. U. S., 34 Ct. CI. 294 1012 Collinson v. , 18 Ves. 353 422 581, 583 Colman v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co., 10 Beav. 1 453, 454, 455 Colombian Government v. Rothschild, 1 Simons, 94, 103 237 Colonel McLeod, The, 113 U. S. 710 1240, 1264 Colonial & U. S. Mtg. Co., Ld., v. Hutchinson Mtg. Co., 44 Fed. R 219 150 Colorado C. C. Min. Co. v. Turck, 150 U. S. 138 1166 Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheat. 377, 379 71 lviii TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. Colson v. Thompson, 3 Wheat ' 336 455 Colton v. Ross, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 396 203 v. Rupert, 60 Mich. 318, 27 N. W. R. 520 262 v. Scott, 97 Ala. 447 383 Columb v. Webster Mfg. Co., 76 Fed. R. 198 433 Columbia College v. Thacher, 87 N. Y. 311 456 Columbia F. & Tr. Co. v. Ken- tucky Union Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 60 Fed. R 794 151, 708 Columbia & P. S. R. Co. v. Haw- thorne, 144 U. S. 202 875, 894 Columbia R. E. Co., In re, 101 Fed. R. 965 1101 Columbia Water Power Co. v. Columbia El. St. Ry., Lt. & P. Co., 172 U. S. 475 1186, 1187 Columbia Wire Co. v. Boyce (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R. 172 513 Columbian Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 37 N. Y. 536 551 Columbus Const. Co. v. Crane Co., 174 U. S. 600 1173 Columbus Watch Co. v. Rob- bins, 148 U. S. 266 1177, 1178 Colvin, Matter of, 3 Md. Ch. Dec. 279 515 Colvin v. Jacksonville, 157 U. S. 368 1174 v. Jacksonville, 158 U. S. 456 1159, 1175, 1214 Com. v. Franklin Ins. Co., 115 Mass. 278 556, 559 Comer v. Felton (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R 731 661, 562 Comfort, The, 32 Fed. R 327 981 Comly v. Buchanan, 81 Fed. R 58 778 Commander-in-Chief, The, 1 Wall. 43 982 Commercial M. M. Ins. Co. v. Union M. Ins. Co., 19 How. 318, 323 341 Commercial & S. Bank v. Cor- bett, 5 Saw. 172 952 Commissioners v. Aspinwall, 24 How. 376 818 v. Sellew, 99 U. S. 624 826, 827, 828 Commissioner of Patents v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. 522 820 Commissioners of Tippecanoe Co. v. Lucas, 93 U. S. 108 1181 Commonwealth v. Frink, 4 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 700 840 Commonwealth T. T. & Tr. Co. v. Cummings, 83 Fed. R 767 379 Compton v. Jesup (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R 263 23, 72, 319, 321, 695 Compton v. Jesup, 167 U. S. 1, 36 322, 700 Comstock v. Fredrickson, 51 Minn. 350 127 v.Herron,45Fed.R660 192,337 Co. Nat. Bank v. Lee, 112 Mass. 521 595 Concannon v. Cruise, 2 Molloy, 332 593 Conde v. York, 168 U. S. 642 1181 Condon v. Central L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 73 Fed. R 907 1225 Conhaim, In re, 97 Fed. R 923 1136 , 100 Fed. R. 268 1132 Conn v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 48 Fed. R 177 83 Connaway, In re, 178 U. a 421 19, 815, 868 v. Penn, 5 Wheat. 424, 427 317 Connecticut Mut. L.Ins. Compe- titioner, 131 U. S. App. clxxxi 816 Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Cushman, 108 U. S. 51 13,711 v. Schaefer, 94 U. S. 457 615, 864 v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602 256 v. Union Tr. Co., 112 U. S. 250 615, 863 Connecticut & P. R Co. v. Hen- dee, 27 Fed. R. 678 655 Conner v. Skagit C. C. Co., 45 Fed. R 802 935 Connolly v. Belt, 5 Cranch, C C 405 468 Connor v. Alligator L. Co., 98 Fed. R 155 73 Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556 65, 369 v. Wells, 33 Fed. R 205 Conqueror, The, 49 Fed. R 99 , 166 U. S. 110 Conry v. Caulfield, 2 Ball & B. 255 Consolidated Brake-Shoe Co. v. Chicago, P. & St. L. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. R 412 150, 719 v. Detroit S. & a Co., 47 Fed. R 894 Consolidated Coal Co. v. Polar W. Ice Co. (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R798 Consolidated EL S. Co. v. Ac- cumulator Co. (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R 485 Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Columbian F. Co., 73 Fed. R 828 - — v. Columbian B. & T. Co., 85 Fed. R 54 Consolidated Ice Mach. Co. v. Trenton Hygeian Ice Co., 57 Fed. R 898 Consolidated Safety Valve Co. v. Ash ton Valve Co., 26 Fed. R 319 . 30 168 971 1179 379 295 870 472 81 634 887 TABLE OF CASES. lix References are to pages. Consolidated Safety Valve Co. v. Crosby S. G. & L. Co., 7 Fed. R. 768 471 Consolidated Store <\ Co. v. Det- tenthaler, 93 Fed. Li. 307 717 Consolidated S. & W. Co. v. Murray, 80 Fed. R 811 469 Consolidated T. Co. v. Kansas C. T. Co., 43 Fed. R. 204 517, 518 Consolidated Water Co. v. Bab- cook, 76 Fed. R. 243 63, 65 v. Babcook, 173 U. S. 702 1164 v. San Diego, 87 Fed. R. 369 177 v. San Diego, 89 Fed. R. 272 39, 159, 221 v. San Diego, 92 Fed. R. 759 1 58 Const v. Harris, T. & R. 496, 528 537 Continental Ins. Co. v. Board of Fire Underwriters, 67 Fed. R. 310 486 v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237 66, 369, 724, 963 Continental Nat. Bank v, Heil- man, 66 Fed. R. 184 150, 627 v. Heilman, 81 Fed. R. 36 16 Continental Tr. Co. v. American Surety Co. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 180 " 697 v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co., 59 Fed. R 514 550 v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co., 83 Fed. R. 642, 646 75, 157, 191, 436* 437, 438, 441, 563, 683 v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co., 93 Fed. R. 532 539, 544 Continental W. P. Co. v. Lewis Voight & Sons, 106 Fed. R 550 938 Contr. & B. Co. v. Continental Tr. Co. (C. C. A), 108 Fed. R. 1 528 Converse, In re, 42 Fed. R 217, 219 837 Converse v. Michigan Dairy Co., 45 Fed. R. 18 211, 218 Conyers v. Lord Abergavenny, 1 Atk. 285 166, 214 Coogan v. McCarron, 50 N. J. Eq. 611, 25Atl. R.330 390 Cook, In re, 17 Fed. R 338 1151 Cook v. Bamfield, 3 Swanst. 607 793, 794, 795 v. Bay, 4 How. (Miss.) 485 672 v. Bee, 2 Tenn. Ch. 344 375 v. Burnley, 11 Wall. 659 642, 647, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1297, 1298 Cook County v. Calumet & C. C. & D. Co., 138 U. S. 635, 653, 654 1169, 1181 v. De la Garza, 13 Tex. 431 611 v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183 836, 843 v. Mancius, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 437 313 v. Staats, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 407 610 e Cooke v. Avery, 147 U. S. 375 899 v. Da vies, T. & R 309 250, 371 v. Gwyn, 3 Atk. -689 565 v. Seligman, 7 Fed. R. 263, 269 927, 931, 932 Cooley v. Cooley's Heirs (Tenn. Ch. App.), 37 S. W. R. 1028 696 v. McArthur, 35 Fed. R. 372 911 912 Coolidge v. Ray, 75 Fed. R 39 '55 Cootnbe v. Stewart, 13 Beav. 11 709 Coombs v. Brooks, 3 De G. & S. 452 Coon v. Abbot, 37 Fed. R 98 Coop v. Dr. Savage P. D. Insti- tute, 47 Fed. R. 899 Cooper, In re, 138 U. S. 404 , 143 U. S. 472, 495 91, 813 Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. C. C. 546, 553 v. Galbraith. 3 Wash. 564 v. Lewis, 2 Phil. 178 v. Mattheys, 8 Law R. 413 v. Mattheys, 5 Penn. L. J. 38; s. C, Law R 413 v. N. H. S. Co., 18 Fed. R 588 v. People, 13 Colo. 337 - v. Phibbs, L. R. 3 H. L. 170 v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 43 Fed. R. 697 v. Wood, 5 Beav. 391 Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727 Coosaw Min. Co. v. Farmers' Min. Co., 51 Fed. R 107 v. Carolina M. Co., 74 Fed. R 860 Copeland v. Bruning, 72 Fed. R. 5 v. Wheeler, 4 Brown, Ch. C. 256 346, 352 Copen v. Flesher, 1 Bond, 440 211, 370 Copenhaver, In re, 54 Fed. R. 660 , 818 Coquitlam, The, 57 Fed. R 706, 714 608 Coquitlam v. U.S., 163 U.S. 346 1192 Corbin v. County of Black Hawk, 105 U. S. 659, 665 83 Core v. Vinal, 117 U. & 347 924 Corn, In re, 106 Fed. R. 143 1146, 1147 Cornell, In re, 97 Fed. R. 29 1145, 1146 Cornell v. Green, 43 Fed. R. 105, 107 v. Green, 88 Fed. R. 821 ; S. 0. in C. C. A., 95 Fed. R 334 678 628- 295 811 70 68 655 497 504 723 761 4 941 424 256 508 508 917 282 v. Green, 163 U. S. 75 Cornett v. Williams, 20 Wall. 226 248, 252 1164 603 lx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Corning v. Troy Iron & N. Fac- tory, 15 How. 451, 465 1208, 1296 Cornwall, In re, 9 Blatchf. 114; s. C, 6 N. B. R. 305 1091 Cornwell Mfg. Co. v. Swift, 89 Mich. 503; s. C, 50 N. W. R. 1001 211 Cotrigan v. Schmidt, 126 Mo. 304, 28 S. W. R. 874 262 Corsair, The, 145 U. S. 335 967, 970 Cortes, In re, 136 IT. S. 330, 334 836, 837 636 196 836 1042 385 1013 848 1029 Cortes Co. v. Tannhauser, 18 Fed. R. 667 Coryell v. Klehn, 157 III. 462; s. c, 41 N. E. R 64 Cosgrove v. Winney, 174 U. S. 64 Cosgrove, Adm'x, v. U. S., 33 Ct. CI. 167 Coster's Ex'rs v. Bank of Ga., 24 Ala. 39 Coston's Case, 33 Ct. CI. 438 Cota, Ex parte, 110 U. S. 385 Cote v. IT. S., 3 Ct. CI. 64 Cotter v. Ala. G. S. R Co. (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R. 747 1230, 1232 Cottier v. Stimson, 18 Fed. R 689 806 v. Stimson, 20 Fed. R 906, 907 805 Cotting v. Kansas City Stock- yards Co., 82 Fed. R 850 511, 1243 Cottingham v. Earl of Shrews- bury, 3 Hare, 627 713 Cottle v. Krementz, 25 Fed. R 494 335, 336 Coudert v. IT. S., 85 Fed. R 844 108 Coughlin v. District of Colum- bia, 106 U. S. 7 869, 1282, 1288, 1291 Counsel, In the Matter of, 32 Ct. CI. 231 1031 Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 IT. S. 547 616, 835 Count do Toulonse Lautrec, In re, 102 Fed. R. 878 County v. Gibson (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R. 363 v. Puget Sound Nat. Bank, 81 Fed. R 518 County Court of Taylor County v. Baltimore & O. R Co., 35 Fed. R 161 922, 942 Courier-Journal Job Pr. Co. v. Schaefer-Meyer Br. Co. (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R. 699 1153, 1154, 1156 Couse v. Columbia Power Mfg. Co. (N. J. Ch.), 33 Atl. R 331 218 Cousins v. Smith, 13 Vt. 544 164 v. Smith, 13 Ves. 164 490 Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 176, 182 17, 22 841 1232 47 Coveny v. Athill, 1 Dick. 355 625 Covert v. Sargent, 42 Fed. R 298 ~ 715 Covington D. Co. v. Shepherd, 21 How. 112 517 Covington S. Y. Co. v. Keith, 121 U. S. 248 1240, 1241 Cowan Infants' Case, 5 Ct. CI. 106 1030 , Cowart v. Perrine, 21 N. J. Eq. 101 360 Cowdrey v. G., H. & H. R Co., 93 U. S. 352 533, 751, 752, 753, 754 v. Railroad Co.. 1 Woods, 331 541, 542, 567, 570, 573, 574 Cowdry v. Cross, 24 Beav. 445 771 Cowell v. Cape Cod Ship Canal Co., 41 N. E. R. 290, 164 Mass. 235 179 Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 118 11, 12, 67, 807 v. Whitman, 10 Conn. 121 452 Cowley v. No. Pac. R Co., 159 U. S. 569 Cowslad v. Cely, Prec. Ch. 83 Cowtan v. Williams, 9 Ves. 107 Cox, The William, 9 Fed. R 672 Cox v. Barney, 14 Blatchf. 289 v. Gilmer, 88 Fed. E. 343 v. Hart, 145 IT. S. 376 v. Land & W. J. Co., L. R 9 Eq. 324 v. Price (Va.), 22 S. E R 512 v. U. S., 6 Pet. 172 909 171 242, 245 985 904, 905 61 1288 476 378 v. Western L. & C/Co., 123 U. a 375 v. Wright, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 981 Coy v. Perkins, 13 Fed. R. Ill Coyne v. Union Pac. R Co., 132 IT. S. 370 Crabtree v. McCurtain (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R 1 Craemer v. Washington, 168 U. S. 124 Cragin v. Lovell, 109 U. S. 194 597, 1218, 1219 1212 124, 426 726 879 1275 841 37, 1285 606 Craig v. Brown, Pet. C. C. 352 v. Leitensdorfer, 123 IT. S. 189 v.Smith, 100 U.S. 226 Cramer v. Singer Mfg. Co., 93 Fed. R. 636 Crampton v. Zabriskie, 101 U. S. 601, 609 Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35 1254 Crane, Ex parte, 5 Pet. 189, 190 814, 36 1249 322 29 Crane v. McCoy, 1 Bond, 422 815 35 TABLE OF CASES. lxi References are to pages. 874 270 1264 928 Crane v. Morris, 6 ' Pet. 398, 14 How. 218 v. Penny, 2 Fed. R. 187 Crane Iron Co. v. Hoagland, 108 U. S. 6 Craswell v. Belanger, 56 Fed. R. 529 Crawford v. Foster, 84 Fed. R. 939 270, 271 v. Hubbell, 89 Fed. R 1 930 v. Johnson, Deady, 457 60 v. Points, 13 How. 11 1208 v. The William Penn, 3 Wash. 484 300, 337 Crawshay v. Soutter, 6 Wall. 739 ' 1217 Creagh v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 88 Fed. R 1 926 Crease v. Babcock, 10 Met. (Mass.) 532 163 Credit Co. v. Arkansas Cent. R. Co., 15 Fed. R 46 546. 547 v. Arkansas Cent. R. Co., 128 W. S. 258 1227, 1228, 1236 Credits Commutation Co. v. U. S., 91 Fed. R 570, 573; s. C, 177 U. S. 311 443, 445 Crehore v. ©hio & M. Ry. Co., 131 U. S. 240 958 Cremen v. Hawkes, 2 Jones & La T. 674 565 Crenshaw, Ex parte, 15 Pet. 119 1275, 1290 , In re, 95 Fed. R 632 1140 Crescent C. L S. Co. v. Butch- ers' TJ. L S. Co., 13 Fed. R 225 286, 310, 328 Crespin v. TJ. S., 168 U. S. 208 1059, 1065 Cressy v. Meyer, 138 TJ. S. 525 16, 314 Creuze v. Bishop of London, Dick. 687 Crew v. Joliff, Prec. in Ch. 93 v. Martin, 1 Fowler Ex. Pr. 225 ' Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352 209, 215 C, R. I. & P. R Co. v. Howard, 7 Wall. 392 Crickard v. Crouch's Adm'rs, 41 W. Va. 503; s. C, 23 S. E. R 727 Crittenden, Matter of, 2 Flip- pin, 212 740, 744 Crittenden v. Field, 8 Gray (Mass.), 621 672 Crocker Nat. Bank v. Pagen- stecher, 44 Fed. R 705 912,857, 960 Crocket v. Lee, 7 Wheat. 522 195, 1281 Crockett v. Bishton, 2 Madd. 446 610 Croft v. Day, 7 Beav. 84 477 567 723 260 698 210 Crofts v. Wortley, 1 Ch. Cas. 241 309, 311 Crofut v. Brandt, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.)132 . 743,744 Cromwell v. County of Sac, 96 U. S. 51 319, 879, 880 Cronenwett v. Boston & A. Tr. Co., 95 Fed. R 52 Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt 465 537 461, 468 Crosby v. Buchanan, 23 Wall. 420 1255 Crosby Lumber Co. v. Smith (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R. 63 1289 Cross, In re, 20 Fed. R 824 835 Cross v. Allen, 141 U. S. 528 83. 88 v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82 849, 1168. 1211 v. De Valle, 1 Wall. 5, 14 159, 382, 384, 390, 713 v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60 1174, 1177 — r v. Morgan, 6 Fed. R 241 374, 375 v. Sabin, 13 Fed. R 308 586 v. U. S., 145 U. S. 571, 576, 577, 578 40, 1168, 1169 Crosse v. Bedingfield, 12 Sim. 35 241, 291, 588 Crossley v. Derby Gas Light Co., 4 L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 25 31 Crotts v. Southern Ry. Co., 90 Fed. R 1 " 942, 946 Crouch, Ex parte, 112 TJ. S. 178 24 Crouch v. Hickin, 1 Keen. 385 296 v. Kerr, 38 Fed. R. 549 282, 343 Crow v. Tyrell, 2 Madd. 397 368 Crowell v. Hopkinton, 45 N. H. 9' 594 v. Randell, 10 Pet. 368 1186 v. U. S., 6 Ct. CI. 23 1025, 1046 Crowfoot v. Mander, 9 Sim. 396 402, 417 Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86,94 Crowly, In re, 50 Fed. R. 465; s. C. (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R 283 1199 Crown Cotton Mills v. Turner (S. D. N. Y.), 82 Fed. R 337 Crown Pt. Min. Co. v. Ontario S. M. Co., 74 Fed. R 419 Croxon v. Lever, 12 W. R 237 Croy v. Marshall, 21 Ohio W. L B. 489 Crystal Spr. B. Co,, In re, 96 Fed. R 945 Crystal Springs L & W. Co. v. Citv of Los Angeles, 82 Fed. R il4 Cucullu v. Emmerling, 22 How, 83 Cudahy v. McGeoch, 37 Fed. R 1 911 Cudahy P. Co. v. Sioux Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R 182 871 846 272 909 708 561 1124 62 1284 Ixii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Cuddebeck, -Matter of, 3 N. T. App. Div. 103, 108 1262 Cuddy, Ex parte, 40 Fed. R. 62 842 Cuddy, Re, 131 U. S. 280 834, 835, 838, 841 Cuff v. Platell, 4 Russ. 242 184 Cullen v. Duke of Queensberry, 1 Brown's Ch. 101 * 164 Culver v. Uthe, 133 IT. S. 655 600 v. Woodruff, 5 Dill. 392 957 Cummings v. Akron C. & P. Co., 6 Blatchf. 509 618 — - v. Coleman, 7 Rich. (S. C.) Eq. 509, 520 338 v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 153, 157 5, 12, 33, 456, 881 Cummins v. Adams, 2 Irish Eq. 393 715 Cunningham v. German Ins. Bank (C. C. A.), 103 Fed. R. 932 1154,1156 v. M. & B. R. Co., 109 U. S. 446 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 174, 175, 485 v. Macon & B. R. Co., 156 U. S. 400 699 v. Otis, 1 Gall. 166 646, 647, 648, 649, 651 Curling v. Marquis Townshend, 19 Ves. 628 515, 570 Curnow v. Phoenix Ina Co., 44 Fed. R. 305 964 Curran v. Campion, 85 Fed. R. 67 196 v. Craig, 22 Fed. R. 101. 541, 563, 564 v. St. Charles Car Co., 32 Fed. R. 835 383, 438 Currell v. Villars, 72 Fed. R. 330 407 Curry v. Lloyd, 22 Fed. R. 265 234 Curteis v. Candler, Mad. & Geld. 123 751 Curtis, Ex parte, 106 IT. S. 371 833, 835, 836 , In re (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R. 630 1089 (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R. 784 1150, 1153,4155 Curtis v. Banker, 136 Mass. 355 1003 v. Railway Co., 6 McLean, 401 642 Curzon v. De la Zouch, 1 Swanst. 193 297 Cushing v. Laird (Blatchford, J.), 6 Ben. 408 980 Cushman P. B. Mach. Co. v. Gol- lard (C. C. A.), 95 Fed.' R. 664 587 Oust v. Boode, 1 Sim. & S. 21 297 Cuthbert v. Galloway, 35 Fed. R. 466 659 Cutler v. Iowa Water Co., 96 Fed. R. 777 203 Cutting, Ex parte, 94 IT. S. 14 445, 815, 1216 Cutting v. Florida Ry. & Nav. Co., 43 Fed. R. 743, 747 439,588,690 v. Gilbert, 5 Blatchf. C. C. 259 209 v. Tavares, O. & A. R. Co., 61 Fed. R 150 1250 Cuykendall v. Miles, 10 Fed. R.' 342 127, 552 D. Da Costa v. Da Costa, 3 P. Wms. 140 124 Dadirrian v. Gullian, 79 Fed. R. 784 501, 763 Dadirrion v. Gullian, 80 Fed. R 986 410 Daily v. IT. S., 17 Ct. CI. 144 1013 Dainesev. Kendall, 119 U.S. 53 1206, 1208 Dakin v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 5 Fed. R. 665 286, 328 Dakota County v. Glidden, 113 U. S. 222 1261 Dalby v. Pullen, 1 R. & M. 296 - 693 Dale Tile Mfg. Co. v. Hyatt, 125 U. S. 46 ' 58 Dalglish v. Jarvie, 2 Macn. & G. 231 495, 504 Dalton v. Thompson, 1 Dickens, 97 624 Daly v. Brady, 69 Fed. R 285 588 v. Kelly, 4 Dow, 417 464 v. Maguire, 6 Blatchf. 137 647 Dalzell v. Dueber W. C. Mfg. /Co., 149 U. S. 315, 326 , 335 Damon, In re, 104 Fed. R. 775 1149 Danace v. The Magnolia, 37 Fed. R. 367 967 Danoel, Ex parte, 181 U. S. — 816 Dancel v. Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co., 106 Fed. R. 551 935, 936 Dancer v. Hastings, 4 Bing. 2 541 Danbridge v. Washington's Ex'rs, 2 Pet. 377 156, 171 Daniel v. Mitchell, 1 Story, 198 781 Daniells v. Benedict (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. R. 367 335 Daniels v. Lazarus, 65 Fed. R. 718 23, 859 Danielson v. Northwestern Fuel Co., 55 Fed. R. 49 758, 901 Dannmeyer v. Coleman, 11 Fed. R 97 220 Danville v. Brown, 128 U. S. 503 1240 v. Travers, 4 Biss. 507 644 Darden v. Darden, 4 Woods, 437 857 Darley v. Nicholson, 2 Dr. & War. 86 584 Darnell v. Reyny, 1 Vera. 344 330, 352 TABLE OF CASES. lxiii References are to pages. Dart v. McKinney, 9 Blatchf. 359 953 Dartmouth Sav. Bank v. Bates et al., 44 Fed. R. 546 899 Darwent v. Walton, 2 Atk. 510 171 Dashiell v. Grosvenor (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 334 206, 1012 D. A. Tompkins Co. v. Catawba Mills, 82 Fed. R. 780 517, 518 v. Chester Mills, 90 Fed. R. 37 753 Duohesse d'Auxy v. Porter, 41 Fed. R. 68 126 Daugherty v. W. U. Tel. Co., 61 Fed. R. 138 935, 936 Dauphin v. TJ. S., 6 Ct. CI. 221 1016 Davenport, Ex parte. 6 Pet. 661 816 , In re, 102 Fed. R. 540 838 Davenport v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R Co., 38 Iowa, 633 319 v. County of Dodge, 105 U. a 237 " 819 v. Clo verport, 72 Fed. R. 689 86 v. Davenport, 6 Madd." 251 490 v. Dows, 18 Wall. 626 177 v. Fletcher, 16 How. 142 1229, 1239 — - v. Moore, 74 Fed. R. 945 74 v. Paris, 136 U. S. 580 873 v. Stafford, 8 Beav. 503 797 Da vers v. Da vers, 2 P. Wms. 410 591 David v. Frowd, 1 M. & K. 200 584 David Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 57 Fed. R. 980 323 v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 58 Fed. R 721 317, 319, 323 David Kennedy Corp. v. Ken- nedy, 165 N. Y. 353, 359 479 Davidson, Ex parte, 57 Fed. R 883 586 Davidson v. Calkins, 92 Fed. R 230 13 v. Lanier, 4 WalL 447 1231, 1233, 1238, 1241 v. U. a, 21 Ct CI. 298 1013 Davie v. Briggs, 97 U. a 628 878 v. Hey ward, 33 Fed. R. 93 121 Davies v. Corbin, 112 U. & 36 53, 818, 1203, 1214 v. Corbin, 113 U. a 687 1263 v. Davies, 3 De G. & Sm. 698 588 v. Davies, 9 Ves. 461 395 v. Lathrop, 13 Fed. R. 565 659, 962 v. Lathrop, 12 Fed. R. 353 66, 85 v. Quarterman, 4 Y. & Coll. 257 218 v. Williams, 1 Sim. 5 281, 408 Davis, The, 10 Wall. 15, 20 137 Davis v. Am. Soc. for P.'of C. to A., 6 Daly (N. Y.). 81; S. 0. on appeal, 75 N. Y. 362 468 1194 1023 1253 Davis v. Barrett, 7 Beav. 171 424 v. Bohle (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R. 325 1103 .v. Burke (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. R. 501 v. Commonwealth, 164 Mass. 241 v. Corbin, 113 U. S. 687 v. County Court of Ran- dolph County, 88 Fed. R. 705 923 v. Crouch, 94 U. S. 514 1201 v. Davidson, 4 McLean, 136 349, 350 v. Davis, 90 Fed. R. 791 29, 75, 274, 276, 430, 592, 639, 802 v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 Swanst. 108, 118, 137, 138 515, 530, 556 v. Duncan, 19 Fed. R. 477 559, 560, 564 v. Gaines, 104 H. S. 386 237 v. Geissler, 162 U. S. 290 1174 v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 219, 220 139, 174, 485, 516, 536, 537, 538, 541, 550, 551, 553, 554, 566 v. James, 2 Fed. R 610 14, 15 v. Kansas City, S. & M. R. Co., 32 Fed. R. 863 56 v. Leo, 6 Ves. 784 497 v. Mapes, 2 Paige (N. Y.y 105 346 v. Mercantile Tr. Co., 152 U. S. 590 1216, 1217, 1220 v. Mills, 99 Fed. R. 39 50 v. Packard, 8 Pet. 312 1294 v. Parkman (C. C. A), 71 Fed. R. 961 719 v. Patrick (C. C, A), 57 Fed. R. 909 1247, 1288 v. Patrick, 122 TX S. 138 889, 890 v. Peabody, 170 Mass. 397; s. C, 49 N. E. R 750 v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631 v. Sherron, 1 Cranch, C. C. 287 v. Speiden, 104 U. S. 83 v. Stevens, 104 Fed. R. 235, 241, 242 1087, 1094 v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 25 Fed. R. 786 861, 862, 951, 962. v. Sullivan, 33 N. J. Eq. 569 434 v. Symonds, 1 Cox Eq. 402 v. U. S., 45 Fed. R. 162 v. Zimmerman, 91 Hun (N. Y), 489 Davis & R. Mfg. Co. v. Barber (C. C. A), 60 Fed. R. 465 Davison v. Atty. Gen., 5 Price, 398, note v. Gibson (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 443 Davoue v. Fanning, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 199 x 163, 716 214 690 770 791 720 734 469 1173 346 586 lxiv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Davy v. Seys, Moseley, 204 752 Dawes & Co. v. Pebbles' Sons Co., 6 Fed. R 856 802 Daws v. Benn, J. & W. 513 181 Dawson v. Raynes, 2 Euss. 466 571 v. Sadler, 1 Sim. & S. 537, 542 286 v. Yates, 1 Beav. 301, 306 565 Day v. Boston B. Co., 6 Law R. (N. S.) 329 > , 609 v. Croft, 2 Beav. 488 574 v. N. E. C. S. Co., 3 Blatohf. 179 497, 503, 805 v. Wood worth, 13 Ho w. 363 876, 1287 Dayton v. Melick, 27 N. J. Eq. (12 C. E. Green), 362 v. U. S., 131 U. S. lxxx D. & C. Co. v. Gottschalk, 66 Fed. R 699 Deacon v. Se wiflgM. Co., 14 Rep. 43 Deakin v. Stanton, 3 Fed. R. 435 Dean v. Mason, 20 How. 198 Deans v. Wilcoxon, 25 Fla. 980 De Armas v. U. S., 6 How. 103 Deas v. The Berkeley, 58 Fed. R. 920 De Bara v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 99 Fed. R. 942 Debenham v. Ox, 1 Ves. Sen. 276 Debs, In re, 158 U. S. 564 466, 470, 497, 768, 834 Debutts v. McCulloch, 1 Cranoh, C. C. 28 De Carriere v. DeCalonne, 4 Ves. 577 Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497, 515, 516 Deck v. Whitman, 96 Fed. R. 873 11, 705 Decker v. Caskey, 2 Green Ch. (N. J.) 446 v. Grote, 10 Blatchf. 331 v. Williams, 73 Fed. R. 308 Dedekatn v. Vose, 3 Blatchf. 153 378 1208 872 251 508 1288 272 1203 974 834 720 639 581 820 678 339 91 726, 754 Deering Harvester Co. v. Kelly (C. C. A.), 103 Fed. R. 261 1232 Deery v. Crary, 5 Wall. 795 1289 Deeson v. U. S., 5 Ct. CI. 626 1049 Deflorz v. Reynolds, 17 Blatchf. 436 601 De Forest v. Thompson, 40 Fed. R. 375 127 Deford v. Mehaffy, 13 Fed. R. 481 932, 934, 937, 959 De Gendre v. Byrnes, 44 N. J. Eq. 372 * 288 De Give v. U. S., 7 Ct. CI. 517 1016 De Groot v. U. S., 5 Wall. 419 1267 De Haro v. U. S., 5 Wall. 599 1059 Dehon v. Bernal, 3 Wall. 774 1066 Dehon v. Foster, 4 Allen (Mass.), 545 463 Delamater v. Reinhardt, 43 Fed. R 76 616 Delancey v. The Queen, 6 L R. Exch. 286 1016 Delancy v. Wallis, 3 Brown's G C 12 26ft Delano v. Scott, Gilp. 489 600 Delaware v. Emerson, 8 Fed. R. 411 944 Delaware Co. Com'rs v. Diebold ' S. & L. Co., 133 U. S. 399 588, 806, 916 Delaware River S. B. Co. v. U. &, 5 Ct. CI. 55 1005 Delaware R. Co. v. Prettyman, 17 Int. Rev. Rec. 99 484 De La Rue, In re, 91 Fed. R. 510 1135 De La Vergne R. M. Co. v. Pal- metto Br. Co., 72 Fed. R. 579 22 Delbanco v. Singletary, 40 Fed. R 177 935, 952 De Leeuw, In re, 98 Fed. R. 408 1146 Delgado, In re, 140 U. S. 586, 590 822 Dell v. Hale, 2 T. & C. N. R. 1 285. 286 Del Monte Min. & M. Co. v. Last Chance Min. & M. Co., 171 U. S. 55 1174, 1177 De Loy v. Traveller's Ins. Co. of Hartford, 59 Fed. R. 319 928, 958 Del Valle v. Harrison, 93 U. S. 233 1226 Deming's Appeal, 10 Wall. 251 1269, 1265 Deming v. The Rapid Transit, 52 Fed. R. 320 968 Den v. Jones, 2 McLean, 83, 85 897 De Neale v. Archer, 8 Pet. 526 1229 Deneale v. Stump, 8 Pet 526, 528, 531 855 Denehey v. Harrisburg, 2 Pear- son (Pa.), 330, 334 486 De Neuf ville v. N. Y. & N. Ry. Co. (C. C. A), 81 Fed. R. 10 217, 221 Denrick v. Central R Co., 103 U. S. 11 883,915 Dennis v. County of Alachua, 3 Woods, 683 931, 932 v. Eddy, 12 Blatchf. 195 748, 749 v. U. S., 2 Ct. CI. 210 1011 Deni3on v. Bassford, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 370 276, 350 Dennison v. Brown, 38 Fed. R. 535 941, 942 Dennistoun v.Draper,5 Blatchf. 336 961 Denny v.Pironi, 141 U.S.121 369,896 Dent v. Ferguson, 131 U. S. 397 1267 Dental V. Co. v. Wetherbee, 2 Cliff. 555 307 TABLE OF OASES. lxv References are to pages. Denton v. Baker (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R 189 37, 157 v. International Co. of Mexico, 36 Fed. R. 1 Denver & N. O. R Co. v. Atchi- son, T. & S. F. R. Co.," 13 Fed. R.546 Denver & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Den- ver, S. P. & P. R. Co., 17 Fed. R.867 De Pear v. Cooks Union, 27 Chic. Leg. N. 387 Deprez v. Thomson-Houston El. Co., 66 Fed. R 22 Deputron v. Young, 134 U. S. 241, 251 659, 661, 832 Derby v. Gage, 88 111. 27 379 De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216 Deshler v. Dodge, 16 How. 622, 631 Deshrow v. Crommie, Bunb. 272 Desmare v. U. S., 93 U. a 605 Des Moines N. Co. v. Iowa H, Co., 123 U. S. 553 318, 922 De Sobry v. Nicholson, 3 Wall. 420 Despeaux v. Pennsylvania R Co., 81 Fed. R 897 Desplaces v. Goris, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 350 Des Rochers, Ex parte, 1 McAll. 68 840 De Tastet v. Bordenave, Jacob, 516 673, 674 Detroit v. Dean, 106 U. S. 537, 542 39, 220 v. Detroit City Rv. Co., 55 Fed. R. 569 379, 387, 655, 667, 954 v. Detroit City Ry. Co., 54 Fed. R 1 262, 429, 941, 942, 944, 946 v. Osborne, 135 U. S. 492 884 Detweiler v. Holderbaum, 43 Fed. R 337 156, 179 Deuell, In re, 100 Fed. R 633 1118 Devaynes v. Morris, 1 Myl. & Cr. 213, 225 * 397 Devie v. Lord Brownlow, 2 256 488 378 469 756 1187 83 773 1289 1283 634 343 Dick. 611 Devlin v. U. S., 12 Ct. CI. 266 Devoe Mfg. Co., In re, 108- U. S. 401 Devonsher v. Newenham, 2Sch. & Lef. 205 Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193 v. W. F. G. C. Co., 123 U. S. 329 Dewey Min. Co. v.Miller, 96 Fed. R.1 311 1015, 1030 967 293 1189 71 .60 De Wolf v. Johnson, 10 Wheat. 367, 384 156 D'Wolf v. Rabaud, 1 Pet. 476 874, 883 Dews, In re, 96 Fed. R 181 1146 Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303 787, 789, 792, 793, 795 v. Say ward, 51 Fed. R 729, 732 802 Dexter, H. & Co. v. Say ward, 84 Fed. R 296 885, 1247, 1248 D. G. Tompkins Co. v. Chester Mills, 90 Fed. R. 37 Dexterville M. & B. Co., In re, v. Case, 4 Fed. R. 873 Dey et al., R. R Com'rs, v. Chi- cago, M. & St. P. R Co., 45 Fed. R 82 Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340 154, 211, 459 Diamond Match Co. v. Ohio M. Co., 80 Fed. R. 117 223, 224, 225 v. Oshkosh M. Works, 63 Fed. R 984 592 Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Co., 163 U. S. 63 Dick v. Foraker, 155 U. S. 404 v. Oil- Well S. Co., 25 Fed. R. 105 v. Struthers, 25 Fed. R. 103 v. Swinton. 1 V. & B. 371 Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co., 80 Fed. R 450 v. Northern Tr.Co., 176 U. S. 181 Dickerson v. Greene. 53 Fed. R 247 v. Matheson, 50 Fed. R 73, 75 589, 644, 650 v. Winslow, 97 Ala. 491 203, 212 Dickinson v. Planters' Bank, 16 • Wall. 250 v. City of Trenton, 33 N. J. Eq. 63 Dictator, The, 30 Fed. R. 699 Diday v. N. Y, P. & O. R Co., 107 Fed. R 565 Didier v. Warner, 1 Code R. (N. Y) 43 Dieckerhoff, In re, 45 Fed. R 235 Dietz, In re, 97 Fed. R. 563 Dietz v. Lvmer (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 758 Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 404 Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179 Diller, In re, 100 Fed. R 931 Dillingham v. Hawk (C. C. A.), 60 Fed. R 494 561 Dillon, In re, 100 Fed. R 627 1129, 1131 Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall 430 282, 590 752 530 915 150, 1187 78 550 550 580 389 224 871 701 979 925 612 46 1147 873 460 461 1137 lxvi' TABLE OE CASES. References are to pages. 521 211 499 733 1158 Dillon v. Francis, 1 Dickens. 68 240 v. Kansas City S. B. Ry. Co., 43 Fed. E. 109 458, 459 v. Oregon, S. L. & U. N. Ry. Co., 66 Fed. R. 622 Dilly v. Doig, 2 Ves. Jr. 486 Dimick v. Shaw (C. C. A.), 04 Fed. R. 266 Dimraick v. U. S., 36 Fed. R 83 Dimock v. Revere Copper Co., . 117 U. S. 559 Dimpfell v. Ohio & Miss. R. Co. 110 U. S. 209 . 39, 220 Dinsmore v. Central R. Co., 19 Fed. R. 153 307 v. L., C. & L. Ry. Co., 2 Fed. R. 465 488, 489 v. Maroney, 4 Blatchf. 416 643 v. N. Y. B. of P., 12 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 436 468 v. Southern Exp. Co., 92 Fed. R. 714 29, 138, 140 Dinzy v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 61 Fed. R. 49 80 District Attorney, Re, 23 Fed. R 26 729 District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 327 1168, 1169, 1212 Dixon v. Olmius, 1 Cox, Eq. 412 327 v. Ramsay, 3 Cranch, 319 12fi v. W. U. Tel. Co. (N. D. Col.), 38 Fed. R. 377 v. Wyatt, 4 Madd. 392 D. M. Osborne Co. v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 147 U. S. 248 Doan v. Am. Book Co. (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R. 772 Doane v. Glenn, 21 Wall. 33 Doble v. Potman, Hardres, 160 Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co. ( 114 U. S. 439 280, 1287 v. Peck Bros. & Co., 103 Fed. R. 904 Dodd v. Ghiselin,27 Fed. R 405 Dodge v. Briggs, 27 Fed. R 161 v. Israel, 4 Wash. 323 648, 649 v. Knowles, 114 U. S. 430 1234 v. Perkins, 4 Mason, 435 306 v. Tolleys, 144 U. S. 451 66, 725, 881 v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331 174, 220 Dodson v. Fletcher (C. C. A), 78 Fed. R. 214; s. 0. (C. C. A), 79 Fed. R. 129 Doe v. Hyde, 114 U. S. 247 v. McFarland, 9 Cranch, 151 v. Northwestern C. & T. Co., 64 Fed. R. 928 517, 518 v. N. W. Coal & Transp. Co., 78 Fed. R. 62 v. Reed, 12 East, 57, 59 v. Roe, 13 Fla. 602 v. Roe, 31 Fed. R. 97 935 410 468 1232 650 384 332 883 5 1218 289 126 525 538 595 802 256 10 779 Doe v. Springfield B. Co. (C. C. A), 104 Fed. R 684 v. Waterloo Min. Co., 43 Fed. R. 219 v. Waterloo Min. Co., 60 Fed. R. 643 Doe d. Moore v. Nelson, 3 Mc- Lean, 383 640, 644 Doggett v. Emerson, 1 Woodb. & M. 196 306, 308 v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 72 156, 207 Dolan v. Jennings, 139 U. S. 385 1219, 1221, 1223 Dolder v. Bank of England, 10 Ves. 284, 285 " 353, 375 Doll, Ex parte, 7 Phila. 595 761 Donahue, Re, 8 Bankr. Reg. 453 739 Donahue v. Roberts, 19 Fed. R. 863 638, 642, 643 Donaldson v. Williams, 50 Mo. 408 Donallan v. Tannage Patent Co. (C. C. A), 79 Fed. R. 385 Donham v. Springfield H. Co., 62 Fed. R. 110 Donnelly, In re, 5 Fed. R 783 Donohoe v. Mariposa L. & M. Co., 1 Pac. Coast L. J. 211 Donovan v. Campion, 85 Fed. R. 71 Doolan v. Carr, 125 IT. S. 618 Dooley v. Pease, 180 U. S. 126 v. U. S., S. C. U. S., May 27, 1901 Doolittle, In re, 23 Fed. R 544, 548 Doolittle v. Bryan, 14 How. 563 Doo Woon, In re, 18 Fed. R. 898 846 Dormer v. Fortesque, 3 Atk. 124 235, 413 Doris Eckhoff, The, 41 Fed. R. 156, 159 985 Dormitzer v. Illinois & St. L. Bridge Co., 6 Fed. R. 217 179 Dorn v. Fox, 61 N. Y. 264 456 Dome v. Richmond S. Min. Co., 43 Fed. R. 690 909 Dorr, Ex parte, 3 How. 103 840, 1218 Dorr v. Gibboney, 3 Hughes, 382 Dorsey v. Packwood, 12 How. 126 Dorsheimer v. Glenn, 51 Fed. R. 404 v. Rorback, 9 C. E. Green (N. J.), 33 v. U. S., 7 Wall. 166 Dos Herman os, The, 3 Wheat. 76 , 10 Wheat. 306 Doss v. Tyack, 14 How. 297, 313 3 1260 798 1095 390 175- 1073 871 1015 554 902 271 455 1289 779 1013 996 1228 448 TABLE OF CASES. lxvii References are to pages. Doubleday v. Sherman, 8 Blatohf. 45 767 Dougherty v. U. S., 18 Cfc. CI. 496 1025 Doughty v. West, 2 Fish. 553 498 v. West B. & C. Mfg. Co., 8 Blatohf. 107 726 Douglas v. Butler, 6 Fed. R S28 123, 147, 369, 883 v. Cline, 12 Bush (Ky.), 608 524, 525 Douglass v. Boardman, 113 Mich. 618; S. C, 71 N. W. B. 1100 209 v. County of Pike, 101 U. S. 677 ' 668, 878, 879 v. Rathbone, 5 Hill (N. T.), 143.. 283 Dovenby Hospital, In re, 1 Myl. & Cr. 279 448 Dow v. Bradstreet Co., 46 Fed. R 824 933, 925 v. Chamberlain, 5 McLean, 281 11 v. Memphis & L. R Co., 20 Fed. R 260 525, 530, 531 Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U. S. 327 301, 318, 319, 1180 v. Mitchell, 105 U. S. 430 35 Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658 1189 Dowling, In re, 45 Fed. R. 412 46 Dowling v. Dowling, L.Ii.1 Ch. 612 714 Downham v. Alexandria, 9 Wall. 659 1185 Downing, In.re, 45 Fed. R. 412 1199 Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108 33,390 Dowson v. Hardcastle, 2 Cox Eq. 279 245 Doyle v. Beaupre, 39 Fed. R. 289 934 v. San Diego L. & Tr. Co., 43 Fed. R 349 149 Drainage Constr. Co. v. Engle- wood, 67 Fed. R. 141 284 Drake v. Goodridge, 6 Blatchf. 151 434 v. Paulhamus (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 895 60 Draper v. Davis, 104 V. S. 347 452 v. Springport, 15 Fed. R. 328 802 Dravo v. Fabel, 132 U. S. 487 12 Dredge v. Forsyth, 2 Black, 563 1203 Dreskill v. Parish, 5 McLean, 213 746 Drew v. Harman, 5 Price, 319 435 Drexel v. Berney, 14 Fed. R. 268 9 v. Berney, 122 U. S. 241 37 v. True (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. 12 591, 1288 Drummond, In re, 1 N. B. R. 596 1091 Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 2 P. Wma 127 720 1200 947 263 Du Bois v. Kirk, 158 U. S. 58, 67 754 Dubuque & P. R. Co., Ex parte, 1 Wall. 69 815, 1294 Dubuque & S. C. R Co. v. Pier- son (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R 303 097 Duden v. Maloy, 43 Fed. R 407 690, 691 Dudgeon v. Watson, 23 Fed. R 161 123, 307 Dudley's Case, 1 Pa. L. J. 302 493 Dudley v. Board of Com'rs of Lake County (C. C. A.), 103 Fed. R. 209 1194 Duff v. Carrier (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 433 v. Duff, 31 Fed. R 772 v. First Nat. Bank, 13 Fed. R 65 Duff Mfg. Co. v. Kalamazoo Ry. Sig. Co., 100 Fed. R. 357 471, 472 Duffield v. Greaves, Cary, 125 293 Dufour v. Lang (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 913 " 1253, 1257 Duggar v. Dempsey, 43 Pac. R. 357; S. C, 13 Wash. 396 379 Duguid, In re, 100 Fed. R. 274 1086 Dull v. Blackman, 169 U. S. 243 321 Dumont v. Fry, 12 Fed. R 21 Dummer v. Chippenham, 14 Ves. 245, 251 v. Corporation of Chippen- ham, 14 Ves. 252 Dumville v. Ashbrooke, 3 Russ. 98, note Dunavant, In re, 96 Fed. R. 542 1135 Dunbar v. U. S., 156 U. S. 185; S. C, 60 Fed. R. 75 591 Duncan, In re, 139 IT. S. 449 838 Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R 808 1249 v. Atlantic M. & O. R. Co., 88 Fed. R. 840 692, 788 v. Darst, 1 How. 301-306 459, 860 v. Gegan, 101 U. S. 810 951 v. Landis (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R 839 1093, 1106, 1153 v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 2 Woods, 542 Dundee M. & O. R. Co. v. Hughes, 124 U. S. 157 Dundee Mtge. T. Invt. Co. v. School District, 19 Fed. R. 359 Dungey v. Angove, 2 Ves. Jr. 304, 310 242, 244 Dunham v. Bent, 72 Fed. R 60 59, 226 v. Riley, 4 Wash. 126 866 Dunkle v. Worcester, 5 Biss. 102 638 Dunkley v. Van Buren, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 330 662 Dunlap v. N. E. R Co., 130 U. S. 649 875 — - v. Stetson, 4 Mason, 349 192, 258 35 291 150 537 531 872 33 lxviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Dunlevy v. Dunlevy, 38 Fed. R 463 " 798 Dunlop v. Hubbard, 19 Ves. 205 245 v. Munroe, 1 Oranch, O. C. 536 643, 647 Dunn, In re, 25 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 467 840 , 53 Fed. R. 341 1141 Dunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1 71, 192, 258, 259, 401, 405 v. Filraore, 1 Vern. 135 792 v. State Board Minn., 61 N. W. R. 27 157 Dunnegan v. TJ. S., 17 Ct. CI. 240, 247 904, 905 Dunnigan, In re, 95 Fed. R 428 1086 Dunning, In re (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R. 709 1156 Dunphy v. Traveller Newspaper Ass'n, 146 Mass. 495 Dunton v. Muth, 45 Fed. R 390 213 60, 909 Du Pont v. Abel, 81 Fed. R, 534 263 Dupont de Nemours v. Vance, 19 How. 162 968 Duponti v. Mussy, 4 Wash. 128 358 Dupree, In re, 97 Fed. R 28 1095 Duran v. U. S., 31 Ct. CI. 353 1030 Durand v. Hutchinson, Mich. 1771. in Chan. 311 Durant, In re. 84 Fed. R. 314 587 Durant v. Essex County, 101 U. S. 555 " 1293 v. Essex County, 7 Wall. 107 317, 670 Durdant v. Redman, 1 Vern. 78 296 Durgan v. Redding, 103 Fed. R. 914 953 Durham v. Seymour, 161 U. S. 235 1168, 1211 Durrant, In re, 166 U. S. 39 842 , 84 Fed. R. 314 851 , 84 Fed. R. 317 842, 1236 Dursley v. Fitzhardinge, 6 Ves. 260, 261, 263 623 Durvee, In re, 2 Fed. R. 68 1103 Dushane v. Beall, 161 U. S. 513 1125 v. Benedict, 120 U. S. 630 55, 806, 930, 1212 Duy v. Knowlton, 14 Fed. R 107 738 Dyorak, In re, 107 Fed. R 76 1098 Dwight v. Central Vt. R. Co., 9 Fed. R. 785 17, 288, 295, 310, 313, 827 v. Humphreys, 3 McLean, 104 240, 290, 369 v. Merritt, 4 Fed. R. 614 808 Dwyer v. Peshall (S. D. N. Y.), 32 Fed. R. 497 934 Dyer v. Dyer, 2 Cox Eq. Cas. 92 3 Dygert v. Vt. L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R 913 879 Dykes v. IT. S., 16 Ct. CI. 869 1011 Dyson v. Morris, 1 Hare, 413 - 411 E. Eabens v. Pac. Ry. Co., 58 Fed. R. 497 223 Eades v. Harris, 1 Y. & C. N. R. 235 186 Eager v. TJ. S., 33 Ct. CI. 336 1029 Eagle, The, 8 Wall. 15 1283 Eagle Iron Works, In re, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 385 567 Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Chamberlain Plow Co., 36 Fed. R 905 473 v. Miller, 41 Fed. R 351 174 Eagles, In re, 99 Fed. R. 695 1116 Eames v. Kaiser, 142 U. S. 488 1287 E. A. Packer, The (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R. 251 1298 Earl of Bath v. Sherwin, 4 Brown Parliamentary Cases, 373 Earl of Darlington v. Bowes, 1 Eden, 271 Earl of Derby v. Duke of Athol, 1 Ves. Sen. 203 Earl of Devonshire's Case, 11 Coke, 89 Earl of Ilchester, Ex parte, 7 Ves. 348, 373 Earl of Leicester v. Perry, 1 Brown Ch. C. 305 304, 337 Earl of Lichfield v. Bond, 5 Beav. 513 ' , Earl of Lonsdale v. Church, 3 Brown Ch. C. 41 Earl of Newburgh v. Countess, 5 Madd. 364 Earl of Suffolk v. Green, 1 Atk. 450 7, 624 Earle v. Art L. Pub. Co., 95 Fed. R. 54 — r- v. Conway, 178 U. S. 456 v. Couch, 3 Met. (Ky.) 450 v. Pennsylvania, 178 U. S. 449 v. Seattle L. S. & E. Ry. Co., 56 Fed. R 909 221, 222, 953 Earll v. Metropolitan St. R Co., 87 Fed. R 528 335 Earnshaw v. U. S., 146 U. S. 60 1199 Easley, In re, 93 Fed. R 419 1103, 1135 East India Co. v. Boddam, 13 Ves. 421 781 v. Campbell, 1 Ves. Sen. 246 334 East L. L. Co. v. Brown, 155 U. S. 488, 180 U. S. 535 910 456 678 287 30 712 353 557 673 344 19 189 19 TABLE OF OASES. lxix References are to pages. 211 321 473 574 737 90 Eastern B. L. Ass'n'v. Denton, 65 Fed. R 569 v. Welling, 103 Fed. R. 352 Eastern P. B. Co. v. Nixon, 35 Fed. R 753 Eastman v. Sherry, 37 Fed. R 844 721, 745, 746 Easton, Ex parte, 95 U. S. 68 992 Easton v. Houston & T. 0. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R 784 544, 559 v. H. & T. C. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R. 189 v. H. & T. C. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R 718 East Oakland v. Skinner, 94 U. S. 255 667, 668 East Tennessee Iron & Coal Co. v. Wiggin (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R 446 East Tennessee, V. & G. R Co. v. Atlanta & T. R. Co., 49 Fed. R. 608, 616 79, 253, 1247 v. Southern Tel. Co., 112 U. S. 306 1247 v. Southern Tel. Co., 125 U. S. 695 1261 East & W. India Docks & B. J. Ry. Co. v. Dawes, 11 Hare, 363 455 Eaton, In re, 51 Fed. R. 804, 806 834, 838 Eaton v. Cleveland, St. L. & K. C. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R 421 901 Eau Claire, City of, vl Payson (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R 552 554, 1207 Eby v. Northern Pac. R Co., 13 Phila. 144 254 Ecaubert v. Appleton (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R. 917 719, 722 Eocleston v. Petty, Carth. 79 588 Ecfort v. Greeley, 6 N. B. R 433 Echliff v. Baldwin, 16 Ves. 267 Eckert v. Bauert, 4 Wash. 370 Eddleston v. Collins, 3 De Gex, M. & G. 1, 16 Eddy v. Lafayette, 163 U. S. 456 253, 562 Edgell v. Felder (C. C. A.), 84 Fed. R. 69 176, 272 v. Felder (C. C. A), 99 Fed. R. 324 1204, 1221 v. Haywood, 3 Atk. 354 10 Edgerton v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 27 Fed. R. 30 Edison El. Lt. Co. v. Columbia Inc. L. Co., 56 Fed. R. 496 v. Equitable Life Assur. Socof U.S.,55Fed.R 478 289,314 v. Mather El. Co., 53 Fed. R. 244 , 376 v. Mather El. Co., 63 Fed. R. 559 750 1091 464 259 378 884 473 174 Edison El. Lt. Co. v. Packard El. L. Co., 61 Fed. R 1002 v. Sawyer-Man EI. Co. (C. C. A.). 53 Fed. R. 592 473, 486 v. U. S. El. L. Co., 44 Fed. R. 294; s. C., 45 Fed. R. 55 425, 591, 600, 615, 621, 630, 866 v. TJ. S. El. L. Co., 59 Fed. R501; s. C. (C. C. A.), 52 Fed. R 300 12, 505, 1294 v. Westinghouse, 34 Fed. R. 252 v. Westinghouse El. & Mfg. Co., 54 Fed. R. 504 Edmiston v, Lyde, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 639 Edmonson v. Barrel, 2 Cranch, C. C. 228 v. Bloomshire, 7 Wall. 306, 311 1235, 1237, 1297, 1298 Edmunds v. Illinois C. R Co., 80 Fed. R. 78 Edrington v. Jefferson, 111 TJ. S. 770 Edsell v. Buchanan, 4 Brown Ch. C. 254 Edwards v. Bates County, 55 Fed. R. 436 v. Bates County, 79 Fed. R 56 v. Bates County, 163 U. S. 269 v. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Fed. R. 942 v. Cunliffe, 1 Madd. 287 v. Drake, 15 Fla. 666 v. Harvey, G. Cooper, 40 v. Hill. 59 Fed. R. 723 v. U. S., 102 U. S. 575 Edwin v. Thomas, 1 Vern. 489 Edwin Baxter, The, 33 Fed. R. 296 980 Egan v. G, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. R. 675 " 930, 936 Egbert v. Citizens' Ins. Co. of Mo., 7 Fed. R 47 641, 642, 643 Eggert, In re, 98 Fed. R 843; S. a (C. C. A), 102 Fed. R 735 1135, 1136, 1153, 1154 Egremont v. Cowell, 5 Beav. 620 195 E. I. Co. v. Campbell, 1 Ves. Sen. 347 354 Eidemiller, In re, 105 Fed. R 595 1086 Eillert v. Craps, 44 Fed. R. 164 643 v. Craps, 44 Fed. R 792 628, 630 Einstein v. Schnebley, 89 Fed. R. 540 197 Eirich v. Donnelly C. Co. (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R 1 256 Ehrman v. Teutonia Ins. Co., 1 Fed. R. 471 • 802 Ekiu v. U. S., 142 U. S. 651 837, 846, 1164 393 504 434 643 806 1282 281 55 1295 54 517 709 281 752 18,22 1253 678 lxx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. 469 221 472 468 Elder v. McClaskev (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 529 1207 Elder v. Whitesides, 72 Fed. R 724 Eldred v. Am. P. C. Co., 99 Fed. R. 168 Electric Mfg. Co. v. Edison El. L. Co. (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R 834 Electric N. & M. T. Co., 75 Fed. R 898 Elgin W. P. & P. Co. v. Nichols (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R 215 327, 335, 336 Eliza Lines, The, 61 Fed. R. 308 980, 984 Elizabeth v. Am. N. P. Co., 131 U. S. cxlviii 1281 Elk Fork O. & G. Co. v. Foster (C. C. A.), 99 Fed. R. 495 547 v. Jennings, 90 Fed. R 767 749 Elkhart Nat. Bank v. North- western E. L. Co., 84 Fed. R. 76 77, 178, 179 v. N. W. G. L. Co., 84 Fed. R. 76 77 Electric Tel. Co. of Ireland, In re, 10 W. R. 4 425 Electrical A. Co. v. Brush El. Co., 44 Fed. R. 602 383, 384, 408, 411, 655 - — v. Julien El. Co., 38 Fed. R. 117 707 Electrolibration Co. v. Jackson, 53 Fed. R. 773 224, 298 Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578 49, 1213 Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Illinois Tr. C. Co., 179 U. S. 665 478 Elkins v. Camden & A. R Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 241 173 Elk Park Min. & Mill Co., In re, 101 Fed. R. 422 1087 EUice v. Goodson, 3 M. & C. 653 373 v. Roupell, 32 Beav. 299; S. C, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 530 Ellingwood v. Stevenson, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 366 Elliot v. Hayman, 2 Cranch, C. C. 678 v. Sinclair, Jacob, 545 v. Van Voorst, 3 Wall. Jr. 299 Elliott v. Lawhead, 43 Ohio St. 171 v. Pell, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 263, 381, 714 v. Piersol, 1 Pet 328, 333 642 v. Sackett, 108 U. S. 132 3, 4, 1214 v. Shuler, 50 Fed. R. 454 918, 956 v. Wiltz, 107 U. S. 711 136 Ellis v. Colman, 25 Beav. 663 229 624 426 629 138 128 269 379, Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485 12, 34, 36, 881, 917 v. Jarvis, 3 Mason, 457 721 v. Reynolds. 35 Fed. R. 394 264 Ellsworth v. Curtis, 10 Paige (N. Y), 105 356 v. U. S., 14 Ct. CI. 382 1018 Elmendorf v. Delancey, 1 Hop- kins (N. Y), 555 239 v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152, 167 173, 182, 878 Elmer v. Creasy, L. R. 9 Ch. 69, 71 346 Elmore v. Grymes, 1 Peters, 469 874, 875, 1201, 1289 Elmwood v. Marcy, 92 U. S. 289 667 El Paso Water Co. v. El Paso, 152 U. S. 157 1214 El. Supply Co. v. Put-in-Bay W. L. & Ry. Co., 84 Fed. R. 740 444, 548 Elting v. U. S., 27 Ct. CI. 158 1033 Elwell v. Fosdick, 134 U. S. 500 159 Ely v. Broughton, 2 Sim. & S. 188 " 195 v. New Mexico & A. R. Co., 129 U. S. 291 231 v. U. S., 171 U. S. 220 1059, 1065 Emack v. Kane, 34 Fed. R 46 36, 486 Emblen, In re, 161 U. S. 52 821 Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3 1263, 1288 Emerson v. Davies. 3 Story, 768 476 v. Davies, 1 W. & M. 21 781 Emerson Co. v. Nimocks, 88 Fed. R. 280 306, 307, 628 Emery v. Downing, 13 N. J. Eq. 59 277 Emma S. M. Co. v. Emma S. M. Co. of N. Y, 1 Fed. R 39 305 322, 323, 325, 334 v. Parks, 14 Blatchf. 411, 413 904 Emmons v. IT. S.. 42 Fed. R. 26 130 v. U. S„ 48 Fed. R 43 1035 Emmott v. Mitchell, 14 Sim. 432 304 Emperor of Austria v. Day, 2 Giff. 628; S. a, 3 De G, F. & J. 217 482, 721 Empire.The (E. D. Mich.), 19 Fed. R 558 981 Empire C. & Tr. Co. v. Empire C. & M. Co., 150 U. S. 159 176, 367 Empire Distilling Co. v. Mc- Nulta (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R 700 442, 561 Empire Met. Bedstead Co., In re (C. C. A.), 98 Fed. R. 981 1094 Empire S. N. Co. v. American S. L. B. Co. (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. 864 320 Empresa Maritima v. N. & S. Am. St. Nav. Co., 16 Fed. R 502 980 TABLE OF OASES. lxxi References are to pages. 1122 1136 936 1186 826 1177 463 556 262 283 885 Emrich, In re, 101 Fed. E. 231 Emslie, In re (C. C. A.), 102 Fed, R. 291 Enders v. L. E. & W. E. Co., 101 Fed. R 202 Endowment & Ben. Ass'n v. Kansas, 120 U. S. 103 Enfield v. Hills, 2 Lev. 236, 238 v. Jordan, 119 U. S. 680 Engel v. Scheuerman, 40 Ga. 206 England v. Downs, 6 Beav. 269 v. Gebhardt, 112 U. S. 505, 506 1187, 1249 Engles, In re, 146 U. S. 357 812 English v. Foxall, 2 Pet. 595 234 Enos v. N. Y. & O. R. Co., 103 Fed. R. 47 519 Ensminger v. Powers, 108 U. S. 292 " 788, 1246 Enterprise, The, 3 WalL Jr. 58 817 Entrekin v. Chambers, 11 Kan. 368 Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Snow, 67 Fed. R. 235 Equator Co. v. Hall, 106 U. S. 86 Eq. Life Ass. Soc. v. Patterson, 1 Fed. R. 126 217, 285, 286, 296 Erb v. Morasch, 177 U. S. 305 558 Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 537 29, 467 Erie Bell, Th'e, 20 Fed. R. 63 981 Erie R. Co. v. Heath, 10 Blatchf. 214 v. Ramsey, 45 N. T. 637 Erie Wringer Mfg. Co. v. Na- tional Wringer Co., 63 Fed. R. 248 Erskine v. Hohnbaoh, 14 Wall. 613 1283, 1288 Erstein v. Rothschild, 22 Fed. R. 61, 64 806, 809, 858 Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172, 18, 22, 1262 1262 v. U. S., 37 Fed. R. 470, 490 617, 733, 734, 735, 737, 808 v. U. S., 97 U. S. 392 1024 v. Walsh, 27 Fed. R. 579 52 Esdaile v. La Nauze, 1 Y. & C. 394 Esdell v. Buchanan, 4 Brown Ch. C. 254 Eslava v. Mazange, 1 Woods, 623 426, 448, 449, 614, 628 Esterbrook Co. v. Ahern, 31 N. J. Eq. 3 439 Estes v. Bel ford, 22 Fed. R. 275 255 v. Gunter, 121 U. S. 183 53, 1214 Estis v. Trabue, 128 U. S. 225 1218, 1219, 1223, 1229, 1256 Ethel, The (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 340 970 459 900 463 281 Etheridge v. Sperry, 139 U. S. 266, 277 * 883 Etting v. Bank of U. S., 11 Wheat. 59 893, 1279 v. Marx's Ex'r, 4 Fed. R. 673 16, 313 Buberweg v. La Compagnie Generate Transatlantique, 35 Fed. R. 530 634 Euphrates, The, 8 Cranch, 385 1277 Eureka L. & Y. C. Co. v. Supe- rior Ct. of Yuba County, 116 17. S. 410 " 766 Eustes v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361 1187 Evan v. Avon, 29 Beav. 144 201, 228 Evans v. Bacon, 90 Mass. 213 796 v. Bicknell, 6 Ves. 183 201 v. Brown, 109 U. S. 180 1230, 1263 v. Charles Scribner's Sons, 58 Fed. R. 303 263, 264 v. Coventry, 5 De G., M. & G. 911 455, 517 v. Dillingham, 43 Fed. R 177, 180 929. 935, 936 v. Durango Land & Coal Co., 80 Fed. R. 433 60 v. Eaton, 3 Wheat. 454 805 v. Evans, 1 Ves. Jr. 96 584 v. Gee, 14 Pet. 1 1202 v. Hettick, 7 Wheat. 453, 469 835 v. Jackson, 8 Sim. 217 152 v. Lancaster City St. Ry. Co., 64 Fed. R. 626 626, 627 v. Phillips, 4 Wheat. 73 1201. 1287 v. State Bank, 134 U. S. 330 1228, 1236, 1256 v. State Nat. Bank, 19 Fed. 676 v. Stettnisch, 149 U. S. 605 R. 589 891, 1249 Evans-Snider-Buel Co. v. Mc- Caskill (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R 658 Evansville Courier Co. v. United Press, 74 Fed. R. 918 Everest v. Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co., 31 Fed. R. 742 Everett v. Independent School District, 102 Fed. R. 529 v. Prythergch, 12 Sim. 363 Everhart v. Huntsville College, 120 U. S. 223 724, 963, 1280, 1294 Evert, Ex parte, 1 Bond, 197 838 Everts v. Agnes, 4 Wis. 343 360 Evey v. Mex. Cent. Ry. Co. (C C. A.), 81 Fed. R. 294 Evitt v. Price, 1 Sim. 483 Ewer's Adm'r v. National Imp. Co., 63 Fed. R. 562 886, 888 1194 256 722 72 426 879 487 lxxii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Ewin v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 27 Fed. R. 625 150 Ewing v. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 134 297, 326, 329, 330 v. Burnham, 74 Fed. R. 384 806 v. City of St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413 9 v. Howard, 7 Wall. 499 1288 Excelsior P. P. Co. v. Browne (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R 321 77, 222 Excelsior W. P. Co. v. Allen (C. G A), 104 Fed. R 553 154 Exchange, The, 7 Cranch, 116 128 Exchange Nat. Bank v. Third Nat. Bank, 112 U. S. 276 '1279 v. Wichita Cattle Co., 61 Fed. R 190 866 Express Cases, 117 U. S. 1 707 Express Co. v. Kountze, 8 Wall. 342 911, 1283 v. Malin, 132 U. S. 531 895 v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 191 37, 128, 172, 229 Exton v. Turner, 2 Ch. Cas. 80 678 Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury, 2 P. Wms. 102 707, 708 v. Higbee, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 502 453 v. Potter, 15 How. 42, 56 205 Eyry v. Hughes, 2 Ch. D. 148 379 Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U. S. 521 407, 408 F. Factors' & Tr. Ins. Co. v. Mur- phy, 111 IT. S. 738 1132, 1158 Fagan, In re, 2 Sprague, 91 840 Fagan v. Cullen, 28 Fed. R 843 736 Fahie v. Lindsay, 8 Oreg. 474 244 Fair, In re, 100 Fed. R 149 833 Fairbanks v. Amoskeag Nat. Bank, 30 Fed. R. 602 825, 827, 830, 1141 v. Amoskeag Nat. Bank, 32 Fed. R. 572 1227, 1228 Fairbrother v. Prattent, 1 Dan- iel, 64 245 Fairfax v. Fairfax, 5 Cranch, 19 1234 Fairfield v. Gallatin County, 100 U. S. 47 667, 878, 879 Fairfield Floral Co. v. Bradbury, 87 Fed. R. 415 488 Faithful y. Hunt, 3 Anst. 751 156 Falcon, The, Blatchf. Prize Cas. 52 997 Fales v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R. 673 77 Falk v. Jones, 49 N. J. Eq. 484 127 Fallon v. Railroad Co., 1 Dill. 121 28, 34, 456 Fallowes v. Williamson, 11 Ves. 309 396 Fallows y. Williamson, 11 Ves. 313 148 Falls City Shirt Mfg. Co., In re, 98 Fed. R. 592 1129, 1133 Falls of Neuse Mfg. Co. y. Ga. Home I. Co., 26 Fed. R 1 862 Falls W. Mfg. Co. y. Broderick, 6 Fed. R. 654 55 Falter ex rel. v. Reinhard, 104 Fed. R. 292 Fanning v. Krapfl, 61 Iowa, 417 1117 262, 263 986 845 161 721 Fanny, The, 2 Low. 508 Farez, In re, 7 Blatchf. 345 Fargo y. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 6 Fed. R. 787 v. South Eastern Ry. Co., 28 Fed. R 906 Farley, Ex parte, 40 Fed. R. 66 835, 876 Farley v. Kittson, 120 U. S. 303 331, 335, 336, 590 v. Talbee, 55 Fed. R. 892 527 Farlow v. Lea, 2 C. L. R. 329 66 Farmer y. Calvert Lith. Co., 1 Flip. 228 237, 238, 286, 476, 497, 498 v. Elstner, 33 Fed. R 494 477 . y. National Life Ass'n, 50 ' Fed. R. 829 255, 258 Farmers' Bank of Alexandria v. Hooff, 7 Pet. 168 1213 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., Peti- tioner, 129 U. S. 206 549, 703, 824, 1204 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Am. Waterworks Co., 107 Fed. R 23 v. Bankers' & M. T. Co., 148 N. Y. 315 v. Burlington & S. W. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R 805 y. Cape Fear & Y. Val. R Co., 62 Fed. R 675 v. Cape Fear & Y. V. Rv. Co., 71 Fed. R 38 160, 435, 436 v. Cape F. & Y. V. Ry. Co., 82 Fed. R. 344 v. Central R Co. of Iowa, 2 Fed. R 656 v. Central R R of Iowa, 8 Fed. R. 60 y. Central R. of Iowa, 17 Fed. R. 758 560, 697 v. Central R. Co. of Iowa, 2 McCrary, 181; S. C, 7 Fed. R 537 559, 560, 563 v. Centralia & C. R. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 96 Fed. R. 636 647 v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 42 Fed. R 6 559 y. Chicago & A. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 653 540, 773 v. Chicago & N. P. R Co., 61 Fed. R. 543 331, 711 528 699 544 568 695 679 574 TABLE OF CASES. lxxiii References are to pages. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chi- cago & N. P. R Co., 68 Fed. R 412 437 v. Chicago & N. P. R Co. (C. C. A.) 73 Fed. R 314 1233, 1236, 1238, 1239, 1252 v. G. B. & M. T. Co., 10 Biss. 203; s. C, 6 Fed. R 100 695, 697 v. Grape Creek Coal Co., 50 Fed. R 481 546 v. Green Bay & M. R Co., 16 Fed. R 100 788 v. Green B., W. & St. P. Ry. Co.. 45 Fed. R 664 524, 530 v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., - 44 Fed. R 115 72, 263, 695 v. Iowa Water Co., 80 Fed. R 467 680 v. Kansas City, W. & N. R Co., 53 Fed. R 182 435, 524, 531, 534 v. Lake St. El. R Co., 177 U. S. 51 22 v. Logansport, C. & S. W. Ry. Co., 4 Fed. R. 184 540 v. Longworth (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. R 609 1220 v. Longworth (C. C. A.), 103 Fed. R. 336 530 v. Louisville, N. A & C Ry. Co., 103 Fed. R 110 698 v. McClure (C. Q A), 78 Fed. R 211 1219, 1236 v. Mo., I. & N. Ry. Co., 21 Fed. R 264 435, 526 v. Nestelle (C. C. A), 79 Fed. 'R 748 530 v. No. Pac. R Co., 60 Fed. R 803 469 v. No. Pao. R Co., 61 Fed. R 546 568 v. No. Pac. R Co., 66 Fed. R 169 160, 435 v. No. Pac. R Co., 69 Fed. R 871 522, 587 v. No. Pac. R. Co., 72 Fed. R 26, 31 25, 522, 523 v. No. Pac. R Co.,- 76 Fed. R 15 343 v. No. Pac. R Co. (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R. 227 530 v. Oregon Pac. R Co., 28 Oreg. 44; s. a, 40 Pac. R 1089 780 v. Postal Tel. Co., 55 Conn. 334; S. C, 11 Atl. R 184 318, 705 v. Stuttgart & A. R Co., 92 Fed. R. 246 527, 529, 535 v. Toledo, A. A. & N. M. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. R. 49 221, 436, 437 v. Winona S. W. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. R. 957 518, 710 Farmers' & M. State Bank v. Armstrong (C. C. A), 49 Fed. R 600 1177, 1178 141 660 811 1232 812 971 233 181 Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Jones, 105 Fed. R 459 v. McElhinney, 42 Fed. R 801 ' 58, 68 Farmington v. Pillsbury, 114 U. S. 138 Farnsworth v. Montana, 129 U. S. 104, 113 v. Nevada Co. (C. C. A), 102 Fed. R 578 Farrar v. Bernheim (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R 136 691 v. Churchill, 135 U. S. 609 1227, 1236 v. U. S., 3 Pet. 459 1261 Farwell v. Kerr, 28 Fed. R 345 719 Fassett, In re, 141 U. S. 479,. 484 , 142 U. S. 479 Faulder v. Stuart, 11 Ves. 296 Faulkner v. Daniel, 3 Hare, 199, 213 Faxon v. Mason, 87 Hun (N. Y.), 139 447 v. U. S., 171 U. S. 244 1060 Fayerweather v. Hamilton Col- lege, 103 Fed. R. 546 303, 326 Fayolle v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 124 U. S. 519 1253 Featherstone v. Cooke, L R 16 Eq. 298 518 Fechheimer v. Baum, 37 Fed. R 167 13, 516 v. Baum, 43 Fed. R 719, 730 719, 752, 753 Feeny, Re, 1 Hask. 304; s. 0., 4 N. B. R [70] 233 Fees Payable by Voluntary Bankrupts, In re, 95 Fed. R 120 Feibelman v. Packard, 108 U. S. 14 v. Packard, 109 U. S. 421 Felch v. Travis, 93 Fed. R 210 Feige v. Babcock, 112 Mich. 423, 70 N. W. R. 7 Feistel v. King's College, 10 Beav. 491 Felix v. Scharnweber, 125 U. S. 54 Fellows v. Hall, 4 McLean, 281 Felter, In re, 7 Fed. R 904 Felton v. Ackerman, 61 Fed. R 225 v. Cincinnati (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R 336 v. Spiro (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R 576 Fendall v. U.S., 12 Ct. CI. 305 Fenn v. Holme. 21 How. 481, Fennemore v. U. S., 3 Dall. 357, 360 Fenner v. Evans, 1 T. R. 267 763 1097 1218 60 53 379 537 58 278 1130 555 526 1289 1049 6 831 854 Fenton v. Hughes, 7 Ves. 288 149, 150 lxxiv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Fenton v. Lumberman's Bank, Clarke Ch. (N. Y.) 360 565 Fenton Met. Mfg. Co. v. Chase, 73 Fed. E. 831 472 Fenwiok v. Sears, 1 Cranch, 259 126 Fenwick Hall Co. v. Old Say- brook, 66 Fed. R. 389 460, 503 Ferez, In re, 7 Blatchf. 34 835, 836 Ferguson, In re, 95 Fed R. 429 1093 Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. R. 771 145, 146, 431, 432 v. Dent, 29 Fed. R. 1 1240 v. Dent, 46 Fed. R. 88 723, 727, 749 v. Harwood, 7 Cranch, 408 606 v. O'Harra, Pet. C. C. 493 327, 333 v. Ross, 38 Fed. R. 161 915, 962, 963 Ferrens, Re, 3 Ben. 445 Ferres v. Cherry, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 3, 4 Ferrett v. Atwill, 4 N. T. Leg. Obs. 215 Ferris v. Carver, 11 Cal. 175 Ferry v. Godbe. 82 Fed. R. 141 v. King County, 141 U. S. 668 Fewlass v. Keesham (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. R. 574, 576 Fiohera v. TJ. S., 9 Ct. CI. 254 Fidelity, The, 16 Blatchf. 569 Fidelity Trust Co. v. Gill Car Co., 25 Fed. R. 737 Fidelity I. T. & S. D. Co. v. Dixon (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R. 205 v. Huntington, 117 U. S. 280 921, 923, 924 v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 90 Fed. R. 175 v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 88 Fed. R. 815 v. Roanoke Iron Co., 84 Fed. R 744 692, 698, 699, 779 v. Shenandoah L Co., 42 Fed. R 372, 377 536.546,547,089,090 Fidelity Tr. & S. D. V. Co. v. Mobile S. Ry. Co., 53 Fed. R. 850 260, 389, 434, 442 v. Newport. N. & R. V. Co., 70 Fed. R 403 934, 935 Field, Ex parte, 5 Blatchf. 63 839, 840 Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 679 601 v. Hastings & Bradley Co., 65 Fed. R 279 ' 199 v. Holland, 6 Cranch, 8 588, 672, 673 v. TJ. S., 9 Pet. 182 1279 v. Milton, 3 Cranch, 514 829 v. Schell, 4 Blatchf. 435 721 v. Schieffelin, 7 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 250 377 . v. Seabury, 19 How. 323 1066, 1070, 1071 840 397 861 1182 444 1181 1017 970 956 512 530 563 128 556 454 250 865 688 568 564 529 530 Fife v. Clayton, 13 Ves. 546 237, 380 v. Whitten, 102 Fed. R. 551 928, 958 Fifth Nat. Bank v. Long, 7 Biss. 502 Fikener v. Bott, 47 S. W. R. 251 Filder v. London, B. & S. C. Ry. Co., 1 H. & M. 489 Filli v. D„ L. & W. R. Co., 37 Fed. R. 65 Filscole v. Lancaster, 70 Fed. R. 337 Finance Committee v. Warren (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. R. 525 Finance Co. of Pa. v. Charleston C. & S. C. R. Co., 45 Fed. R 436 v. Charleston C. & C. R. Co., 46 Fed. R. 508 v. Charleston C. & C. R Co., 49 Fed. R. 693. v. Charleston C. & C. Ry. Co., 61 Fed. R. 369 v. Charleston C. & C. R. Co., 52 Fed. R 524 525, 532, 533 Finch v. Finch, 2 Ves. Jr. 491 11,290 v. Lord Winchelsea, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 2 , 394, 395, 399 Findlay v. Hinde, 1 Pet. 241 241, 290, 291, 487 Fingal v. Blake, 2 Molloy, 50 515 Fink v. Patterson, 21 Fed. R. 602 28, 163 Finley v. Aiken, 1 Grant's Cases (Pa.), 83 Finn v. Hoyt, 52 Fed. R. 83 v. TJ. S., 123 TJ. S. 227 1019, 1028 Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Wickham, 128 U. S. 426 First Littleton Bridge Corp. v. Con. R. L. Co., 71 Fed. R. 225 First Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 172 U. S. 573 v. Chapman, 173 TJ. S. 205 v. Cunningham, 48 Fed. R. 510 v. Douglass County, 3 Dill. 298 v. Dull County, 74 Fed. R. 373 v. Ewing, 103 Fed. R. 168 v. Forest, 40 Fed. R. 705 479 819 1177 934 58 586 273 34 84 697 58, 68, 641 — v. Kidd, 20 Minn. 234 595 — v. Peavey, 75 Fed. R. 154 174, 216 — v. Praegler (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R. 689 918 — v. Radford Tr. Co., 80 Fed. R. 569 64 — v. Redick, 110 TJ. S. 224 895 — v. Schedd, 121 U. S. 74 692 — v. Smith, 6 Fed. R 215 179 — v. Society for Savings (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 581 63 TABLE OF OASES. lxXT References are to pages. 781 434 54 870 504 663 901 First Nat Bank v. Woodrum, 86 Fed. R. 1004 First Nat Ins. Co. v. Salisbury, 130 Mass. 303 Fishback v. W. IT. Tel. Co., 16 U. S. 96 Fishburn v. Chicago & St P. Ry. Co., 137 U. S. 60 885, 888 Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63 765, 766, 767, 768 v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R 76: s. c, 19 Blatchf. 26 224, 360, 628 v. Hayes, 16 Fed. R 469 687, 688, 689 v. Hayes, 22 Fed. R 92 680 v. O'Shaughnessey, 6 Fed. R92 * 281,292 v. Boody, 1 Curt 206, 223 205, 720 v. Cushraan (C. C. A.), 103 Fed. R. 860 1085, 1089, 1122, 1154 v. Cushman (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R 860 1154 v. Knight (a C. A,), 61 Fed. R.491 v. Lord, 6 West L. J. 137 v. Mee, 3 Meriv. 45 v. Meyer, 10 Fed. R 268 v. Newark City Ice Co. (C. C A.). 62 Fed. R 569 1280 v. Owen, L. R 8 Ch. D. 645, 653 342 v. Perkins, 122 U. & 522 1185 v. Rutherford, Bald. 188 369,391 v. Simon (G C. A.), 67 Fed. R. 387 780, 1207 v. Shropshire, 147 U. S. 133 12, 14, 184 v. Yoder, 53 Fed. R 565 47, 888 Fishmongers' Co. v. East India Co., 1 Dick. 163 465 Fisk, Ex parte, 113 U. S. 713 585, 768, 834, 835, 864, 961 Fisk v. Henarie, 142 U. S. 459 938, 944, 945, 946 v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362 v. Union Pac. R Co., 10 Blatchf. 518 Fitch v. Chapman, 2 Sim. & S. 31 v. Creighton, 24 How. 159 13, 217, 881 v. Rochf ort, 18 L. J. Ch. 458 505 Fitchburg R Co. v. Nichols (C G A.), 85 Fed. R. 869 366 Fitchett v. Blows (G G A.), 74 Fed. R 47 50 Fitton, In re, 45 Fed. R 471 836, 846 Fitton v. Earl Macclesfield, 1 Vern. 287. 292 715 Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516 36, 136, 143, 462 f 932 460 324 12, Fitzgerald v. Evans (G G A.), 49 Fed. R 426 587, 1217, 1250 v. Missouri Pac. R Co., 45 Fed. R 812 882, 963 Fitzgerald & M. C. Co. v. Fitz- gerald, 137 U. S. 98 265, 268, 270, 272 Fitzpatrick v. Domingo, 14 Fed. R 216 395, 398 v. Flannagan, 106 U. S. 648 1282 Fixen & Co., In re, 96 Fed. R 748 1104, 1113 Flack v. Holm, 1J. & W. 405 581 Flanders v. Seelye, 105 U. S. 718 904 Flash v. Conn, 109 U. S. 371 879 v. Dillon, 22 Fed. R 1 75, 918. 919 v.Wilkerson, 22 Fed. R. 689 13, 516 Fleitas v. Richardson, 147 U. S. 550 14, 1147 Fleming, Ex parte, 2 Wall. 759 824 Fletcher, Ex parte, 6 Ves. 427 568 Fletcher v. Bealey, 33 W. R 745 714 v. Hamlet 116 U. a 408 911, 922, 936 v. Harney P. T. M. Co., 84 Fed. R 555 524 v. Morey, 2 Story, 555 6 v. N. O. N. E R Co., 20 Fed. R 345 464 v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87 1254 Flick, In re, 105 Fed. R. 503 1130, 1133 Flint v. Board of Com'rs, 5 Dill. 481 864 v. Russell, 5 Dill. 151 209 Flippin, Ex parte, 94 U. S. 348 816 Flippin v. Kimball (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R 258 561 Florcken, In re, 107 Fed. R 241 1138 Florence, The City of, 56 Fed. R. 236 723 Florence S. M. Co. v. Grover & Baker S. M. Co., 110 Mass. 1 504 v. Singer Mfg. Co., 4 Fish- er's Pat. Cas. 329 176 Flores v. U. S., 18 Ct CI. 353 1049 Florida v. Anderson, 91 U. S. 667 43, 729 v. Furman, 180 U. a 402 1163. 1164 v. Georgia, 17 How. 478 41, 42. 144, 189, 439 Florida C. & P. R. Co. v. Bell, 176 U. S. 321 62, 1165 v. Gutting (G G A.), 68 Fed. R 586 12S8 Florida Mtge. & Inv. Co. v. Fin- layson, 74 Fed. R 671 343 Florida, State of, v. Charlotte' Harbor Phosphate Co. (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R 883 90, 1252 lxxvi Flour City Nat. Bank v. Wech- selberg, 45 Fed. R 547 15 * Io T ur „ Inspectors v. Glover, 160 U. S. 170 1256 Flournoy v. Lastrapes, 131 TJ. S. X lower v. Greenbaum, 50 Fed. 190 U41 Floyd v. Farnsworth; 12 Wkly. Notes, 500 900 F. L. & Tr. Co. v. Central R Co. of Iowa, 17 Fed. R. 758 697 v. Waterman, 106 TJ. S. 265 1<>15 Flynn v. Brooklyn C. R. Co., 158 N. Y. 493 222 F. Merwin, The, 10 Ben. 403 742 Foerst, In re, 93 Fed. R. 190 1114 Fogg v. Blair, 139 U. S. 118, 127 284 v. St. Louis, H. & K. R Co., 17 Fed. R 871 i 6 , 313 Foley, In re, 76 Fed. R. 390 920, 953 — -, 80 Fed. R. 949 9i 8 , 923 toley v. Guaranty Tr. & S. D. Co. (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R 759 692 v. Hartley, 72 Fed. R. 570 310 — — v. Hill, 3 Myl. & Cr. 476 328 Folland v. Lamotte, 10 Sim. 486 426, 427 Follansbee v. Ballard Pav. Co., 154 U. S. 651 1208 Follett v. Tillinghast, 82 Fed. R. 241 47 Foil's Appeal, 91 Pa, St. 434 27. 37, 486 Folsom v. Ballard (C. C. A.). 70 Fed. R. 12 ' 4 v. Marsh, 2 Storv, 100 453, 475 v. U. S., 160 U. S. 121 1192 Fom Fong, Ex parte, 108 IT. S. 556 848 Fonda, Ex parte, 117 U. S. 516 843 Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S. 698 837 Fontain v. Ravenel, 17 How. 369 7 Forbes v. Memphis, El P. & P. R. Co., 2 Woods, 323 163, 386, 434, ™ j, ^ 435 > 436 Dord v. Douglas, 5 How. 143 337, T . 343, 378 v. Louisville, N. O. & T Ry. Co., 45 Fed. R 210 750 Fordyce v. Witters (Tex.), 20 S. W. R 266 560 Forehand v. U. S., 23 Ct. CI. 477, 482 1025 Forest Oil Co. v. Crawford (C. C. A., Third Ct.), 101 Fed. R 849 B6 Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201 450 702, 703, 1204, 1219 Forrest v. Manchester, S. & L. Ry. Co., 4 De G., F. & J. 126 454 TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Forrest v. Union Pac. R Co.. 47 Fed. R. 1, 2 gel Forsyth, In re, 78 Fed. R. 296 818 Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506 „. 1178 v. Pierson, 9 Fed. R. 801 251, 265 v. U. S., 9 How. 571 909,911 v. Vehmeyer, 177 TJ. S. 177 1147, 1158* Fort Scott v. Hickman, 112 TJ. S. 150 ' 1280 Fortuna, The, 2 Wheat. 16; 1277 Ft. Wayne, etc. Corp., In re, 94 Fed. R. 109 n 51 Ft. Wayne El. Corp., In re, 96 Fed. R 803; s. c, 99 Fed. R 400 , In re, 99 Fed. R. 400 Fort Worth, City Bank of, v. Hunter, 152 TJ. S. 513 Fosdick v. Car Co., 99 TJ. S. 256 1136 1092 1295 525, 529 236, v. Schall, 99 TJ. S. 235, 238 „ „. 524, 526, 529, 530 Foss v. First Nat. Bank, 1 Mo Crary, 474 g87 Fossat Case, 2 Wall. 649 1071, 1077 Foster & Abbott on the Fed- eral Income Tax, 238 830 Foster v. Bank of Abingdon, 88 Fed. R. 604 210, 218, 221 v. Chesapeake & M. Ry. Co.. 47 Fed. R. 369 921 v. Cleveland, C, C. &St. L. Ry. Co., 56 Fed. R. 434 70, 803 v. Deacon, Mad. & Geld. 59 408 v. Goddard, 1 Black, 506 690 v. Kansas, 112 TJ. a 201 852, T . „ . 1241,1245 v. Lebanon Springs R. Co. 100 Fed. R 543 • 2 3 v. Lindsay, 3 Dill. 126 324, 713 v. Mansfield, C. & L. M. R Co., 36 Fed. R 627; s. c, 146 u. 8, 88 v. Moore, 1 Curt. 279 — - £ f aragould S. E. R Co., 74 Fed. R 273 v. Swasey, 2 W. & M. 217 v. Vassall, 3 Atk. 587 309, SlbT 325 - — v. Vocke, 60 Fed. R. 745 1199 Fougere v. Jones, 66 Fed. R 316 670 Fougeres v. Murbarger, 44 Fed v R- ?u 8 *t . t, , 86 ' 226 - 38 2. 486 Fourth Nat. Bank v. Francklvn 120 U S. 747, 751 15, 585,' 1255 — v. Stout, 1 13 U. S. 684 1215 Fouvergne v. New Orleans, 18 How. 70 917 Fowle v. Lawrason, 5 Pet 494 502 80 v. Park, 48 Fed. R 789 1141 72 499 755 TABLE OF CASES. lxxvii References are to pages. Powle v. Spear, 7 Penn. L. J. 176 478 Fowler, In re, 4 Fed. R 303 836 Fowler v. Equitable Tr. Co., 141 U. S. 884 725 v. Hamill, 139 U. S. 549 703, 1206, 1207, 1226 — v. Jarvis-Conklin M. Tr. Co., 64 Fed. R 279 435, 436 v. Lindsey, 8 Dall. 411 828 v. Merrill, 11 How. 375 636, 689, 641, 646, 647 v. Wyatt, 24 Beav. 232 707 Fox v. Blew, 5 Madd. 147 755 v. Mackay, 60 Fed. R 4 922, 923 v. Southern Ry. Co., 80 Fed. R 945 933 y. Suwerkrop, 1 Beav. 583 124 Foxwell v. Webster, 10 Jur. (N. S.) 137 211 Frances, The, 8 Cranch, 348 1278 Francis' Case, 11 Ct. CI. 638 1025 Francis v. Flinn, 118 U. S. 385 36, 37, 469, 486 v. Howard County, 50 Fed. R. 44 884 Francis Valentine Co., In re, 93 Fed. R. 953 1132 Franco v. Bolton, 3 Ves. 368 290 v. Franco, 3 Ves. 76 158 Frank v. Denver & R. G. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R 123 529, 530 v. Denver & R G. Rv. Co., 23 Fed. R 757, 764 5 _ 49, 550, 567 v. Wedderin (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R. 818 270 Frankle v. Jackson, 30 Fed. R 398 551 Franklin, In re, 106 Fed. R. 666 1138 Franklin v. Hersch, 3 Tenn. Ch. 467 662 Franklin Savings Bank v. Tay- lor (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R 854 788 Franklin Syndicate, In re, 101 Fed. R. 402 1113 Franklin Tel. Co. v. Harrison, 145 U. S. 459 29 Fraserv.Jennison.106 U.S. 191 922,923 v. Trent, 74 Fed. R 423 909 v. Whalley, 2 Hem. & M. 10 503 Frayser v. Russell.3 Hughes, 227 484 Frazer Lubricator Co. v. Frazer, 23 Fed. R 305 65 Frazer v. So. L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 99 Fed. R 707 1121 Frearson v. Loe, L. R 9 Ch. D. 48 483 Frederich, Ex parte, 149 U. S. 70 843 Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160 1287, 1288 Freedmen's S. & Tr. Co. v. Shep- herd, 127 U. S. 494 1024 Freeman v. Butler, 39 Fed. R. 1 938, 958, 962 v. Clay (C. C. A.), 52 Fed. R 1 786 Freeman v. Clay, 48 Fed. R. 849 1233, 1238, 1257, 1258 v. Holmead, 5 Cranch, C. C. 163 636 v. Howe, 24 How. 450 17, 21, 71, 191 v. Pontrell, Chan. Cal. XIII 61 v. Warren, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 635 277 Free Trader, The,l Brown, A dm. 72 740 Freirichs v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 16 1052 Frelinghuysen v. Baldwin, 19 Fed. R. 49 945 v. Key, 110 U. a 63 821 Fremont v. Merced M. Co., 1 Mc- All. 267 490 v. U. S., 17 How. 542 1059, 1060, 1061 French, Ex parte, 100 U. a 1 1243, 1244, 1247 French v. Brewer, 3 Wall. Jr. 346 499 v. Dear, 5 Ves. 547 240 v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 525 438, 442, 443, 445 v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250 286, 460 v. Rainey, 2 Tenn. Ch. 640 346 v. Roe, 13 Ves. 593 260 v. Shoemaker, 12 Wall. 86 703. 1204, 1206 v. Shoemaker, 14 Wall. 314, 835 176, 205, 338 v. Stewart, 22 Wall. 238 277 Frerichs v. Coster, 22 Fed. R. 637 904, 905 Fretz v. Stover, 22 Wall. 198 360, 403, 1283 Freund, In re, 98 Fed. R 81 1146 Frevall v. Bache, 5 Cranch, C. C 463 646, 649 Frey v. Willoughby, 63 Fed. R 865 35 Frice, In re, 96 Fed. R. 611 1144, 1145 Frink v. Blackington, 80 Fed. R. 306 934 Fricks v. Clements, 31 Fed. R 542 885 Friday, Ex parte, 43 Fed. R 916, 918 89 Friedman v. Fennell, 94 Ala. 570, 10 S. R 649 366 v. Israel, 20 Fed. R 801 961 Friedrich, In re (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R 284 1137 Friend v. Wise, 111 U. S. 797 1214, 1215 Friezen v. Allemania F. Ins. Co., 30 Fed. R 349 955 Frink v. McComb, 60 Fed. R 486 753 Frisbie v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 57 Fed. R 1 928, 958 lxxviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Frishman v. Insurance Co., 41 Fed. R. 449 460 Frishmuth v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 95 Fed. R. 5 152 Front St. Cable Ry. Co. v. Drake, 65 Fed. R. 539 60, 760 v. Drake, 84 Fed. R. 257 530 Frost v. Spitley, 121 U. S. 553 32, 34, 35 Frow v. De La Vega, 15 Wall. 553 280 Frowd v. Lawrence, 1 J. & W. 655 491 Fry v. Penn, 2 Bro. C. C. 280 627 v. Quinlan, 12 Blatchf. 205 415 Fuchs v. Meisel, 113 Mich. 559; s. c, 60 N. W. R. 773 209 Fuentes v. U. S., 22 How. 443 1060, 1073 Fulenweider v. U. S., 9 Ct. CI. 403 1019 Fulham v. McCarthy, 1H.L.C. 703 152 Fullagar v. Clark, 18 Ves. 481 674 Fuller v. Aylesworth (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R. 694 1241 v. Claflin, 93 TJ. S. 14 1203 v. County of Colfax, 14 Fed. R. 177 916 v. Fletcher, 44 Fed. R 34 886,887 v. Grand Rapids, 40 Mich. 395 52 v. Hamilton County, 53 Fed. R. 411 317, 318, 668 v. Knapp, 24 Fed. R. 100 233 v. Met. L Ins. Co., 37 Fed. R 163 56. 661, 956 v. Montague (C. C. A., 1st Ct.), 53 Fed. R 206 35, 432, 433, 1239 v. Redman, 26 Beav. 614 437 v. U. S., 58 Fed. R. 329 733, 734, v. Wright, 23 Fed. R. 833 919 Fullerton v. Bank of IT. S., 1 Pet. 604 878 Fulton v. Greacen, 44 N. J. Eq. 443 405 v. Rosevelt, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 178, 180 124 Fulton Bank v. Beach, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 307 350, 352 v. N. Y. & S. C. Co., 4 Paige (N. Y), 127 413 Funk, In re, 101 Fed. R 244 1086 Furbush v. Bradford, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 317 507 Furman v. Nichol, 8 Wall. 44 1186 Furnald v. Glenn (C. C. A.), 64 Fed. R 49 75, 704 Furtado v. Furtado, 6 Jur. 227 124, 426 Fussell v. Gregg, 113 U. S. 554 39 F. Valentine Co., In re (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R. 793 1132 G. Gableman v. Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co.. 179 IT. S. 335 56, 61, 73 Gabrielson v. Waydell, 67 Fed. R 342 317 Gaffney v. Gillette, 4 Dill. 264 909 Gage v. Kaufman, 133 U. S. 471 227 v. Kellogg, 26 Fed. R. 242 779 v. Pumpelly, 108 U. S. 164 1216, 1256 v. Pumpelly, 115 U. S. 454 237, 1274 Gaines v. Agnelly, 1 Woods, 238 359 v. Caldwell, 148 IT. S. 228 1293 v. Chew, 2 How. 619 203, 212, 214, 215, 219, 235 v. Fuentes, 92 r IT. S. 10, 20 12, 21, 667, 668, 798, 881, 917 v. Mausseaux, 1 Woods, 118 303 v. Relf, 15 Pet. 9 816 v. Rugg, 148 IT. S. 228 1295 v. Thompson, 7 Wall. 347 821 Gait v. Osbaldeston, 1 Russ. 158 627 Galena v. Amy, 5 Wall. 705 818 Galesburg v. Galesburg Water Co., 27 Fed. R 321 922 Gallagher, Ex'rs of, v. Roberts, 1 Wash. 320 331 Gallatin v. Sherman, 77 Fed. R 337 915 Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350 605, 834 Gait v. Galloway, 4 Pet. 331 599 Galton v. Hancock, 2 Atk. 425 4 Galveston R Co. v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 459 162, 163, 435, 438 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Gonzales, 151 U. S. 496 76, 77, 253, 271 Galveston, H. & N. Ry. Co. v. House (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R 112 1220, 1221 Gambel v. Pitkin, 124 U. S. 131 21 Gamber v. Atlee, 2 De G. & Sm. 745 123 Gamble v. San Diego, 79 Fed. R 487 310, 312, 322 Gamewell F. A. Tel. Co., In re (Q C. A.), 73 Fed. R. 908 782 Gamewell F. A. Tel. Co. v. Chil- icothe, 7 Fed. R 351 225, 226 v. City of New York, 31 Fed. R 312 11, 346 v. Municipal Signal Co. (C. C. A.). 77 Fed. R 490 Gandy v. Marble, 122 U. S. 432 754 225, 229 Gann v. Northwestern Ry. Co., 57 Fed. R. 417 745 Garcias v. Ricardo, 14 Sim. 265 322 Garden City, The, 26 Fed. R. 766 993 Gardiner v. Mason, 4 Brown Ch. C. 478 259, 260 TABLE OF CASES. lxxix References are to pages. Gardiner v. Rowe, 4 Madd, 236 674 Gardner v. Blane, 1 Hare, 381 569 v. Collins, 2 Pet. 58 878 v. Gardner, 87 N. Y. 14 449, 500, 510 v. Lindo, 1 Cranch, C. C. 78 606 v. London, C. & D. Ry. Co., L. R 2 Ch. App. 201 " 537 v. Michigan Cent. R Co., 150 U. S. 349 317 v. Ogden, 22 N. Y. 327 3, 704 v. Schermerhorn, Clarke's Ch. (N. Y.) 101 698 Gares v. N. W. Nat. Bldg., L. & I. Ass'n, 55 Fed. R. 209 818 Garey v. Union Bank, 3 Cranch, C. C. 91 636 Garland v. Davis, 4 How. 131 1255 v. Garland, 2 Ves. Jr. 137 568 Garlick v. Strong, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 440 296 Garneau v. Dozier, 100 U. S. 7 1248 Garner v. Second Nat. Bank, 66 Fed. R. 369 858, 911 v. Second Nat Bank, 67 Fed. R. 833 460, 656 Garrart v. Silver Peak Mines, 76 Fed. R 1 912 Garrett v. Woodward, 2 Cranch, C. C. 190 638, 640 Garrison v. U. S., 2 Ct CI. 382; S. a, 7 Wall. 688 1049 Garth v. Cotton, 1 Dick. 183 464 v. Sir John Hind Cotton, 1 Dick. 183 465 Gartside v. Isherwood, 2 Dick. 613 717 Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 20 Fed. R 187 638, 643, 648 Gason v. Wordsworth, 2 Ves. Sen. 336 652 Gasquet v. Fidelity T. & S. V. Co. (C. C. A.), 57 Fed. R. 80 260 Gass v. Stinson, 3 Sumn. 98 648 Gassman v. Jarvis, 94 Fed. R 603 807 Gates v. Bucki, 53 Fed. R 961 22 Gause v. Perkins, 3 Jones' Eq. (N. C.) 177 468 Gavin v. Vance, 33 Fed. R 84, 92 77, 912, 934, 935 Gay, In re, 98 Fed. R 870 1095, 1097 Gay v. Parpart, 101 U. S. 391 1263 v. Parpart. 106 U. S. 679 776 Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477 152, ' 154 Gaylord, In re, 106 Fed. R. 833 1146 Gaylord v. Fort Wayne, M. & C. R. Co., 6 Biss. 286 38 Gaylords v. Kelshaw, 1 Wall. 81 175, 670 Gazelle, The, 128 U. S. 474 968 Gee v, Pritchard, 2 Swanst. 402 457 Gee Fooke Sing v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 49 Fed. R. 146 Geilinger v. Philippi, 133 U. S. 246, 257 Geldard v. Hornby, 1 Hare, 261 Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175 668, 878, 882 Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246 1185 General El. Co. v. West Ashe- ville Imp. Co., 73 Fed. R 386 Generes v. Campbell, 11 Wall. 193 Genther v. Wiley, 85 Fed. R 797 George v. St. Louis C. & W, Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R 117 434, 437, 528 George L. Garlick, The (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R. 542 George T. Smith, etc. Co. v. Mo Groarty, 136 U. S. 237 Georgeanna, The, 31 Fed. R. 405 837 18 709 436 1161 980 1195 18 738, 740 1283 Georgia, The, 7 Wall. 32 Georgia v. Atlantic & G. R Co., 3 Woods, 434 v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402 v. Grant, 6 Wall. 241 32, 43, 144 249 824 v. Jesup, 106 U. S.458 1216, 1217 v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50 32, 42, 144, 235, 482 Georgia, Governor of, v. Ma- drazo, 1 Pet. 124 Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 12 Pet. 91 Germain v. Mason, 12 Wall. 259 1219 v. Mason, 154 U. S. 587 1229 v. Wilgus (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R 597 224, 283, 304, 462 German Bank of Memphis v. U. S„ 148 U. S. 573 German Ins. Co. of Freeport, 111. v. Frederick (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R 144 German Nat. Bank v. Speckert, 181 U. S. 405 Gernon v. Boecaline, 2 Wash. 199 335, 579, 584 Gerson, In ro, 105 Fed. R. 891 1130 Gest v. Packwood, 39 Fed. R . 525 83 Geyger v. Geyger, 2 Dall. 332 866 Giant P. Co. v. California V. P. Co., 6 Fed. R 197 781, 782, 783 v. Safety N. P. Co., 19 Fed. R. 509 " 303, 373 Gibbons v. Mainwaring, 9 Sim. 77 566 v. Ogden. 6 Wheat. 448 1184 v. U. S., 8 Wall. 269 1011 Gibbs v. Clagett, 2 Gill & J. (Md.) 14 218 v. David, L. R 20 Eq. 373 524, 557, 569 556 41 141 466 1012 875 965 Lxxx TABLE OT CASES. References are to pages. Gibbs v. Diekma, 131 U. a clxxxvi 1392 Gibson v. Bruce, 108 U. S. 561 928 v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92 314 v.Lewis, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 476 464 v. Martin, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 481 566 v. Memphis, etc. R Co., 31 Fed. R 553 721 v. Mississippi, 162 U. S. 565 950 v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27 51, 53, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216 v. Smith, 2 Atk. 182 497 v.Van Dresar.l Blatch. 532 599 - — v. Whitehead, 4 Madd. 241 304 Gibson's Case, 29 Ct. CI. 18 1012 Giddings' Case, 29 Ut. CI. 12 1041 Gier v. Gregg, 4 McLean, 202, 203 355, 372 Gilbert & B. Mfg. Co. v. Bus- sing, 12 Blatchf. 426 v. Endean, 9 Ch. D. 259, 366 499 792, 797 v. Gilbert, 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 603 755 v. Lewis, 1 De G. J. & Sm. 38, 49 199 v. McNulta, 96 Fed. R 83 47 Gilchrist v. Helena, etc. R Co., 47 Fed. R 593 343 v. Helena, etc. R. Co., 58 Fed. R 708' 532 Giles v. Heysinger, 150 U. S. 627 784 v. Little, 134 U. S. 645, 650 1181 v. Paxson, 36 Fed. R 882 630,644 Gilfillanv.McKee,159U. S.303 1219 Gill r. Ward, 23 Ark. 16 612 Gillespie v. Alexander, 3 Russ. 130 684 v. Moon, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 585 217 Gillet v. Moodv, 3 N. Y. 479 552 Gillette, In re,"l04 Fed. R 769 1088, 1090 Gillette v. Doheny, 65 Fed. R 715 298 Gillis v. U. 8., 12 Ct. CI. 704 1025 Gilman v. Ketcham, 84 Wis. 60 127 v. Perkins, 7 Fed. R. 887 18 Gilmore v. Herrick, 93 Fed. R 525 47 Gilpins v. Consequa, Pet. C. C. 85 647, 648, 649, 650 Gindrat v. Dane, 4 Cliff. 360 27 Ginter v. Kinney Tobacco Co., 12 Fed. R 782 478 Girard L. A. & Tr. Co. v. Cooper, 51 Fed. R. 332 539, 1282 Girard I. & T. Ry. Co. v. Cooper, 162 U. a 529 527 Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 Fed. R 1011 749 G st v. Davis, 2 Hill Ch., a C, 335 317 Gittings v. Crawford, Taney, J 6 Gladdon v. Stoneman, 1 Madd. 143, n. 515 Glaspell v. No. Pac. R. Co., 43 Fed. R. 903 886, 887 v. No. Pac. R Co., 144 U. a 211 909 Glass v. Concordia P. Police Jury, 176 U. a 207 85 Glassington v. Thwaites, 2 Russ. 458 352 356 Glazbrook v. Gillatt, 9 Beav. 493 ' 446 Gleason v. Florida, 9 Wall. 779 1186 Glegg v. Legh, 4 Madd. 193, 207 291, 301 Glen v. Gibson, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 634 705 Glenn v. Fant, 134 U. S. 398 873 v. Lucas, 43 Fed. R 550 784 v. Noonan, 43 Fed. R. 403; S. C, 43 Fed. R 550 781 v. Soule, 22 Fed. R. 417 553 v. U. a, 4 Ct. CI. 501 1003 Glenny v. Langdon, 94 U. S. 604 1263, 1264 Glens Falls Nat. Bank v. Cram- ton, 72 Fed. R. 734 295 Glide, The (C. G A.), 72 Fed. R. 200 982, 988 Glossop v. Harrison, Cooper, 61; s. C, 3 V. & B. 134 571 Gloucester F. Co. v. Pennsyl- vania, 114 U. a 196 920 Glover v. Patten, 165 U. a 394 27,156 v. Shepperd, 21 Fed. R 481 66 Glynn v. Houston, 1 Keen, 329 626 Godbe v. Tootle, 154 U. a 576 1229 God bolt v. Watts, 2 Anst. 543 238 Goddard v. Mailler, 80 Fed. R 423 79 v. Ordway, 94 U. a 672 1246 v. Ordway, 101 U. a 745 781 v. Wilde, 17 Fed. R. 845 479 Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. a 201 1-5, 288, 289, 313 Godfrey v. Terry, 97 U. a 171 287 Goebel v. Am. Ry. Supply Co., 55 Fed. R. 825 223, 239 Goff v. Kelly, 74 Fed. R 327 321, 382, 383 Gold v. Canham, 2 Swanst. 325; S. a, 1 Cases in Ch. 316 316 Gold & S. O. S. Co. v. U. S. Diss. O. Co., 6 Blatchf. 307 345 Gold & Stock Tel. Co. v. Pearce, 19 Fed. R 419 312 Gold W. & W. Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. a 199 927, 939 Golden v. Bruning, 73 Fed. R 2 922 Golden Reward Min. Co. v. Bux- ton Min. Co. (C. C. A), 97 Fed. R 413 883 TABLE OF CASES. lxxxi References are to pages. 956 609 Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 518 270, 955 Goldman v. Smith, 93 Fed. R 182 1089, 1092, 1101 Goldsbrough v. U. S., 25 Ct. CI. 73 , 1026 Goldsmith, In re, 3N.RE. 165 1091 Goldsmith v. Gilliland, 22 Fed. R 865 227, 289 v. Holmes, 36 Fed. R 484 85 Goldstein v. New Orleans, 38 Fed. R. 626 v. Whelan, 62 Fed. R 124 Gonzales v. Cunningham, 164 U. S. 612 1170 v. Ross, 120 TJ. S. 605 1060, 1073 Gonzalia v. Barelsman, 143 111. 634, 32 N. E. R 532 262 Good v. Blewitt, 13 Ves. 397 164, 370 Good Hope Co. v. Railway B. F. . Co., 22 Fed. R 635 Good Shot v. U. a (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R. 257 Good Templars' L. Ass'n v. United L. I. Ass'n, 59 Fed. R 220 Goodenow v. Litchfield, 59 Iowa, 226 Goodhue v. Churchman, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 596 Goodman, Matter of, 146 N. Y. 284 Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U. S. 556 v. Whitcomb, 1 J. & W. 589 515, 566 Goodnow v. Litchfield, 47 Fed. R. 753 Goodrich v. Pendleton, 3 J. Ch, (N. Y.) 520 v. U. S., 35 Fed. R 193 v. U. S., 42 Fed. R. 393 v. U. S., 47 Fed. R 267 Goodwin v. Fox, 120 U. S. 775 Goodyear v. Allen, 3 Fisher, 284 v. Bourn, 3 Blatohf. 266 v. Chaffee, 3 Blatchf. 268 v. Mullee, 3 Fisher, 420 v. Providence R. Co., 3 Cliff. 351 v. Providence R Co., 2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 499 v. Sawyer, 17 Fed. R 2 726, 727 v. Toby, 6 Blatchf. 130 313, 327 v. Toby. 8 Blatchf. 130 331 Goodyear D. V. Co. v. Folsoin, 3 Fed. R 509 . 447, 492 v. Osgood, 2 B. & A. Pat. Cas. 529 726 v. Osgood, 13 Off. Gaz. 325 269, 727 v. White, 46 Fed. R 228 870 Goon v. Suales, 9 WalL 23 667 256 1190 27 319 277 1262 1024 925 756 737 734 733 1234 152 368 271 498 672 674 812 991 812 670 500 310 238 298 1248 194 717 125 761 Gordon, Ex parte, 1 Black, 503 , 104 U. S. 515 , 105 U. S. 515 Gordon v. Calvert, 2 Sim. 253 v. Cheltenham Ry. Co., 5 Beav. 229 v. Gilfoil, 99 U. S. 168 v. Gordon, 3 S wanst. 400 195, 7 1 3 v. Hobart, 2 Story, 243 679 v. Hobart. 2 Sumn. 401 6, 11 v. Newman, 62 Fed. R 686 548 v. Smith (C. C. A.), 62 Fed. R 503 236, 237 v. Smith (C. C A), 67 Fed. R 503 v. St. P. H. Works, 23 Fed. R147 v. Third Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 790 v. Third Nat. Bank, 144 U. S. 97 Gore v. Purdon, 1 Sch. & Lef. 234 Gorham v. Gorham, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.)24 Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Emery B. T. D. E. Co., 92 Fed. R 774, 780 Gorman v. Havird, 141 U. S. 206 49, 853, 1213 Gormley v. Bunyan, 138 U. S. 623,632 585, 605, 639, 641, 1282, 1288 v. Clark, 134 U. S. 338. 14, 775 Gormully & Jeffery Mfg. Co. v. Bretz, 64 Fed. R 612 233, 290 Gorse v. Parker, 36 Fed! R. 840 727 Goshen Sweeper Co. v. Bissell C. S. Co. (C. C. A), 72 Fed. R 67 Gottfried v. Crescent Brg. Co., 22 Fed. R 433 Gould v. Head, 41 Fed. R 240 v. Okeden, 4 Bro. P. C. 198 v. Sessions (C. C. A), 67 Fed. R. 163 768, 1160 Gowen v. Harley, 56 Fed. R. 973 92 Grace v. Am. C. Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278 660, 927, 928, 1280, 1284 Graffam v. Burgess, 117 U. S. '180 Graham, Ex parte, 3 Wash. C. C. 456, 462 , 10 Wall. 541 Graham v. Bayne, 18 How. 60 v. Boston & E. R Co., 118 U. S. 161 v. Boston H. & E. R Co., 14 Fed. R. 753 v. Boston H. & E. R Co., 118 U. S. 161 798, 919 v. Coape, 9 Sim. 93; s. O., 3 Myl. & Cr. 638 356 v. Mason, 4 Cliff. 88 338 1293 690 179 4 368 770 812 1280, 68 1105 lxxxii TABLE OF CASES. Eef erences are to pages. Graham v. Meyer, 4 Blatohf. 129 309 v. Norton, 15 Wall. 437 818 v. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 704 713 v. St. Charles St R Co., 47 La. Ann. 215 469 v. Stuoken, 4 Blatohf. 50 6, 580 v. Teter, 25 Fed. R. 555 33 v. U. S., 4 Wall 359 1060, 1071, 1074 Grahame v. Cooke, 1 Cranch, C. C. 116 283 Grand Chute v. Winegar, 15 Wall. 373 8, 37 Grand Id. & W. C. R Co. v. Sweeney (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R. 396 1218 v. Sweenev (C. C. A.), 103 Fed. R 343 " 1320 Grand Rapids S. F. Co. v. Haney S. F. Co., 92 Mich. 558; S. a, 53 N. W. R. 1009 485 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Central Vt. Ry. Co., 85 Fed. R. 87 27 v. Central Vt Ry. Co., 88 Fed. R. 622 151, 160. 435, 562 v. Central Vt. R. Co., 90 Fed. R. 163 529 v. Central Vt R. Co., 91 Fed. R. 561 530, 536, 442 • v. Cummings, 106 TJ. S. 700 894 v. Twitohell (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R. 627 928, 944 Grant, In re, 106 Fed. R. 496 1092 Grant v. Grant, 5 Russ. 189 584 v. Henry Clay Coal Co., 80 Pa. St. 208 607 v. Lowe (C. C. A.), 89 Fed. R. 881 1205, 1208 v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 106 TJ. S. 429 1201, 1207 v. Phoenix L Ins. Co., 121 U. S. 105, 115 212, 328, 628, 1209, 1246 v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218 340, 805, 1177 v. U. S., 1 Ct. CI. 41 1012 Grantland v. Memphis, 12 Fed. R. 287 393, 854, 903 Grape C. C. Co. v. Farmers' L & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 891 692, 693, 710 v. Farmers' L & Tr. Co., 80 Fed. R 200 320, 701 Gratiot v. U. S., 15 Pet. 336 597 Gratiot County v. Aylesworth, 159 U. S. 250 82 Grattan v. Appleton, 3 Story, 755 * 719, 720 Gratton v. TJ. S., 15 Pet. 336 597 Graveley v. Graveley, 42 Fed. R. 264 478 Graver v. Faurot, 64 Fed. R 241 74, 789 Graver v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435 1174, 1177, 1178 Graves, In re, 24 Fed. R. 550 1144 Graves v. Boston Marine Ins. Co., 2 Cranch, 419 35 v. Corbin, 132 U. S. 571 924 v. Wright, 2 Drn. & War. 77, 79 437 Gray Jacket, The, 5 Wall. 343 1274, 1276, 1277 Gray v. Brignardello, 1 Wall. 627 712 v. Campbell, 1 R & M. 323 367 v. Chaplin, 2 Sim. & S. 267 163 v. C, I. & N. R. Co., 1 Woolw. 63 422, 423, 424, 449, 493, 766 v. Haig, 13 Beav. 65 389 v. Havemeyer (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R. 174 735, 881, 1219, 1230 v. Howe, 108 U. S. 13 1163 v. James, Pet. C. C. 394 340 v. Larrimore, 2 Abb. C. C. 542 176 v. Munroe, 1 McLean, 528 860 v. Tavlor (N. J. Ch.), 38 Atl. R. 951 " 386 Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 320 42, 254 Greathouse'sCase, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 383 837 Great Falls Mfg. Co. v. Atty. Gen., 124 U. S. 581 1012 Greatrex v. Greatrex, 1 DeG. & Sm. 692 487 Great So. F. P. H. Co. v. Jones, 177 U. S. 449 67 Great Western Tel. Co. v. Burn- ham, 162 U. S. 339 419, 1185 Greaves v. Neal, 57 Fed. R 816, 817 879 Greeley v. Commissioner, 6 Fisher. 675 31 v. Lowe, 155 TJ. S. 58 78, 79 v. Smith, 3 Story, 658 393 Greely v. Townsend, 25 Cal. 604, 613 1182 Green, In re, 106 Fed. R. 313 1094 , 141 TJ. S. 325 814 Green v. Barney, 19 Fed. R 420 314 v. Chicago, S. & C. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 49 Fed. R. 957 1291 v. Custard, 23 How. 484 956 v. Elbert, 63 Fed. R 308 62 v. Elbert, 137 U. S. 615 1253. 1371 v. Fisk, 103 U. S. 518 1207 v. Fisk, 154 U. S. 668 1213 v. French, 5 N. J. L J. 228 728 v. Hanberry, 2 Brock. 403 464 v. Rogers, 56 Fed. R. 320 63 v. Stone, 54 N. J. Eq. 387; S. C, 34 Atl. R 1099 379 TABLE OF OASES. lxxxiii References are to pages. Green v. Terwilliger, 56 Fed. R. 384, 393 292, 615 v. Turner, 80 Fed. R. 41 379 v. Underwood, 86 Fed. R. 427 310 v. U. S., 17 Ct. CI. 174 1019 v. U. S., 9 Wall. 655 613 v. Valley, 101 Fed. R. 882 936 v. Van Buskirk, 3 Wall. 448 1246 v. Watkins, 6 Wheat. 260 867 v. Winter, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 60 539, 550 Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Patten P. Co., 172 U. a 58 1186 Greenberg, In re, 106 Fed. R. 496 1092 Greene, In re, 52 Fed. R. 104 836 Greene v. Bishop, 1 Cliff. 186 475, 690 v. Darling, 5 Mason, 201, 207-213 ' 4 v. Sisson, 2 Curt. 171 159, 171, 182 v. Star C. & P. Car Co., 99 Fed. R 656 , 522 v. Taooma, 53 Fed. R. 562 50, 57, 803 Greene, County of, v. Daniel, 102 U. a 187 818 v. Kortracht (C. C. A.), 81 Fed. R. 241 55 Greenewald, In re, 99 Fed. R 705 1133 Greenleaf v. Queen, 1 Pet. 138, 148 407 Greenlee v. McDowell, 4 Ired. Eq. (a C.) 481 789 Greenough v. Gaskell, 1 Myl. & K. 100 290 Greenwalt v. Duncan, 16 Fed. R 35 228. 383, 386 Greenwood v. Atkinson, 5 Sim. 419 411 v. Bracher, 1 Fed. R. 856 473 v. Churchill, 1 M. & K. 559 218 v. Freight Co., 105 U. S. 13 39. 220 Greer v. Mezes, 24 How. 268 1070, 1071, 1077 Gregg v. Legh, 4 Madd. 192, 207 285, 373 Gregor v. Molesworth, 2 Ves. Sen. 109 787 Gregory v. Boston S. D. & Tr. Co., 88 Fed. R. 3 936 v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R Co., 10 Fed. R 529 666 v. Hartley, 113 U. S. 742 945 v. McVeigh, 23 Wall. 294 1185 v. Molesworth, 3 Atk. 626 708 v. Pike (C. C. A), 77 Fed. R 241 1297 v. Pike (C. C. A.). 67 Fed. R. 837 386, 387, 445, 656, 658, 723, 1275 v. Pike, 79 Fed. R 520 260 v. Pike, 64 Fed. R. 415 1250, 1357 967 713 282 Gregory v. Stetson, 1 S3 U. S. 579 176 v. Van Ee, 160 U. S. 643 445 Gregory Consol. Min. Co. v. Starr, 141 XT. S. 222 1293 Gregson v. Oswald, 1 Cox, Eq. 343, 344 394, 395 Grendale, The, v. Evich (C. C. A), 81 Fed. R 633 Gresley v. Mousley, 4 De G. & J. 78, 99 Grether v. Wright (C. C. A), 75 Fed. R 742 13, Grew v. Bree, 12 Met. (Mass.) 369 406 Grice, In re, 79 Fed. R 627 833 Gridley v. Wynant, 23 How. 500 160, 171 Griffin, The, 4 Blatchf. 203 648 Griffin v. Griffin, 111 Mich. 538, 70 N. W. R. 423 379 v. Merrill, 10 Md. 364 212 v. U. S., 13 Ct CI. 257 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030 v. Wilcox, 21 Ind. 370 840 Griffing v. Gibb, 2 Black, 519 315 Griffith v. Griffith, 2 Ves. Sen. 400 v. Shaw, 89 Fed. R. 313 v. Truckhomer, Pet. C. C. 166 Grimes, In re, 96 Fed. R 529 , 96 Fed. R. 829 Grimes v. French, 2 Atk. 258 Grimley, In re, 137 U. S. 147 Grisar v. McDowell. 6 Wall. 363 1061, 1064, 1076, 1080 Griswold v. Bacheller, 77 Fed. R. 857 282, 327, 330, 331 v. Hazard, 141 U. S. 260, 281 4, 584 v. Hill, 1 Paine, 483 393, 398, -461,711,712 Groff v. Boesch, 50 Fed. R 660 1293 Groom v. Chambers, 2 Mont. & Ayr. 742 Gross v. George W. Scott Mfg. Co., 48 Fed. R 35 v. Palmer, 105 Fed. R 833 v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477 1186, 1187 Gross & Phillipps Mfg. Co. v. Gerhard, 8 Rep. 136 Grosvenor v'. Dashiell, 62 Fed. R 584 Grote v. Bury, 1 W. R 92 Grove v. Grove, 93 Fed. R. 855 v. Grove, 93 Fed. R 865 v. Grove, 91 Fed. R 865 Grover v. Faurot, 162 U. S. 435 Groves v. Senteel, 153 17. S. 465; S. C, 66 Fed. R 179 845, 1293 v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 449 878 Grubb v. Clayton, 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 378 317 570 633 600 1137 1125 234 837 137, 675 175 652 755 206 567 706 65 151 1177 Lxxxiv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Grubbs-Wiley Grocery Co., In re. 96 Fed. R 183 1133 Grundy v. Young, 2 Cranch, C. C.1U 6 508 Guarantee Co. v. Hanway (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. E. 369 936 Guarantee Tr. & S. D. Co. v. Duluth & W. R Co., 70 Fed. _ R 803 436, 437 Gubbins v. Laughtenschlager, 75 Fed. R 615 364, 365, 374 Guiding Star, The, 18 Fed. R. 263 986 Guilbert v. Hawles, 1 Ch. Cas. „ 40 r 656 Guinn v. Lee, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 646 186 Guion v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 173 1217 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Jack- son, 64 Fed. R. 79 890 v. James, 48 Fed. R. 148 809 v. Johnson (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R 474 1280 Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U. S. 131 71, 438 v. Pitkin, 113 U. S. 545 1203, 1219, 1230, 1253, 1257 Gunn v. Black, 60 Fed. R. 151 680, 778, 1282 v. Brinckley C. W. & Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 66 Fed. R. 382 5, 30 v. Ewan, 93 Fed. R. 80 558 Gunnell v. Bird, 10 Wall. 304, 308 403 Gunther v. Liverpool, L & G. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. R. 830 748 Guppy v. Brown, 4 Dall. 410 647, 648 Gurnee v. Patrick County, 137 U. S. 141 065 Gurney v. Atlantic & G. W. Ry. Co., 58 N. Y. 358 533 Gut Lun, In re, 83 Fed. R. 141 846 , 84 Fed. R 323 846 Guttman v. U. S., 6 Ct. CI. Ill 1026 Gutwillig, In re, 90 Fed. R. 481 1103 (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R 337 1103 Guy v. Guy, 2 Beav. 460 124, 125, 427 Guyon v. Serrell, 1 Blatchf. 244 715 Guyot v. Hilton, 32 Fed. R. 743 591, 865 Gwin v. Breedlove, 15 Pet. 284 1265 G. W. Tel. Co. v. Burnham, 162 U. S. 339 1202 Gypsum Prince, The (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R, 612 990 H. Haberman Mfg. Co., In re, 147 U. S. 525 1243 Hack v. Chicago & G. S. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R. 356 444, 923 Had den v. Dooley (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. 429 505, 1293 Hadfield v. N. W. Life Assur. Co., 105 Fed. R. 530 958 Haensell, In re, 91 Fed. R. 355 1120 Haft v. Spicer, 3 Caines (N. Y.), 190 612 Hagan v. Bhndell (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 696 409 v, Luoas, 10 Pet. 400 17 v. Walker, 44 How. 29 150, 151 Hagar, Ex parte, 104 U. S. 520 812 Hagenbeck v. Hagenbeck Z. A. Co., 59 Fed. R. 14 30, 515 Hager v. Swayne, 149 U. S. 242 1024 Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52 136, 141, 143 Haight v. Proprietors Morris Aqueduct, 4 Wash. 601 350, 609 Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254 459 v. Carpenter, 1 Woods, 262 211 v, McLaughlin, 12 Sawyer, 126 745) 74 6 Hair v. Burnell, 106 Fed. R. 280 819 Haire v. Rome R Co., 57 Fed. R. 321 944, 945 Hake v. Brown, 37 Fed. R 783 707 v. Brown, 44 Fed. R. 734 727, 747, rr , 94 8 Hakes v. Burns, 40 Fed. R 33 923, 936 Haldane v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R. 819 1272 Halderman v. Halderman, Hempst. 407 300 Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554 1187 v. Bugg, 82 Fed. R. 33 20 v. Continental L. Ins. Co., 12 Fed. R 359 271 v. Continental L. Ins. Co., 16 Fed. R. 718; s. C., 20 Fed. R. 344 275, 846 — v. Frost, 99 IT. S. 389 525, 529, 530, 533 v. Hardon, 89 Fed. R. 283, 287 127, 551, 553 v. Tyler, 104 Fed. R 757 553, 1232 Hales v. Sutton, 1 Dickens, 26 258 Hall v. Bodily, 1 Vernon, 470 347 v.Chattanooga Agr. Works, 48 Fed. R 599 941, 944, 958 v. Gambrill (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R 32 1219 v. Hoddesdon, 2 P. Wms. 162 624 v. Jordan, 19 Wall. 271 1291 v. Maltby, 6 Price, 240 201 v. Pitrat, 45 Fed. R 94 28 v. Union P. R Co., 3 Dill. 515 824 v. U. S., 9 Ct. CI. 270 1002. 1003 v. Weare, 92 U. S. 728 876, 1287 v. Wood. 1 Paige (N. Y), 404 347 Hallett v. Hallett, 2 Paige (N. Y), 432 161,434 TABLE OF OASES. lxxxv Keferences are to pagea Hallett v.Sutton, 12 Simons, 145 258 Halsey v. Brotherhood, 45 L. T. (N. S.) 640 485 ■ v. Carter, 6 Robertson (N. Y.). 535 " 424 v. Goddard, 86 Fed. R. 25 202, 204, 210 Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 341 369 Haly v. Goodsoh, 2 Mer. 77 464 Hamblin v. Bishop, 41 Fed. R. 74 4 v. Chicago, B. & Q. R Co., 43 Fed. R 401 v. Western Land Co., 147 U. S. 531 Hamersley v. Lambert, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 508 Hamilton v. Accessory T. Co., 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 46 v. Baldwin, 41 Fed. R. 429 v. Brewster, 2 Molloy, 407 v. Chouteau, 6 Fed. R. 339 v. Fowler, 83 Fed. R. 321 v. Houghton, 2 Bligh, P. C. 169 v. Jones, 2 Hayw. 291 v. Nevada G. & S. M. Co., 33 Fed. R 562, 568 v. Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co., 49 Fed. R. 413 v. The Walla Walla, 44 Fed. R. 4 v. Walsh, 23 Fed. R. 420 Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Saxey, 131 Mo. 212; S. C., 32 a W. R. 1106 Hamlin v. Toledo, St. L & K. a R. Co., 78 Fed. R 664 435, 436, 445, 1206 Hammacher v. Wilson, 32 Fed. R796 Hammerschlag Mfg. Co. v. Judd, 26 Fed. R. 292 Hammock v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 105 U. S. 77 Hancock v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 145 U. S. 409 v. Walsh, 3 Woods, 351 Hand v. Hagood, 131 U.S. clxxxi 1202 Handford v. Storie, 2 Sim. & S. 196 Handley v. Stutz. 137 U. S. 366 963 1256 122 518 721 571 17 952 776 856 374 175 909 459 469 686 609 711 882 174 163 53, 1213 1215 v. Stutz, 138 U. S. 366 Handy vj Cleveland & M. R. Co., 31 Fed. R 689 558 Hanford v. Da vies, 163 U. a 273 62 v. Storie, 2 Sim. & S. 196 636 Hankinson v. Page, 31 Fed, R. 184 270 Hanlon v. Primrose, 56 Fed. R. 600 294 Hanna v. Maas, 122 U. S. 24 890 536 33 920 600 Hanna v. State Trust Co. (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 2 Hannah v. Hodgson, 30 Beav. 12 Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 548 Hanover Nat. Bank v. Smith, 13 Blatchf. 224 Hanrick v. Barton, 16 Wall. 166 — - v. Hanrick, 152 U.S. 192 938,944 v. Patrick, 119 U. S. 156 445, 1219 1220 Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 135, 143 Hansen v. Boyd, 161 U. a 397, 411 1280 Hanson v. Gardiner, 7 Ves. 305 467, 497 Hapgood v.Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226 37 Haracovio v. Standard Oil Co., 105 Fed. R 785 911 Hardcastle v. Smithson, 3 Atk. ■ 246 166 Hardee v. Wilson, 146 U. S. 179 1218. 1319, 1220 Hardeman v. Anderson, 4 How. 640 1399 Hardenbergh v. Ray, 151 U. S. ' 112 65,70 Hardester v. Sharretts, 84 Md. 146 262 Hardie v. Bulger, 66 Miss. 577 213 Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. a 756 203, 363, 367, 368 Harding, Ex parte, 120 U.S. 782 834, 835 Harding v. Cass County, 42 Fed. R 652 55 v. Guice (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R 162 15 v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 103 148, 672, 690 — ^ v. Pingey, 10 Jurist (N. S.), 872 236 Hardy v.Moore, 4 Fed. R. 843 967,968 Hare v. Rose, 2 Ves. Sen. 558 752 Hargrave v. Hargrave, 8 Beav. 289 676 Harkell, In re, 52 Fed. R 195 834 Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476 272 Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148 24, 36, 143, 463, 592, 848, 1174 Harland v. Bankers' & M. Tel. Co., 32 Fed. R 305 292 v. B. & M. TeL Co., 33 Fed. R. 199 551, 720 v. U. L Tel. Co., 40 Fed. R. 308 857 Harless v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. R. 97 1193 Harman v. Jones, Cr. & Ph. 299 467 Harmon, Ex parte, 131 U. S., Appendix, lxvii 824 Harmon v. Auditor, 123 I1L 123 323 lxxxvi TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. Harmon v. TT. S., 43 Fed. E. 560, 564, 565 Harold v. Iron S. Min. Co., 33 Fed. E. 529 Harpending v. Reformed Prot. Ch., 16 Pet. 455 Harper v. Hill, 35 Miss. 63 v. Holman, 84 Fed. R. 223 v. Norfolk & W. R Co., 36 Fed. R 102 Harper & Bros., In re, 100 Fed. R. 266 1094, 1101 Harper & Reynolds Co. v. Wil- gus (C. C. A.). 56 Fed. R 587 Harriman v. Rockaway B. P. Co., 5 Fed. R. 461 Harrington v. Holler, 111 U. S. 796 1202, 1203 Harris v. Barber, 129 TT. S. 366 828, 831, 1213, 1256 v. Barnett, 4 Blatohf. 369 600 v. Deitrich, 29 Mich. 366 275 v. Delaware, L. &W. R. Co., 18 Fed. R. 833 v. Hess, 10 Fed. R. 263 v. Ingledew, 3 P. Wins. 91 v. Johnson, 3 Cranoh, 311 v. Pollard, 3 P. Wms. 348 132 912 314 199 217 66 892 972 • v. Wall, 7 How. 693 959 806 593 152 401, 402 637, 639, 642, 643 Harrisburg, The, 119 U. S. 199 967 Harrison's Case, 1 Cranoh, C. C. 159 841 Harrison v. Dixon, 9 Pet. 483, 503 195 r. German American F. Ins. Co. (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. R. 758 889 v. Hogg, 2 Ves. Jr. 323 229, 295 v. Nixon, 8 Pet. 483 1274 v. Perea, 168 U. S. 311 383, 389, 753, 1163 v. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. 202 28, 125, 146, 158, 184 v. Uramm, 1 Story, 64 661 v. U. S., 20 Ct. CI. 175 1018 Harshman v. Knox County, 122 U. S. 306 322, 828 Hart v. Barney & S. Mfg. Co., 7 Fed. R. 543 551 v. Burnett, 26 Cal. 169 1182 v. New Orleans, 12 Fed. R. 292, 293 825, 900 v. Small, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 551 422 v. U. S., 118 U. a 62 1005 Hartell v. Tilgham, 99 TT. S. 547 59, 670 Harter v. Kernochan, 103 TT. a 562 62, 64, 170, 178 Hartford, The City of, 11 Fed. R. 89 974 53 881 676 1013 787 180 230 517 290 56 Hartford & C. W. R. Co. v. Mon- tague, 94 Fed. R. 227 916, 952 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bon- ner, 44 Fed. R 151 28, 208, 803 v. Bonner M. Co.-, 56 Fed. R. 378 v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 91, 100 Hartland v. Dancocks, 5 De G. & Sra. 561 Hartman's Case, 35 Ct. CI. 106 Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 IT. S. 672 1184 Hartog v. Memory, 116 TT. S. 588 659,802 Harton v. McKee, 73 Fed. R. 556 593 Hartshorn v. Day, 18 How. 28 1253 Hart well v. Townsend, 6 Bro. Pari. R. 107 Harvey v. Corrie, 4 Russ. 35, 55 v. Kelly, 41 Miss. 490 v. Lord, 10 Fed. R. 236 v. Morris, Rep. temp. Finch. 214 v. Raleigh & G. R Co., 89 Fed. R 115 v. Richmond & M. Ry. Co., 64 Fed. R. 19 193, 292 v. U. S., 3 Ct. CI. 38 1001 v. TT. S., 113 TT. S. 243 1051, 1055, 1162 Harwood v. Dieckerhoff, 117 U. S. 200 1243 v. Railroad Cc, 17 Wall. 78 177, 797 Haskell, In re, 52 Fed. R 795, 798 842, 895 Haskins v. St. Louis & S. E. Ry. Co., 109 U.S. 106 1238 Hassall v. Wilcox, 115 TT. S. 508 1215, 1216 v. Wilcox, 130 U. S. 493 536 Hastings v. Ames (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R. 726 v. No. Pac. Ry. Co., 53 Fed. R 224 Hat Sweat Mfg. Co. v. Waring, 46 Fed. R. 87 56, 655 Hatch v. Bancroft-Thompson Co., 67 Fed. R. 802 327, 330 v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 174 v. Eustis, 1 Gall. 160 855, 856 v. Ferguson, 52 Fed. R. 8i33 74 v. Indianapolis & S. R Co., 9 Fed. R. 856 688, 689 Hatch's Adin'x v. Wadley, 84 Fed. R. 913 Hatch a B. Co. v. El. St. Ry. Co. (C. C. A), 100 Fed. R. 975 Hatfield v. Bushnell, 1 Blatohf. 393 Hathaway v. East Tenn., V. & G. R. Co., 29 Fed. R 489 511 876 952 472 868 875 TABLE OF CASES. lxxxvii References are to pages. Hathaway v. Roach, 3 W. & M. 63 718, 745, 746 v. Scott, 11 Paige, 173 351, 612 Havemeyer v. Board of Super- visors, 3 Wall. 294 1177 v. Iowa County, 3 Wall. 294 878, 882 Havilah, The (C. C. A.), 48 Fed. R. 684 991, 116R, 1195 Hawes v. Bamford, 9 Sim. 653 610 v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450 39, 220, 454 Hawke v. Kemp, 3 Beav. 288 427 Hawkins, In re, 147 U. S. 486 816, 991, 1277 Hawkins v. Blake, 108 U. S. 422 1294 v. Cleveland, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 99 Fed. R 323; s. C. (C. C. A.), 89 Fed. R. 26B 1290, 1295 v. Crook, 2 P. Wms. 559 274, 276 v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319, 331 321, 881 v. Luscombe,2 Swanst.375, 390 145 v. Willbank, 4 Wash. 285 756 Hawley v. Bennett, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 163 394 v. Donnelly,8 Paige (N. Y), 415 009 v. U. S., 108 U. S. 543 1215 Hawly v. Harvey, 4 Beav. 215; S. C, 5 Beav. 134 171 Hax v. Caspar, 31 Fed. R 499 922, 925, 964 Hay v. Alexandria & W. R. Co., 20 Fed. R. 15 84 Hayden v. Androscoggin Mills, 1 Fed. R 93 255, 256 v. Thompson (C. C. A.), 71 Fed. R. 60; reversing s. C, 67 Fed. R 273 213 Hayes' Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 110 213 Hayes v. Columbus, L. & M. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. R. 630 562 ' v. Dayton, 8 Fed. R. 702, 706 225, 286, 328 v. Fischer, 102 TJ. S. 121 703, 768, 1207 v. Heyer, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 485 213 v. Leton, 5 Fed. R. 521 511 v. Pratt, 147 U. S. 557 127, 158, 876 Hayne v. Hayne, 3 Ch. R 19 384 Hays v. Alrich, 115 Ala. 239; S. C 22 S. R 465 199 v. Pittsburgh G. & B. Packet Co., 33 Fed. R. 552 968 v. U. S., 170 U. S. 637 1060 Haytian Republic, The, 57 Fed. R 508, 512 311 Hayward's Case, 30 Ct. CL 219 1012 Hayward v. Andrews, 106 U.S. 672 36, 153 v. Nordburg Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R 4 57 Hazard, The, v. Campbell, 9 Cranch, 205 1277 Hazard v. Durant, 19 Fed. R. 471 127, 171, 303, 552 Hazleton T. R. Co. v. Citizens' ' St. Ry. Co., 72 Fed. R. 325 407, 418 Head v. Godlee, Johns. 536 783 v. Porter, 48 Fed. R 481 1013 v. Porter, 70 Fed. R. 498 392, 869 Headley. In re, 97 Fed. R 765 1130 Headman v. V. S., 5 Ct. CI. 640 Healey v. Humphrey (C. G. A.), 81 Fed. R 990 Hearfield v. Bridges (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R 47 Hearn v. Tenant, 14 Ves. 136 Heath, In re, 144 U. S. 92 Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. 348 171, 172, 174, 285, 286 v. Erie R Co., 9 Blatchf. 316 9, 259, 387, 388. 627, 650 v. Shaffer, 93 Fed. R. 646 1103 Heathcote v. N. S. Rv. Co., 2 Mac. &G. 100 Heathfield v. U. S., 8 Ct CI. 213 Heaton v. Thatcher, 59 Fed. R. 731 Heaton P. B. F. Co. v. Schlocht- meyer, 69 Fed. R 592; s. C. (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R 520 283, 587 Hebbart, In re, 104 Fed. R. 322 1098 Hebert v. Mutual L. Ins. Co., 12 Fed. R. 807 28, 217 Hecht v. Metzler, 82 Fed. R 340 909 Heckman v. Mackey, 32 Fed. R 57 Hedges v. Seibert C. O. C. Co. (C. C. A.), 50 Fed. R. 643 Heffron v. Knickerbocker, 57 111. App. 339 Hefner v. Northwestern Life Ins. Co., 123 U. S. 747 155, 218 Hegewich v. Silver, 140 N. Y. 414 553 Heidecker v. Red Star L. S. S. Co., 32 Fed. R. 706 954 Heidiitter v. Elizabeth Oil-cloth Co., 112 U. S. 294 17, 22 Heighington v. Grant, 1 Beav. 230 719 Henderson v. Cabell, 43 Fed. R. 257 930, 952, 956 v. Carbondale C. & C. Co., 140 U. S. 25, 40 448 v. Goode, 49 Fed. R 887 66, 73 v. Henshall, 54 Fed. R 320 869, 1162, 1283 v. Meggs, 2 Brown Ch. C. 127 259 v. Moore, 5 Cranch, U 1288 1026 81 321 765 1168 485 1015 11 431 1218 411 lxxxviii TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. 468 33 Heilman v. Union Canal Co., 37 Pa. St. 100 Heine v. Levee Com'rs, 19 Wall. 655 Heinze v. Butte & B. Consol. Min. Co. (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R 165 1191 Hemingway v. Stansell, 106 U. S. 399 393, 398, 408, 1230 Heramenway v. Fisher, 20 How. 255 " 1279 Henderson, In re, 10 Fed. B. 385 1089 Henderson v. Tompkins,60 Fed. R. 758, 765 199 Hendrickson v. Bradley (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R 508 222, 797 Hening v. U. S. Ins. Co., 2 Dill. 26 878, 879 Henley v Phillips, 2 Atk. 48 751, 752 Hennequin v. Clews, 111 U. S. 676 1148 flennessy v. Sheldon, 12 WalL 440 1291 Henning v. W. U. Tel. Co., 40 Fed. R. 658 803 Henninger v. Heald, 51 N. J. Eq. 74 212 Henrv v. Ricketts, 1 Cranoh, C. C. 5"80 617, 618, 770 v. Suttle, 42 Fed. R. 91 195 v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 35 Fed. R. 15 622 v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 45 Fed. R 299, 303 413, 414 v. U. S., 22 Ct. CI. 75 805 Henry Amy & Co. v. Shelby County, 1 Flip. 104 Henshaw v. Miller, 17 How. 212 v. Wells, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 568 Henszey v. Langdon-Henszey Min. Co., 80 Fed. R 178 597, 866 Henthorn v. Doe, 1 Blackf.(Ind.) 157 Hentig v. Page, 103 U. S. 219 Hepburn v. Auld, 5 Cranoh, 262 v. Dunlop, 1 Wheat. 170 v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445 Herbert v. Butler, 14 Blatoh. 357 v. Butler, 97 Fed. R. 319 v. Raney, 54 Fed. R. 248; S. C. in C. C. A., 55 Fed. R 443 v. Wren, 7 Cranoh, 370 ' Hercules, The, 20 Fed. R. 205 Heriot v. Davis, 2 W. & M. 229 176. 178 Herman v. MoKinney, 43 Fed. R 689 909 Herndon v. Ridgway, 17 How. 424 244, 259 v. Southern R Co., 73 Fed. R. 307 943 941 733 567 607 703 487 487 66 889 891 535 4 985 547 695 487 18, Herndon v. Southern E. Co., 76 Fed. R 398 Herrick v. Cutcheon (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R 6; S. O., 5 C. C. A. 21 512, 1207 v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 7 Upper Can. 240 454, 518 Herring v. Clobery, Cr. & Ph. 251 784 Hersey v. Fosdiok, 20 Fed. R 44 1139 Hershberger v. Blewett, 55 Fed. R 170 11, 655, 656 Hervey v. Fitzpatrick, Kay, 421 515 v. 111. Mid. Ry. Co., 28 Fed. R 16J v. 111. Mid. Ry. Co., U. S. C. C, S. D. 111., June 10, 1886 v. Smith, 1 K, & J. 389 Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U. S. 73 918, 937 Hewett v. Norton, 1 Woods, 68 409 Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U. S. 142 1234 Heyman v. Uhlman, 34 Fed. R 686 273, 348, 359 Heyn v. Heyn, Jacob, 49 276,279,683 Heys v. Astley, 9 Law Times (N. &), 356 Hibernia, The, 1 Sprague, 78 Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis & N. C. Transp. Co., 10 Fed. R 596; S. C, 120 U. S. 156 Hibbert v. Hibbert, 3 Meriv. 681 Hichens v. Congreve, 4 Russell, 563 Hicklin v. Marco (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 549 65, 148, 175, 176, 376 v. Marco, 64 Fed. R 609 172, 779, 780 Hickman v. Fort Soott, 141 U. S. 415 870,. 898, 899 v. Jones, 9 Wall. 197 891 Hickory v. U. S., 151 U. a 303 863 Hicks, In re, 2 Fed.- R 851 1108 Hicks v. Cleveland (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R 459 818, 827 v. Compton, 18 Cal. 206 468 . v. Hicks, 3 Atk. 274 v. Knost, 178 U. S. 541 v. Otto, 17 Fed. R. 539 • v. Otto, 22 Blatchf. 122 v. Otto, 85 Fed. R 728 v. Ramcock, 1 Cox, 40 v. U. S., 150 U. S. 443, 453 v. Wrench, Mad. & Geld. 93 Hickson v. Lombard, L, R. 1 H. of L. 326 Hide v. Haywood, 2 Atk. 126 Hier v. Abrahams, 82 N. Y. 519 Hiern v. Mill, 13 Ves. 118 Higby v. Columbia R Co., 18 Fed.R 601 Higgins, In re, 27 Fed. R 443 S15 740 213 570 163 516, 557 87, 1085 374 783 783 293 893 751 205 751 477 234 313 553 TABLE OF CASES. lxxxix References are to pages. 1135 464 979 512 385 368 531 567 588 289 Higgins, In re, 97 Fed. R 775 Biggins v. Jenks. 3 Ware, 17 Highland Light, The, 88 Fed. E. 296 Highland Ave. & B. R Co. v. Columbian Eq. Co., 168 U. S. 627 Higinbotham v. Burnet, 5 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 184 285, 627 Higueras v. U. S., 5 Wall 827 1076, 1079, 1080 Hilborn, In re, 104 Fed. R 866 1140 Hildebrand v. Beasley, 41 S. R (Tenn.) 121, 123 Hildyard v. Cressy, 3 Atk. 803 Hiles v. Case, 14 Fed. R. 141; s. O., 9 Biss. 549 v. Moore, 15 Beav. 175 Hill v. Binney, 6 Ves. 738 v. Bonaffon, 2 W. N. C. (Pa.) 356 v. Chicago & E. Ey. Co., 129 U. S. 170 1239 v. Chicago & E. Ey. Co., 140 U. S. 52 703, 1206, 1226, 1283 v. Glasgow E. Co., 41 Fed. R 610 53, 54 v. Gordon, 45 Fed. R 276 251 v. Harding, 107 U. S. 631 1274 v. Hite (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R 268 231 v. Kuhlman (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R 498 72 v. Levy, 98 Fed. E 94 1111 v. Eimell, 8 Sim. 632 425 v. Smith, 32 Fed. E 753 722 v. Thompson, 3 Meriv. 622 471, 473, 495 v. U. S., 8 Ct. CI. 470 1026, 1028 v. U. S., 9 How. 386 483 v. U. S., 149 U. S. 593 1012 v. Wooster, 132 U. S. 693 31 Hillmon v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 79 Fed. R 749 761 Hills v. Exchange Bank, 105 U. S. 319 456 v. Putnam, 152 Mass. 123 184 Hilton, In re, 104 Fed. R 981 1148 Hilton v. Barrow, 1 Ves. Jr. 284 381 v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165 1255 v. Guyott, 42 Fed. R 249 305, 327 y. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113 316, 318 Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch, 513 1296 Hinchman v. Faterson H R Co., 17 N.J. Eq. 76 184 Hinckley, In re, 3 Fed. R 556 574 Hinckley v. Gilman C. & S. R Co., 94 U. S. 467 573 v. Morton, 103 U. & 764 1263, 1297 v. Railroad Co., 100 U. 8. 153 556, 557, 572, 573, 574, 961 Hinde v. Longworth, 11 Wheat. 199 1204 v. Morton, 2 H. & M. 368 661 Hinds v. Keith, 57 Fed. R 10 615, 955 1275 Hipp v. Babin, 19 How. 271 6,' 8, 34 Hiriart v. Ballon, 9 Pet. 156 1248 Hirsch, In re, 74 Fed. R 928 593 , 96 Fed. R 468 1144, 1146, 1147 , 97 Fed. R 571 1087, 1146 Hirschl v. J. I. Case T. Mach. Co., 42 Fed. E 803 928 Hirsohman, In re, 104 Fed. E. 69 1131 Hirsh v. Jones, 56 Fed. R 1 37 810, 954 Hirshf eld v. Fitzgerald, 157 N. Y. 166 162 Hi tner v. Suckley, 2 Wash. 465 258, 259, 260 Hitsman v. Garrard, 1 Harr. (N. J.) 124 613 Hitz, Ex parte, 111 TJ. S. 766 831 Hixon, In re, 93 Fed. E. 440 1145, 1147 Hoadley v. San Francisco, 94 U. S. 4 814 Hoag, In re, 97 Fed. E. 543 1137 Hoard, Ex parte, 105 U. S. 578 816 Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U. S. 567 613, 719, 1024 v. Nat Bank of Com. (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R 615 891, 1354 v. State Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R. 618 791 v. U. S., 17 Ct. CI. 189 1002, 1003 v. U. S., 19 Ct. CI. 220 1052 Hobhouse v. Courtney, 12 Sim. 140 258, 260 Hobson v. McArthur, 16 Pet. 182 409 Hodge v. Hudson River R. Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 410; s. C, 6 Blatchf. 85 705 v. North Mo. R Co., 1 Dill. 104 287, 294 Hodgen v. Met. EL Ry. Co., U. S. C. C. W. D. Mo., per Philips, D. J., May, 1894 Hodges v. Easton, 106 TJ. S. 408 v. Kimball (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R 845 127, 371 v. Kimball (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R 745 v. Mullikin, 1 Bland (Md.), 503, 507 v. Smith, 1 Cox Eq. 357 Hodgkin v. Langdon, 8 ves. 2 Hodson v. Ball, 11 Simons, 459 Hoe v. Boston D. Adv. Co., 14 Fed. R 914 473, 499 v. Kahler, 27 Fed. R. 145 1249, 1250 v. Knap, 27 Fed. R 204 473 v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 501 161, 177, 183, 184 441 894 875 714 245 286 186 xc TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Hoey v. Coleman, 46 Fed. R 221 34, 807 Hoffman v. Duncan, 18 Jur. 09 569 v. Knox, 50 Fed. R 484 787, 791, 1204 Hoffmann v. Fostill, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 673 354 Hogan v. Ross, 11 How. 294 1299 Hoge v. Canton Ins. Office, 103 Fed. R. 513 913, 927, 963 Hogg v. Emerson, 11 How. 587 1281 v. Kirby, 8 Ves. 215 470 v. Scott. L. R 18 Eq. 444 475 Hoggart v. Cutts, 1 Cr. & Ph. 197 247 Hohorst, In re, 150 U. S. 653 46, 70, 76, 255, 814 Hohorst v. Hamburg Am. P. Co., 38 Fed. R 273 273 v. Hamburg Am. P. Co., 148 U. S. 263 1206, 1218 v. Howard, 37 Fed. R. 97 392, 869 Holbrook v. Worcester Bank, 2 Curt. 244 342 Holcombe v. Johnson, 27 Minn, 353 v. McCusick, 20 How. 552 Hole v. Barlow, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 334 Holden v. Freedman's S. & Tr. Co., 100 U. S. 72 v., Hearn, 1 Beav. 445 v. Utah & M. Mach. Co., 82 Fed. R. 209 49, 56 v. Williams, 75 Fed. R 798 810 Holder v. Aultman M. & Co., 169 U. S. 81 Holderness v. Rankin, 2 De Gex, F. & J. 258 Holford v. Yate, 1 K. & J. 677 Holgate v. Eaton, 116 U. S. 33 Holiday v. Pickhardt, 29 Fed. R 853 Holkirk v. Holkirk, 4 Madd. 50 Holladay, In re, 28 Fed. R. 117 Holladay v. Stuart, 151 U. S. 229 Holland v. Brown. 35 Fed. R. 43 883 v.'Challen, 110 U. S. 15 13, 15, 881 v. Hyde, 41 Fed. R. 877 60 Hollander v. Baiz, 40 Fed. R 659 645 v. Hechheimer, 162 U. S. 327 127, 1214 Holliday v. Schultzeberge, 57 Fed. R 660 645 Hollingshead's Case, 1 P. Wms. 742 402 Hollingsworth v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 77 760, 766 v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 141 766 Hollins v. Brierfield C. & I. Co., 150 U. S. 371 36,437,518,670 558 1201 467 883 350 1164 378 709 390 226 657 1242 1246 1163 1224 267 Hollister v. Benedict & B. Mfg. Co., 113 U. S. 59 484, 1012, 1013 v. Stewart, 1 11 N. Y. 644 524 v Hollon Parker, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 221 814, 824, 827 Holloway, In re, 93 Fed. R. 638 1 103 Holman, In re, 92 Fed. R. 512 1145 Holman v. U. S., 11 Ct. CI. 642 1003 Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S. 150 85, 1289 v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540 1184, 1279 v. Railway Co., 5 Fed. R. 75; s. c, 5 Fed. R 523 883 v. Sheridan, 1 Dill. 351 861 v. Sheridan, 1 Dill. 421, note 745 v. Sherwood, 16 Fed. R. 725: S. Q, 3 McCrary, 405 552, 553 v. Trout, 7 Pet. 171 1276 Holt v. Bergevin, 60 Fed. R 1 54. 806, 930 v. Indiana Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 1 v. Indiana Mfg. Co., 176 TJ. S. 68 46, v. Wharton (C. C. A), 73 Fed. R 392 Holton v. Wallace, 66 Fed. R. 409 214, 216 Holyoke & S. H. F. I. Co. v. Amb- den, 55 Fed. R 593 268 Homan v. Shiel, 2 Jones (Irish), 164 313 Home Ins. Co. v. Barton, 13 Wall. 603 1288 v. Stanchfield, 1 Dill. 424 9, 35 v. U. S., 8 Ct. CI. 449 1023, 1028 Home Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. No- bles, 63 Fed. R 641 483, 486, 600 Home S. F. In v. & A. Co. v. Ray, 69 Fed. R. 657 Homer v. Brown, 16 How. 354 Hone v. Dillon, 29 Fed. R. 465 Honey v. Chicago, B. & Q. R Co. (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. R. 773 Hood v. Aston, 1 Russ. 412 v. Clapham, 19 Beav. 90 v. Inman, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 437 196, 343 v. Phillips, 6 Beav. 176 656 Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U.S. 395 66 Hook v. Bosworth, 64 E'ed. R 443 519, 542 v. Dorman, 1 Sim. & S. 227 291, 296 v. Mercantile Tr. Co., 89 Fed. R 410 898 v. Mercantile Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R 41 442, 1218, 1262, 1276 v. Payne, 14 Wall. 252 183 Hookey, Ex parte, 4 De Q., F. & J. 456 449 54 317 945 1209 463 381 TABLE OF OASES. XC1 References are to pages. Hooper v. Winston, 24 111. 353 572 Hoover v. Montelair & G. L. Ry. Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 4 546, 547 Hoover & Allen Co. v. Colum- bia S. P. Co., 68 Fed. R. 945 51 Hope v. Hope, 4 De G, M. & G. 328 424 Hopkins v. Grimshaw, 165 U. S. 342 35, 213, 614 v. MoLure, 133 U. S. 380 1187 v. Orr, 124 U. S. 510 1280 v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 Fed. R. 912 65, 70, 469 v. Page, 2 Brock. 20, 42 155 v. W. & B. C. Co., L. R 6 Eq. 437 537 Horace v. Parker, The (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R 640 979 Horgan, In re (C. C. A.), 98 Fed. R 414 1114, 1154 Horn v. Detroit T. D. Co., 150 TJ. S. 610 335, 336 v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570 65, 171 Horn & Br. Mfg. Co. v. Pelzer, 91 Fed. R. 665 472 Horn Silver Mining Co. v. New York State, 143 TJ. S. 305 912 Horner v. U. S., No. 2, 143 U. S. 570 1163, 1164 v. U. &, 146 TJ. S. 120 848 Hornor v. Henning, 93 U. S. 228 10. 174 Hornsby v. TJ. S., 10 Wall. 224 1058, 1059, 1060, 1073, 1074 Horsburg v. Baker, 1 Pet. 232 368, 375 Horst v. Merkley, 59 Fed. R. 502 56 Horton v. N. Y. C. & H R R Co., 63 Fed. R 897 312, 330 ■ v. White, 84 N. C. 297 515 Hosford v. Germania F. L Co., 127 TJ. S. 399 1177 Hospes v. N. W. Mfg. & C. Co., 22 Fed. R 565. 919 Hotchkiss v. Piatt, 8 Hun (N. Y.), 46 508 Hottenstein v. Conrad, 9 Kan. 435 565 Hottentot Venus, The, 13 East, 194 840 Hough v. Railway Co., 100 TJ. S. 213 879 Houghton v. West, 2 Bro. Pari. Rep. by Tomlins, 88 387, 789 Houlditch v. Marquis Donne- gall, 1 S. & S. 491 410 House v. Mullen, 22 Wall 42, 46 187, 317, 670 Houser v. Clayton, 3 Woods, 273 931 Houston v. City and County of San Francisco, 47 Fed. R 337 658 v. Moore, 3 Wheat. 433 1184, 1203 S Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Shir- ley, 111 U. S. 358 911.919,936 v. Texas, 177 TJ. S. 66 586 Houth v. Owens, 30 Fed. R. 910 395- Hovey v. Elliott, 167 TJ. S. 409 426, 766 v. McDonald, 109 U. a 150 573, 1217, 1244, 1245 v. Stevens, 3 W. & M. 17 718 Howard, In re, 100 Fed. R. 630 1113, 1130 Howard v. Gold Reefs of Ga., 102 Fed. R 657 928, 931 v. Railway Co., 101 U. S. 837 " 171, 773 Howard Ins. Co. v. Silverberg (C. C. A.), 94 Fed: R 921 1241 v. Stillwell B. M. Co., 139 TJ. S. 199 644 v. U. S. (C. C. A), 75 Fed. R 986 834, 841, 885 Howards v. Selden, 5 Fed. R 465, 473 4 Howe v. Duppa, 1 Ves. & B. 511 293 Howe Mach. Co. v. Edwards, 15 Blatchf. 402 874 Howell v. Lord Coningsby, 1 Fowl. Ex. Pr. 161 773 v. Miller (C. C. A), 91 Fed. R 129 137 v. U. S., 7 Ct. CI. 512 1003 v. Walker, 91 Fed. R. 127 140 v. Western R Co., 94 TJ. S. 463 708 Hower v. Weiss M. & G. El. Co., 55 Fed. R 356 960 Howland v. Soule, Deady, 413 484 Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. 173 3, 172, 202, 393, 394, 417 Hoyle, In re, 12 Chic. L. N. 279; s. O., 9 Am. L. Rec. 65 840 Hoyle v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 300 1003 Hoyt, Ex parte, 13 Pet. 279 816, 817 Hoyt v. Bates, 81 Fed. R. 641 58 v. Hammekin, 14 How. 346 649 v. Hoyt, 27 N. J. Eq. 399 205 v. Mackenzie, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 320 453 v. Russell, 117 U. S. 401 587 v. U. S., 10 How. 109 597 Hubbard v. Belle w, 3 Fed. R 447 17 v. Manhattan Tr. Co., 87 Fed. R. 51 154, 172, 201, 294 v. Soby, 146 U. S. 56 1194 v. Todd, 171 TJ. S. 474 1179 v. Turner, 2 McLean, 519 337, 386 v. Urton, 67 Fed. R 419 203, 227 Hubbell v. De Land, 14 Fed. R. 471 304, 323 v. Lankenan, 63 Fed. R. 881 402 v. U. S., 15 Ct. CI. 546, 592 1024 XC11 TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. 162 893 502 316 43 150 312 Hubbell v. Warren, 8 Allen (Mass.), 173 Huber v. Diebold, 25 N. J. Eq. 170 ' 388 Hudgins v. Kemp, 18 How. 530 1238, 1254, 1257 Hudson, The, 15 Fed. R 162 976 Hudson v. Charleston, C. & C. R Co.. 55 Fed. R. 252 v. Coppard, 29 Beav. 4 v. Guestier, 4 Cranoh, 434 v. Guestier, 6 Cranoh, 281 1277 v. Guestier, 7 Cranch, 1 1275 v. Hudson, 3 Rand.' (Va.) 117 384 v. Maddison, 12 Sim. 416 209, 503 v. Parker, 156 IT. S. 277 1244 v. Randolph (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 216 305. 325, 328, 376 Hudson River R. R. & T. Co. v. Day, 54 Fed. R 545 917, 960 Huffman v. U. S., 17 Ct. CI. 55 1014 Huger v. South Carolina, 3 DalL 339 Huggins v. King, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 617 v. York B. Co., 2 Atk. 44 v. York B. Co., 2 Eq. Abr. 3, pi. 14 396, 410 Hugh v. MoRae, Chase, 466 519 Hughes, Ex parte, 114 U. S. 548 749 Hughes v. Blake, 6 Wheat. 453 335, 336, 360 v. Clerk, 6 Hare, 195 627 v. Green, 75 Fed. R. 693 310 v. Green (C. C. A.), 84 Fed. R. 833 23, 310 v. Jones, 26 Beav. 24 779 v. Jones, 3 De G., F. & J. 307 v. Morden College, 1 Ves. Sen. 188 v. Northern Pao. Ry. Co., 18 Fed. R. 106 241 v. U. S., 4 Ct. CI. 64 1036 v. U. 8., 4 Wall. 232' 189, 317 Hughey v. Sullivan, 80 Fed. R 72 885 Huguenin v. Baseley, 15 Ves. 180 " 4 Huguley v.Galeton Cotton Mills, 94 Fed. R. 269 700, 701 Huidekoper, Ex parte, 55 Fed. R. 709 553 Huidekoper v. Loc. Works, 99 U. S. 258 529 Hukill v. Maysville & B. S. R. Co., 72 Fed. R 745 925 Hulbertv.Russo,64Fed.R8 920,937 Hull v. Dills, 19 Fed. R. 657 11 Hullett v.King of Spain, 2 Bligh N. R 31 128 Hulme v. Tenant, 1 Brown, Ch. C. 16 147 671 457 Humason, In re, 46 Fed. R. 388 834 Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 353 889 Humes. In re, 149 IT. S. 192 1295 Humes v. Fort Smith (Ark.), 93 Fed. R. 857 52 v. Scruggs, 94 U. S. 22 360 v. Third Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R 917 1218, 1248 Humeson, In re, 149 U. S. 192 815 Hummel v. Moore, 25 Fed. R 380 > 956 Humphrey, Ex parte, 2 Blatch. 228 617 Humphrey v. Baker, 103 U. & 736 1297 Humphreys v. Humphreys, 3 P. Wms. 348 371 v. Humphreys, 3 P. Wms. 395 " 330 v. Ingledon, 1 P. Wms. 752 228 v. Roberts, Seton's Decrees (4th ed.), 173 501 v. Tate, 4 Iredell's Eq. (N.C.) 220 227 Humphrys v. Moore, 2 Atk. 108 752 Hung Hang, Ex parte, 108 U. S. 552 832 Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U. S. 333 889, 890, 1065, 1066 Hunt v. American Grocery Co., 80 Fed. R. 70 . 517 v. Blackburn, 127 U. S. 774 1272, 1277 v. Danforth, 2 Curt. 592 27 v. Fisher, 29 Fed. R. 801 960 v. Howes (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R 657 720, 724, 1280 v. 111. Cent. Co. (C. C. A.), 96 Fed. R 644 555 v. Jackson, 5 Blatchf. 349 127, 552 v. Lever, 5 Ves. 147 424 v. Oliver, 109 U. S. 177 1217, 1245 v. Ronsmanier's Adm'rs. 8 Wheat. 174, 215; S. C, 1 Pet. 1, 14 3,4 v. Wickliffe. 2 Pet. 201 184, 263 v. U. S., 166 IT. S. 424 1165 Hunter v. , 6 Sim. 429 448 v. International Ry. Imp. Co., 28 Fed. R. 842 728 v. Le Conte, 6 Co wen (N. Y.), 728 ■ 613 v. Martin, 4 Mun. (Va.) 1 1182 v. Russell, 59 Fed. JR. 964 745, 746 v. Town of Marlboro', 2 W. & M. 168 718 v. U. S., 5 Pet. 172 26 Huntington, In re, 157 IT. S. 63 843 Huntington v. Laidley, 79 Fed. R 865 286, 328 v. Laidley, 170 IT. S. 668, 677 22, 1172, 1175 TABLE OF OASES. XC111 References are to pages. Huntington v. Palmer, 8 Fed. R. 449 50? v. Palmer, 104 U. S. 482 39, 230 v. Saunders, 163 TJ. S. 319 1211 Huntington D. P. Co. v. Alpha P. C. Co., 91 Fed. R. 534 473 Huntress v. Epsom, 15 Fed. R 733 726, 750, 803 Hupfeld v. Automaton Piano Co., 66 Fed. R. 788 270, 563 Hurd v. Case, 32 111. 457 385 v. Elizabeth, 41 N. J. Law (12 Vroom), 1 127, 552 v. Gere, 38 Fed. R. 537 936 v. Moiles, 28 Fed. R. 897 25 Hurlburd v. Freelove, 3 Wis. 537 783 Hurst, Ex parte, 1 Wash. C. C. 186 267 Hurst v. Cobb, 61 Fed. R. 1 61 v. Hollingsworth, 94 U. S. Ill 1253 Hurt v. Hollingsworth, 100 U.S. 100 953 Huskins v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.. 37 Fed. R. 504 935, 943 Hutcheson v. Bigbee, 56 Fed. R 329 963 Hutchinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119 122 v. Green, 6 Fed. R 833, 836- 839 17 v. Horner, 9 Jur. 615 434 Hutchinson Cooperage Co. v. Snider (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R 633 1232 Hutson v. Saddler, 31 W. Va. 358 693 Hutton v. Joseph Bancroft & Sons, 83 Fed. R. 17 284 v. Star S. a Co., 60 Fed. R. 747 223 395 Hyatt v. Challiss,55Fed. R 267 ' 885 Hyde v. Folger, 4 McLean, 255 180 v. Forster, 1 Dick. 132 258, 395, 396 v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407 922, 924 v. Woods. 94 U. S. 533 537 Hvlton v. Morgan. 6 Ves. 393 489 Hvman, In re, 97 Fed. R. 195 1146 Hyman v. Chales, 13 Fed. R 855 810 v. Eames, 41 Fed. R. 676 886, 887 v. Wheeler, 29 Fed. R 347 588 v. Wheeler, 33 Fed. R. 329 214, 215 Hynes v. Briggs, 41 Fed. R 468 51 Hyslop v. Hoppock, 5 Ben. 447 252 I. Iasigi v. Brown, 1 Curt. 401 865, 866 v. Van de Carr. 166 U. S. 391 846 I. & St. L. R Co. U. S. 291, 301 Idaho, The, 29 Fed. R Idaho & O. L. I. Co. bury, 132 U. S. 509 v. Horst, 93 801 187 995 v. Brad- 14, 1161, 1168, 1249, 1355 Ide v. Ball Eng. Co., 31 Fed. R. 901 383, 383, 463, 486 Idzall, In re, 96 Fed. R. 314 1146 Illingworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. R. 141, 145 . 32, 484 — - v. Spaulding, 9 Fed. R 154 471 Illinois v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 33 Fed. R. 731 852, 918 Illinois Cent. Ry. Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 28 1164, 1172 v. Adams (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R. 852 v. Griffin (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R278 v. Turrill, 110 U. S. 301 Illinois Tr. & Sav. Bank v. Doud, 105 Fed. R. 123 v. Kilbourne (C. C. A), 76 Fed. R. 883 1220, 1331 v. Ottumwa El. Ry. Co., 89 Fed. R. 385 535, 536 Illinois G. T. Ry. Co. v. Wade, 140 U. S. 65 Illinois Watch Co. v. Elgin Nat. W. Co. (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R. 667; S. C., 179 U. S. 665, 677 Imperial Ref. Co. v. Wyman, 38 Fed. R. 574 803, 964 Independent, The, 9 Ben. 489 741 India R. C. Co. v. Phelps, 8 Blatchf. 85 374, 375 Indiana v. Alleghany Oil Co., 85 Fed. R 870 912,915 v. Tolleston Club, 53 Fed. R. 18 66 Indiana ex rel. City of Muncie v. L. E. & W. Ry. Co., 85 Fed. R 1 818, 918 Indiana ex rel. Stanton v. Glover, 155 U. S. 513 63, 83 Indiana So. R. Co. v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 109 V. S..168 382, 387, 1317, 1274 Indianapolis, City of, v. Central Tr. Co., 83 Fed. R. 539; s. C, 27 C. C. A. 580 512, 1164 Indianapolis Gas Co. v. Indian- apolis, 82 Fed. R 245 499 v. Indianapolis, 90 Fed. R 196 638 Indianapolis & St. L. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 391 874, 880, 885 Indianapolis Water Co. v. Amer- ican S. B. Co., 65 Fed. R. 534 728, 750 v. American Strawboard Co., 75 Fed. R. 972 764 512 875 869 527 314 59 XC1V TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. Indurated F. Ind. Co. v. Grace, 52 Fed. R 124, 128 224, 283, 284 Industrial & M. G. Co. v. El. Supply Co. (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R 732 55, 493 Infanta, The, Abbott's Adm. 263 649 Ingalls, In re, 139 TJ. S. 548 1184 Ingersoll v. Bonroe, 154 U. S. 645 1157 279 727 627 628 1218 719 1219 977 162 869 13 835 870 309,310 814 v. Ingersoll, 42 Miss. 155 Ingham v. Pierce, 37 Fed. R. 647 Ingilby v. Shafto, 33 Beav. 31 Ingle v. Jones, 9 Wall. 486 Inglehart v. Stanbury, 151 TJ. S. 68 Ingram v. U. S., 32 Ct. CI. 147 1011, 1015 Inhabitants of N. B. Tp. v. Hal- sey, 117 U. S. 336 Inland & Seaboard C. Co. v. Tol- son, 136 U. S. 572 Inman v. The Lindrup, 70 Fed. R718 Innes v. Lansing, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 583 Insley v. U. S., 150 U. S. 512 Insurance Co. v. Bailey, Wall. 616 v. Boon, 95 U. S. 117, v. Brune, 96 U. S. 588 v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258 v. Delaware Mut. Ins. Co., 50 Fed. R. 243 921, 926 v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 214 933, 959 v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237; 871 v. Harris, 97 U. S. 331 317, 319 v. Huchbergers, 12 Wall. 164 1291 v. Lanier, 95 U. S. 171 890 v. Mordecai, 22 How. Ill 1283 v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445 920 v. Stebbins, 8 Paige (N. T.), 565 611 v. Svendsen, 74 Fed. R 346 186, 364 Interior Const. & I. Co. v. Gib- ney, 160 U. S. 217 77, 1174 Intermingled Cotton Cases, 92 U. S. 651 International Constr. & I. Co. v. Gibney, 160 U. S. 217 International B. & S. Dock Co. v. U. S., 60 Fed. R 523, 527 International T. C. Co. v. Car- michael, 44 Fed. R 349, 350 382, 387, 486 International Tr. Co. v. Carters- ville I. G. & W. Co., 63 Fed. R 341, 346 v. T. B. Townsend B. & Cr. Co. (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R. 850 International T. C. Lumber Co. v. Marner, 44 Fed. R 621 1046 272 133 226, 211 525 285 International T. C. Lumber Co. v. Maurer, 44 Fed. R 618, 619 Interstate Commerce Commis- sion, In re, 53 Fed. R. 476 Interstate Com. Com'n v. Atch- ison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 149 U. S. 264 1166, 1194 v. Detroit, G. H. & M Ry. Co., 167 U. S. 633 v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 101 Fed. R 146 v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 57 Fed. R. 948, 955 v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. R 187 Interstate L. Co. v. Maxwell L. Co., 139 U. S. 569 v. Maxwell L. G. Co., 41 Fed. R. 275 Intrepid, The, 42 Fed. R. 185 Investment Co. v. Ohio & N. W. Ry. Co., 4 Fed. R. 378 v. Ohio & N. W. R. Co., 36 Fed. R. 48 Iona, The (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 933 Iowa v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 37 Fed. R. 497 v. Illinois, 151 U. S. 238 Iowa & Minn. Constr. Co., In re, 10 Fed. R. 401 21, 920 Iowa H. Co. v. Des Moines N, 283 617 1165 1244 77 173 282 1060 979 543 546 979 915 704 & R. Co., 8 Fed. R 97 385, 444, 926, 956, 957 Iris, The (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R 104 Iron Silver Mine Co. v. Mike & S. G. & S. Min. Co., 143 U. S. 394 Irons v. Manufacturers' Nat Bank, 6 Biss. 301 v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 17 Fed. R. 308 Irvine, Ex parte, 74 Fed. R 954 974 1289 517 195 616, 835 Irvine v. The Hesper, 122 U. S. 256 987 Irving v. Sutton, 1 Cranch, C. C. 567 639 Irwin v. Cummins, Hempst 703 739 v. Dixion, 9 How. 10 466, 467 v. Meyrose, 7 Fed. R 533 786, 787 Isnard v." Caveaux, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 39 422 Ives v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 35 Fed. R 176 886 J. Jack v. D. M. & Ft. D. R Co., 49 Iowa, 627 270, 444 v. State ex rel. Cunning- ham (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R 210 1191 TABLE OF CASES. xov References are to pages. Jackson, In re, 9 Fed. R. 493 505 , 40 Fed. R. 372 118 Jackson v. Allen, 132 U. S. 27 958, 963 194, 195 1265 497 878 658 541 981 315 390 425 368 612 v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148 v. Ashton, 10 Pet. 480 v. Cator, 5 Ves. 688 v. Chew, 12 Wheat. 153 v. Iviraey, L. R. 1 Eq. 693 v. Jackson, 2 Hogan, 238 v. Munks, 58 Fed. R. 596; S. C. (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R. 571 v. Oglander, 2 H. & M. 465 v. Petrie, 10 Ves. i64 579, 583 v. Rowell, 87 Ala. 685 200, 203 v. Simmons (C. C. A.), 98 Fed. R. 768 v. Stiles, 1 Cowen (N. T.), 134 v. Strong, 1 McClel. 245 - — v. Virgil, 3 J. R. (N. Y.) 540 Jackson & Sharp Co. v. Pear- son, 60 Fed. R. 113, 123 83. 242,444, 912, 922, 944 Jacksonville M. P. Ry. & N. Co. v. Hooper, 160 U. S. 514 613 Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co. v. American Const. Co., 57 Fed. R. 66 752, 1204 Jacques v. Collins, 2 Blatchf. 23 865, 866 Jacob Brandon, The, 33 Fed. R. 160 Jacob v. U. S., Brock. 520, 525 Jacobi, Ex parte, 104 Fed. R. 681 Jacobs, In re (C. C. A.), 99 Fed. R.539 Jacobs v. George, 150 U. S. 415 v. Richard, 18 Beav. 300 Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. R. 454 37, 551, 552 Jaeger v. U. S., 33 Cfc. CI. 214 1049 Jaffray, Ex parte, In re Waite & Crocker, 1 Low. 321 752, 753 Jaffrey v. Brown, 29 Fed. R. 476 690, 698 Ja mes v. Atlantic D. Co., 3 Cliff. 634 809 848 1157 1236 378 614 v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356 613 484, 1013 764 594 v. Downs, 18 Ves. 522 v. Gordon, 1 Wash. 333 v. Milwaukee & M. R. Co., 6 Wall. 752 693, 698 James G. Swan, The, 106 Fed. R. 94 318 James Roy, The, 59 Fed. R. 784 18 Jamieson v. Willis, 1 Cranch, C. C. 566 639 Janewav v. Green, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.') 215, note 515 Jarboe v. Templer, 38 Fed. R. 213 66 Jarmon v. Wiswall, 9 C. E. Green (N. J.), 68 779 Jamecke Ditch, In re, 69 Fed. R 161 916, 923 Jaros H. U. Co. v. Fleece H. U. Co., 60 Fed. R. 622 198, 226 v. Fleece H. U. W. Co., 65 Fed. R 424 319 Jarrold v. Houlston, 3 Kay & J. 708 476 J. B. McFarlan Carriage Co. v. Solanas (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 145 1152 J. B. McFarland Carriage Co. v. Solanes, 108 Fed. R. 532 1153 J. G. Chapman, The, 62 Fed. R. 939 23 J. 1 C. Plow Works v. Finks, 81 Fed. R. 529 562 J. K. Orr Shoe Co. v< Kim- brough, 98 Ga. 537; S. C, 25 S. E:R. 204 239 Jeanie Landles, The, 17 Fed. R. 91 742 Jefferson, In re, 93 Fed. R. 948 1130 Jefferson v. Driver, 117 IT. S. 272 944, 945 Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1 Black, 436 ' 668 Jeffreys v. Baldwin, Amb. 164 286 v. Smith, 1 J. & W. 298 515, 537 Jeffries v. De Hart(C. C. A), 102 Fed. R. 765 967 v. Laurie. 27 Fed. R. 195 760, 763 Jehu, In re, 94 Fed. R 638 1101,1113 Jellenik v. Huron Copper Min. Co., 177 U. S. 1 264, 883 Jenkins, Ex parte, 2 Wall. C. C. 521, 528 835 Jenkins v. Banning, 23 How. 455 " 1287, 1291 v. Collard, 145 U. S. 546 586 v. Eldredge, 3 Story C. C. 181, 283 201, 590 v. Eldredge, 3 Story, 299, 311, 408,412,781,782,784,786 v. Green wald, 1 Bond, 126; S. C, 2 Fisher, 37 483 v. Smith, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 171 267 Jenkinson v. Royston, 5 Price, 496, 510 " 338 Jenks v. Brewster, 96 Fed. R. 625 19, 72 Jennes v. Laudes, 84 Fed. R. 73; S. C, 85 Fed. R 801 68, 239 Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2 1246 v. Dolan, 29 Fed. R. 861 687, 688, 689 v. Nugent, 1 Molloy, 134 245, 391 ■ v. Pierce, 15 Blatchf. 42 339 v. Pearce, 1 Ves. Jr. 447 299 XCV1 TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. Jennings v. Phila. & R K. Co., 23 Fed. R 569 521, 523 v. Simpson, 1 Keen, 404 714 Jenour v. Jenour, 10 Ves. 573 713 Jerome v. McCarter,21 Wall. 17 1242, 1243 v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734, 737 150, 151, 308, 456, 547, 549 v. Rio Grande Co. Com'rs, 18 Fed. R. 873 82 v. Ross, 7 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 315 467 Jerman v. Stewart, 12 Fed. R. 271 728, 750, 754 Jerrard v. Saunders, 2 Ves. Jr. 187 291, 305 Jervis v. Berridge, L. R. 8 Ch. 357 • 380 Jesse Hoyt, Ex parte, 13 Pet. 279 818 Jessup v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 36 Fed. R. 735 661 Jesup v. 111. Cent. R Co., 43 Fed. R. 483 377, 384, 390 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 663 460, 715 Jesus College v. Gibbs, 1 Y. & C. 145, 147 337 Jewett v. Bradford S. B. Tr. Co., 45 Fed. R. 801 77, 83 v. Garrett, 47 Fed. R. 525 251 v. Garrett, 47 Fed. R. 625 250, 810 Jew Wong Loy, In re, 91 Fed. R. 240 Johnasson v. Bonhote, L. R 2 Ch. D. 298 John A. Etheridge Furniture Co., In re, 92 Fed. R 329 1089, 1101, 1104 John E. Mulford, The, 18 Fed. R. 455 740, 743, 744 John Griffin, The, 15 Wall. 29 608 John Walls, Jr.. The, 1 Spr. 178 742 John Crossley Sons v. New Or- leans, 20 Fed. R 352' John Shillito Co. v. McClung, 66 Fed. R. 22 John T. Pirie v. Chicago L. & Tr. Co., U. S. S. C. 1901 1092, 1136 Johns v. Johns, 23 Ga. 31 566 Johnson, In re, 46 Fed. R. 477 843 , 167 U. S. 120, 125 26 Johnson v. Accident Ins. Co. of N. A., 35 Fed. R 374 v. Bailey, 59 Fed. R. 670 v. Bunker Hill & S. M. & C. Co., 46 Fed. R 417 v. Cariolanus, The, Crabbe, 239 v. Chicago & Pac. Elev. Co., 119 U. 8. 388 v. Christian, 125 U. S. 642 v. Compton, 4 Simons, 47 837 300 30 725 964 875 909 602 983 919 162 Johnson v. Donaldson, 18 Blatchf. 287 592 t. F. C. Austin Mfg. Co., 76 Fed. R. 616 931, 958 v. Gordon, 4 CaL 768 1182 v. Hattie Belle, The, 65 Fed. R 119 983 v. Harmon, 94 U. S. 371 672, 676, 677 v. Hobart, 45 Fed. R. 543 888 v. Johnson, 13 Fed. R 193 28, 918 852 1201 v. Jumel, 3 Woods, 69 v. Keith, 117 U. S. 199 v. Meyers (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R417 v. Miller, 96 Fed. R 271 v. Mississippi & T. R. Co., 31 Fed. R. 551 v. Monell, 1 Woolw. 390 v. Northey, Prec. in Ch. 134; s. C., 2 Vern. 407 v. Peck, 2 Ves. Sen. 465 v. Powers, 13 Fed. R. 315 v. Powers, 139 U. S. 156 v. Risk, 137 U. S. 300 v. Roe, 1 Fed. R. 692 v. S. & B. Ry. Co, 3 De G., M & G. 914 v. Southern B. & L. Ass'n, 99 Fed. R 646 v. St. Croix L. Co., 35 Fed. R 634 v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 141 TJ. S. 602 v. Trust Co. of America (C. C. A), 104 Fed. R 174 v. Wald (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. ' R 640 v. Waters, 108 U. S. 4 v. Waters, 111 U. S. 369 v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640 29, 682, 798, 919 v. Watkins, 40 Fed. R 187 721 v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 91 Fed. R. 1 910, 930, 963 v. Wilkins, 116 U. S. 392 1216 v. Wilkins, 118 U. S. 228 v. Wyatt, 2 De G., J. & S. 18 Johnson County, Com'rs of, v. Thayer, 91 U. S. 631 Johnson Co. v. Wharton, 152 U. S. 252 320, 321 Johnson R R. S. Co. v. Union S. & S. Co., 43 Fed. R. 331 259, 382, 388 v. Union S. & S. Co. (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 487 472 Johnson Steel S. R Co. v. N. B. S. Co., 48 Fed. R. 191 592, 866 Johnston v. Donvan, 30 Fed. R 395 958 v. Jones, 1 Black, 209 1298 1227 656 721 945 776 395 282 126 1187,1188 313 480 527 963 799 1218 1092 1241 53 1265 476 879 TABLE OF OASES. XCV11 Eeferences are to pages. Johnston v. Todd, 5 Beav. 394 v. Trippe, 33 Fed. R. 530 v. U. S.. 17 Ct. CI. 157 Johnston R. Co. v. Avery Mach. Co., 28 Fed. R 193 Jollie v. Jaques, 1 Blatchf. 618 Jolly v. Arbuthnot, 4DeG. & J. 428 56 1015 471 476 713 Jonathan M. M. Co. v. White- hurst, 65 Fed. R 996 322 Jones, In the Matter of, 4Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 615 558 Jones, In re, 97 Fed. R 773 1137 , 100 Fed. R. 781 1132 , Ex parte, 164 U. S. 691 58 Jones v. Alephsin, 16 Ves. 470 584 v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 333 71, 191, 192, 270, 272 v. Barker, 11 Fed. R 597 368, 415 3 360 1288 v. Bolles, 9 Wall 364 v. Brittan, 1 Woods, 667 v. Buokell, 104 TJ. S. 554 v. Central Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 73 Fed. R 568 v. Collier, 2 Amb. 730 v. Davenport, 45 N. J. Eq. 77 v. Earl of Strafford, 3 P. Wms. 79 v. Florida, C. & P. R Co., 41 Fed. R. 70 -v. Frost, 3 Madd. 9; S. C. on appeal, 1 Jacobs, 466 v. Garcia del Rio, 1 Turn. & Russ. 300 v. Greenolds, 1 Cranch, C. C. 339 v. G. W. Ry. Co., 1 (Eng.) Ry. Cas. 684 v. Howells, 2 Hare, 343 v. Jones, 3 Atk. 217 407, 411 v. Knowles, 1 Cranch, C. C. 523 v. Lamar, 39 Fed. R 585 v. Lavallette, 5 Wall. 579 v. Lewis, 1 Cox, Eq. 199 v. McOormickH. M. Co. (C. C. A), 82 Fed. R 295 v. Meehan, 175 IT. S. 1 v. Morehead, 1 Wall. 155, 165 v. Navigation Co., 11 Blatchf. 844 v. Neale, 1 Hughes, 268 v. Oregon C. R Co., 3 Saw. 523 644, 647, 650 v. Powell, 2 Mer. 141 124 v. Railroad Co., 3 Sawyer, 523; s. C, Fed. Cas. No. 7,486 645 v. Roberts, 12 Sim. 189 430 v. Rowley, 73 Fed.R. 286 53, 802 v. Schlapbeck, 81 Fed. R 274 562 523 4 434 664 60 295 162 638 507 411 642 692 1160 152 57 1281 342 108 642 Jones v. Segueira, 1 Phillips, 82 334 v. Shapero (C. C. A.), 57 Fed. R. 457 82, 86 v. Slausson, 33 Fed. R. 632 212, 282 v. Smith, 14 111. 229 385 v. Smith, 40 Fed. R 314 11, 321, 883, 885 v. The Carrie, 46 Fed. R. 796 978 v. U. S., 1 Ct. CI. 383 613, 1029, 1034 v. U. S., 4 Ct. CI. 197 1046 v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 1 737 v. U. S., 39 Fed. R 410 ' 733, 734 735 v. TJ. S., 137 U. S. 202 ' 586 Jopp v. Wood, 2 De G., J. & S. 323 783 Jordan, Ex parte, 94 U. S. 248 161, 434, 436, 444, 445, 815, 1216 Jordan v. Agawam Woollen Co., 3 Cliff. 239 749 v. Cass County, 3 Dillon, 185 819 v. Taylor, 98 Fed. R 643 19 v. Wells, 3 Woods, 527 560 Jorgensen v. Casks of Cement, 40 Fed. R. 606 741 Joseph v. New Albany St. & R M. Co., 53 Fed. R 180 257, 885 Josslyn v. Phillips, 27 Fed. R 481 726, 931, 963 Jourolmon v. Ewing, 85 Fed. R 103 787 Joy v. Adelbert College, 146 U. S. 355 1203 v. St, Louis, 138 TJ. S. 1 1 Judah v. Iowa B. W. Co., 32 Fed. R 561 912 Judson, Ex parte, 3 Blatchf. 89 621, 637, 639 Judson v. Courier Co., 25 Fed. R 705 1156, 1206, 1227 Jugiro, Ex parte, 44 Fed. R 754 842, 860, 851 , In re, 140 TJ. S. 291 1293 Jugiro v. Brush, 140 TJ. S. 291; s. C, 140 U. S. 686 842 Julia, The, 2 Spra. 164 997 Juneau Bank v. McSpedan, 5 Biss. 64 267, 618 Junker v. Fobes, 45 Fed. R 840 130 J. W. Harrison Mercantile Co.', In re, 95 Fed. R. 123 1097, 1150 K Kail v. Wetmore, 8 Wall. 451 1230 Kaine, Matter of, 14 How. 103 844, 845 Kaine, Ex parte, 3 Blatchf. 1 842 Kaiser, In re, 99 Fed. R. 689 1144, 1145 XCV1U TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Kaiser v. Kellar, 21 Iowa, 95, 97 558 Kaitel v. Wylie (N. D. I1L), 38 Fed. R. 865 935, 936 v. Wylie, 38 Fed. R. 865 932, 943 Kaiy Chung, In re, 1 N. B. N. 22 1086 Kalamazoo Wagon Co. v. Snavely, 34 Fed. R 823 919, 920 Kamms v. Stark, 1 Sawver, 547 259 Kamsler, In re, 97 Fed. R. 194 1146, Kanawha Lodge v. Swann, 37 W. Va. 176; s. C. 16 S. E. R 462 385 Kane v. N. Central Ry. Co., 128 IT. S. 91 875 Kankakee, L. & M. R. Co. v, Horan, 131 III 288 Kanouse v. Martin, 15 How. 198 Kansas v. Bradley, 26 Fed. R. 289, 290 Kansas City & T. R. Co. v. In- terstate L. Co., 37 Fed. R 3 284 956, 1185 57 916, 917 : v. Interstate L. Co., 36 Fed. R 9 952, 955 Kansas City, F. S. & M. R. Co. v. Daughtry, 138 U. S. 298 931, 936 v. McDonald, 60 Fed. R 522 725 v. Stoner, 51 Fed. R. 649, 655 1289 Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Twombly, 100 U. S. 78 1258, 1288 Kaolatype Eng. Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. R 444 Karr v. Jackson, 28 Mo. 316 v. Karr, 19 N. J. Eq. 427 Kauff man v. Kennedy, 25 Fed. R.785 v. Walker, 9 Md. 229 Kavanaugh, In re, 99 Fed. R. 928 Kay v. Marshall, 1 Keen, 190. 192 Kean, In re, 2 Hughes, 322; s. C, Fed. Cases 7,630 Kearney, Ex parte, 7 Wheat. 38 Kearney v. Case, 12 Wall. 275, 284 Keasby & Mattison Co., In re, 160 U. S. 221 46, 70, 76, 255 Kebel v. Philpot, 9 Sim. 614 676 Keeler v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 92 Fed. R. 545 Keenan v. Shannon, 9 N. B. R 441 Keene v. Clarke, 5 Robertson (N. Y.), 38, 66, 67 v. Meade, 3 Pet. 1 ; S. C. sub nom. Meade v. Keane, 3 Cranch, C. C. 51 647, 649, 650 v. Wheatley, 9 Am. Law Reg. 33 372 587 607 262 267 694 1136 304 1098 768 871 534 515 475 Keep v. I. & St. L. R. Co., 10 Fed. R. 454 861 Keil v. West, 21 Fla. 508 277 Keiley v. Dusenbury, 10 J. & S. (N. Y. Superior Ct.) 238; S. a, 77 N. Y. 597 551 Keithsburg Bridge Co. v. Mc- Kay, 42 Fed. R. 427 34 Keller v. Ashford, 133 IT. S. 610, 617 184, 1211, 1213 v. Stolzenbach, 20 Fed. R 47 317 v. Strauss, 88 Fed. R. 517 233 Keiley v. Boettcher, 85 Fed. R. 55 233 v. Boettcher (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R 553 196 v. Hutton, 17 W. R 425 537 v. Tracy, 102 Mo. 522 153 v. Ypsilanti D. S. Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. R 19 462, 486 Kellner v. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 43 Fed. R 623, 626 331 Kellogg v. Forsyth, 2 Black, 571 893 Kelly, In re, 25 Fed. R 268 835, 836 , 91 Fed. R. 504 1104 Kelly v. Ashford, 133 IT. S. 610 151, 177 v. Boettcher, 85 Fed. R 55 197, 198, 627 v. Boettcher, 89 Fed. R 125 521 v. Georgia, 68 Fed. R 652 833, 846 v. Green Bay & Minn. R Co., 5 Fed. R 846 v. Mississippi C. R. Co., 1 Fed. R 564; a c, 2 Flip. 581 v. Receiver of G. B. & M. R Co., 5 Fed. R 846, 851, note Kelsey v. Hobby, 16 Pet. 269 „ 380, 384, 387, 431 Kemmler, In re, 136 U. a 436, 437 842,1184 Kemna v. Brockhaus, 5 Fed. R. 762 Kemp v. Mackrell, 3 Atk. 812 v. Squire, 1 Ves. Sr. 205 v. State, 16 Wis. 359 Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedv, 5 Cranch, 173, 185 "318,834 Kenaday v. Edwards, 134 U. S. 117 „. 1313 v. Sinnott, 179 IT. S. 600, 614 Kendall v. Beckett, 1 Russ. 153 529 308 530 355, 68 395 717 840 1161 250, 371 v. Hardenbergh, 94 Fed. R 911 156 v. Stokes, 33 How. 87 138, 820 v. IT. S., 12 Pet. 524 819, 820, 822 Kendig v. Dean, 97 IT. S. 423 177 -n- „ 661,670 Kenedy v. Benson, 54 Fed. R 836 554 TABLE OF CASES. XC1X Eeferences are to pages. Kenney, In re, 95 Fed. R. 427 1136 , 97 Fed. R. 554 1136 (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R. 897 1085 Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia, 8 How. 586 1354 v. Baylor, 1 Wash. (Va.) 162 589 v. Creswell, 101 U. S. 641, 644 335 v. Georgia State Bank, 9 How. 586 376 v. Georgia State Bank, 8 How. 586 788 v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 488 61 v. Green, 3 Mv. & K. 699, 718 379 v. I. a & L. R. Co., 3 Fed. R. 97 559, 560 v. Penn. L & Coal Co., 67 Fed. R. 339 490 v. Sinnott, 179 U. S. 606 1169 v. Solar Ref. Co., 69 Fed. R. 715 340 v. St. P. & P. Ry. Co., 2 Dill. 448 1, 543, 546, 549 Kennington v. Houghton, 2 Y. & C. N. R. 630 380 Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U. S. 22, 24 784, 1280 Kenosha & R. R Co. v. Sperry, 3 Biss. 309 854, 857 Kensett v. Stivers, 10 Fed. R 517 484 Kent v. Burgess, 11 Sim. 361 674 v. Lake Superior S. C. Co., 144 U. S. 75 321 Kentucky v. Dennison, 23 How. 266 814 v. Dennison, 24 How. 66 41, 42, 808, 824 v. Louisville Bridge Co., 42 Fed. R 241 57, 929, 931 Kentucky, Bank of, v. Ashley, 2 Pet. 327 1281 Kentucky L. & A. Ins. Co. v. Hamilton (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R 93 803,870 Kentucky S. Min. Co. v. Day, 2 ■ Saw. 468, 473 149, 271 Ken worthy v. Accunor, 3 Madd. 550 260 Kenyon v. Knipe, 46 Fed. R. 309 51, 909 Keokuk & Western R Co. v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 301 319, 321 Keokuk & S. W. R. Co. v. Scot- land County, 152 U.S. 317 397,410. 417 Keppell v. Bailey, 2 M. & K. 517 186 Ker, Ex parte, 18 Fed. R. 167 836 Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 437 836 Kerby-Dennis Co.. In re (C. C. A.),' 95 Fed. R. 116 1133, 1136 Kerlin v. Chicago & St. L. R Co., 50 Fed. R. 185 879 Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 IT. S. 485 21, 933 Kernochan v. Ballance, 56 N. Y. Supp. 132; s. C, 26 N. Y. Misc. 435 573 Kerosene L. H. Co. v. Fisher, 1 Fed. R. 91 681, 684 Kerr v. Clampitt, 95 U. S. 188 1288 v. Moon, 9 Wheat. 565 126 v. S. Park Com'rs, 117 U. S. 379 675, 676 Kerrison v. Stewart, 93 U. S. 155 159 Kershaw v. Mathews, 1 Russ. 361 564, 566 Kesher v. Lyon, 40 W. Va. 161, 20 S. E. R. 933 283 Kessler v. Continental C. & L Co., 43 Fed. R. 258 460 Ketchum, In re, 1 Fed. R. 840 537, 1122 (C. C. A.), 108 Fed. R. 35 1102 Ketchum v. Driggs, 6 McLean, 13 298, 490 v. Duncan, 96 U. S. 659 695 v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 4 McLean, l' 787 Ketland v. Bissett, 1 Wash. 144 648, 649 Kettle v. Crary, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 417 " 163 Kettler v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 175 1012 Key City, The, 14 Wall. 653 977 Keystone, The, 31 Fed. R. 412 979 Keystone Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91 703, 1206 Key West v. Baer (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R. 440 872 Keyes v. Eureka Con. Mfg. Co., 45 Fed. R. 199 31 v. Pueblo Sm. & Ref. Co., 31 Fed. R. 560 472 Keyser v. Farr, 105 U. S. 265 1235 Kibbe v. Ditto, 93 U. S. 674 882 Kidd v. Horry, 28 Fed. R. 773 486 Kidder v. Fidelity I., Tr. & S. D. Co. (C. C. A), 105 Fed. R. 821 1220, 1221 Kid well v. Masterson, 3 Cranch, C. C. 52 503 Kiffin v. Kiffin, cited in 1 P. Wms. 705 516 Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168; s. C., McA. & M. 401 914 Kilbourne v. State Sav. Inst., 22 How. 503 1291 Kilburn v. Sunderland, 130 U. S. 508 30, 171, 176, 292, 306, 670 Kildare LumberCo. v. National Bank (C. C. A), 69 Fed. R. 2 64 TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Kilgour v. New Orleans Gas Light Co., 2 Woods, 144, 148 27, 202, 204, 235, 264, 290 Killian v. Clark, 111 U. S. 784 1235, 1258 v. Ebbinghaus, 110 U. S. 568, 573 8, 34, 242 v. Ebbinghaus, 111 U. 8.798 1275, , 1290 Kimball, In re, 100 Fed. R 777 1129 Kimball v. Kimball, 174 U. S. 158 1255, 1261 Kimberley v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512, 523, 524 679, 690, 1288 Kimberlin v. Commission to Five Indian Tribes (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R 653 820 Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. R. 548; S. Q, 136 U. S. 629 787, 788, 792, 793, 79S Kimble v. Western Union Tel. Co., 70 Fed. R. 888 Kimpton v. Eve, 2 Ves. & B. 349 Kims v. Lant, 68 Fed. R. 436 King, In re, 46 Fed. R. 905, 906- 911 , 51 Fed. R. 434, 435 King, The, v. The Lord Com'rs of the Treasury, 4 Ad. & El. 286, 295 King v. Butler, 3 Levinz, 220 v. Bryant, 3 M. & C. 191 v.Cornell, 106 U. S. 395 912, 926 v. Dale, 2 111. 513 607 v. Dundee M. & Tr. I. Co., 28 Fed. R. 33 787, 792 v. King, 6 Ves. 172 515 v. Lawson, 84 Fed. R 209 60 v. McLean Asylum of Mas- sachusetts General Hospital (C. C. A.), 64 Fed. R. 325 7, 124, 765, 848. 850, 1193 v. McLean Asylum of Mass. Gen. IHospital (C. C. A.), 64 Fed. R. 331 126, 838, 841, 842 v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 7 Biss. 52 553 v. U. a, 59 Fed. R 9 70, 78 King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 IT. a 225 72,4, 963 Kingman v. Holthaus, 59 Fed. R. 305 Kingman & Co. v. Western Mfg. Co., 170 U. a 675 Kingory v. U. a, 44 Fed. R 669 Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650, 676 145, 259, 379, 388, 588, 589, 708, 788,789 Kinne v. Lant, 68 Fed. R. 436 961 Kirbv v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 106 Fed. R 551 917, 944 755 764 267 837 842 823 853 683 70 1178 891 Kirby v. Lewis. 39 Fed. R. 66 586 • v. L. a & M. a R. Co., 120 TJ. a 130, 139 15, 16 Kirby Bung Mfg. Co. v. White, 1 Fed. R. 604 471, 498, 499, 506 Kirk v. Clarke, Prec. in Ch. 275 180 v. DuBois, 46 Fed. R 486 392, 722 v. Milwaukee D. C. Mfg. Co., 26 Fed. R. 501 961 Kirker v. O wings (C. C. A.), 98 Fed. R 499 ~ 522, 523, 524, 573 Kirkley v. Burton, 5 Madd. 378 240 Kirkpatrick v. B. & O. R. Co., 24 Pittsb. L. J. 51 639 v. Pope Mfg. Co., 61 Fed. R. 46 865, 866 v. White, 4 Wash. 595 333 Kirwan v. Murphy, 170 U. a 205 483, 511, 1166 Kissinger v. Bean, 7 Biss. 60 484 Kitchen v. Randolph, 93 U. a 86 1240 Kittell v. Augusta, T. & G. R. Co., 65 Fed. R. 859 199 Kittle v. De Graaf, 30 Fed. R. 689 31 Kittredge v. Claremont Bank, 3 Story, 590 308, 352, 367 v. Claremont Bank, 1 W. & M. 244 342, 346, 347 Koehler, Ex parte, 23 Fed. R 529 549, 550 Koehler v. Farmers' & D. Nat. Bank, 6 N. Y. Supp. 470 764 Koenigsberger v. Richmond S. Min. Co., 158 U. a 41 909. 1280 Kohl v. Lehbock, 160 U. a 293 v. U. a, 91 U. a 367 Konitzky v. Meyer, 49 N. Y. 571 Koons v. Beyson (C. C. A), 69 Fed. R. 297 Koontz v. Northern Bank, 16 Wall. 196 539, 540, 558 Kooper v. Dyer, 59 Vt. 477 280 Korn v. Wiebusch, 33 Fed. R. 50 304 Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. a 668 Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Co., 107 U. S. 378 Kowalski v. Chicago & G. W. Ry. Co., 84 Fed. R. 586; S. C. (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R 310 879 Klein v. Fleetford, 35 Fed. R. 98 504 v. Russell, 19 Wall. 433 1283 Kletchka, In re, 92 Fed. R. 901 1103 Klever v. Seawall (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R. 373 . 780, 898 v. Seawall, 65 Fed. R 393 874 Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 257 1188 Knapp v. Banks, 2 How. 73 1212 v. Knapp, 59 Fed. R. 641 28 v. Williams, 4 Ves. 430 537 845 906 316 713 667 1248 TABLE OF OASES. CI References are to pages. 11 12 963 Kneeland v. Am. L. & Tr. Co.. 136 U. S. 89 525, 528, 529, 559, 700, 1216, 1281, 1293 v. Bass F. & M. Works, 140 U. S. 592 525, 538, 529 v. Luce, 141 TJ. S. 491 535 Knickerbacker.v.. De Freest, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 304 145 Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co. v. Pendleton, 115 TJ. S. 339 1223, 1231, 1233 Knickerbocker Tr. Co. v. Pena- cook Mfg. "Co., 100 Fed. R 814 Knight v. Fisher, 58 Fed. E. 991 v. International & G. N. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. E. 87 v. Knight, 3 P. Wms. 331, 334 148, 149 v. Lord Plimouth, 3 Atk. 480; s. a, 1 Dickens, 120 556, 558 v. Matthews, 1 Madd. 566 371 v. Watts, 2 C. P. Cooper, temp. Cottenham, 257 583 Knode v. Williamson, 17 Wall. 586 639, 647, 648 Knote v. U. S., 95 U. S. 149, 157 1011 Knott v. Burleson, 3 G. Greene (Iowa), 600 ' 283 v. Putnam, 107 Fed. E. 907 1104 Knox v. Exchange Bank, 13 Wall. 379 1365 -. — v. Smith, 4 How. 398 35 Knox County v. Harshman, 132 IT. S. 14 703, 1244 v. Harshman. 133 IT. S. 152 37 v. U. S., 109 U. S. 229 1240 v. TJ. S., 131 IT. S. clxvii 1239, 1247, 1257 Knox R B. Co. v. Rairdon Stone Co., 87 Fed. R 969 Koontz v. Northern Bank, 16 Wall. 196, 203 Krauss v. Jos. R Peebles Sons Co., 58 Fed. E. 585 Kreager v. Judd, 5 Fed. E. 27 Kressel v. E. L. Cain, 45 Fed. R 367 Krick v. Jansen, 53 Fed. E. 823 Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276, 283, 284 21, 71, 191, 444, 1216 Kross, In re, 96 Fed. E. 816 1150 Kuffler, In re, 97 Fed. R. 187 1117 Kuhn v. Morrison, 75 Fed. R. 81 78 Kunkel v. Brown (C. C. A.), 99 Fed. R 593 Kursheedt Mfg. Co., In re, 49 Fed. R 633; s. C, 54 Fed. E 159 Kurtz v. Moffltt, 115 U. a 487 304 540 153 721 23 233 57 1199 838, 837 73 3 919 537 918, 1184 L. B. X., The. 88 Fed. R 390 105, 966 L. Bucki & Son L. Co. v. Atl. Lumber Co. (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R. 765 1255, 1273 L. Humbert & Co., In re, 100 Fed. R 439 1099, 1105 La Abra S. Min. Co. v. IT. S., 175 IT. S. 423 1163 Laber v.Cooper,7 Wall. 565 1283,1288 Labette County Com'rs v. IT. S., 112 U. S. 217 Lacanagrues v. Chanins, 144 U. S. 119 Lacey, Ex parte, 6 Ves. 625 Lackawana C. & L Co. v. Bates, 56 Fed. R 737 Lackawanna I. & C. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 166 IT. S. 290 . v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 176 U. S. 298 525, 527, 534, 700 Lackey v. Newton Min. Co., 50 Fed. R 634 194 Lacroix v. Lyons, 27 Fed. R 403 953, 954, 964 La Crosse Railroad Bridge, 2 Dill. 465 Lacroix Fils v. Sarrazin, 15 Fed. E. 489 Ladd v. Oxnard, 75 Fed. R 703 v. West, 55 Fed. E 353, 355 919, 953, 963 La Dow v. E. Bement & Sons, 66 Fed. R 198 ^ Lady Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 139 Lady Carrington v. Cantillon, Bunb. 107 Lady Langdale v. Briggs, 4 W. R 703 Lady, Pike, The, 96 U. S. 461 1276, 1298 Lafavette Co. v. Neely, 21 Fed. R 738 196, 201, 220, 572 v. Wonderly (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R. 313 73 La Fayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How.404 193, 606 Laidlaw v'. Oregon & Nav. Co. (C. C. A.), 81 Fed. R 876 1173 Laidly v. Huntington, 121 IT. S. 179 Lai ra beer v. Allen, 2 Sand. (N. Y.) 648 Laird v. Indemnity Mut. M. Co., 44 Fed. R 712 v. Mayor of De Soto, 25 Fed. R.76 Lake v. Austwick, 4 Jur. 314 v. Phillips, 1 Ch. R 110 540 586 500 72, 379 464 258 713 922 613 83 835 407 590 en TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Felton (O. C. A.), 103 Fed. R 227 ' 497, 553 v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101 880 Lake St. El. R Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 72 Fed. R. 804 923 v. Farmers' L & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.). 77 Fed. R 769 511 Lake S. I. Co. v. Brown, Bonnell & Co., 44 Fed. R 589 392, 393, 694, 699 Lake Nat. Bank v. Wolfe- borough Sav. Bank (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R. 517 23, 58, 511, 512 Lalanoe & G. Mfg. Co. v. Haber- man Mfg. Co., 93 Fed. R. 197, 199 186 Lamar v. Micou, 114 U. S. 218 585 Lamaster v. Keeler, 123 U. S. 376 758 Lamb v. Baird, Abb. Adm. 367 602 v. Ewing, 54 Fed. R 269 60, 72, 508, 1292 v. Starr, Deady, 350 281,337,333 Lambert v. Barrett, 159 U. S. 660 851 Lambrino v. Galveston, H. & S. A. By. Co., 38 Fed. R 449 256 La Montagne v. T. Harvey Lum- ber Co., 44 Fed. R 645 55 La Mothe Mfg. Co. v. Nat. I. Works Co., 15 Blatchf. 432 953. 954 Lampasas v. Bell, 180 U. S.276 1164, 1181, 1217 Lancaster v. Collins, 115 X7. S. 222 876, 1287 v. Lancaster, 6 Sim. 439 625 Lancashire v. Lancashire, 9 Beav. 259 674 Land Co. of NewMexico v. El- kins, 20 Fed. R. 545 172, 368, 497 Landers v. Felton, 73 Fed. R 311 925 Lands v. A Cargo of 227 Tons of Coal, 4 Fed. R 478 587 Lane, Ex parte, 6 Fed. R 34 586, 836 Lane v. Hardwieke, 9 Beav. 148 350 v. Innes, 43 Minn. 137, 45 N. W. R. 4 262 v. Morse, 6 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 394 610 v. Newdigate, 10 Ves. 192 487 La Nereyda, The, 8 Wheat. 108 1277 Lang v. Baxter, 69 Fed. R. 905 870 v. Louisiana Canning Co., 56 Fed. R. 675 411 Langdon v. Branch, 37 Fed. R 449 207 — v. Goddard, 3 Story, 13 198, 342, 343 Lange, Ex parte, 18 Wall. 163 834, 835 Lange, In re, 97 Fed. R. 197 1098, 1111,1136 Langdon v. Fogg, 18 Fed. R 9 922 v. Hitlside C. & L Co., 41 Fed. R 609 930 Langford v. U. S., 101 U. S. 341 1011, 1012 Langley v. Hawk, 5 Madd. 46 515 v. Overton, 10 Sim. 345 403 Langslow, In re, 98 Fed. R 869 1097 Langston v. Boylston, 2 Ves. Jr. 101 242, 244 Lanier v. Alison, 31 Fed. R 100 13, 464, 465 v. Nash, 121 U. S. 404, 410 661 Lanning v. Osborne, 79 Fed. R 657 52, 460 La Normandie (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R. 427; s. C, 40 Fed. R. 590 633 Lansdale v. Smith, 106 U. S. 391 288 Lansing v. County Treasurer, 1 Dill. 522 825 Lansing & Co. v. Hesing (0. C. A.), 81 Fed. R 242 ' 1255 Lant v. Kinne (C. C. A), 75 Fed. R. 636 861 v. Manley (C. C. A), 75 Fed. R 637, 634 19, 24, 72, 365, 376 Lanz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425 68 La Page v. Day, 74 Fed. R. 977 La Republique Francaise v. Schultz, 57 Fed. R 379 Largey v. Blue Bird Min. Co., 49 Fed. R 292 Larison v. Hager, 44 Fed. R 49 Larned v. Griffin, 12 Fed. R 590 930, 956 230 59 898 267, 306 Larman v. Tisdale, 142 U. a 705 1259 Larrinaga v. Two Thousand Bags of Sugar, 40 Fed. R 507 984 Larrowe-Loisette v. O'Lough- lin, 88 Fed. R. 896 62 Las Animas L. G. Co. v. U. S., 179 U. S. 201 1064 Laskev v. Newtown Mining Co.. 50 Fed. R. 634 78, 802, 928 Last Chance Min. Co. v. Tyler Min. Co., 157 U. S. 683 317, 319 Late Corporation of Church of J. C. of L. D. S., The, v. U. S., 136 U. S. 1 7, 518 Latham v. Chaffee, 7 Fed. R 520, 525 310, 565 v. Northern Pac. R Co., 45 Fed. R. 721 468 Latham's Appeal, 9 Wall. 145 1236. 1260 Lathrop v. Judson, 19 How. 66 1283 La Touche v. Lord Dunsany, 1 Sch. & Lef. 137 381, 387 Latta v. Granger, 167 U. S. 81 1293 TABLE OF CASES. cm References are to pages. Laughlin v. IT. S. Rolling Stock Co., 64 Fed. R 25 535, 546 Lauman's Case, 27 Ct. CI. 260 1013 Lau Ow Bew v. U. S., 144 U. S. 47 1166, 1179, 1211 v. TJ. S., 144 U. S. 67 848, 849 Lau Ow Bew, Petitioner, 141 IT. S. 583 830, 1178 Laurens, The, 1 Abb. Adm. 508 760, 763 Laurens, Bark, The, Abb. Adm. 30 968 Lautz v. Gardo, 28 Fed. R. 264 390 La Vega v. Lapsley, 1 Woods, 354 660, 661 Lawrence, In re, 80 Fed. R. 99 836 Lawrence v. Berney, 2 Rep. in Oh. 127 776, 777 v. Bowman, 1 McAll. 419 489 v. Dana, 4 Cliff. 1 474, 475 v. Gaultney, Cheves Law (S. C), 7 607 v. Gayetty, 78 Cal. 126 200 v. Greenwich F. Ins. Co., 1 Paige (N. Y.), 587 518 v. Morgan's R R & S. S. Co., 121 U. S. 634 461 v. Remington, 6 Biss. 44 310 v. Smith, Jacob, 471 474, 476 v. Times Pr. Co., 90 Fed. R. 24" 264, 365 v. U. S., 2 McLean, 581 598 v. Wirtz, 1 Wash. C. C. 417 176 Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Janesville C. Mills, 138 IT. S. 552, 562 776, 777 Lawton v. Blitch, 30 Fed. R 641 962, 964 4 Layer v. Nelson, 1 Vern. 456 Layne v. Ohio River R Co., 35 W. Va. 438 Lazarus v. McCarthy, 32 N. Y. Supp. 833 Lazenskv v. Knights of Honor,- 32 Fed". R. 417 Lea v. Conn. Mut. L. L Co., 154 IT. S. 659 v. Deakin, 13 Fed. R 514 Leach v. Chandler, 18 Fed. R 203 v. Kay, 2 Flip. C. C. 590 Leadville Coal Co. v. McCreery, 141 U. S. 475 Leake Co. Com'rs v. Dudley, 173 U. S. 243 Leary, Matter of, 10 Den. 197 Leary v. Columbia & P. S. Nav. Co., 82 Fed. R. 775 517, 519 v. Miranda, 40 Fed. R. 607 747 Leathe v. Thomas (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. R. 136 1256 Leather C. Co. v. American L. C. Co., 11 H L. C. 523 477, 478 270 23 962 1230 508 226 737 21 82 844 Leather Mfrs. Bank v. Cooper, 120 IT. S. 778 62, 180, 925 Leatherbee v. Brown, 61 Fed. R 590 304 Leatherberry v. Radcliffe, 5 Cranch, C. C. 550 638, 641, 643 Leavenworth v. Pepper, 32. Fed. R. 718 193, 196 Leavenworth County v. Barnes, 94 U. S. 70 882 Leavenworth County Com'rs v. Chicago, R. L & P. Ry. Co., 134 U. S. 688 37, 159, 699 Leddel's Ex'rs v. Starr, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 C. E. Green), 159 567 Lederer v. Rankin, 90 Fed. R 449 76 Ledoux v. La Bee, 83 Fed. R. 761 550, 553 Lee, Ex parte, 4 Cranch, C. C. 197 734 Lee v. Blandy, 1 Bond, 361 601 v. Brown, 4 Ves. 362 720 v. Continental Ins. Co., 74 Fed. R. 424 56 v. Lee, 1 Hare, 617 394, 506 v. Lee, 8 Pet. 44 1211 v. Milner, 2 Y. & C. 611 455 v. Simpson, 42 Fed. R 434 589, 748, 754 v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337 49 Lee County v. Rogers, 7 Wall. 181 789,878 Leech v. Bailey, 6 Price, 504 337 v. Kay, 4 Fed. R 72 737 Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Wheat. 380 588 Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462 667, 838, 1187 Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 599 878 Leftwitch v. Lecanu, 4 Wall. 187 891 Legard v. Sheffield, 2 Atk. 377 145 Legare v. Daly, 1 Ves. Sen. 192 673 Leggett v. Allen, 110 U. S. 741 1157 Legrand v. Whitehead, 1 Russ. 309 671 Lehigh Min. & Mfg. Co. In re, 156 U. S. 322 ' 1174 v. Kelly, 160 IT. S. 327 69, 70 Lehigh Vallev C. Co. v. Ham- blen, 23 Fed. R 225 13 Lehigh Z. S. Co. v. N. J. Zinc & Iron Co., 43 Fed. R 545 52, 217, 222, 506 Lehman v. Dickson, 148 U. S. 71 870 v. McQuown, 31 Fed. R. 138 508, 564 Leicester v. Leicester, 10 Sim. 87 663 Leicester Piano Co. v. Front R. & R. Imp. Co. (C. C. A), 55 Fed. R. 190 1288 CIV TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Leidigh Carriage Co. v. Stengel (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R. 637 1089, 1095 Leigh v. Leigh, Daniell's Ch. Pr. 369 v. Thomas, 2 Ves. Sen. 312 196 161, 434 588 639 201 832 966 1244 v. Ward, 2 Vent. 72 Leiper v. Bickley, 1 Cranch, C. C. 29 Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176 1056, 1282 Lem Hing Dun v. U. S., 49 Fed. R 148 837, 1258 Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. f 158 0. S. 538 837 Lennon, In re, 150 U. S. 393 768, 849, 1164, 1166 , 166 U. S. 548 466, 470, 480, 482, 487, 488, 501, 764, 765, 834, 846 Leo v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 17 Fed. R 273 " 221, 497 v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 19 Fed. R 283 Leo Hem Bow, In re, 47 Fed. R. 302 Leonard, In re, 14 Fed. R 53 Leonard v. Ozark Land Co., 115 U. S. 465 v. U. S., 18 Ct. CI. 382 1019, 1034 Leopold v. Godfrey, 50 Fed. R 145 903 Leslie v. Brown (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. R. 171 60, 72, 508 v. Leslie, 84 Fed. R 70 208 v. Town of Urbana (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R. 762 788 Less v. English (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R. 471 55 Lesser, In re, 100 Fed. R 433 1132, 1136 , 108 Fed. R 201 1135, 1146 Lesser v. U. S., 89 Fed. R. 197 1199 Lettelier v. Mann, 79 Fed. R 81 223 Letters Rogatory, In re, 36 Fed. R. 306 Le Texier v. The Margravine of Anspach, 15 Ves. 159 Levi v. Columbia Ins. Co., 1 Fed. R. 206 Levine v. Taylor, 12 Mass. 8 Leving v. Cayerly, Prec. Ch. 229 Levis v. Dart, 6 How. 1 Levy, In re, 95 Fed. R. 812 Lewarne v. Mexican Int. Imp. Co., 38 Fed. R 629 210, 215 Lewensohn,Inre,98Fed.R. 576 1117 , 99 Fed. R 73 1138 Lewin, In re, 103 Fed. R. 852 1085, 1147 Lewin v. Welsbach Light Co., 81 Fed. R. 904 231 Lewis, In re, 99 Fed. R 935 1132 653 235 17 122 147 171 1087 Lewis v. Baird, 3 McLean, 56, 62 327, 333 v. Baltimore & L. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 62 Fed.. R. 218 815, 1206 v. Bridgman, 2 Sim. 465 401, 402 v. Cocks, 23 Wall. 466 8, 34, 37, 292, 306, 1255 v. Darling, 16 How. 1 182 v. Fullarton. 2 Beav. 6 475 v. Glass, 92 Tenn. 147; S. C, 20 S. W. R. 571 378 v. Johnson, 90 Fed. R 673 909 v. Monson, 151 U. S. 454 884 v. Shainwald, 7 Saw. 403 121, 579, 582 v. U. S., 146 U. S. 370 876 v. Weidenfeld, 76 Fed. R 145 921 v. Wilson, 151 U. S. 551 895 Lewisburg Bank v. Sheffey, 140 U. S. 445 703, 1204, 1206 Leyson v. Davis, 170 U. S. 36 58 Li Sing v. U. S., 180 U. S. 486 837 Lichty v. Lewis, 63 Fed. R. 535 322 Life Ins. Co. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 780 37, 318 v. Champlin (S. D. N. Y.), 21 Fed. R. 85 911 Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams, 9 Pet. 571 815 v. Wilson, 8 Pet 291 815, 816, 823, 1202, 1288 Liggett v. Glenn (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R 381 231, 593, 615, 864 Lilienthal v. Drucklieb (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R 753 15 v. Southern Cal. Ry. Co., 61 Fed. R. 622 746, 750 v. Wallach, 37 Fed. R 241 764 v. Washburn, 8 Fed. R 707 335 Lillia v. Airey, 1 Ves. Jr. 277 720 Lincoln, The City of, 19 Fed. R 460 " 991 , 25 Fed. R 835 976 Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 475 652 v. Claflin, 7 Wall. 132 893 v. Sun V. St. L. Co., 59 Fed. R. 756 1272, 1284 Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529 12, 143, 807 Lincoln Nat. Bank v. Perry (C C. A.), 66 Fed. R 887 899, 1254 Linder v. Hartwell R. Co., 73 Fed. R. 320 160 v. Lewis, 1 Fed. R 378 278 Lindsay, The, 62 Fed. R 851 103 Lindsay v. First Nat. Bank, 156 U. S. 485 9, 14 v. Lynch, 2 Sch. & Let 1 369 Linehan Ry. Tr. Co. v. Pender- gass (C. C. A), 70 Fed. R 1 52 TABLE OF CASES. CV References are to pages. Linfortb, In re, 87 Fed. R 886 1132 Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland (Md.), 236 714 Linn v. Green, 17 Fed. R 407 229 Linson v. Hutton, 98 U. S. 79 30 Linton v. Mosgrove, 14 Fed. R. 543 461 v. Stanton, 12 How. 423 1158 Lipke, In re, 98 Fed. R 970 1102 Lipman, In re, 94 Fed. R 353 1130 Lippincott v. Shaw C. Co., 34 Fed. R 570 719 Lipscomb v. Jack (Miss., 1896), 20 S. R. 883 151 Litchfield v. Goodnow, 123 U. S. 549 322 Little v. Bowers, 134 TJ. S. 547 1261. 1262 • v. Dist. of Col., 19 Ct CI. 323 ■ v. Giles, 118 U. S. 596 1279 1151 818 28 1028 660, 921, 924 v. Gould, 2 Blatchf. 165 475, 476 v. Merrill, 62 Me. 328 380 Little Miami & C. & X. R. Co. v. U. S., 108 U. S. 277 Little River Lumber Co., In re, 101 Fed. R 558 Little Rock v. U. S. ex rel. How- ard (C. C. A.), 103 Fed. R 418 Little Rock Junction Co. v. Burke (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R 83 Little Rock Ry. Co. v. Burke, 66 Fed. R. 83 74 Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205 30, 153 Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachu- setts, 10 Wall. 566 67, 161 Liverpool & G. W. Co. v. Phoe- nix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397 585 Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. S. Co. v. Com'rs of Emigration, 113 TJ. S. 33 315 Livingston v. Dorgenois, 7 Cranch, 577 815 v. Exum, 19 S. C. 223 508 v. Gibbons, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 94 270 v. Kane, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 224 662, 664 v. Pettigrew, 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 405 559 v. Story, 9 Pet. 632 306, 627 v. Woodworth, 15 How. 546 186, 715 Lloyd, In re, 10 Beav. 451 761 Lloyd v. , 2 Dick. 460 146 v. Brewster, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 537 203 v. Chapman (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R 599 1156,1272 v. Chesapeake, C. & S. W. R Co., 65 Fed. R 351 519, 532 Lloyd v, Gurdon, 2 Swanst. 180 463 v. Heath, Busb. Eq. (N. C.) 39 468 v. Johnes, Ves. 65 158 v, Johnes, 9 Ves. 37 409, 412, 416, 419 v. Loaring, 6 Ves. 773 162 v. London, C. & D. Ry. Co., 2 De G., J. & S. 568 456 v. London, C. & D. Ry. Co.,. 11 Jur. (N. S.) 380 456 v. Matthews, 155 U. S. 222 1189 v. Penuie, 50 Fed. R. 4 614, 622, 633 v. Smith, 13 Sim. 457 155 v. Spillat, 3 P. Wms. 344 751, 752 Lobenheimer -v. Wheeler, 45 N. J. Eq. 614 Lobensteine v. Union EI. R Co., 80 Fed. R 199 Lobsiger v. U. S., 5 Ct. CI. 687 Lochmore S. S. Co. v. Hagar, 78 Fed. R 642 Locke v. Covert, 42 Hun (49 N.Y. S. C. R), 484 v. U. S., 7 Cranch, 339 Lockhart v. Memphis & L. R. Co., 38 Fed. R 274 Lockwood v. Cleveland, 6 Fed. R.721 v. Wickes (C. C. A.), 75 Fed, R. 118 Locomotive E. S. T. Co. v. Erie R Co., 10 Blatchf. 292 Lodge v. Stoddarfc, 9 Rep. 137 v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232 Loeb v. Trustees of Columbia Tp., 91 Fed. R 37. 82, 1186, 1194 Loeber v. Schroeder, 149 U. S. 580 Loewenstein v. Biernbaum, 8 W. N. C. (Pa.) 163 Lofland v. Coward, 12 Heisk. (Tenn.) 546 Logan v. Goodwin (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R 654; s. a (C. C. A.). 104 Fed. R 490 857, 1226, 1240 v. Patrick, 5 Cranch, 288 191, 258 v. U. S., 144 U. S. 263 613 Logan County Nat. Bank v. Townsend, 139 U. S. 67 58 Locker v. Roll, 3 Ves. 4 626, 627 Lombard Ins. Co. v. Seaboard Mfg. Co., 74 Fed! R 325 437, 442 London v. Liverpool, 3 Anst. 738 303 v. Perkins, 3 Bro. Pari. Cas. fina 127 884 1017 980 551 608 934 383 513 705 476 1207 1202 579 862 v. Taxing Dist. of Shelby County, 104 U. S. 771 London, City of. v. Perkins, 3 Bro. Pari. Cas. 603 London, Mayor of, v. Bolt, 6 Ves. 129 214 74 167 431 CV1 TABLE OF CASES. Eef erences are to pages. London, Mayor of, v. Levy, 8 Ves. 403, 404 * 300 London Packet, The, 2 Wheat. 371 1376, 1277 London & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Will- iamette S. M. L. & M. Co., 80 Fed. R. 226 562, 879 Lonergan v. Illinois CentE. Co., 55 Fed. E 550 193, 194, 928 Loney, In re, 134 U. 8. 372 837 Loney v. Bailey, 43 Md. 10 609 Long v. Long, 73 Fed. R 369 912 v. Maxwell (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R. 948 1283 v. The Tampieo & Prog- resso, 16 Fed. R. 491 971 Long Island N. S. P. & F. Transp. Co., In re, 5 Fed. E 599 460, 994 Longworth v. Taylor, 1 Mc- Lean, 514 250, 371 Lonsdale v. Brown, 3 Wash. 404 648 Lonsdale Co. v. Moies, 2 Cliff. 538 Lookout Mountain E. Co. v. Houston, 32 Fed.-E. 711 v. Houston, 44 Fed. R. 449 Loom' Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 588, 589 Loomis v. Carrington, 18 Fed. R 97 Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251 763, 1261 v. Whitehead, etc. Mach. Co., 24 'Fed. R 801 Lord Brook v. Lord Hertford, 2 P. Wms. 518 Lord Byron v. Johnston, 2 Meriv. 29 Lord Carteret v. Paschal, 3 Peere Wms. 197 Lord Chedwortli v. Edwards, 7 Ves. 46 Lord Digby v. Meech, Bunb. 195 Lord Dillon v. Alvares, 4 Ves. 357 Lord Fingal v. Blake, -1 Molloy, 113 Lord Lanesborough v. Jones, 1 P. Wms. 325 Lord Manners v. Johnson, L E 1 Ch. D. 673 Lord Montague v. Dudman, 2 Vesey Sr. 396, 398 Lord Montford v. Lord Cado- gan, 17 Ves. 485 Lord Pelham v. Duchess of Newcastle, 3 Swanst. 289, n. 772, 773 Lord Shipbrooke v. Lord Hinch- inbrook, 13 Ves. 387, 393 430 Lord Uxbridge v. Staveland, 1 Ves. Sen. 56 195, 238, 291, 346 679 945 957 340 957 30 708 496 776 463 227 310 673 4 456 462 516 438, Loree v. Abner (C. C. A.), 57 Fed. R. 159 Lorillard v. Standard Oil Co., 2 Fed. R. 902 123, 147. Loring, Ex parte, 94 U. S. 418 Loring v. Marsh, 2 Cliff. 311 585 391 816 7, 310, 334 McLean, 12, 881 9 Paige 448 Angeles 558 29, 36 Lorman v. Clarke, 2 568 Lorton v. Seaman, (N. Y), 609 Los Angeles v. Los Water Co., 177 U. S. Los Angeles C. W. Co. v. Los Angeles, 88 Fed. R. 720 499 Lottawanna, The, 21 Wall. 558 986 Louden M Co. v. Montgomery W. & Co., 96 Fed. E 232 225 Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711, 727 140, 485, 818 v. Layarde, 60 Fed. R. 186 485 v. New Orleans, 102 U. S. 203 900 v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1 42, 144 Louisiana Bank v.Whitney, 121 U. S. 284 703, 1207 Louisiana ex rel. N. Y. G. & L Co. v. Steele, 134 TJ. S. 230 Louisiana Ins. Co. v. Nickerson, 2 Low. 310 Louisiana State Lottery Co. v, Clark, 16 Fed. E 20; s. c, 4 Woods, 169 v. Fitzpatrick, 3 Woods, 222 Louisville, C. & C. R. Co. v. Let- son, 2 How. 497 Louisville, E. & St. L E Co. v. Wilson, 138 U.S. 501 532,533,1216, 1226 Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Louisville Tr. Co., 78 Fed. E 659 1179 v. Louisville Tr. Co., 174 U. S. 552, 563, 576, 577 67 v. Pope (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. E 1 1176, 1220, 1241 Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. Mississippi, 133 U. S. 587 Louisville & N. E Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52 v. Palmes, 109 U. S. 244, 252 141 972 456 468 67 667 924 283, 284 923 v. Wangelin, 132 U. S. 599 v. Woodson, 134 U. S. 614, 621 875 Louisville Pub. W. Co. v. Col- lector, 49 Fed. R. 561 1194, 1197 Louisville Tr. Co. v. Cincinnati (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. R. 296, 318 587 v. Cincinnati I. P. Ry. Co., 78 Fed. R. 307 562 v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 174 U. S. 674 437, 445, 698 TABLE OF OASES. CV11 References are to pages. Louisville Tr. Co. v. Stockton (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R. 1 1231 Louisville Underwriters, In re, 134 TJ. S. 488 78, 806, 966 Lousada v. Terapler, 2 Russ. 565 368 Love v. Baker, 1 Ch. Cas. 67 463 Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. 1, 11 895 v. TJ. S., 128 U. a 171 874, 876 Loveless v. Ransom (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R. 626 1218, 1219 Lovell v. Cragin, 136 TJ. a 130, 141 55, 930, 1212 Loveridge v. Larned, 7 Fed. R. 294 719 Lovett v. Prentice, 44 Fed. R 459 53 Loving v. Fairchild, 1 McLean, 333 333 Low v. Blackford (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R. 392 696, 710 v. Durfee, 5 Fed. R. 256 860 v. Hauel, 1 Wall. Jr. 345 501 Lowe v. Farlie, 2 Madd. 101 301 v. Lowe, 1 Tenn. Ch. 515 572 v. Richardson, 3 Madd. 277 242 v. The Benjamin, 1 Wall. Jr. 187 723 Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mason, 182 340 Lowell Mfg. Co. v. Whittal, 71 Fed. R 515 719 Lowenfeld v. Curtis, 72 Fed. R. 105 507 Lowenstein, In re, 106 Fed. R 51 1147 Lowenstein v. Evans, 69 Fed. R. 908 137 v. Glidewell, 5 Dill. 625 259, 388, 389, 390 Lowndes v. Bettle, 33 L. J. Ch. 461 467 Lowrey v. Kusworm (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 9 613, 628, 637, 864 Lowry v. Tile M. & G. Ass'n, 98 Fed. R 817 272 Lowther v. Andover, 1 Bro. C. C. 396 V07 Loyd v. Cardy, Prec. in Ch. 171 581 Lubiere v. Genou, 2 Ves. Sen. 579 389 Lublin v. Stewart H. & M. Co., 75 Fed. R 294 320 Lucas v. Brooks, 18 Wall. 436 613, 614 v. Lucas, 13 Ves. 274 346, 352 Lucille, The, 19 Wall. 73 988, 1207 Luckenback, The, 26 Fed. R. 870 993 Lucker v. Phoenix Assur. Co.,66 Fed. R 161 112, 951 v. Phoenix Assur. Co., 67 Fed. R. 18 865, 866 Luckhardt, In re, 101 Fed. R. 807 1087 Luco v. U. S., 23 How. 515 1077 Ludlow v. Kidd, 3 Ohio, 541 789 h Lull v. Clark, 20 Fed. R. 454 684, 687 Lumbrozo v. White, 1 Dick. 150 610 Luminary, The, 8 Wheat. 407 608 Lumley v. Wabash Ry. Co., 71 Fed. R 21 229, 586 v. Wagner, 1 De G., M. & G. 604 479 Lundberg v. Albany & R I. & S. Co., 32 Fed. R. 501 866 Lung Chung v. No. Pac. Ry. Co., 19 Fed. R. 254 807 Lunt v. Davison, 104 Mass. 498 826 Lupton v. Stephenson, 11 Ir. Eq. 484 568 Luse v. U. S., 35 Ct. CI. 164 1014 Lutcher v. TJ. S., 157 U. S. 427 1174 Luterel's Case, cited Prec. Ch. ' 50 124, 465 Luther v. The Merritt Hunt, 1 Newb. 4 640, 644 Luxton v. North River Br. Co., 147 TJ. S. 337 906, 1203, 1204 v. Stephens, 3 P. Wms. 373 723 Lyell v. Goodwin, 4 McLean, 29 767 Lyman, In re, 55 Fed. R 29 88, 762 Lyman v. Boston & A. R. Co., 70 Fed. R. 409 915 v. Kansas C. & A. R. Co., 101 Fedi R. 636 589 Lyman V. & R Co. v. Southard, 12 Blatchf. 405 755 Lynch v. Bernal, 9 Wall. 315 1061, 1064, 1071, 1077, 1080 Lynde v. Columbus, C. & I. C. Ry. Co., 57 Fed. R 993 318, 693, 704, 775 Lyon v. Donaldson, 34 Fed. R 789 715 v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 142 N. Y. 298 865 v. Marine (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R 964 587 v.Talmage,14J.(N.Y.)501 716 Lyon County v. Keene F. C. Sav. Bank (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R 337 82 Lyons v. Wilkins, [1899] 1 Ch. 255 469 Lyster v. Stickney, 12 Fed. R. 609 370, 657, 658 M. Mabey, The, 10 Wall. 419 1274, 1277 McAdam, In re, 98 Fed. R. 409 1146 McAleer v. Clay County, 42 Fed. R. 665 825 v. Lewis, 75 Fed. R. 734 319, 336 McAllister v. Kuhn, 96 U. S. 87 1 289 v. U. S., 141 TJ. S. 174 40 McArthur v. Kelly, 5 Ohio, 139 483 v. Scott, 113 U. S. 340 156, 164, 165, 167, 171 cvm TABLE OF CASES. Eeferences are to pages. McArthur v. Williamson, 45 Fed. R. 154 868 Macbeth Co. v. Lippincott Glass Co., 54 Fed. E. 167 473 McBratney v. Usher, 1 Dill. 36 952 McBride v. Board of Com'rs of Pierce County, 44 Fed. R. 17 465, 467 McBryde, In re, 99 Fed. R. 686 1137, 1145, 1146 McCabe v. Bellows, 1 Allen (Mass.), 269 219 v. Cooney, 2 Sand. Ch. 347 337 McCain v. Des Moines, 174 U. S. 168 57, 660 McCall v. McDowell, 1 Abb. U. S. 212 839, 840 v. Towers, 1 Cranch, C. C. 41 647 McCampbell v. Brown, 48 Fed. R. 795 158 McCardle, Ex parte, 7 Wall. 506 1255, 1256 McCargo v. Chapman, 20 How. 555 1202 McCarley v. McGhee, 108 Fed. R. 494 1241 McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 160 U.S. 110 " 321 v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 62 Fed. R. 437 . 127 McCauley, In re, 101 Fed. R. 223 ' 1148 McCauley v. Kellogg, 2 Woods, 13 485,488 Macauley v. U. S., 1 1 Ct. CI. 575 10 1 6, 1033 474 479 1298 360 881 251 11 380, 883 756 McClellan v. Pyeatt (C. C. A.), 49 Fed. R v 259 803, 1233, 1241, 1248 McClintock v. Johnson, 1 Mc- Lean, 414 805 McCloskey v. Barr, 38 Fed. R. 165 227, 303, 305, 308, 315 v. Barr, 48 Fed. R. 130, 132 885 v. Du Bois, 8 Fed. R. 710 587 McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598 '" 817, 819 McCluny v. Silliman, 3 Pet. 270 16, 17 McClure v. Adams, 76 Fed. R. 889 151 v. White S. M. Co., 9 Fed. R. 698 McCaull v. Braham, 16 Fed. R. 37 McCIane v. Boon, 6 Wall. 244 McClane's Adm'x v. Shepherd's Ex'x, 21 N. J. Eq. 76 McClaskey v. Barr, 42 Fed. R 609, 617 v. Barr, 45 Fed. R. 151 v. Barr, 48 Fed. R. 130 v. Barr, 62 Fed. R. 209 Barr, 79 Fed. R. 408 McClure v. U.S., 116 U.S. 145 1013, 1168, 1290 McCollum v. Eager. 2 How. 61 1207 McComb v. Chicago, St. L. & N. O. R. Co., 7 Fed. R. 426 150 — v. Knox Co.. 91 U. S. 1 1184, 1201 Macon, Mayor, etc. of, v. Ga. P. Co. (C. C. A.), 60 Fed. R 781 511 McConihay v. Right, 121 U. S. 201 9, 11 M'Connell v. Prov. Sav. L. Ass. Soc. (C. C. A), 69 Fed. R 113 953, 954 McConville v. Gilmour, 36 Fed. R. 277 44, 58 McCord's Case, 9 Ct. CI. 155 1025 McCormick.In re, 97 Fed. R 566 1118 McCormick v. Chamberlin, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 543 ' 353 v. Gray, 13 How. 26 51 v. Jerome, 3 Blatch. 486 500 v. Knox, 105 U. S. 122 707 v. Market Nat. Bank, 165 U. S. 538 58 v. Sullivant, 10 Wheat. 192, 199 834 v. W. U. Tel. Co. (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R. 449 909 McCormick Machine Co. v. Wal- thers, 134 U. S. 41 76, 77, 255, 806 McCosker v. Brady, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 329 515 M'Coy v. Chicago, I, St. L. & C. R Co., 13 Fed. R. 3 453 v. Cincinnati. I., St. L. & C R. Co.. 13 Fed. R. 3 487 v. Nelson, 121 U. S. 484 222, 223 v. Rhodes, 11 How. 131, 141 173, 294 McCrary v. Penn. C. Co., 5 Fed. R. 367 507, 510 McCulloh v. Association Horlo- gerie Suisse, 45 Fed. R. 479 541 McCullough v. Large, 20 Fed. R. 309 " 914 v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102 1188 McCutchen, In re, 100 Fed. R 779 1137 McDaniel v. Stroud (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 486 1155 McDermott v. Strong, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 687 434 McDonald, The, 4 Blatchf. 477 985 McDonald v. Edmonds, 44 Cal. 328 600 v. H. M. Co., 48 Fed. R. 593 934 ■ v. Hovey, 110 U. S. 619 1019, 1224 v. Miller, 84 Fed. R. 344 31 v. Salem C. F. M. Co., 31 Fed. R. 577 69, 305, 964 v. Seligman, 81 Fed. R 753 72, 443 v. U. S., 63 Fed. R 426 889 TABLE OF CASE8. C1X References are to pages. 788 R. 1122 R. 177, 215 917, 946 538 471 918 McDonald v. Whitney, 39 Fed. R. 466 McDonnell, In re, 101 Fed. 239 McDonnell v. Eaton, 18 Fed. 710 v. Jordan, 178 U. S. 229 v. "White, 11 H. L. C. 570 McDowell v. Kurtz (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R. 206 McElmurray v. Loomis, 31 Fed. R. 395 McElrath v. Mcintosh, 1 H. & H. 348 483, 1025 v. Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 5 Pa. St. 189 705 v. U. S., 102 U. S. 426, 440; S. C, 12 Ct. CI. 312 133, 1016 McEvers v. Lawrence, Hoffman Ch. (N. Y.) 172 551 McEvoy v. New York, 56 App. Div. 222 322 McFadden v. Mountain V. & M. M. Co. (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. R. 670 1229 McFaul v. Ramsey, 20 How. 523 1288, 1289 McFaun, In re, 96 Fed. R. 592 1095 McFerran v. Taylor, 3 Cranch, 281 3 McGahey v. Virginia, 135 17. S. 662, 684 137, 140 McGarralian v. Mining Co., 96 U. S. 316, 323 599 McGehee v. Polk, 24 Ga. 406, 412 582 McGeorge v. Bigstone G. I. Co., 88 Fed. R. 599 186, 779 McGill, In re (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 57 McGillin v. Claflin, 52 Fed. R. 657 McGinity v. White,3 Dillon,350; S. C, Fed. Cas. No. 8,802 McGlashern v. U. S., 71 Fed. R. 434 McGoukey v. Toledo & O. C. Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 536 529, 704, 1205 McGovern v. Hope, 63 N. J. Law, 298, 42 Atl. R. 830 865 McGowan v. U. S., 20 Ct. CI. 147 1015 McGowin v. Remington, 12 Pa. St. 56 480, 487 McGregor v. McGillis, 30 Fed. R. 388 , 951 v. Vt. L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R. 709 780 Maogregor v. Macgregor, 9 Iowa, 65 850 McGuire v. Com., 3 Wall. 382 1185. 1260, 1261 McHenry v. Alford, 168 U. S. 651 1177 v. N. Y. P. & O. R. Co., 25 Fed. R. 65 934, 945 1117 272 55 98 Mclntire v. Pryor, 173 U. S. 38 16 v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504 817 Mack v. Jones, 31 Fed. R. 189, 196 961 v. Levy, 60 Fed. R. 751 323 v. Winslow, 59 Fed. R. 316 20, 859 Mackall v. Casilear, 137 U. S. 556 201, 234 v. Ratchford, 82 Fed. R. 41 469 v. Richards, 112 U. S. 369 1297 v. Richards, 116 U. S. 45 1287, 1294, 1295, 1297 McKane, In re, 61 Fed. R 28, 205 850 McKay v. Dibert, 5 Fed. R. 587 498 v. U. S„ 27 Ct. CI. 422 1024 Mackaye v. Mallory (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R. 1 1205 v. Mallory, 80 Fed. R. 256 658 McKee v. Lamon, 159 0. S. 317 159 v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 41 Fed. R 117 199 v. U. S., 10 Ct. CI. 208 1051 McKeen v. Delancy's Lessee, 5 Cranch, 22 878 v. Ives (D. Ind.), 35 Fed. R 801 934, 935 v. Morse, 1 U. S. App. 7 985 Mackel V. Rochester (C. C. A.), . 102 Fed. R. 314 1114 McKenna v. Simpson, 129 U. S. 506 1159 McKenzie, In re, 180 TJ. S. 536 513, 703, 1207, 1241, 1245 McKeoin v. No. Pac. R. Co., 45 Fed. R. 464 586 Macker v. Thomas, 7 Wheat. 530 867, 1220 Mackett v. Cdm'rs of Heme Bay, 24 W. R. 845 491 McKewan v. Sanderson, L. R. 16 Eq. 316 330, 333, 334 McKey v. Lee (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R. 923 1131 McKim v. Voorhies, 7 Cranch, 279 459 v. White Hall Co., 2 Md. Ch. 510 360 Mackin v. U. S., 117 U. S. 348 835 McKinney v. Carroll, 12 Pet. 66 867 Mackintosh v. Flint & P. M. R. Co., 34 Fed. R 582 413 McKnight, In re, 52 Fed. R. 799 834 McKnight v. Craig's Adm'rs, 6 Cranch, 183 854, 855, 856, 857 v. James, 155 U. S. 685 1184 v. U. S., 13 Ct CI. 292 1005, 1016, 1024 McKown v. Kansas & T. Coal Co., 105 Fed. R. 657 S13 Mackreth v. Fox, 4 Bro. P. C. 258 3 v. Nicholson, 19 Ves. 367 252 ex TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. 1120 1288 1284 456 26 738 617 725 McLam, In re, 97 Fed. E. 922 McLanahan v. Universal Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 170 McLaughlin v. Bank of Poto- mac, 7 How. 220 v. Swann, 18 How. 217 v. U. a, 107 U. a 526 McLean. Re, 9 Cent. L. J. 425; & C, 2 Flip. 512; S. C, Fed. Cas. 8,877 McLean, In re, 67 Fed. E. 648 McLean v. Clark, 23 Fed. E. 861 v. Lafayette Bank, 3 Mc- Lean, 503 ' 212, 421, 423, 458 McLennon v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. E. Co., 22 Fed. E. 198 864 McLeod v. City of New Albany, 66 Fed. E 378 442, 555, 782, 783, 1220 v. Graven (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. E 84 1166 McLish v. Euff, 141 U. S. 661 1164, 1173, 1175, 1179, 1201 McMicken v. Perrin, 18 How. 507 781 v. IX..S., 97 U. S. 204 1060, 1064, 1065, 1066 McMillan v. Conrad, 16 Fed. E. 128 473 McMillin v. St. Louis & Missis- sippi Valley Transportation Co., 18 Fed. R. 260 223, 224 McMullen v. Bowers (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R. 494 59 v. Northern Pac. E. Co., 57 Fed. E. 16 658, 959 v. Eitchie, 57 Fed. E. 104 593 v. Eitchie, 64 Fed. E. 253 613 McNamara v. Dwyer, 7 Paige (N. Y), 239 McNeill v. Andes, 40 Fed. E 45 M'Neill v. Cahill, 2 Bligh, 228 McNiel v. Holbrook, 12 Pet. 84 128 589 670 615, 1291 McNulta v. Lockridge, 141 U. S. 327 562, 1181 McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1 1183, 1184 McQuillon, Ex parte, 3 West. L. Month. 440; s. C, 9 Pitts. L. J. 29 840 McEea v. Branch Bank of Ala- bama, 19 How. 376 175, 178 McVeagh v. Denver C. V. Co. (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. E. 74 282, 303, 331 McWilliams Mfg. Co. v. Blun- dell, 11 Fed. E 419 473, 499 Madden, Matter of, 148 N. Y. 136 1262 Maddox v. Thorn, 60 Fed. E. 217 870 Maddux v. U. S., 20 Ct. CI. 193 1001 Madgie, The, 31 Fed. E 926 974,981 Maflet v. Quine, 95 Fed. E. 199 51 Magann v. Segal (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. E. 252 1216 Magee v. The Lyndhurst, 48 Fed. E 839 978 Maggie M., The, 33 Fed. E 591 974 Magic E Co. v. Elm City Co., 13 Blatchf. 151 204 Magniac v. Thompson, 2 Wall. Jr. 209 283 Magruder v. Armes, 180 U. S. 496 1213 Maguire v. Tyler, 8 Wall. 650' 1080 Mahan v. U. S., 14 Wall. 109 1289 Maher v. Tower Hotel Co., 94 Fed. E. 225 921 Mahler, In re, 105 Fed. E. 428 1130 Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700 836, 840 Mahoney v. New Or. B. & L. Ass'n, 70 Fed. E 513 934 v. Ward, 100 Fed. R. 278 1095 Mahoney M. Co. v. Bennett, 5 Saw. 141 952 Maine v. G-ilman, 11 Fed. R. 214 956 Mainwarring v. The Carrie De- lap, 1 Fed. R. 880 981 Mair v. Himalaya T. Co., L. R. 1 Eq. 411 479 Maitland v. Gibson, 79 Fed. E 136 29, 72, 259, 777 Malarin v. U. S., 1 Wall. 282 1070, 1079 Malcolm v. Montgomery, 2 Mol- loy, 500 565 Maldonado, In re, 63 Fed. E 825 837 Mallack v. Galton, 3 P. Wms. 352 708 Mallett v. North Carolina, 181 U. S. 589 1187 Mallory Mfg. Co. v. Fox, 20 Fed. R. 409 579, 680, 760 Mallow v. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193 171, 173, 175, 184 Malone v. Richmond & D. E. Co., 35 Fed. R. 625 942, 943 v. U. S., 5 Ct. CI. 486 1003 Maloy v. Dud en, 25 Fed. E 673 08 Maltby v. Bobo, 14 Blatchf. 53 490 Mammoth Min. Co. v. Salt Lake F. & M. Co., 151 U. S. 447 1162, 1290 Manaton v. Molesworth, 1 Eden, 18 790 Manby v. Eobinson, L. E. 4 Ch. App. 347 244 Manchester F. A. Co. v. Stock- ton, C. H. & A. Works, 38 Fed. E 378 ' 627 Manchester Fire Ina. Co. v. Her- riott, 91 Fed. E. 711, 716 138 Manderson, In re (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R. 501 587 Mandeville v. Holey, 1 Pet. 136 1287 , v. Eiggs, 2 Pet. 482 164, 1257 v. Wilson, 5 Cranch, 15 1288 TABLE OF OASES. CXI References are to pages. Mangels v. Donau Br. Co., B3 Fed. R 513 64, 66, 70, 163, 435 Manhattan Co. v. Evertson, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 276 631, 682 Manhattan I. W. Co. v. French, 12 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 446 468 Manhattan L Ins. Co. v. Brough- ton, 109 U. S. 121 661 Manhattan Tr. Co. v. Sioux City & N. R. Co., 81 Fed. R 50 559 v. Sioux City & N. R Co., 102 Fed. R 710 320, 443, 532 v. Sioux City C. Co., 76 Fed. R 658 537 Manley v. Mickle, 55 N. J. Eq. 563; s. c, 37 Atl. R. 738 378 Mann v. King, 18 Ves. 297 425 Manners v. Rowley, 10 Simons, 470 " 210 Manning, Re, 44 Fed. R. 275 768, 770 v. Amy, 140 U. S. 137 929 v. Mercantile Tr. Co., 26 Misc. (N. Y.) 440 444 v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 9 Fed. R 726 1060 v. Weeks, 139 U. S. 504 451 Manning, City of, v. German Ins. Co. (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R. 52, 54 1203, 1287 Mansaton v.Molesworth.l Eden, 26 235 Mansfield, C. & L. M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379 600, 724, 962, 963 Manufacturing Co. v. Bradley, 105 U. a 175 10, 84, 174 v. Saliers, 6 Cent. L J. 82 745 v. U. S., 17 Wall. 592 1005 Many, Ex parte, 14 How. 24 815 Many v. Beekman Iron Co., 9 , Paige (N. Y), 189 149 v. Sizer, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 31 471 Maples, In re, 105 Fed. R. 919 1148 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137 • 6. 138, 814 Marchand v. Livandais, 127 U.S. 775 1220, 1248 Marden v. Campbell Pr. & Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R. 809 513, 1236 Mare v. Malachy, 1 M. & C. 559 150 Margrave v. Le Hooke, 2 Vern. 207 288 Maricopa & P. R Co. v. Terri- tory of Arizona, 156 U. S. 347 1210 Marin v. Lalley, 17 Wall. 14 703, 1161, 1204 Marine v. Lyon (C. C. A.), 62 Fed. R 153 722, 1199, 1226 Marine & R P. M. & Mfg. Co. v. Bradley, 105 U. S. 175 213 Marine Bank v. Fulton Bank, 2 Wall. 252 1283 Marine Ins. Co. v. Hodgson, 6 Cranch, 206 1288, 1294 Marine Mach. & C. Co., In re, 91 Fed. R 630 1084, 1094 Marion Phosphate Co. v. Cum- mer (C. C. A.), 60 Fed. R. 873 870, 890 v. Perry (C. C. A), 74 Fed. R. 425 12, 393, 868 Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112 53, 1214 Markey v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co.. 6 Ins. L. J. 537 9, 216, 288, 637 Markle v. Markle, 4 J. Ch. 168 146 Marks v. Fox, 18 Fed. R. 713 690 v. Marks, 75 Fed. R. 321 69, 310 v. No. Pac. R Co. (C. C. A), 76 Fed. R 941 1227 Marquand, In re, 57 Fed. R 189 1199 Marquis Cholmondeley v. Lord Clinton, 2 Jao. & W. 138 150, 154 ■ v. Lord Clinton, 2 Meri. 71 369, 627 409 443 207 59 675 288 768 67 977 Marriott v. Tarpley, 9 Sim. 279 Marrow, In re, Craig & Ph. 142 Marselis v. Morris & L. Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 31 Marsh v. Atlanta & F. R Co., 53 Fed. R 168 921 v. Nichols, 120 U. S. 598 1260, 1261 v. Nichols S. S. Co., 140 U. S. 344 v. Sibbald, 2 V. & B. 375 v. Whitmore, 21 Wall. 185 Marsh, Matter of, McA. & M. (D. C.) 32 Marshall v. Baltimore & O. R Co., 16 How. 314 v. The Earnwell, 68 Fed. R 228 v. Holmes, 141 U. S. 589, 591 21, 798, 919, 930, 964 v. Mellersh, 5 Beav. 496 422 v. Otto; 59 Fed. R 249 310, 317 v. Turnbull, 34 Fed. R. 827 227 v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 307 1013 Marshall Paper Co., In re (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R 872 1147, 1148 Marstin v. McRae, Hempst. 688 642 Martin, In re, 5 Blatchf. 303 828, 829, . 835, 842 Martin v. Carter (D. Mont.), 48 Fed. R. 596 935 v. Cole, 104 U. S. 30 880 v. Fort, 83 Fed. R. 19 156 v. Hazard P. Co., 93 U. S. 302 1243 v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 1182,1238,1297 - v. Snyder, 148 U. S. 663 911 Martin's Adm'r v. B. & O. R Co., 151 U. S. 673, 703 869, 1163 cxu TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Martin's Appeal, 33 Pa. St. 395 691 Martinetti v. Maguire, 1 Deady, 216,233 477 Martin ius v. Helmuth, 2 V. &B. 412 723 V. Helmuth, G. Cooper, 248 244, 259 Marvin, In re, 1 Dill. 178 1086 Marvin v. C. Aultman & Co;, 46 Fed. R. 338, 339 805, 864 v. U. S., 44 Fed. E. 405 734, 735, 736 Marye v. Parsons, 144 U. S. 325 v. Strouse, 6 Saw. 204 Mary, The. 8 Cranoh, 388 Mary Lord, The, 31 Fed. R. 416 Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 17. S. 490 Marx v. Egner, 180 U. S. 314 v. Hanthorn, 148 U. S. 172 Mason, In re, 43 Fed. R. 510 , 99 Fed. R. 256 Mason v. Bogg, 2 Myl. & Cr. 443 v. Codwise, 6 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 183 v. Crosby, 3 W. & M. 258 v. Daly, 117 Mass. 403 v. Dullingham, 82 Fed. R. 33, 483 425 1276 63 265 262 761 1084 162 752 690 292 65 v. Gardiner, 4 Brown Ch. C. 436 236, 386 — — v. Hamilton, 5 Simons. 19 245 v. Hartford, P. & F. R. Co., 10 Fed. R. 334 339. 358, 359, 370, 371 v. Hartford, P. &F. Ry. Co., 19 Fed. R. 53, 55 126, 402 v. Jones, 1 Hayw. & H. 329; S. C. Fed. Cas. No. 9.240 347 v. Lake, 2 Brown, P. C. 495 291 v. Muiicaster, 3 Cranch, C. C. 403 v. Pewabic Min. Co. (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 391 v. Pewabic Min. Co., 153 U. S. 361. 366 v. N. W. Ins. Co., 106 U. S. 163 v. N. Y. Steam Power Co., 87 Fed. R. 241 v. Rollins, 2 Biss. 99 v. U. S.. 136 U. S. 581 1219, 1223 Mason's Case, 14 Ct. CI. 59 1025 Massa v. Cutting, 30 Fed. R. 1 53 Massachusetts v. Rhode Island, 12 Pet. 755 41, 42 Massachusetts Ben. L. Ass'n v. Lohmiller (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. 23 11,277,797 v. Miles. 137 U. S. 689 1211 Massachusetts Mut. L. I. Co. v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 13 Fed. R. 857 311 740 533 755 711 254 483 Massachusetts & So. Const. Co. v. Cane Creek Tp., 155 U. S. 283 63, 170 v. Ty. of Cherokee, 42 Fed. R 750 1242 v. Tp. of Gill's Creek, 48 Fed. R 145 753 Masseth v. Johnston, 59 Fed. R. 613 616 Massie v. Donaldson, 8 Ohio, 377, 3S1 276, 279 v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41 779, 787, 789, 790, 791 v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148 2, 463, 705 Mast, F. & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485, 488. 489 " 472 Masterson v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 416, 417, 418 1318, 1219 v. Howard, 18 Wall. 99 280, 1287 Matcalm v. Smith, 6 McLean, 416 151 Mather v. Coe, 92 Fed. R. 333 1087, 1035, 1097, 1101 Mathews v. Columbia Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R. 393 Matteson v. Scofield, 27 Wis. 671 Matthaei v. Galitzin, L, R. 18 Eq. 340 Matthews, In re, 97 Fed. R. 772 Matthews v. Green, 19 Fed. R. 649 ' v. Ironclad Mfg. Co., 19 Fed. R. 321 429, 498 v. Lalance & G. Mfg. Co., 2 Fed. R. 232 309, 336, 360 — r- v. Omey, 3 Sumn. 115 602 v. Puffer, 10 Fed. R. 606 267 v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 568 267, 618 v. Warner, 6 Fed. R 401, 465: s. C, 1 12 U. S. 600 12, 236 Matthews & W. Mfg. Co. v. Trenton L. Co., 73 Fed. R. 212 Matthewson v, Stockdale, 12 Ves. 270 Mattocks v. Tremain, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y) 75, 76 Matton v. Reynolds, 62 Fed. R. 417 Mattoon Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R. 728 Mauger v. Dick, 55 How, Pr. (N. Y.) 132 Maury v. Mason, 8 Porter (Ala.), 213, 228 v. Van Arnum, 1 Hill (N. Y), 370 Maury's Trustees v. Fitzwater, 88 Fed. R. 768 779 Max Morris, The, 137 U. S. 1 977 Maxwell v. Akin, 89 Fed. R 178 541 1298 706 705 1150 29 150 476 583 905 1100 485 338 61ft TABLE OF CASES. CX1U References are to pages. Maxwell v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 34 Fed. R. 386, 289 49, 51, 56, 256, 258 288 318 572 922 1201 229 1114 v. Kennedy, 8 How. 210 v. Stewart. ,23 Wall. 77, 81 v. Wilmington Mfg. Co., 83 Fed. R. 214 Maxwell Land Grant Case, 121 U. S. 325; s. C. 122 IT. S. 365 1064 May, Re, 1 Fed. R. 737 763 May v. Breed, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 15 316 v. Juneau County, 137 U. S. 408 805 • v. Le Claire, 18 Fed. R. 164 1092 v. Logan County. 30 Fed. R. 250 869 v. St. John, 38 Fed. R. 770 Mayberry v. Thompson, 5 How. 131 Maybury v. Louisville & J, F. Co., 60 Fed. R. 645 Mayer, In re, 97 Fed. R. 328 , 98 Fed. R. 839 1108, 1118 , 101 Fed. R. 695 1150 Mayer v. Denver, T. & Ft. W. R. ' Co., 41 Fed. R 723 956 v. Ft. Worth & D. C. R Co. (S. D. N. Y.), 93 Fed. R. 601 934, 935 v. Foulkrod, 4 Wash. C. C. 349 v. Journeymen S. C Ass'n, 47 N. J. Eq. 519 Mayfleld, In re, 141 U. S. 107, 116 834, 841 Mayhew v. West Va. O. & O. L. Co., 24 Fed. R 205, 215 Maynard v. Green, 30 Fed. R. 643 v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324 — — v. Pomfret, 3 Atk. 468 Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v. Postal Tel. C. Co., 62 Fed. R 500 Mayor, etc. of Helena v. U. S. ex rel. Helena Waterworks (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R. 113 Mayor of London v. Bolt, 5 Ves. 129 v. Levy, 8 Ves. 398 Mayor, The, v. Lord, 9 Wall. 409 Mays v. Rose, Freeman's Ch. (Miss)R. 703,718 Maysvilie St. R. & T. Co. v. Mar- vin (C. C. A.). 59 Fed. t 91 Mazarredo v. Maitland, 3Madd. 66,72 Meach v. Chappell, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 135 Mead, Ex parte, 109 U. S. 230 Mead, In re, 58 Fed. R. 313 693, 1132 Mead v. Lord Orrery, 3 Atk. 235 570 v. Piatt, 17 Fed. R. 509 1155 Meade v. Beale, Taney, 339, 361 6, 8 27 469 696 411 1174 376 49 825 489 626 826 520 883 345 611 1155 Meade v. U. S„ 9 Wall. 691 131 v. U. a, 18 Ct. CI. 281 131 Meagher v. Minn. Thr. Co., 145 U. S. 608 1184, 1207 Means v. Bank of Randall, 146 U. S. 620 1288 Mears v. Lockhart (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R. 274 628, 634 Meath v. Mississippi , Levee Com'rs, 109 U. S. 268 873 v. Phillips Co., 108 U. S. 553 15, 313 Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 299, 306 27, 180, 651 Mecke v. Valleytown M. Co. (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R. 697 921, 936, 937, 959 Meddaugh v. Wilson, 151 U. S. 333 1151 Medley, Re, 134 U. S. 160 830, 846 Medsker v. Bonebrake, 108 U. S. 66 Meek v. McCormick (Tenn. Ch.), 42 S. W. R. 458 Megibben's Adm'rs v. Perin, 49 Fed. R. 183 > Meigs v. McClung, 9 Cranch, 11 Meissner v. Buck, 28 Fed. R. 161 Mellen v. Moline Iron Works, 131 U. S. 353 Melius v. Thompson, 1 Cliff. 125 393, 397. 401 Memphis v. Brown, 94 IT. S. 715 1203, 1327, 1341, 1245 v. Brown, 97 U. S. 300 825 v. Dean, 8 Wall. 64 306, 309 v. U. S., 97 U. S. 293 818 Memphis City Bank v. Tennes- see, 161 U. S. 186 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Alabama, 107 U. S. 581 Mendenhall v. Hall, 134 U. S. . 559 211,337,1221,1226,1233 Mensing, Ex parte, 55 Fed. R. 17 438, 760 Menzies v.Rodrigues, 1 Price, 93 502 Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 63 Fed. R. 513 438, 439 v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 70 Fed. R. 518 26, 380 v. Atlantic & P. R Co. (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. R 140 v. Baltimore & O. Ry. Co., 79 Fed. R. 388 v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 89 Fed. R 606 v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 94 Fed. R. 722 v. Chicago, P. & St. L Ry. Co., 61 Fed. R. 372 v. Collins P. & B. R. Co., 99 Fed. R. 812 65 690 379 65 1347 379 263 331, 320 67 559 523 710 160 711 CX1V TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 81 Fed. R 254 533, 545, 559, 1209, 1288 v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co., 39 Fed. R. 337 25, 318, 521, 522, 705 v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co., 50 Fed. R. 874 548, 549 v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R 6 548, 1219 v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., .36 Fed. R. 221 517 v. Mo., M. & T. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R. 9 387, 519, 533, 544, 861 v. M., K & T. Ry. Co., 84 Fed. R. 379, 383 ' 328, 342 v. Pittsburgh & W. R. Co., 29 Fed. R. 733 531 v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 71 Fed. R. 601, 608, 609 532 v. So. State L. & Tr. Co., 86 Fed. R. 711 534 v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 51 Fed. R. 529, 536 429, 454, 498, 1183 Mercer County v, Hucket, 1 Wall. 83 878 Merchants' Ins. Co., In re, 3 Biss. 163 1087 Merchants' C. P. & S. Co. v. In- surance Co. of N. A., 151 U. S. 368, 386 911, 926 Merchants' Exch. Co. v. U. S., 1 Ct. CI. 333 1026 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Car- penter, 101 U. S. 567, 568 375, 376 v. Chattanooga Const. Co., 53 Fed. R 314 36, 78, 517, 518 v. Glendon Co., 130 Mass. 97 595 v. Slagle, 106 U. S. 558 1118 v. State Nat Bank, 3 Cliff. 201 866 Merchants' & M. Nat. Bank v. Kent Circuit Judge, 43 Mich. 292 564 v. Wheeler, 13 Blatchf. 218 953 Mercur, la re, 95 Fed. R. 634 1088 Meriwether v. Garrett, 103 U. S. 472, 501 33, 369, 536, 538, 819, 900 v. Muhlenburg Court, 120 U. S. 354 884 v. U. S., 13 Ct. CI. 259 1022 Merkle's Estate. 182 Pa. St. 378 696 Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst. 563; S. O., 11 How. 375 637, 639, 641. 646, 647,650 v. First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R. 148 1297 v. Floyd (C. C. A.), 50 Fed. R. 849 871 v. Floyd (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R172 871 v. National Bank (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R 208; a C, 173 U. S. 131 1397 Merrill v. Nat. Bank of Jackson- ville, 173 U. S. 131 1297 Merriman v. Chicago & E. I. R Co. (C. C. A.), 64 Fed. R 535 204, 1207 v. Chicago & E. I. R Co. (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R 663 1276 Merritt v. American Steel Barge Co. (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R 813 63 v. American Steel Barge Co., 79 Fed. R. 228. 231 18 v. American S. B. Co., 79 Fed. R. 228 22, 264, 331 v. Bowdoin College, 169 U. S. 551 1164 v. Steel Barge Co. (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R. 813 1164 Merry field v. Jones, 2 Curt 306 507 Merry man, Ex parte, Taney, 246 839, 840 Mersman v. Werges, 112 IT. S. 139 83 Merwin, In re, 95 Fed. R 634 1098 Merwin v. Smith, 1 Green Ch. (N. J.) 182 694 Mesa v. U. S.. 2 Black, 721 1079 Messinger v. New Eng. M L Co., 59 Fed. R 416 318 Metal S. Co. v. Crandall, 18 Off. Gaz. 1531 406 Metcalf v. Cady, 8 Allen (Mass.), 587 212 v. Hervey, 1 Ves. Sen. 248 241, 242, 243, 285 v. Landers, 3 Baxt (Tenn.) 35 277 v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586 63, 72,84 v. Watertown, 153 U. S. 671 16, 883 v. Williams, 104 U. S. 93, 95 28 Metcalfe v. Metcalfe, 1 Keen, 74 402 v. Pulvertoft, 1 V. & B. 180 564 v. The Alaska, 130 U. S. 201 978 Metier v. Metier, 4 C. E. Green (19 N. J. Eq.), 457 626 Metropolitan G. & S. Exch. v. Chicago B. of T., 15 Fed. R. 847 502 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Mc- Nall, 81 Fed. R. 888 137, 140 Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. St. Louis Dispatch Co., 149 U. S. 436 176,179 Metropolitan R Co. v. Moore, 131 U. S. 558 886 Metropolitan T. Co. v. Colum- bus, S. & H. R Co., 93 Fed. R 689 61, 218 v. Lake Cities El. Ry. Co., 100 Fed. R 897 19 Metzker v. Bonebrake, 108 U. S. 66 1086 Metzner v. Berner, 98 Ind. 425 127 Meux v. Bell, 6 Simons, 175 243 TABLE OF CASES.. CXV References are to pages. 1243 82 1199 Mexican C. Rv. Co. v. Pinkney, 149 U. S. 194 256, 271, 273, 659, 807, 1284 Mexican Nat. Const. Co. v. Ren- sens, 118 U. S. 49 Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Davison, 157 U. S. 201, 206, 207 Mexican Onyx & Tr. Co. v. U. S., 66 Fed. R. 732 Mexican Ore Co. v. Mexican G. M. Co., 47 Fed. R. 351 418, 50 1 Meyer, In re (C. C. A.), 98 Fed. R 976 ' 1087, 1088, 1095, 1155 Meyer v. Cadwalader, 49 Fed. R. 32 888 v. Johnson (1875), 53 Ala. 237 546, 547 v. Kuhn, 65 Fed. R. 705 254, 265 v. Mansur & T. I. Co. (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R 874 1248 Meyers, In re, 96 Fed. R. 408 1146 , 97 Fed. R. 757 1144 , 100 Fed. R. 775 1145, 1147 Mevers v. Block. 120 U. S. 206 11, 509 Micas v. Williams, 104 U. S. 556 1263 Michel, In re, 6 Fed. R. 706 1 103 , 95 Fed. R 803 1150 Michoud v. Girod, 4 How. 503 703, 1204 Micklethwaite v. Atkinson, 1 Coll. 173 346, 353 Middleton v. Bankers' & M.Tel. Co., 32 Fed. R. 524 v. Dodswell, 13 Ves. 260 v. Sherburne, 4 Y. & C. 358 Middletown Sav. Bank v. Bach- arach, 46 Conn. 513 Migliorucci. v. Migliorucci, 1 Dick. 147 Milburn, Ex parte, 9 Pet. 704 841, 842 Miles v. Johnston, 59 Fed. R. 38 484, 488 v. New So. B. & L. Ass'n, 95 Fed. R 919 525, 554 Miller, Tn re, 23 Fed. R 32 836 , 104 Fed. R. 764 1088, 1098 Miller v. Young, 2 Cranch, C. C. 53 638 v. Buchanan, 5 Fed. R. 366 342 v. Chicago, B. & O. Ry. Co., 17 Fed. R 97 945 v. Clark, 47 Fed. R. 850 787, 791 v. Clark, 52 Fed. R. 900 795, iqqo 1294 v. Clark, 138 U. S. 223 5i, 1214 v. Cornwall R. Co.,l68U. S. 131 v. Cotten, 5 Ga. 341, 346 v. Dale, 92 U. S. 473 v. Fenton, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 18 v. Houston City St. R Co. (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 366 871, 1280 565 674 210 755 1186 195 1074 304 Miller v. Jamison, 9 C. E. Green (N. J.), 41 218 v. Joseph, 17 Wall. 655 1185 v. Kent, 18 Fed. R. 561 963 v. Lancaster Nat. Bank, 106 U. S. 542 58 v. Liggett & M. T. Co., 7 Fed. R 91 656 v. M'Elroy, 1 Am. Law Reg. 198 475 v. McKenzie, 10 Wall. 582 1229 v. Morgan (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R. 82 889 v. Scott, 6 Phila. (Pa.) 484 618, 810 v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535 1229 v. Tobin, 18 Fed. R 609 953 Millers Adm'r v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 41 Fed. R 431 807 Miller's Ex'rs v. Swann, 150 U. S. 132, 137 1180 Miller-Magee Co. v. Carpenter, 34 Fed. R. 433 46, 281 Milligan, Ex parte, 4 Wall. 2 840, 1177 Milligan v. Lalance & G. Mfg. Co., 21 Blatchf. 407 957 v. Milledge, 3 Cranch, 220 171, 305 333 v. Mitchell, 1 M. & K. 446 ' 464 Miliken v. Ross, 9 Fed. R 855 886 v. Selye, 3 Denio (N. Y), 54 610 Millington v. Fox, 3 M. & C. 338 718, 719 Mills, In re, 95 Fed. R 269 1132 , 135 U. S. 263 432, 433 Mills v. Dennis, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 367 276, 350, 708 v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481 605 v. Fry, 3 Ves. & B. 9 662 v. Green, 69 Fed. R. 852 32 v. Green, 159 TJ. S. 651 585, 1262 v. Hurd, 32 Fed. R 127 170, 216 v. Newell, 41 Fed. R 529 911, 952 v. Northern Ry. of B. A. Co., 23 L. T. (N. S.) 719 454, 517 v. Provident L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R 344 1220 v. Scott, 43 Fed.R 452 37 v. Scott, 99 U. S. 25 12, 881 v. U. S., 19 Ct. CI. 79 1012, 1025 Millspaugh v. McBride, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 509 717 Milner v. Meek, 95 U. S. 252 1221 Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 286 150, 525, 526, 528, 529, 530, 546, 547, 549, 566, 567, 1236 Milward v. Welden, 8 Eliz. li. B., fo. 678; Tothill, 101 362 Milwaukee R. Co., Ex parte, 5 Wall. 188 816, 1246 Milwaukee v. Koeffler, 116U. S. 219 33 CXV1 TABLE OF CASES. .References are to pages. Milwaukee & M. R. Co. v. Sout- ter, 2 Wall. 440 517, 520, 703, 1204 Milwaukee R R. Canal Co. v. U. S., 1 Ct. CI. 187 1017 Mina v. I. & V. Florio S. S. Co., 23 Fed. R. 915 977 Mineau, In re, 45 Fed. R. 188 840, 846 Miner v. Markham,28 Fed. R. 387 266, 618 Miners' Bank v. IT. S., 5 How. 213 1202 Mineral Range R. Co. v. Detroit & L. S. Copper Co., 25 Fed. R. 515 917 Mingo Val. Creamery Ass'n, In re, 100 Fed. R. 182 1091 Mining Co. v. Farmers' Min. Co., 67 Fed. R 31 628 v. Taylor, 100 U. S. 37 870 Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. v. Nestor, 50 Fed. R 1 917, 934 Minnesota v. Guaranty Tr. & S. D. Co., 73 Fed. R. 914 Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall. 609 71, 72, 191, 405, 411, 418 Minot v. Mastin (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R. 734 438, 445, 562 Minturn v. Alexandre, 5 Fed. R. 117 v. Larue, 1 MoAll. 370 Min use v. Cox, 5 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 441 Mirzan, Ex parte, 119 U. S. 584 Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475 32, 128, 266, 249, 483 Mississippi Mills v. Cohn, 150 U. S. 202 9, 84 Mississippi & Mo. R. Co. v. Cromwell, 91 IT. S. 643 27, 455 v. Ward, 2 Black, 485 51, 173, 174, 176, 189, 466, 1214 Missouri v. Alt, 73 Fed. R. 302 912 v. Andriano, 138 U. S. 496 1182 v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208 42, 144 v. Iowa, 7 How. 660 41, 42, 144 v. Kentucky, 11 Wall. 395 41- Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Dins- more, 108 U.'S. 30 1205,1248,1253 v. Elliott, 56 Fed. R. 772 9 v. Krumseig, 172 U. S. 351 12 v. Russell, 60 Fed. R. 501 890 v. Scott, 13 Fed. R 793; s. 0., 4 Woods, 386 459, 460 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago & A. R Co., 132 U. S. 191 888 v. Fitzgerald. 160 U. S. 556 v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 30 Fed. R 2 v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. R. 701 ; S. 0., Blaener, In- tervener, 41 Fed. R. 319 Mitehtl v. TJ. S., 15 Pet. 52 66 968 498 753 842 23 558 541 1295 Mitchell v. Bunch, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 606 v. Burlington, 4 Wall. 270 v. Harmony, 13 How. 115 v. Hawley, 16 Wall. 544 v. McClure, 178 U. S. 539 581 878 137 153 87, 1085 v. Manufacturing Co., 2 Story, 648 30 v." Small, 140 U. S. 406, 410 958 v. TJ. S., 9 Pet. 711 1276 Mitzhener v. Robins (Miss.), 19 S. R 103 186 Mix v. Andes Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 53 932 Moan v. Wilmarth, 3 W. & Mw 399 859, 860 Mobile, County of, v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691 234 Mobile Savings Bank v. Burke (Ala.), 10 S. R. 328 204 Mobile & M. Ry. Co. v. Jurey, 111 U. S. 584, 596 892 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 486 1187 Moelle v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 21, 26 781, 1216 Moffat v. TJ. S., 112 TJ. S. 24 26, 189, 237 Mogul S. S. Co. v. McGregor, 23 Q. B. D. 598; s. C, [1892] Ap- peal Cases, 25 469 Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co. v. Clute, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 385 242, 245 Molina v. U. S., 6 Ct. CI. 269 1017, 1030 Moline Plow Co. v. Webb, 141 U. S. 616, 623 894 Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 538 84 Moloney v. Am. T. Co., 72 Fed. R. 801 915 Molony v. Massachusetts Loan Ass'n, 53 Fed. R. 209 459 Monehan v. Godkin, 100 Fed. R 196 750 Monk v. IT. S., 12 Ct. CI. 293 1026 Monkhouse v. Corp. of Bedford, 17 Ves. 380 709, 780 Monongahela Nat. Bank v. Ja- cobus, 109 IT. S. 275 613 Monongahela Nav. Co. v. IT. S., 148 IT. S. 312 1012 Monroe, In re, 46 Fed. R. 52 837 Monroe v. Williamson, 81 Fed. R. 977 937 Montana, The, 22 Fed. R 715, 730 988 Montana Co. v. St. Louis M. & M. Co., 152 U. S. 160 , 65, 592 Montana O. P. Co. v. Boston & M. C. C. S. M. Co. (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R. 274 61 v. Boston & M. C. C. & S. M. Co. (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R. 867 608 TABLE OF OASES. CXV11 References are to pages. 876 1208 574 58 802 541 214 4 424 672 Montana Ry. Co. v. Warren, 137 U. S. 348, 353 Montgomery v. Anderson, 21 How. 386 v. Petersburg S. & I. Co. (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 746 Montgomery P. S. C. Co. v. Street C. Line, 43 Fed. R. 329 Montijo v. Owen, 14 Blatchf. 324 Montross v. Mabie, 30 Fed. R. 234 Montserratt Coal Co. v. Johnson County C. M. Co., 141 Mo. 149; S. C, 42 S. W. R. 822 Moodalay v. Morton, 1 Bro. C. C. 469 Moody v. Hebberd, 11 Jur. 941 Moons v. De Bernales.l Russ. 301 Moor v. Welsh C. Co., 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 39, pi. 14 311, 321 Moore, In re, 104 Fed. R. 869 1085 , 75 Fed. R 831 836 Moore v. Bank of Br. Columbia, 106 Fed. R. 574 515 v. Edgefield, 32 Fed. R. 498 54; 828 v. Hawkins, 19 How. 69 199 v. Hudson, Mad. & Geld. 218 581 v. Huntington, 17 Wall. 417 389 v. Los Angeles I. & S. Co., 89 Fed. R. 73 157, 924, 925 v. Lyttle,4J.Ch.(N. Y.)183 288 v. Marsh, 7 Wall. 515 153 v. Mevnell, 2 Vern. 614, n. v. Meynell, 1 Dick. 30 v. Miller, 5 D. C. App. 413 v. Moore, 2 Ves. Sen. 596 598 ' 784, 786, 794 v. Moore, 25 Beav. 8 508, 770 — v. Simonds, 100 IT. S. 145 1229 v. U. S., 4 Ct. CI. 139 v. U. S., 91 IT. S. 271 Mootry v. Grayson (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R. 613, 618 Mora v. Nunez, 10 Fed. R. 634 Moran, In re, 105 Fed. R. 901 Moran v. Elizabeth, 9 Fed. R. 72 825 v. Hagerman (C. C. A), 64 Fed. R. 499 38p, 780 v. Hagerman, 151 IT. S. 329 1174 v. Horsky, 178 IT. S. 205 1187 v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 256, 284 32 More v. Steinbach, 127 U. S. 70 1059, 1060 Morgan, Ex parte, 114 U. S. 174 814. 815 Morgan v. , 1 Atk. 408 776 v. Curtenius, 20 How. 1 878,883 v. Curtenius, 19 How. 8 830, 1254 v. Dillingham, 174 U. S. 153 1274 v. Potter, 157 IT. S. 195 125 147 580 484 1013 780 1074 1098 Morgan v. Tipton, 3 McLean, ' 339, 344 , 337, 386 v. IT. S„ 14 Ct. CI. 319 — v. U. S., 14 Ct. CI. 442 Morgan County v. Allen, 103 U. S. 515 Morgan, L. & T. S. S. Co. v. De Arrotegui, 25 Fed. R. 624 Morgan's C. & T. R. S. S. Co. v. Texas C. R Co., 137 IT. S. 171 72, 384, 388, 528 Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Moran, 91 Fed. R. 22 535, 697 Morgan's Heirs v. Morgan, 2 Wheat. 290 Morison v. Moat, 9 Hare, 241 Morning Journal Ass'n v. Ruth- erford (C. C. A), 51 Fed. R 513, 516' v. Smith (C. C. A), 56 Fed. R. 141 806, 885 Morrall v. Prichard, 11 Jur. (N. S.) 969 424 Morrell v. IT, S., 7 Ct. CI. 421 1013 Morrill v. Jones, 106 IT. S. 466 1283 Morris, Ex parte, 9 Wall. 605 Morris v. Elme, 1 Ves. Jr. 139 1025 1026 1276 979 71, 152 452 1281 1292 537 v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315 70, 659, 964 v. Hayward, 6 Taunt. 569 770 v. Holland, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 474; s. C, 31 S. W. R. 690 234 v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125 870 v. Shelbourne, 8 Blatchf. 266 499 v. Tavlor, 33 N. J. Eq. 134 679 Morris E. & A. Ex. Co. v. IT. S., 94 Fed. R. 643 1199 Morris's Cotton, 8 Wall. 507 1292 Morrissey, In re, 137 IT. S. 157 837, 851, 1161 Morrison, In re, 147 U. S. 14 813, 816, 817, 993 Morrison v. Arnold, 19 Ves. 670 634, 625 v. Bernard's Tp., 35 Fed. R 400 734, 896 v. Marker, 93 Fed. R. 692 28, 264 Morriss, In re, 40 Fed. R. 824 836 Morrow, In re, 97 Fed. R. 574 1 146 Morrow v. IT. S., 44 Fed. R 405 737 Morrow Shoe Mfg. Co. v. New Eng. Shoe Co., 60 Fed. R. 341 15 Morse v. Anderson, 150 IT. S. 156 889, 891 v. Montana Ore P. Co., 105 Fed. R. 337 888 v. South, 80 Fed. R. 206, 207 65 Morsell v. Hall, 13 How. 212 856, 1202 Monte A., The (S. D. N. Y.), 12 Fed. R. 331 970 Mortimer v. Fraser, 2 Myl. & Cr. 173 296 cxvm TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. 731 934 1026 617 883 1 703 596 408 610 691 186 784 209 66 Morton v. TJ. S., 59 Fed. E. 349 Morton's Adm'r v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.. 151 U.S. 673 Mosby v. IT. S., 24 Ct. CI. 1 ; s. G, 133 U. S. 273 Moses, Ex parte, 53 Fed. R. 346 Moses v. Lawrence County Bank. 149 U. S. 298. 303 v. Macferlan, 2 Burr. 1005 v. Mayor, 15 Wall. 387 v. U. S., 166 U. S. 571, 598 v. Wooster, 115 TJ. S. 285, 287 867, 869, 1166, 1221, 1226 Mosgrove v. Kountze, 14 Fed. R. 315 Mosher v. Heydrick, 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 549; s. C, 30 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 161 v. Joyce, 51 Fed. R. 441 Mosley v. Taylor, 1 Keen, 601; s. C, 2 Y. & J. 520 Moss v. Baldock, 1 Phila. 118 v. Cohen, 158 N. Y. 240 Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12 Mo., K. & T. R. Co. v. Dins- more, 108 U. S. 30 703, 1206 v. Krumseig, 172 17. S. 351 236 v. T. & St. L. Ry. Co., 10 Fed. R. 497 468 Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 556 1181,1187 v. Tex. & P. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R 862 549 v. Tex. & P. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R 775 726, 727 v. Texas Pac. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R. 310, 311 201, 561, 563 Motes v. U. S., 178 U. S. 458 1 163 Motherwell v. U. S. ex rel. Alex- androff (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R. 437, 440 Mott v. Mott, 68 N. Y. 246; S. C, 22 Atl. R. 797 v. Mott, 49 N. J. Eq. 177; S. C, 22 Atl. R. 997 v. U. S., 3 Ct. CI. 218 Motte v. Bennett, 2 Fisher, 642 Motteux v. London Assur. Co., 1 Atk. 545 Mount Washington Ry. Co. v. Coe, 50 Fed. R. 637 Mounsey v. Burnham, 1 Hare, 15 Mouseley v. Basnett, 1 Ves. & B. 382, n. Mower v. Fletcher, 114 U. S. 127 1201, 1203 Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 434, 440 " 853 Moy v. Mercer County, 30 Fed. R 246 805 846 200 203 1029 471 1 917 355 662 Moy Chee Kee, In re, 33 Fed. R 377 735 Moyer, In re, 93 Fed. R. 188 1093 Mudd, In re, 105 Fed. R 348 1144, 1145 Muhlenburg County v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 65 Fed. R 537 260 v. Dyer (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R 634 828, 1160 Mullan v. IT. S., 118 U. S. 271 26 Mullee, Re, 7 Blatchf. 23 767, 768 Muller v. Dows, 94 IT. S. 444 2, 67, 193, 318,693,704,705 v. Ehlers, 91 TJ. S. 249 889 Mumford v. Mumford, 1 Gall. 366 132, 306 v. Wardwell, 6 Wall. 423 1058, 1059 Mumm v. Owens, 2 Dill. 475 614 Mumma v. Potomac Co., 8 Pet. 281 393 Mundy, E V., The, 22 Fed. R 173 986 Mundy v. Kendall, 23 Fed. R. 591 500 v. Louisville & N. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R. 633 716 v. Stevens (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R. 77. .86 1280 Municipal S. Co. v. Gamewell F. A. Tel. Co., 77 Fed. R. 452 790 Municipal Inv. Co. v. Gardiner, 62 Fed. R. 954 264, 660 Munns v. Dupont, 3 Wash. C, C. 31 648 Munson v. Mayor, 19 Fed. R. 313 509 Murdock v. Memphis. 20 Wall. 590,636 1186.1187,1188 v. Ward, 178 U. S. 139 1255 Murphy, In re, 1 Woolw. 141 839 , 87 Fed. R. 549 836 Murphy v. East Portland, 42 Fed. R. 308 36, 52 v. Jack, 142 N. Y. 215, 218 497 v. Oldis, 2 Molloy, 475 433 v. IT. S., 3 Ct. CI. 212 1003 v. IT. S., 15 Ct. CI. 217 1049 Murray, Ex parte, 66 Fed. R. 297 834 Murray, In re, 96 Fed. R 600 1086, 1100, 1185, 1186 Murray v. Benbow, 6 Petersd. Abr. 559 476 v. Blue Bird Min. Co., Ld., 45 Fed. R 385 60 v. Bogue, 1 Drew. 353 475 v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. R. 24 880 v. Holden (W. D. Mo.), 2 Fed. R 740 935 v. Louisiana, 163 IT. S. 101 950 v. Overstoltz, 8 Fed. R 110 461 v. Vanderbilt, 89 Barb. (N. Y.) 140 618 TABLE OF CASES. CX1X References are to pages. Murtagh v. Philadelphia, 1 Weekly Notes of Cases, 37 467 Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co., 168 TJ. S. 430 1163, 1164 Muser, In re, 49 Fed. E. 831 1199 Musgrave v. Parry, 2 Vern. 710 124, 465 Mussel v. Morgan, 3 Pro. Ch. E. 74,79 796,797 Mussulman v. Marquis, 1 Bush (Ky.), 463 468 Mussey, In re. 99 Fed. E 71 1147 Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355 889, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1249 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Champ- lin, 21 Fed. E. 85 911, 936 v. Conoley (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 180 1232 v. Goddard, 33 N. J. Eq. 482 698 v. Hillmon, 145 U. S. 285 862, v. Phinney, 178 U. S. 327, 342 4, 1228 v. Selby (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. . E. 980 615 Mut. B. L. L Co. v. Robinson (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. E. 723 587, 615, 637 Mut. Eeserve Fund Life Ass'n ' v. Farmer, 77 Fed. E 929 923 Myers, In re, 99 Fed. R. 691 1129,1131 Myers v. Busby, 32 Fed. R. 770 341, 805 v. Cunningham, 44 Fed. R. 346 805 v. Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 22 335, 336 v. Fenn, 5 Wall. 205 434, 443, 444 v. Murray Nelson & Co., 43 Fed. R. 695 928 v. State, 21 W. L. Bull. 404; s. C, 22 N. E. R 43 761 Myrick v. Michigan Central R Co., 107 U. S. 102, 109 879 IS. Nabob of Arcot v. East India Co., 3 Brown, Ch. C. 292 325 Nabob of Carnatic v. East India Co., 1 Ves. Jr. 374 375 Nadia, The, 18 Fed. R. 729 979 Naefie v. Cheesebrough, 14 Blatohf. 313 872 Nalder v. Hawkins, 2 M. & K. 243 124 Nalle v. Young, 160 U. S. 624 11, 150, 171 Nanney v. Tottey, 11 Price, 117 403 Nash v.Harshmau, 149 U. S. 263 1218 v. Ingalls, 79 Fed. E 510 563 Nash, tenant of Connett, v. Wil- liams, 20 Wall. 226 612, 638 Nashua & L. E. Corp. v. Boston & L. E Corp., 51 Fed. E. 929 1256, 1264, 1296 v. Boston & L. R. Corp. (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R. 237 1250 v. Boston & L. R. Corp. (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. E 737 1253 v. Boston & L. E Corp., 136 U. S. 356 ' 68, 306 Nashville, C. & St. L. Ey. Co. v. McConnell, 82 Fed. R. 65 214, 458 v. U. S., 113 U. S. 261 1014 Nassau El. R. Co. v. Sprague El. N. Y. & M. Co., 95 Fed. E 415 768, 1160 Nathan, In re, 92 Fed. E. 590 1103 National Ace' Ass'n v. Spiro, 164 U. S. 281 281, 955 National Auto. Mach. Co. v. Auto. W. L. & Gr. Co. (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. E. 670 1191 National Bank v. Bank of Com- merce, 99 U. S. 608 1233 v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 567 288, 289, 365, 376, 1282 v. Colby, 21 Wall. 609 393 v. Insurance Co., 95 U. S. 673 ' 1280 v. Insurance Co., 104 TJ. S. 54 3, 28, 298, 291, 297, 305, 326, 330, 393, 669 v. Kentucky, 9 Wall. 353 1283 v. Kimball, 103 U. S. 732 v. McGahan, 45 Fed. R. 280 v. Omaha, 96 U. S. 737 v. Rutledge, 84 Fed. R. 400 v. Smith, 156 U. S. 330 National Bank of Augusta v. Carolina, K. & W. R Co., 63 Fed. R. 25 National Button Works v. Wade, 72 Fed. R. 298 National Cash Reg. Co. v. Amer. C. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R. 367 v. Boston Cash I. & E Co., 41 Fed. E. 51 v. Leland (C. C. A), 94 Fed. E. 502; S. C, 77 Fed. E. 242 v. Navy C. E Co., 99 Fed. E. 565 National F. B. & P. Co. v. Day- ton P. N. Co., 91 Fed. E. 822 v. Davton P. N. Co., 97 Fed. E. 331 National F. Co. v. Moline Mal- leable I. Works, 18 Fed. E. 863 237, 507 1242 1238 63 1206 534 81 472 462 634, 1272 473 689 719 269, 271 National Fire Ins. Co. v. Sack- ett, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 660 277, 278 cxx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. National Harrow Co. v. Hench, 81 Fed. E. 1005 1238 National H. B. B. Co. v. Inter- changeable B. Co., 83 Fed. R. 26 233, 628 National Heeling Maoh. Co. v. Abbott, 77 Fed. R. 462 472, 473 National H. for D. V. S. v. But- ler, 33 Fed. R. 374 451 National M. Ace. Ass'n v. Sparks (C. C. A.). 83 Fed. R. 225 70, 802 National Mfg. Co. v. Meyers, 7 Fed. R. 355 338 National S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 143 U. S. 28 v. Tugman, 67 Fed. R. 16 588 721, 959 552 471 National T. Co. v. Miller, 33 N. J. Eq. 155, 158 National Typ. Co. v. N. Y. Typ. Co., 46 Fed. R. 144 Nations v.Johnson, 24 How. 195 1234, 1283 Nauvoo v. Ritter, 97 U. S. 389 1283 Nazro v. Cragin, 3 Dill. 474 857 Nead v. Millersburg H. W. Co., 79 Fed. R. 129 728 Neagle. In re, 135 U. S. 1 ; s. C, 39 Fed. R. 833 22, 758, 833, 837, 846, 849, 851, 902, 948, 1161 Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370 950 v. Foster, 34 Fed. R. 496 382, 384, 386, 387, 388 v. Rathell, 70 Md. 592; s. C, 17 Atl. R. 566 Neale v. Foster, 31 Fed. R. 53 v. Neales, 9 Wall. 1 Neall v. Curran, 93 Fed. R. 831 Nebraska City Nat. Bank v. Ne- braska City H. G. L. Co., 14 Fed. R 763 Nederland L. I: Co. v. Hall, 84 Fed. R 278 v. Hall, 86 Fed. R. 741 Needham v. Smith, 2 Vern. 463 Nellie Peck, The, 25 Fed. R. 463 Nellis v. McLanahan, 6 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 288 225, 226 v. Pennock Mfg. Co., 38 Fed. R. 379 363 Nelson, In re, 98 Fed. R. 76 1093, 1095, 1097, 1098 Nelson v. Barker, 3 McLean, 379 448 v. Eaton (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 376 275, 280, 371 v. First Nat. Bank, 70 Fed. R 526 798 v. Hill, 5 How. 127 212, 218 v. U. S., 1 C. C. 236, note 651 v. U. S., 35 Ct. CI. 427 1015 v. Woodruff, 1 Black, 156 641, 1284 210 940 369 969 287 806 748 784 741 Nelson Morris & Co. v. Hill, 89 Fed. R. 477 763 Neptune S. Nav. Co. v. Sullivan Timber Co., 37 Fed. R 159 967 Nerve Food Co. v. Baumbach, 32 Fed. R 205 212 Nesbit v. The Amboy, 36 Fed. R. 925 978 Nesbitt v. Riverside Ind. Dist., 144 U. S. 610 319 Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 Woodb. & M. 34 171, 591 v. Sheldon, 7 How. 812 667, 878 Nessle v. Reese, 19 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 240 468 Neubert v. Massman, 37 Fla. 91, 19 S. R. 625 411 Neustadter v. Chicago Dry Goods Co., 96 Fed. R. 830 1089 Neustra Seflora de Regia, The, 17 Wall. 29 998 Nevada, The, 106 U. S. 154 1215 Nevada S. O. Co. v. Miller, 97 Fed. R. 681 60 Nevada Nickel Syndicate v. Na- tional Nickel Co., 86 Fed. R 486 197* 408 v. National N. Co., 103 Fed. R 391 448, 694 Neve v. Weston, 3 Atk. 557 312 Neves v. Scott, 13 How. 268 12, 881 New Brunswick Carpet Co., In re, 4 Fed. R. 514 1130 New Chester Water Co. v. Holly Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R. 19 63, 175 New D. Bell Co. v. Hardware S. Co., 62 Fed. R. 463 382 New England, The, 3 Sumn. 495 817, . 818, 992 New England Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Odell, 50 Hun (57 N. Y. S. C. R), 279 245 New England R Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co. (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R 54 724 -^— v. Hyde (C. C. A), 101 Fed. R 397 1240 New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76 43, 144 New Hampshire L. Co. v. Til- ton, 29 Fed. R. 764 750, 803 New Haven S. D. Co. v. The Mayor, 36 Fed. R 716 979 New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461; s. C, 5 Pet. 284; s. c, 6 Pet. 323 41, 42, 270 New Jersey Central R. Co. v. Mills, 113 U. S. 249, 256 177 New Jersey R. & C. Co. v. Hop- pock, 1 Stew. Eq. (N. J.) 261 626 New Jersey Steel & I. Co. v. Chormann, 105 Fed. R 532 79 TABLE OF CASES. CXX1 References are to pages. 499 143 1260 82 1206 New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Trotter, 108 U. S. 564 1214 New Memphis G. & L. Co. v. Memphis, 72 Fed. R. 952 New Mexico, Land Co. of, v. Elk- ins, 20 Fed. R. 545 New Orleans v. Benjamin, 153 U. S. 411 57, 82, 84, 660 v. Caines' Adm'r, 138 U. S. 595, 606 85 v. Citizens' Bank, 167 U. S. 371 319, 322 v. Einsheimer, 18 U. S. 153 1217 v. Fisher (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R, 574 28, 781 v. Louisiana Construction Co., 129 U. S. 45 1160, 1263 v. Morris, 105 U. S. 600 3, 27, 35 v. Morris, 3 Woods, 115 825, 900 v. New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co., 108 U. S. 15 v. Quinlan, 173 U. S. 191 v. Peake (C. C. A.), 52 Fed, R. 74 — r- v. Steamship Co., 20 Wall. 387 768, 769 v. Walker. 176 U. S. 92 1275 v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 9 66 New Orleans Canal & Banking Co. v. Stafford, 12 How. 343 170. 171, 180, 181 New Orleans G. L. & B. Co. v. Dudley, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 452 674 New Orleans Ins. Co. v. E. D. Albro & Co., 1 12 U. S. 506 1238, 1239,1243 New Orleans Nat. Banking Ass'n v. New Orleans So. Mut. Ins. Ass'n, 102 U. S. 121 New Orleans & N. E. Ry. Co. v. Jopes, 142 U. S. 18 New Orleans R. Co. v. Morgan, 10 Wall. 256 New Orleans S. F. & L. Co. v. Delamore, 114 U. S. 501 New Orleans Water Co. v. Lou- isiana Sugar Co., 125 U. S. 18, 38 v. New Orleans, 164 U. S. 471; S. C. in C. C. A., 51 Fed. R 479 36, 176 New Providence v. Halsey, 117 tt a 336 New York, The, 175 U. S. 187 New York v. Baker, 179 U. S. 279 v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 1 New York & B. C. P. Co. v. N. Y. C. P. Co., 9 Fed. R 578 623, 628 New York B. & B. Co. v. N. J. C. S. & R. Co., 32 Fed. R 755 726, 751 1255 893 1203 1158 1187 660 585 586 502 473 31 417 895 374 473 472 441 473 472 4568 New York Belting & P. Co. v. Magowan, 23 Fed. R. 596 v. Magowan, 27 Fed. R 111 v. N. J. C. S. & R Co., 47 Fed. R. 504 New York Consol. Card Co. v. U. S., 20 Ct. CI. 174 1015 New York Construction Co. v. Simon, 53 Fed. R 1 63, 922 New York Economical Pr. Co., In re (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 839 1156 New York El. R. Co. v. Fifth Nat. Bank, 118 U.S. 608 New York Filter Co. v. O. H. Jewett F. Co., 62 Fed. R. 582 New York Filter Mfg. Co. v. Niagara Falls W. Co. (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R 900 v. Niagara Falls W. W. Co. (C. C. A.). 80 Fed. R. 924 New York G. & I. Co. v. Tacoma R. & M. Co. (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. R. 365 New York G. S. Co. v. Amer. G. S. Co., 10 Fed. R. 835 v. Buffalo G. S. Co., 18 Fed. R 638 v. Buffalo Grape S. Co., 20 Fed. R. 505 New York Guaranty Co. v. Memphis Water Co., 107 U. S. 205 8, 36 New York I. & P. Co. v. Milburn G. & M. Co., 35 Fed. R. 225 55, 930 New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Estill, 147 U. S. 591 884 v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60 1281, 1288 New York Life Ins. Co. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 435 12, 146 v. Beard, 80 Fed, R 66 10 New York, Mayor of, v. Miln, 9 Pet. 85 1270 New York, Mayor, etc. City of, v. American Cable Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 60 Fed. R. 1016 New York M. L. Ins. Co. v. Sea- man, 80 Fed. R. 357 New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Cockroft, 46 Fed. R. 881 916, 921 v. Cockroft, 49 Fed. R 3 877 New York & N. E. R Co. v. Hyde (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R. 188 193, 891 New York & Porto Rico S. S. Co.. In re, 155 U. S. 523 812, 813 New York Security & Tr. Co. v. Equitable Mtge. Co., 71 Fed. R. 556 25, 524 v. Illinois Transfer R. Co. (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R. 710 1208, 1288 v. L., E. & St. L. Con. R. Co., 102 Fed. R 382 532 601 691 cxxu TABLE OF CASES. Eef erences are to pages. New York Security & Tr. Co. v. Lincoln Street Ry. Co., 74 Fed. R 67; s. C, 77 Fed. R. 535 160, 409, 411 v. Lombard, 65 Fed. R. 271 883 v. Lombard L Co., 75 Fed. R.172 New York & T. S. S. Co. v. An- derson (C. C. A.), 50 Fed. R 462 New York & W. Water Co., In re, 98 Fed. R. 711 Newark Aqueduct Board v. Par- son, 45 N. J. Eq. 394 Newbery v. James, 2 Meriv. 446 Newbury v. Marten, 15 Jur. 166 Newby v. Oregon C. R. Co., 1 Sawyer, 63 821, 307, 329, 330 v. Von Opper, etc. Co., L. R. 7 Q. B. 293 Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581 684 875 1087 188 452 708 257 885, 1288 376 594 529 529 82 Ne wcombe v. Murray, 77 Fed. R. 492 " ^ Newfoundland, The, 89 Fed. R. 510 Newgass v. Atlantic & D. Ry. Co., 56 Fed. R. 676 v. Atlantic & D. Ry. Co., 72 Fed. R. 712 v. New Orleans, 33 Fed. R. 196 Newman, Ex parte, 14 Wall. 152 816 Newman, In re, 79 Fed. R 615 851, 1163 Newman v. Davenport, 9 Bax. (Tenn.) 538 ' 559 v. Moody, 19 Fed. R. 858 300, 446 Newport v. Bury, 23 Beav. 30 570 Newport Light Co. v. Newport, 151 U. S. 527 768, 1187 Newport News & M. V. Co. v. Howe, 52 Fed. R 362 Newton v. Askew, 6 Hare, 319 v. Earl of Egmont, 4 Si- mons, 574. 585 v. Eagle & P. Mfg. Co., 76 Fed. R. 418 Ney Mfg. Co. v. Superior Drill Co. (C. C. Ohio), 56 Fed. R. 152 Niblock v. Alexander,! 44 Fed. R. 306 94l, 945 Niccol v. Wiseman, 2 Vern. 46 361 Nicholas v. Murray, 5 Saw. 320 v. Nicholas, Prec. in Ch. 546 Nicholls v. Nicholls, 1 Atb. 409 v. White, 1 Cranch, C. C. 59 879 267 162 546 472 307 459 4 647, 649 747 Nichols v. Brunswick, 3 Cliff. 88 v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716, 729 2, 881 v. Horton, 14 Fed. R. 327 267 v. Kearsly, 2 Dick. 645 496 v. Nichols, 92 Fed. R 1 69 v. U. S., 7 Wall. 122 1011, 1026 Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Marsh, 131 U. S. 401 749 Nicholson v. Squire, 16 Ves. 259 420, 430 Nickerson v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 30 Fed. R. 85; S. 0., 1 Mc- Crary, 383 12, 666 v. Crook, 45 Fed. R. 658 909 Nickle v.Stuart, 111 U.S. 776 786 Nickles v. U. S., 42 Fed. R. 757 1293 Nickodemus, In re, 3 N. B. R 230 Nicoll v. U. S.. 1 Ct. CI. 70 Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 176 1091 1026 831, 835 Nilsson v. Jefferson, 78 Fed. R 366 473 Nixon v. Albion Ins. Co., L. R. 2 Ex. 38 589 v. U. S., 18 Ct. CI. 448 1014 Noble v. Massachusetts Ben. Ass'n, 48 Fed. R 337 933 v. Union River Logging R Co., 147 U. S. 165 26, 27, 129, 483 v. U. S., Dev. (C. C. A.) 83 612 v. U. S., Dev. 135 1026, 1027 Noddleburn.The, 28 Fed. R 855; S. c, 30 Fed. R 142 86, 967 Noe v. Gibson, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 513 554 Noel v. King, 2 Madd. 392 389 Nolan v. Colo. Cent. Consol. Min. Co. (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 930 1288 Non-Magnetic Watch Co. v. As- sociation H. S. of Geneva, 44 Fed. R. 6 264 v. Association H. of Ge- neva, 45 Fed. R 210 275 Noonan v. Bradley, 12 Wa\l. 121 1223 v. Lee, 2 Black, 499, 509 11 Norcross v. Nave & McCord Merc. Co. (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. E. 796 1155, 1156, 1228 Norma, The, 32 Fed. R. 411 967 Normandie.The, 40 Fed. R 590 641 Norris v. Haggin, 136 U. S. 386 15 v. Hassler, 22 Fed. R 401 207 v. Hassler, 23 Fed. R 581 748 v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125 870 - — v. Le Neve, 3 Atk. 26 789 North v. Earl of Strafford, 3 P. Wms. 148 285 v. Kershaw, 4 Blatchf. 70 152 v. Peters, 138 U. S. 271 365, 468 North Ala. Dev. Co. v. Orman (C. C. A.), 71 Fed. R 764 1295 v. Orman, 55 Fed. R. 18 879 North Ala. Ry. Co. v. Hopkins (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R 805 572 North Am. Dr. & Imp. Co. v. The River Mersey, 48 Fed. R 686 981 TABLE OF OASES. CSX111 References are to pages. North Am. T. & T. Co. v. Mor- rison, 178 U. S. 262 49 v. Smith (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R 7 1195 North B. & M. Ins. Co. v. La- throp (& C. A.), 63 Fed. R 508 378 North British L. & N. Ins. Co. v. Lathrop (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R 429 379 North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S. 22 141, 143 North Carolina R Co. v. Drew, 3 Woods, 691 634, 648, 649 North Chicago R M. Co. v. St. ■ Louis O. & S. Co., 152 U. a 596 4 North Chicago St Ry. Co. v. Burnham (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R 669 1232 North Muskegon v. Clark (C. C. A.), 62 Fed. R 694 310 North Star and The Ellen War- • ley, The, 106 U. a 17 977, 984 N. E. Mtge. Security Co. v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123 1213 N. O. W. W. v. Southern B. Co., 36 Fed. R 833 881 Northoote v. Northcote, 1 Dick. 22 353 Northern Ind. R Co. v. Mich. C. R Co., 15 How. 233 176 Northern Pac. R Co. v. Amato, 144 U. S. 465 57, 1165, 1195, 1209 v. Amato (G C. A.), 49 Fed. R 881 1228 v. Austin, 135 1?. S 315, 318 937 v. Booth, 152 TJ. S. 671 1211 v. Burlington & M. R. Co., 2 McCrary, 203; S. C, 4 Fed. R 298 457, 468 v. Charles (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R 562 860, 875, 1281, 1284 v. Glaspell (C. C. A.), 49 Fed. R 482 1173,1195 v. Heflin (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. R 93 157 v. Herbert, 116 U. S. 642 1288 v. Kurtzman, 82 Fed. R 241 74 v. Lamont (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R 23 529 v. Mares, 123 U. a 710 880 v. Paine, 119 U. S. 561 588, 802, 953, 954 v. Peterson (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R 182 879 v. Roberts, 42 Fed. R 734 285 v. St. P., M. & M R Co., 2 McCrary, 260; S. a, 4 Fed. R 688 506 v. St P., M. & M. Ry. Co., 47 Fed. R 536 317 489 63 792 Northern Pac. R Co. v. "Walker, 148 U. S. 391 54, 1295 v. Whalen, 149 TJ. S. 157 466 Northern Pac. Terminal Co. v. Lowenberg, 18 Fed. R. 339 917,921 Northern R Co. v. O. & L. C. R Co., 18 Fed. R 815; s. C, 20 Fed. R 347 380, 387 Northey v. Pearce, 1 Sim. & S. 420 Northman v. Wade, 77 Ga. 651 Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Brock, 139 IT. S. 216 Northwestern M. L. I Co. v. Keith (C. C. A), 77 Fed. R 374 710, 715 v. Seaman, 80 Fed. R 357 680 Northwestern Mut. Union Packet Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 154 TJ. S. 588 1231 Norton, Ex parte, 108 IT. S. 237 1201, 1206, Norton v. Eagle Auto. Can Co., 61 Fed. R 293 473 v. European & N. A. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R 865 660 v. Hepworth, 1 Hall & Tw. 158 259, 401, 405 v. House of Mercy (C. C. A), 101 Fed. R 382 321 v. Shelby Co., 118 U. a 425 451, 884 v. Woods, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 260 Northrop v. Hatch, 6 Conn. 361, 363 Norwalk, The City of, 55 Fed. R98 Norway, The, 1. Ben. 493 , 2 Ben. 121 Norwood, Ex parte, 3 Biss. 504 127, 55° Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269, 293 Nougue v. Clapp, 101 U. S. 551 197 290 967 646 647 237 798, 919 Nourse v. Allen, 4 Blatchf. C. a 376 225 Novak, In re, 101 Fed. R 800 1088 Novello v. James, 5 De G., M. & G. 865 508 No velty,The (Steamboat), 9 Ben. 195 741, 742 Noyes v. Canada, 30 Fed. R 665 272 v. Willard, 1 Woods, 187 327, 330 Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U. S. 420 874 Nuestra Senora De Regia, The, 17 Wall. 29 " 1224 , 108 U. S. 92 1298 Nugent, In re (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R 581 1085 Nussbaum v. Northern Ins. Co.. 40 Fed. R 337 807, 956 CXX1V TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. o. Oakes v. Tonah L. & Min. Co., 89 Fed. R. 243 921 Oakley v. O'Neill, 2 N. J. Bq. 287 276 v. Tavlor, 64 Fed. R 245 86 Oaks v. Hill, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 46 824 Oates v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 293 878 Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 199, 206 65, 70, 84, 878, 957 Oberlin College v. Blair, 70 Fed. R. 414 64 O'Brien v. Stair's F. & T. C. Co., 10 Cal. 343 254 O'Callahan v. Cooper, 5 Ves. 117, 129 751 O'Connell v. Reed (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 531 806 O'Connor, In re, 95 Fed. R. 943 1135, 1136 Odell v. Reynolds (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R 656 780 O'Dowd v.Russell, 14 Wall. 402 1203, 1218, 1219, 1230 Oelrichs v. Spain, 15 Wall. 211 293, 306, 509, 1255 Offeley v. Morgan, Cary, 153 294 O'Gara, In re, 97 Fed. R. 932 1146 Ogden v. Gibbons, Halst. N. J. Dig. 172 370 v. U. 8., 148 U. S. 390 1193 Ogden City v. Armstrong, 168 U. S. 224 30, 54 Ogilvie v. Heme, 13 Ves. 563 317 v. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. 380; a. a, 2 Black, 539 161, 174, 434 Ogle v. Cook, 1 Ves. Sen. 177 675 v. Lee, 2 Cranoh, 33 1297 v. Morgan, 1 De G., M. & G. 359 784 Ogles, In re, 93 Fed. R. 426 1097, 1098, 1103, 1104 Oglesby v. Attrill, 12 Fed. R. 227 793 v. Attrill, 14 Fed. R 214 368, 449 Ogsbury v. La Farge, 2 N. Y. 113 670 O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U. S. 150 123, 145, 147, 175, 252, 254, 276, 279, 280, 1287 v. Mobile & O. R Co., 75 Fed. R. 130 319 v. Shepherd, 3 Md. Ch. Deo. 806 412 Ohio v. Ellis, 10 Ohio, 456 218 v. Frank, 103 U. S. 697 884 v. Thomas, 173 U. S. 276 833, 843 Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286 67 Ohio Cent. R. Co. v. Central Tr. Co., 133 U. S. 83 279, 280, 711 Ohio L. 'Ins. & Tr. Co. v. De- bolt, 16 How. 416 668, 872, 882 Olcott v. Headrick, 141 U. a 543, 547 v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678 Old Colony Tr. Co. v. Atlanta Ry. Co., 100 Fed. R 798 v. Dubuque, L. & T. R Co., 89 Fed. R 794 Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. Ku- fald, 100 Fed. R 331 Oldfield v. Cobbett, 1 Phil. 613 700 878 65 221 431, 432 Oldham v. Eboral, Cooper Sel. Cases, temp. Brougham, 27 405, 776 v. Oldham, 7 Ves. 410 582 Old Settlers v. U. S., 148 U. a 427, 463, 464 1250 Olds v. Regan (N. J. Ch.), 32 AtL R 827 218 Olds Wagon Works v. Benedict (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R 1 444, 920, 923 Oleson v. Northern Pao. R. Co., 44 Fed. R 1 51 Olinde Rodregues, The, 174 U. S. 510 998 Oliver, In re. 96 Fed. R. 85 1108 Oliver v. Clarke (C. C. A.% 106 Fed. R. 402 552 v. Decatur, 4 Cranch, C. C. 458 292, 329 v. Decatur, 4 Cranch, C. C. 592 401 v. Hamilton, 2 Anst. 453 515 v. Piatt, 3 How. 333; s. C, 2 McLean, 268 159, 212, 218, 219 v. Rumfbrd Chemical Works, 109 U. S. 75 153 Olmstead v. Distilling & C. F. Co., 67 Fed. R. 24 568 v. Distilling & C. F. Co., 73 Fed. R 44 ' " 699, 1245 Olney v. Tanner, 10 Fed. R 101 127, 552, 553, 563 Olson v. Nor. R Co., 43 Fed. R 112 222 Olyphant v. St. Louis O. & S. Co., 22 Fed. R 179 530, 534 v. St Louis O. & S. Co., 28 Fed. R. 729 Omaha H. Ry. Co. v. Cable T. Co. of Omaha, 32 Fed. R 727 v. Cable T. Co., 33 Fed. R. 689 74, 412 Omaha & S. W. R Co. v. Chi- cago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 586 Onderdonk v. Fanning, 2 Fed. R 568 O'Neil v. Kansas City S. & M. R Co., 31 Fed. R 663 O'Neill v. Perryman, 102 Ala. 522, 14 S. R. 898 Ord v. Huddleston, 2 Dick. 510 v. Noel, 6 Madd. 127 536 962 513 764 747 383 307 789 TABLE OF CASES. cxxv References are to pages. 974 35 1166 1298 910 413 1284 Oregon, The, 158 U. a 186 Oregon Iron Works, In re, 4 Saw. 169, 170; s. C., 17 N. B. R. 404 Oregon R & Nav. Co. v. Bal- four, 179 TJ. S. 55 v. Balfour (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. R295 Oregon S. L. & U. N. Ry. Co. v. Skottowe, 163 U. S. 490 Oregon & Trans. Co. v. N. Pao, Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R 428 O'Reilly v. Campbell, 116 TJ. S. 418 v. Edrington, 96 U. S. 724 1238, 1258 v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 124 754 Orendorf v. Budlong, 12 Fed. R. 24 286 Organ v. Gardiner, 1 Ch. Cas. 231 776 Oriental Society, In re, 104 Fed. R. 975 1087 Origet v. TJ. S., 125 U. S. 240 889 Ormsby v. Union Pao. R. Co., 4 Fed. R. 706 488 v. Webb, 134 TJ. S. 47 1160, 1169, 1204 Ornelas v. Ruiz, 161 TJ. S. 502, 507 836, 1163, 1217 Orr v. Littlefield, 1 W. & M. 13 471, 503 503 836 v. Merrill, 1 W. & M. 376 Orteiza v. Jacobus, 136 TJ. S. 330 Ortley v. Messere, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 139 125 Orton v. Smith, 18 How. 263 954 Orvis v. Powell, 98 TJ. S. 176 13, 711 Osborn v. Bank of TJ. S., 9 Wheat. 738, 845 4, 57, 138, 174, 463, 485, 588 v. TJ. S., 131 U. S. cxxxvii 731 Osborne v. Harvey, 1 Y. & C. N. R 116 564, 565 v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 147 U. S. 248, 260 234 v. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 43 Fed. R 824 209, 215 Osborne Co. v. Barge. 30 Fed. R 805 66, 379, 382, 384 Osburne v. Barter & Goddins, anna 26 Eliz., Chovce Cas. in Ch. (ed. of 1870), p.*176 466 Oscoda, The, 66 Fed. R 347 968 Osgood v. Chicago, D. & V. R Co., 6 Biss. 330 932, 937 Oswald v. New York, 2 Dall. 415 42 Ota, In re, 96 Fed. R 487 837 Oten v. Scalzo, 145 TJ. S. 578, 589, 590 1288 Ott, In re, 95 Fed. R 274 1132 Otto v. Regina M. B. Co., 87 Fed. R. 510 " 228 Overby v. Gordon, 177 TJ. S. 214 127 Overman Wheel Co. v. Elliot H. C. Co., 49 Fed. R 859 294 v. Pope Mfg. Co., 46 Fed. R. 577 63 Overton v. Memphis & L. R. Co., 10 Fed. R. 866 566 Overweight C. El. Co. v. Im- proved O. of R. M. H. Ass'n (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R 955 473 Owatonna Mfg. Co. v. F. B. Fargo & Co., 94 Fed. R 519 368, 371 Owen v. Curzon, 2 Vern. 237 396,410 v. Homan, 4 H. L. C. 997, 1032 520 v. Thomas, 3 M. & K. 353, 357 589 Owens v. Dickerson, Craig & P. 48, 56 437 v. Hanney, 9 Cranch, 180 1249 v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R 571 876 Owings' Case,. 1 Bland (Md.), 370, 404 126, 714 Owings v. Hull, 9 Pet. 607 585 v. Kincannon, 7 Pet. 399 1218 v. Norwood, 5 Cranch, 344 1181 v. Tiernan, 10 Peters, 447 1258 OxleyStave Co. v.Butler County, 166 U. S. 648 1186 v. Coopers' Int. Union, 72 Fed. R. 695 70, 215, 469 Ozark Land Co. v. Leonard, 24 Fed. R 658 1244 P. Paca v. Dutton, 4 Mo. 371 607 Pacific Bank v. Mixter, 114 U. S. 463 1239 Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Ban- croft-Whitney Co. (C. C. A), 94 Fed. R 180 978 Pacific Express Co. v. Malin, 132 U. S. 531 893, 895 v. Seibert, 44 Fed. R 310 34 Pacific L. S. Co. v. Handley, 98 Fed. R 327 . 54, 214 Pacific M. L. I. Co. v. Tompkins (C. C. A), 101 Fed. R 539 70 Pacific Nat. Bank v. Mixter, 114 U. S. 463 1256 v. Mixter, 124 U. S. 721 858 Pacific Postal Tel. Co. v. Irvine, 49 Fed. R 113 193 Pacific R Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S. 556 18 v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 289 63, 64, 170, 660, 912, 1287 Pacific R. Co. of Missouri v. At- lantic & Pac. R Co., 20 Fed. R. 277 30, 161, 216 v. Ketchum, 95 U. S. 1 376, 1276 CXXV1 TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. Pacific R. Co. of Missouri v. Mo. r Pac. Ry. Co., 3 Fed. R. 772; S. C, 1 McCrary, 647 260 v. Ma Pac. R. Co., Ill IT. S. 505, 522' 71, 191, 192, 198, 259, 282, 283, 290, 295, 318, 590, 796, 798 Pacific R. R. Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 223 57, 921, 923 Pacific Ry. Cora., In re, 32 Fed. R. 241 617 Packer v. Bird, 137 V. S. 661 884 v. Whittier (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R. 511 1147 Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S. 559 283 Packington v. Packington, 1 Dick. 101 504 Padelford v. Mayor, 14 Ga. 438 1182 Padgett v. Post (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 600 818 Pagan v. Sparks, 2 Wash. C. C. 325 157 Page v. Bartlett, 101 Ala. 768 212 v. Holmes B. A. Tel. Co., 2 Fed. R 330 434, 438, 471, 782, 783, 789 Paige, In re, 99 Fed. R. 538 Paige v. Broadfoot, 100 Ala. 610 Paine v. Central Vt. R. Co., 118 U. S. 152 v. Trask (G C. A.), 56 Fed. R. 233 — r- v. Warren, 33 Fed. R. 357 Paine L. Co. v. U. S., 55 Fed. R, 854 Painter v. New Mon. R. M. Co., 98 Fed. R. 544 Palestine W. & P. Co. v. City of Palestine (Tex.), 44 S. W. R. 814; s. C., 40 L. R. A. 203 Palk v. Lord Clinton, 12 Ves. 63 Palmer v. Foote, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 437 162 v. Hussey, 119 IT. S. 96 1148, 1158 v. Low, 98 U. S. 1 1061, 1065 v. Stevens, 100 Mass. 461, 1101 287 872 601 628 1011 936 157 235 466 — v. v, — v. 167, 173 Travers, 20 Fed. R. 501 486 IT. S., 24 How. 125 ■Vaughan, 3 Swanst. 173 1073 536, 537 v. Walesby, L E, 3 Ch. App. 732 Palmer, Attorney General, v. Parkhurst, 1 Chan. Cas. 112 Palmer P. T. Co. v. Newton R. Works, 73 Fed. R. 218 Palmyra, The, 12 Wheat. 1 1208, 1297 Panama v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 529 263 Panama R. Co. v. Napier Ship- ping Co., 166 U. S. 280 1179, 1225 656 125 471 996, Pannell v. Tayler, T. & R. 96, 100 Pannill v. Eliason, 3 Cranch, C. C. 358 Paolina, The, 11 Fed. R. 171 Paper Bag Cases, 105 IT. S. 766- .771 Paquette Habana, The. 175 IT. S. 677, 686 586, 987, 99S, 1163, 1166, 1195 1209 Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 653 ' 1184, 1201 Pargoud v. IT. S., 13 Wall. 156; S. C, 4 Ct. CI., 337 Paris, Ex parte, 3 W. & M. 227 Parish v. Ellis, 16 Pet. 451 v. IT. S.. 1 Ct. CI. 345; S. 0., 8 Wall. 489 Park v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 64 Fed. R. 190; s. a, 70 Fed. R. 641 65, 66, 444, 518, 520, 532 v. Willis, 1 Cranch, C. C. 357 638 Parker, Ex parte, 120 U. S. 737 814, 583 641 981 153 1026 739 1160 1026 Parker v. Bigler, 1 Fish. 285 v. Browning, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 388 v. Dacres, 130 IT. S. 43 v. Downing, 1 M. & K. 634 v. Francis, 9 Jur. 616, note v. Grant, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 434 v. Haworth, 4 McLean, 370 v. Hotchkiss, 1 Wall. Jr. 269 1233 746 554 711 716 424 277 601 267, 618 v. Judges of Circuit Court, 12 Wheat. 561 493, 799, 1246 v. Leigh, 6 Madd. 115 386 v. Marrow, 136 N. Y. 585 267 v. Morrell, 2 Phil. 453 675 v. Morrill, 106 U. S. 1 52 v. Nightingale, 6 Allen (Mass.), 341 209 v. Nixon, Baldw. 291 646 v. Ogdensburg & L. C. R Co., 79 Fed. R 817 807, 872 v. Orms, 141 IT. S. 81 84, 85 v. Sears, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 93 498 v. IT. S., 151 IT. S. 396 876 v. Winnipiseogee Lake C. & W. Co., 2 Black, 545 306, 466 Parkhurst v. Kinsman, 2 Blatchf. C. C. 72 413, 419, 530, 537 Parkinson v.Barr, 105 Fed. R. 81 912, 934 474 122 v. Laselle, 3 Saw. 330 v. Went worth, 11 Mass. 26 Parkman, The Ship, 35 Ct. CI. 406 594 Parks, Ex parte, 93 U. S. 18 833, 834 Parks v. Booth, 102 IT. S. 96 340, 691 v. Southern Ry. Co., 90 Fed. R. 3 946 v. Turner, 12 How. 89, 48 809 TABLE OF OASES. 0XXV11 References are to pages. Parmenter Mfg. Co. v. Stoeber (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. R. 330 1093 Parmley v. Railroad Cos., 3 Dill. 25 507 Parnell v. Felton, 102Fed. R 369, 911 Parrot v. Treby, Prec. in Ch. 254 720 Parsons, In re, 150 U. S. 150 817,852 Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433 6 -■ — v. Charter Oak L. Ins. Co., 31 Fed. R. 305 25, 521, 533 v. Denis, 7 Fed. R 317 802 v. Howard, 2 Woods, 1 171, 183 - — v. Lyman, 4 Blatchf. C. C. 432 154, 208 v. Robinson, 122 U.- S. 112 704, 1207 v. Slaughter, 63 Fed. R 876 33 Partee v. Thomas, 11 Fed. R 709 360 Partridge v. Felix Mut. L. L Co., . 15 Wall. 573 806 v. Hayoraft, 11 Ves. 570, 575 231. 353, 355 -■ v. Osborne, 6 Russ. 195 790, 791 Paschal, In re, 10 Wall. 483 760, 763 Passavant v. U. S., 148 U. S. 214 1173, 1194, 1198 Pasture C. F. Co. v. Funk, 53 Fed. R 146, 147 507 Patapsco, The, 12 Wall. 451 1212 Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 5 Pot. 604 637, 638 Patch v. Ward, L. R 3 Ch. 203 709 Patchin v. Hunter, 38 Fed. R 51 926 Paton v. Majors, 46 Fed. R. 210 627 Patrick v. Isenhart, 29 Fed. R 339 . 288 Patriotic Bank v. Bank of Washington, 5 Cranch, C. C. 602 343, 352 Patten v. Cilley, 50 Fed. R. 337 965 Patterson v. Stapler, 7 Fed. R 210 152, 369 v. U. S., 2 Wheat. 221 829 Patting v. Spring & C. Co., 93 Fed. R 98 Patton v. Glantz, 56 Fed. R. 367 v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R. 244 Paul v. B. & O. R. Co., 44 Fed. R 513 v. Lowry, 2 Cranch, C. C. 628 v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168 Paving Co. v. Mulford, 100 U. S. 147 Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292 Paxson v. Cunningham, 63 Fed. R 132 Paxton v. Douglas, 8 Yes. 520 v. Douglas, 19 Ves. 225 Payan v. U. S., 15 Ct. CI. 56 875 199, 226 1298 68 643 920 1215 71 563 491 290 1049 Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425 11, 19, 27, 171, 182, 212 v. Kansas & A. V. R. Co., 46 Fed. R 546 492 v. Niles, 20 How. 219 1217, 1221 Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 Mass. 452 452 v. Westerly Waterworks (R I., 1897), 37 Atl. R 807 208 Peace R. Ph. Co. v. Edwards (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R 728 1240 Peachie v. Twyecrosse, Cary, 113 294 Peake v. Highfield, 1 Russ. 559 5, 673 1233 11,18 336 836 579, 580 611 1092 252 6 808 1256 Peale v. Phipps, 8 How. 256 v. Phipps, 14 How. 368 Pearce v. Rice, 142 U. S. 28 v. Texas, 155 U. S. 311 Pearne v. Lisle, Ainb. 75 Pearse v. Brook, 3 Beav. 337 Pearson, In re, 95 Fed. R 425 Pearson v. The Alsalfa, 44 Fed. R. 358 (U. S. D. C. D. S. C.) v. Ward, 1 Cox Eq. 177 Peaslee v.Haberstro, 15 Blatchf. 472 Peaton v. U. S., 5 Cranch, 281 Peay v. Schenck & Bliss, Woolw. 175 384, 388 Peck, Ex parte, 3 Blatchf. 113 617, 621,629,637 , 3 Blatchf. 123 832 Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 624 459 v. Peck, Moseley, 45 342, 349 v. Sanderson, 18 How. 42 1275 v. Vinson, 124 Ind. 12 Peck S. & W. Co. v. Fray, 92 Fed. R 947 Pedrick v. White, 1 Met. (Mass.) 76 Peek v. Frame, 9 Blatchf. 194 Peeler v. Lathrop, 48 Fed. R. 780 Peik v. Chicago & N. W. R Co., 94 U. S. 164 Peirce v. U. S., 1 Ct. CI. 195 v. Van Dusen (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R 693 v. West's Ex'rs, 3 Wash, 354, 355 Pelham v. Rose, 9 Wall. 103 Pelton v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 143, 148 Pelzer v. Binghamton (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R 823 Pelzer Mfg. Co. v. Hamburg B. F. Ins. Co., 62 Fed. R 1 v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 40 Fed. R. 185 Pembina Mining Co. v. Pennsyl- vania, 125 U. S. 181, 186 Pendery v. Carleton, 87 Fed. R. 41 Pendleton v. Evans,4 Wash. 104, 112 279 200 725 416 715 49 882 1026 883 360, 366 1177 456 473 919 954 912 369 CXXV111 TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. Pendleton v. Fay, 3 Paige (N. Y.),204 413 v. Forbes, 1 Cranoh, C. C. 507 640, 641 Penfold v. Ramsbottom, 1 Swanst. 552 299 Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dallas, 54 1379 Peninsular Iron Co. v. Eels, 68 Fed. R 24, 35, 36 318 v. Stone, 131 U. S. 631 724, 963 Penn v. Calhoun, 121 U. S. 251 525 v. Ingraham, 3 Wash. C. C. 487 638 v. Klyne, Pet. C. C. 446 855, 856 v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. Sen. 444 705 Pennook v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. .1; S. a, 4 Wash. 538 805, 1284 v. Gilleland. 1 Pittsb. 37 856 Pennoyer v. MoConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1; s. C, 43 Fed. R 196; s. a, 43 Fed. R 339 139, 140, 141, 142 v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 318 Pennsylvania, Ex parte, 109 U. S. 174 812, 991 Pennsylvania, The, 15 Fed. R 814 985 Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 10 Wall. 553 43 v. W. & B. B. Co.; 13 How. 518 466 Pennsylvania Co., In re, 137 U. S. 451, 453 814, 815, 816, 817, 938, 939, 945, 965 Pennsylvania Co. v. Bender, 148 U. S. 257 944 v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 131 443, 1248 v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co., 93 Fed. R. 60 533, 689 v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451 867 v. U. a. 7 Ct. CI. 401 1028 Pennsylvania Co. for Insurance, etc. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R 131 517 v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co., 66 Fed. R 421 719, 733 v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co., 93 Fed. R. 60 528 v. Philadelphia & R. R Co., 69 Fed. R 482 711 Pennsylvania ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Boley, 1 Weekly Notes, 303 853 Pennsylvania Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Austin, 168 U. S. 685 1163 v. Union Tr. Co.. 83 Fed. R. 891 244 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Alle- gheny V. R Co., 42 Fed. R. 82, 86 692, 693 29 445 152 182 802 499- 723 405 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Balti- more & N. Y. Ry. Co., 37 Fed. R. 129 < 586 v. St. Louis, A. & T. H R Co., 116 U. S. 472 1272, 1284 v. St. Louis, A. & T. H. R Co., 118 U. S. 290 v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 155 U. S. 225 Pennsylvania & N. J. R. Co. v. Byerson, 36 N. J. Eq. 112, 116 Penny v. Watts, 3 Phillips, 149, 154 Penrose v. Pac. Mut. L. I. Co. (D. Montana), 66 Fed. R. 253 Pentlarge v. Beeston, 1 Fed. R 862 v. Kirby, 20 Fed. R 898 v. Pentlarge, 19 Fed. R. 817; S. C, 22 Fed. R 412 324, 415, 713 v. Pentlarge, 14 Repr. 579 485 People v. Albany & Vt R Co., 24 N. Y. 261 454 v. Brower, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 448, 763 v. Colorado Cent. R. Co., 42 Fed. R 638, 641 818, 824, 825, 827, 828 v. Cooper. 32 Hun (29 N. Y. S. C. R), 515, 517 v. Craft, 7 Paige (N. Y), 235 v. Forquer, Breese (1 111.), 68 (2d ed. 104) v. Grant, 45 Cal. 97 v. Illinois B. & L. Ass'n, 56 111. App. 642 567, 568 v. Jugigo. 128 N. Y. 589 842 v. Mercein, 3 Hill, 399, 407 840 v. National T. Co., 82 N. Y. 283 556, 559 v. North San Francisco Ass'n, 38 Cal. 564 v. Norton, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 17 v. Randall, 73 N. Y. 416 v. Rensselaer C. P., 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 543 v. Univ. L. Ins. Co., 30 Hun (37 N. Y. S. C. R), 142 People ex rel. Brewer v. Kidd, 23 Mich. 440 People ex reL Broderick v. White, 156 N. Y. 136 People ex rel. Press Pub. Co. v. Martin, 72 Hun, 354; s. a, 142 N. Y. 228 People ex rel. Schurz v. Cook, 148 U. S. 397, 411 People's Bank v. Calhoun, 102 U. S. 256 212, 920 People's Bank of Greenville v. ^Etna Ins. Co., 53 Fed. R 161 932, 935 314 767 824 773 188 566 502 612 559 484 128 1262 882 TABLE OF OASES. CXX1X References are to pages. Peper v. Fordyce, 119 TJ. S. 469 724, 922 Pepke v. Corilari, 155 U. S. 100 843 Peralta v. U. &, 8 Wall. 434 1060, 1073 Perea v. Harrison, 7 N. M. 666, 41 Pac. R 529 Perin v. Megibben, 53 Fed. R 86 383 65, 176 708 761 915 Perine v. Dunn, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 140 Perkins, Ex parte, 29 Fed. R 900 Perkins v. Boston & A. R Co., 90 Fed. R 331 v. Fourniquet, 14 How. 328, 331 903, 1207, 1391, 1397 v. Hendryx, 23 Fed. R 418 415, 953 954 Perrin v. U. S., 171 TJ. & 292 1059, 1060 Perrine v. Slack, 164 TJ. & 453 1168 Perry, Ex parte, 103 TJ. S. 183 816 Perry v. Carr, 41 N. H. 371 236 v. Clift. 33 Fed. R 801 926, 957 v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. G G 195 225 v. Godbe, 83 Fed. R. 141 443, 551 v. Jenkins, 1 Myl. & Cr. 132 403 v. Langley, 2 N. B. R. 231 1091 v. Mechanics' Mut Ins. Co., 11 Fed. R 478 806 v. Parker, 1 W. & M. 280 489. 492 v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173 783, 784, 785,786.787,789,793 v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. R 15 461 v. Truefit, 6 Beav. 66 477 v. Walker, 4 Beav. 453 424 Perseverance, The, 23 Fed. R. 463 738, 741 Person v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (C. C A.), 92 Fed. R. 965; reversing s. C., 84 Fed. R. 759 371, 661, 870 v. Grier, 66 N. Y. 124 267 Persons v. TJ. S., 10 Ct CI. 503 1046 Peters v. Bain, 133 TJ. S. 670 667 v. Provosli 1 Paine, 64 9, 645, 646 v. Robinson, 1 Dick. 116 394 Petersburg S. & I Co. v. Della- torre (G C. A.), 70 Fed. R 643 Peterson, In re, 95 Fed. R 417 Petition of Oliver P. Thomas, In the Matter of the, in behalf of Joel McKee, TJ. S. D. C, Ju- dicial District of Colorado, Oct 14, 1861 Petri v. Commercial Nat Bank, 143 U. S. 644 58, 68 Petrie v. The Coal Bluff, 3 Fed. R 531 986 Pettibone v. Derringer, 4 Ch. G G 215, 219 600, 638, 642 Petty v. Hannum, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 102 380 573 1137 839 Pewabic Mining Co. v. Mason, 145 U. S. 349, 363 696 Peyton v. Hennekin, 131 TJ. S. ci 1291 v. Robertson, 9 Wheat. 537 1213 v. Veitch, 2 Cranch, C. C. 123 640, 641 Pfanschmidt v. Kelly M. Co., 32 Fed. R 667 779, 783 Phanixton Co. v. Charleston B. Co., 65 Fed. R 628 955 Phelps v. Canada Cent R Co., 19 Fed. R 801 961 v. Elliott, 36 Fed. R 881 953,954 v. Elliott, 30 Fed. R 396 375 v. Elliott, 35 Fed. R 455 701 v. Harris, 101 U. S. 379 330 v. McDonald, 99 U. S. 398 230 v. Mayer, 15 How. 160 876, 893 v. Oakes, 117 TJ. S. 236 65, 70, 801 v. O'Brien County, 2 Dill. 518 11, 807 Phenix Ins. Co. v. Liverpool & G. W. S. S. Co., 22 Blatchf. 372 988 Philadelphia, The (C. G A.), 60 Fed. R 423 1195 Philadelphia & B. G R Co.'s Appeal, 70 Pa. St 355 900 Philadelphia F. Ass'n v. New York, 119 U. S. 110 920, 1186 Philadelphia M. & Tr. Co. v. Needham, 71 Fed. R 597 695 Philadelphia & T. R Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. 448 1287 Philippi v. Philippe, 115 TJ. a 151 389 Philips v. Carew, 1 P. Wms. 117 241, 624 506 1146 805 395 v. Langhorn, Dick. 148 Phillips, In re, 98 Fed. R 844 Phillips v. Comstock, 4 McLean, 525 v. Derbie, 1 Dick. 98 v. Negley, 117 TJ. S. 665 898, 899 v. Page, 24 How. 164 341 v. Prentice, 2 Hare, 542 611 Phinizy v. Augusta & K. R Co., 56 Fed. R 373 68 v. Augusta & K. R Co., 63 Fed. R 922 530 Phinney v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 178 U. S. 327 733 Phoenix Ins. Co., Ex parte, 117 U. a 367 1215 , 118 TJ. S. 610 811 Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Schultz (G G A.), 80 Fed. R. 337 552. 553 v. Wulf, 1 Fed. R 775 251, 253 Piatt v. Oliver, 1 McLean, 295 327 v. Vattier, 9 Pet 405 365 Pickard v. Mattheson, 7 Ves. 293 779 Pickens v. Dent (G G A.), 106 Fed. R 653 1086 cxxx TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. Pickering v. Bishop of Ely, 2 Y. & C. Ch. C. 249 ' 480 Pickett v. Ferguson, 45 Ark. 177 426 v. Legerwood, 7 Pet. 144 1203, 1249 v. Tiler & S. Co., 40 Fed. R 313 21 Pickham v. Wheeler B. Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R. 663; S. C, 69 Fed. R 419 Pico v. U. S.. 2 Wall. 279 Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 561 56 1073 250, 661 v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35; S. O., 5 Mason, 561 250, 253, 264 Pictet A. L Co. v. N. Y. L M. Co., 12 Fed. R. 816 657 Riek v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 6 Biss. 177 483 Pierce, In re, 102 Fed. R. 977 1088 , 103 Fed. R 64 1144, 1145 Pierce v. Cox, 9 Wall 786 1234, 1235, 1257 v. Feagans, 39 Fed. R. 587 337 v. Indreth, 106 IT. S. 546 863 v. Molliken, 78 Fed. R 196 60 v. Somerset Ry. Co., 171 U. S. 641 1187 v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 47 Fed. R. 709 864, 961 v. U. S., 1 Ct. CI. 195 1028 v. Webb & Stalker, note to Ryan v. Mackmath, 3 Bro. C. C. 15 5 Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 W. & M. 23 471 Pierson v. Robinson, 3 Swanst. 139, n. 155 v. Ryerson, 5 N. J. Eq. 196 342 Pieters v. Thompson, G. Cooper, 294 662 Pigot v. Stace, 2 Dick. 496 329 Pike, In re (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. R 400 1297 Pike v. Gregory (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R 373 1256 v. Nicholas, L. R. 5 Ch. 251 476 Pike's P. P. Co. v. Colorado Springs (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R. 1, 7 , 512 Pilla v. German S. Ass'n, 23 Fed. R. 700, 702 954 Pillow v. Pillow, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 20 ~ 234 Pilot, The (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R 11 1163 Pincers v. Robertson, 9 C. E. Green (24 N. J. Eq.), 348 351 Pindar v. Smith, Mad. & Geld. 48 676 Pine v. New York, 103 Fed. R. 337 57 Pine Grove v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666 878,879 563 1200 609 Pine Lake Iron Co. v. Lafay- ette Car Works, 53 Fed. R. 853 Ping-On,The, v. Blethen, 11 Fed. R. 607; s. C, 7 Sawyer, 483 Pinkerton v. Barnsley C. Co., 3Y. &J. 277 v. Ledoux, 129 U. S. 346 1068, 1070, 1073 Pinkham v. Rutan, 31 Fed. R 496 968 Pinkus v. Peters, 5 Beav. 253 155 Pinson v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 54 Fed. R. 464 728, 746 Pioneer, The, Blatchf. Prize Cases, 61 i 998 Piqua Bank v. Treasurer of Miami County, 6 Ohio St. 342 1183 Piquignot v. Penn. R. Co., 16 How. 104 1162 Pirie v. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 42 924, 925 Pitcher v. Helliar, Dick. 580 516 v. Hennessey, 48 N. Y. 415 4 Pitkin v. Cowen, 91 Fed. R 599 47, 587, 964 Pitkin Min. Co. v. Markell, 33 Fed. R 386 77 Pitman, In re, 1 Curtis, 186 760, 763, 768 Pitt v. Earl of Arglass, 1 Vern. 441 792 v. Snowden, 3 Atk. 750 538 Pittelkow, In re, 92 Fed. R. 901 1135 Pitts, Re, 9 Fed. R 542 505 Pitts v. Edmonds, 2 Fisher, 52, 54 v. Powledge, 56 Ala. 147 Pittsburg, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co. (C. C. A.), 61 Fed.. R 705 Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co. v. Board of Public Works, 172 U. S. 32 33 Pittsburg L. & C. Works v. State Nat. Bank, 154 U. S. 625 1214 Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Long Island L & Tr. Co., 172 U. S. 493 Pittsburgh & L. A. I. Co. v. Cleveland Min. Co., 178 U. S. 270, 279 Place v. Illinois (C. C. A.), Fed. R. 481 852, 918 Plankington v. Gray (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R 415 Plant v. Harrison, 101 Fed. R. 307 \ Plant Inv. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co., 152 U. S. 75, 76 * 83, 85 Piatt v. Adriance, 90 Fed. R 772 756 v. Jerome, 19 How. 384 1260 Piatt v. Jones, 9.6 N. Y. 24 537 v. Mead, 9 Fed. R 91 199, 284 339 379 63 1180 1187 588 963 TABLE OF CASES. CXXX1 References are to pages. Piatt v. Phil. & R R Co., 54 Fed. R 569 52S v. Phila. & R. R Co., 65 Fed. R 660 550 v. Phila. & R R Co. (C. C. A.), 84 Fed. R 535 559 v. Phoenix Assur. Co. of London, 37 Fed. R 730 930 v.Threadgill,80Fed.R192 887 Playford v. Lockard, 65 Fed. R 870 327, 329, 336 Pleasants v. Southern Ry. Co., 95 Fed. R 93 688 v. U. S., 35 Fed. R 770 737 Pliable Shoe Co. v. Bogart, 81 Fed. R 521 58 Plitt, Ex parte, 2 Wall. Jr. 453 737, 752, 753 Plotke, In re (C. C. A,), 104 Fed. R. 964 1084 Plum v. Smith, 56 N. J. Eq. 468, 39 Atl. R 1070 386 Plumb v. Crane, 123 U. S. 560 322 Plume & A. Mfg. Co. v. Bald- win, 87 Fed. R 785 171 Plummer v. Granite Mountain Min. Co., 55 Fed. R. 755, 756 888 Plunket v. Penson, 2 Atk. 51 182 Plymouth, Countess of, v. Bla- don, 2Vern. 32 664 Plymouth G. M. Co. v. Amador & S. C. Co., 118 TJ. S. 264 923. 925, 1253 Poindexter v. Greenhow, 109 U. S. 63 1269 v. Greenhow, 114 TJ. S. 270 136 Pokegama S. P. L. Co. v. Kla- moth R L. & L Co., 86 Fed. R 528 487, 488, 492 Police Jury v. U. S., 60 Fed. R 249 320,322 Polk's Lessee v. "Wendal, 9 Cranch, 87 667, 878 Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 526 174 v. Reardon, 65 Fed. R 848 35, 724 v. So. Fertilizer Co. (Ala., 1899), 25 S. R 169 241 v. Vinton, 105 TJ. S. 7 879 v. Wellford, 99 Tenn. 113, 42 S. W. R 23 381 Polleys v. Black R L Co., 113 U. S. 81 1185, 1226 Pollitz v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 39 Fed. R 707 " 263 Pollock v. Bridgeport St Co., 114 U. S. 411 980 v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 157 U. S. 429 33, 484 v. The Sea Bird, 3 Fed. R 573 980 Pomeroy v. Harter, 1 McLean (Ind.), 448 739 Pomeroy's Lessee v. State Bank of Indiana, 1 Wall. 592, 601 890, 894, 1288 Pond v. Vt. Valley R Co., 12 Blatchf. 280 69, 660 Poole, Re, 2 Mac A. (D. C.) 583 840 Poole v. Franks, 1 Molloy, 78 752 v. Thatcherdeft, 19 Fed. R 49 75,918 Pooley v. Luco, 72 Fed. R 561 81 Pobr v. Carleton, 3 Sumn. 70 498, 502. 503 Pope, In re, 98 Fed. R. 722 1137 Pope v. Allis, 115 U. S. 363 588 v. Leonard, 115 Mass.286 214, 216 v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 173 U. S. 573 61, 63, 73, 554, 555, 1166- • v. Seckworth, 46 Fed. R 858 974 Pope Catlin, The, 31 Fed. R 408 968 Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully, 144 U. S. 224 4 v. Gormully & Jeffery Co., 144 U. S. 238 4 Poppenhusen v. N. T. G. P. C. Co., 4 Blatchf. 185; s. a, 2 Fish. 74 212, 226, 347, 483 Port Royal & A. Ry. Co. v. South Carolina, 60 Fed. R 552 143, 380, 388 Port Royal R Co. v. Hammond, 58 Ga. 523 705 Portage C. W. Co. v. Portage, 102 Fed. R 769 84, 85 Porter v. Davidson, 62 Fed. R 626 21 v. Davidson (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R 257 1202 v. Foley, 21 How. 393 1255 v. Pittsburgh Bessemer S. Co., 120 TJ. S. 649 525, 1283 v. Robinson (Va.), 22 S. E. R 843 210 v. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473 19, 20, 22, 157, 177, 178 Porter Land & Water Co. v. Baskin, 43 Fed. R 323 264 Portland, Countess of, v. Prod- gers, 2 Vern. 104 122 Portland Co. v. TJ. S., 5 Ct. CI. 441 1014 Portsmouth v. Fellows, 5 Mass. 450 797 Portugal, Queen of, v. Glyn, 7 CI. & F. 466 626 Post v. Beacon V. P. & El. Co., 89 Fed. R 2 366, 724 v. Supervisors, 105 TJ. S. 669 883 v. Toledo, C. etc. R Co., 144 Mass. 341, 4 New Eng. R 221 9 v. TJ. S., 161 TJ. S. 583 80 Postal Tel. C. Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482 66, 910 cxxxu TABLE OF CASES. Eef erences are to pages. Postal Tel. C. Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 88 Fed. R. 803 v. Vane (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 961 Postmaster-General v. Rice, Gilp. 554 v. Trigg, 11 Pet. 173 Potter v. Beal (C. C. A.), 50 Fed. R. 860 439, 1207 v. Gardner, 12 Wheat. 499 156 v. Mack, 3 Fish. 428 v. Muller, 1 Bond, 601, Fed. Cas. No. 11,333 v. National Bank, 102 U. 8. 163 v. Potter, 1 Ves. Sen. 274 -, — v. Third Nat. Bank, 102 U. S. 163 Potts v. Hahn, 32 Fed. R 660 v. Hollon, 177 TJ. S. 365 v. Leighton, 15 Ves. 273 v. Warwick & B. C. N. Co., Kay, 143 Poultney, Ex parte, v. City of La Fayette, '12 Pet. 472 273, 335; 658, 824, 825 Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126 300 Powell v, Brunswick County, 150 U. S. 433 1187, 1188 v. Kane, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 265 611 v. Leicester Mills, 92 Fed. R 115 v. Powell, Mad. & Geld. 53 v. Waldron, 89 N. Y. 328 v. Wright, 7 Beav. 449 Power v. Baker, 112 U. S. 710 v. Semraes, 1 Cranch, C. C. 247 Powers v. Blue Grass B. & L. Ass'n, 86 Fed. R 705 18, 517 v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 169 U. S. 92 70, 925, 935, 937, 1171 v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 65 Fed. R 129 933, 958 / 917 1220 598 824 509 501 615 588 613 212 1216 572 569 437 708' 537 155 1247 618 Powys v. Blagrave, 18 Jur. 463 569. 570 Poydras de La Laude v. Treas. of Louisiana, 17 How. 1 Pratt v. Fitzhugh, 1 Black, 271 v. Paris G. L. Co., 168 U. S. 255 ' 59 v. Northam, 5 Mason, 95 9, 15, 27 313 Prentice v. Duluth S. & F. Co. ' (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R 437 v. Pickersgill, 6 Wall. 511 Prentiss Pool & Supply Co. v. Godchaux, 66 Fed. R. 234 Prescott, Ex parte, 2 Gall. 146 Prescott v. Haughey, 65 Fed. R. 653 58 1234 1211 209 1291 737 82» 363 871 469- President v. Mayor, etc. of Elizabeth, 40 Fed. R 799 / President of St. Mary M. College v. Sibthorp, 1 Russ. 154 Press v. Davis (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R 267 Pr. & Pub. Co. v. Howell; 26 Oreg. 572; s. c, 28 L. R. A, 464 Press Pub. Co. v. McDonald (C. C. A.), 73 Fed. R. 440 1288 — v. Monroe, 164 U. S. 105 1165,. 1166 Presto, The (C. C. A., 5th Ct), 93 Fed. R. 522 443 Preston v. Finley, 72 Fed. R 850 297 v. Walsh, 10 Fed. R. 315 175, 504 Prevost v. Gorrell, 5 W. N. C. 151, 152 759, 903 Price, In re, 91 Fed. R 635 1113 Price v. Abbott, 17 Fed. R 506 514 v. Alder G. Con. Co, (C. C A), 71 Fed. R. 151 858 v. Berrington, 3 Macn. & G. 486 206, 674 v. Coleman, 21 Fed. R. 357 198, 215 219 v. Coleman, 22 Fed. R 694 ' 726 v. Fates, 19 Alb. L. J. 295 884 v. Forrest, 173 U. S. 410 1023, 1024 v. Parkhurst (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R 312 v. Price, cited in 2 Smith's Ch. Pr. 76 v. Lehigh Val. R. Co., 65 Fed. R. 825 v. M'Carty, 89 Fed. R 84 v. Morris, 5 McLean, 4 State, 8 Gill (Md.), 295, 892 674 936 885 643 310 v. Yates, 19 Alb. L. J. 295 Prime v. U. S., 3 Ct. CI. 209 Prince v. Towns, 33 Fed. R. 161 812 870 1003 53, 755 Prince Albert v. Strange, 1 Macn. & G. 25, 42 453, 476, 480* Prince Steam Shipping Co. v. Lehman, 39 Fed. R 704 978 Printup, Ex parte, 87 Ala. 148 436 Pritchard v. Fleetwood, 1 Meriv. 54 516 v. Palmer, 88 Hun, 412 150 v. Quinchant, Amb. 147 363 Probst v. Cowen, 91 Fed. R. 929, 931 ' 933, 953 Proctor v. Brill, 16 Fed. R 791 723 Propeller Burlington, The, 137 U. S. 386 1215- Protector, The, 11 Wall. 82 1229 -, 20 Fed. R. 207 971 Prout v. Roby, 15 Wall. 471 172, 177 Prouty v. Draper, 2 Story, 199 745 TABLE OF CASES. cxxxm Eeferenoes axe to pages. Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill, 109 U. S. 578 460, 993, 994 Providence S. E. Co. v. Hatha- way Mfg. C6., 79 Fed. R. 513 309 Provident L. & Tr. Co. v. Mills, 91 Fed. R 435 461 Provident Sav. Soc. v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635 63, 73, 271, 272 Provisional Municipality of Pensacola v. Lehman, 57 Fed. R. 334 Prudential Assur. Co. v. Knott, L. R 10 Ch. 142 v. Thomas, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 74, 77 Pruen v. Lunn, 5 Russ. 3 P. Schwenk & Co. v. Strang (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R. 209 Public G. & S. Exch. v. W. U. Tel. Co., 16 Fed. R 289; S. C, 11 Biss. 568 Public Schools v. Walker, 9 Wall. 603 Puetz v. Bransford, 31 Fed. R. 458 341, 390 Puget Sound M. Depot v. The Guy C. Cross, 53 Fed. R. 826 982 Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abb. U. S. 94 484 Pullen v. U. S., 7 Ct. CI. 507 1025 Pulliam v. Christian, 6 How. 209 703, 1207 v. Pulliam, 10 Fed. R. 53 15, 313 Pullman v. Stebbins, 51 Fed. R. 10 Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Am. L. & Tr. Co., 84 Fed. R 18 v. Central Tr. Co., 46 Fed. R 261 v. Central Tr. Co., 71 Fed. R809 v. Central Tr. Co., 171 U. S. 138; s. C, 39 U. S. App. 307 9 485 243 403 942 932 1275 212 529 388 1236 v. Harkins, 55 Fed. R. 932 • v. Speck, 113 U. S. 84 378, 1173, 1195 876 935 • v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 11 Fed. R. 635 ; S. C, 4 Woods, 317 486 v. Washburn, 66 Fed. R 790; s. c. in U. C. A., 76 Fed. R. 1005 72, 318, 756, 854 Purcell v. Miner, 4 Wall. 519 789 P urdy v. Henslee, 97 III. 389 362 Pulteney v. Shelton, 5 Ves. 147 424 Purefoy v. Purefoy, 1 Vern. 29 288 Purvine, In re (C. C. A.), 96 Fed. R. 192 1118 Pusey v. Pusey, 1 Vern. 273 35, 480, 487 Pusey & Jones Co. v. Miller, 61 Fed. R 401 242 Putnam v. Day, 22 Wall. 60 787 Putnam v. Hollander, 6 Fed. R. 882 218, 226, 293 v. Ingraham, 114 U. S. 57 912 , 924, 925 v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 365 2, 351, 382, 385, 386 v. Rich, 56 Fed. R 416 177 v. Timothy D. & S. C. Co., 79 Fed. R 454 53 Putney v. Whitmire, 66 Fed. R 385 54, 375, 411 Q. Quackenbush v. Leonard, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 131 394 Quarles v. Quarles, 2 Munford (Va.), 321 714 Quebec S. S. Co. v. Merchant, 133 U. S. 375 879, 1211 Queen of the Pacific, The, 61 Fed. R 213 966 Quinoy v. Foot, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 496 277, 278 v. Steel, 120 U. S. 241 39, 220 Quinoy M. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hum- phreys, 145 U. S. 83 559 Quirolo v. Ardito, 1 Fed. R 610 669 K. Rabaud v. DeWolf. 1 Paine, 580 69 Rachel, The, v. U. S., 6 Cranch, 339 1292 Radcliffe, Ex parte, 1 J. & W. 639 516, 564 Rader v. Bristol Land Co. (Va.), 27 S. E. R 590 209 Radford v. Folsom, 14 Fed. R 97 310 v. Folsom, 123 TJ. S. 725 1226, 1234, 1257, 1358 Rafferty v. Central Tr. Co. (Pa. & C), 23 Atl. R 884 209 v. King, 1 Keen. 601 186 Raht v. Attrill, 106 N. Y. 423 524, 536, 537, 546 Railroad Co., Ex parte, 95 U. S. 331 389, 390, 407, 408, 656, 815, 1207 , 103 U. S. 794 857 Railroad Co. v. Barron, 5 Wall. 90 883 v. Blair, 100 IT. ,a 661 1234 v.Bradleys,7Wall.5?5 703,1204, 1235 v. Chamberlain, 6 Wall. 748 72, 776 v. Ellerman, 165 U. S. 166 38, , 454, 455 v. Falconer, 103 U. S. 821, 822 668 v. Gladmon, 15 Wall. 401 880 v. Howard, 7 Wall. 392 164 CXXX1V TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 15 Wall. 8 1220 v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5 951, 952 v. Lock-wood, 17 Wall 357 879, 880 v. National Bank, 102 TJ. S. 14, 29 668, 879, 880 v. Orr, 18 Wall. 471 163, 183 v. Schutte, 100 U. S. 644 1243 v. Swasey, 23 Wall 405 704, 1207 v. Trook, 100 U. S. 112 1212 v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507 814 Railroad Equipment Co. v. So. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R. 541 1221 Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 1, 18 916 Railroad Tax Cases, 92 TJ. S. 575 878 Railroad & Tel. Cos. v. Board of Equalizers, 85 Fed. R. 302 586 Railway Co., Ex parte, 101 U. S. 711 815, 816 , 103 U. S. 794 814, 815 Railway Co. v. Ailing, 99 U. S. 463 656, 1260 v. Heck, 102 TJ. S. 120 784 v. Ramsey, 22 Wall. 322, 328 194,927 ■ v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270 11, 67 Railway Reg. Mfg. Co. v. North Hudson Co. R. Co., 26 Fed. R 411 Railway Officials & Emp. Ace. Ass'n v. Wilson (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R 368 Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192 Rainer v. Haynes, Hempst. 689 640, 642 Raines v. TJ. S., 11 Ct CL 648 , 1026 Rainey v. Herbert (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R 443 51, 208, 234 Ralston, Ex parte, 119 TJ. S. 613 1185, 1241, 1247, 1257 Ralston v. Sharon, 51 Fed. R. 702 73 Ralya Markst Co. v. Armour & Co., 102 Fed. R 530 927 Ramsay v. TJ. S., 21 Ct. CL 443 1014 Ramsdell v. TJ. S„ 2 Ct. CI. 508 1023 Rand v. Proprietors, etc. Co., 3 Day (Conn.), 441 254 v. Walker, 117 U. S. 340 922, 926 Randall & Sunderland, In re, Deady, 557 1091 Randall v. B. & O. R. Co., 109 U. S. 478 875 v. Howard, 2 Black, 585, 589 229, 289, 314 v. Venable, 17 Fed. R 163 864 Randolph. Ex parte, 2 Brock. 44 598 Randolph v. Barrett, 16 Pet. 138 370 v. Dickerson, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 517 406 779 1272 873 638, 385 322 869 283 751 1131 491 433 1027 506 313 Randolph v. Robinson, 2 N. J. L J. 171 Randolph's Ex'r v. Quidnick Co., 135 TJ. S. 457 27, 37, 456, 883 Ranger v. Champion C. P. Co., 51 Fed. R 61 593 v. Champion C. P. Co., 52 Fed. R 609 221, 517 Rankin v. Huskisson, 4 Sim. 13 487 v. State, 11 Wall. 380 1184, 1201 Ransom v. Davis' Adm'rs, 18 How. 295 161, 441 v. Pierre (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R 665 v. Williams, 2 Wall. 313 Rantin v. Robertson, 2 Strobh. Law (S. C), 366 Rashleigh v. Master, 1 Ves. Jr. 201 Ratcliff, In re, 107 Fed. R. 80 Ratcliffe v. Winch, 16 Beav. 576 Rateau v. Bernard, 3 Blatchf. 244 Rattray v. George, 16 Ves. 232 Ravesies v. TJ. S., 21 Ct CL 243 • Rawlings v. Lambert, 1 J. & H. 458 Rawlins v. Dalton, 3 Y. & Coll. 447 Rawson v. Lyon (S. D. N. Y.% 15 Fed. R. 831 968, 973 Ray v. Knowlton, 11 Biss. C. C. 360 738 v. Law, 3 Cranch, 179 703, 786, 1204 v. Oliver, 6 Paige (N. Y.), 489 v. Pierce, 81 Fed. R 881 v. Smith, 17 Wall. 411 Raymond v. La Compagnie Generale, 90 Fed. R. 105 v. Royal B. S. Co. (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. R. 465 512, 1226 Rayner v. Julian, 2 Dickens, 677; S. O., 5 Madd. 144 Raynes v. Wyse, 2 Meriv. 472 Rea v. Missouri, 17 Wall. 532 Read v. Bennett (N. J. Errors & Appeals, 1897), 37 Atl. R 75 156, 638 v. Consequa, 4 Wash. C. C. 174 276, 367, 500, 505 v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 335 351,352 Reagan v. Farmers' L. &T. Co., 154 U. S. 362 29, 138, 140, 143 Real de Dolores del Oro v. U. S., 175 TJ. S. 74 1064 Reavis v. Reavis, 98 Fed. R 145 64 Reay v. Berlin & J. E Co., 30 Fed. R 448 368 v. Eaynor, 19 Fed.R 308 368, 415 Rector v. Fitzgerald, 59 Fed. R 808 788, 789, 793 694 47 1284 968 295 580 1287 TABLE OF OASES. cxxxv References are to pages. Rector v. Lipscomb, 141 U. S. 557 1316, 1335, 1264 Red River Cattle Co. v. Need- ham, 47 Fed. R 358 1297 v. Needham, 137 U. S. 632 1216 Red River Line v. Cheatham, 60 Fed. R. 517 1277 Redding v. Wilkes, 3 Brown, C. C. 401 229 Redfield's Case, 27 Ct. CI. 473 1043 Redfleld v. Parks, 130 U. S. 623 1249 Redus v. Wofford, 4 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 579 612 Reed v. Bennett (N. J. Errors & Appeals, 1897), 37 Atl. R 75 182 v. Carusi, Taney, 72 475 v. Consequa, 4 Wash. C. C. 174 506 v. Holliday, 19 Fed. R 325 475 v. Reed, 31 Fed. R 49 917 v. Stapp (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R 641 871, 872 Reeder v. Seely, 4 Cowen, 548 551 Reedy v. Scott, 23 Wall. 352 415 v. Western El. Co. (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. R. 709 280, 317 Rees v. Watertown, 19 Wall. 107 33 Reese, In re (C. G A.), 107 Fed. R 942 835 Reese R S. Min. Co. v. Atwell, L.E.7 Eq. 347 370 Reeve v. Perkins, 2 J. &'W. 390 463 Reeves v. Corning, 51 Fed. R. 774 63, 930, 942 v. Vinacke, 1 McCrary, 213 15 Reggel, Ex parte, 114 U. S. 642 836 Reichter v. Magone, 47 Fed. R 192 721 Eeifsnider v. American Imp. Pub. Co., 45 Fed. R. 433 257 Reilly v. Reilly, 139 111. 180 661 Reily v. Lamar, 3 Cranch, 344 1236 Reinach v. Atlantic & G. W. R Co., 58 Fed. R 33 64, 460, 549 Reineman v. Ball, 33 Fed. R. 692 922 Reinhart v. Augusta M. & Inv. Co., 94 Fed. R 901 528, 533, 536 Reinitz, In re, 39 Fed. R 204 843 Reinstadler v. Reeves, 33 Fed. R 308 272 v. Rehls, 33 Fed. R. 308 281 Reissner v. Anness, 12 Off. Gaz. 842; S. a, 3 Bann. & A. 148 303, 304, 327, 330 v. Anness, 13 Off. Gaz. 7 335 Reiall v. Greenhood, 60 Fed. R 784 19, 32, 310 v. Greenhood, 93 Fed. R 945 321, 336 Relfe v. Rundle, 103 U. S. 222 127 Reliable Incubator Co. v. Stahl (C C. A.), 105 Fed. R. 663 1194 Reliable L. & B. Co. v. Stahl (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R. 590 890 Reliance Storage & Warehouse Co., In re, 100 Fed. R 619 1129 Relief F. Ins. Co. v. Shaw, 94 U. S. 574 4 Remer v. McKay, 38 Fed. R 164 377 Remington P. Co. v. Louisiana P. & Pub. Co., 56 Fed. R 287 554, 562 Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457 912,931, 932, 945 Remsen v. Reinsen, 2 J. Ch, (N. Y.) 495 557 Renard v. Levinstein, 2 Hem. & Mil. 628 153 Renaud v. Abbott, 116 U. S. 277 1234 Renner v. Howland, 2 Cranch, C. C. 441 637, 639 Rensselaer & S. R Co. v. B. & R Co., 18 Fed. R. 617 459, 461 Republican M. Silver Mines v. Brown (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R 644 519 Republican R. B. Co. v. Kansas P. R Co., 92 U. S. 315 1288 Republican Silver Mines v. Brown, 58 Fed. R 644 38 Reuben Doud, The, 3 Fed. R 920 977, 979 Reubens v. Joel, 13 N. Y. 488 6 Reyburn v. Consumers' Gas, F. & L. Co., 29 Fed. R. 561 537, 536 Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354 35, 293, 306, 670, 1255, 1285 Reynolds, In re, Shelf on Lun. 417 126 Reynolds v. Adden, 136 U. S. 348 68, 69 v. Cra wfordsville First Nat. Bank, 112 U. S. 405 12, 359, 360, 881 v. Everett, 144 N. Y. 189 469 v. First Nat. Bank, 112 U. S. 405 658 v. Iron S. Min. Co., 33 Fed. R 354 504 v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254 25, 524 Reynoldson v. Perkins, Ambler, 564 158 Rhine v. U. S., 15 Ct. CI. 59 1049 Rhinelander v. Sanford, 3 Day (IT. S. C. C. D. Conn.), 279 145 Rhino v. Emery (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R 382 200 v. Emery, 79 Fed. R 483 303, 305, 333 Rhoades v. Selin, 4 Wash. 715 846, 647, 648, 649 Rhoads, In re, 98 Fed. R. 399 1135 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657 144 v. Massachusetts, 13 Pet 23 41, 42, 43, 273, 363 CXXXV1 TABLE OF CASE8. References are to pages. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 210 303, 304, 329, 331, 332, 335 v. Massachusetts, 15 Pet. 233; s. C, 4 How. 591 41 Rhodes v. U. S. Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R 512 872 Rhutassel, In re, 96 Fed. R. 597 1147 Ribon v. Railroad Cos., 16 Wall. 446 176, 177 Ricard v. Inhabitants New Providence, 5 Fed. R 433 806 Ricardo v. Garcias, 12 CI. & F. 368 322 Rice, In re, 155 U. S. 396 812, 813, 817 Rice v. Ames, 180 U. S. 371 1161, 1163, 1164 v. Durham Water Co., 91 Fed. R. 433 71, 438 v. Minn. & N. W. R Co., 21 How. 82 1255, 1265 v. Sanger, 144 U. S. 197 1201 Rich v. Bray, 37 Fed. R 273 53, 54 Richards, In re (C. C. A.), 96 Fed. R. 935 1135, 1156 , 103 Fed. R 849 1116 Richards v. Chesapeake & O. R Co., 1 Hughes, 28, 36 435 v. Evans, 1 Ves. Sen. 39 196 v. Mackall, 113 U. S. 539 1233 v. Mackall, 124 U. S. 183 229 v. Rock Rapids, 31 Fed. R. 505 959 v. Salter, 6 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 445 242 Richardson v. Boston, 1 Curt. 250 909 v. Campbell, 72 Fed. R. 525 600 v. Golden, 3 Wash. C. C. 109 648 -. v. Green (C. Q A.), 61 Fed. R 423 917 v. Green, 130 U. S. 104 1213, 1226, 1235, 1252, 1258 v. Hardwick, 106 U. S. 252 614 v. Loree, 94 Fed. R. 375 72, 75, 798 v. Richardson, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 58* - 433 Richman, In re, 91 Fed. R. 624 1093 Richman v. Donnell, 53 N. J. Eq.' 32 390 Richmond v. Atwood (C. C. A.), 52 Fed. R 10, 21 702 v. Brookings, 48 Fed. R. 241 961 v. Irons, 121 U. S. 27 369, 370 v. Tayleur, 1 P. Wms. 734 796 Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Find- ley, 32 Fed. R. 621 918, 919 v. McGee (O. C. A.), 50 Fed. R 906 803, 888, 889 Richmond Mica Co. v. De Clyne, 90 Fed. R 661 471, 472 Richter'v. Jerome, 25 Fed. R. 679, 681 636 v. Journeymen T. Union, 24 Ohio L. Bull 189 469 Rickelt, Ex parte, 61 Fed. R 203 837 Rico v. Gualtier, 3 Atk. 501 582 Riddle v. Hudgins (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R. 490 1208 v. Mandeville, 6 Cranoh, 86 718 v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R Co., 39 Fed. R. 290 256 v. Whitehill, 135 U. S. 621 376, 958, 1281, 1282, 1288 Rider, In re, 96 Fed. R 808 1130, 1140 Ridout v. Earl of Plymouth, 1 Dickens, 68 570 Rigby v. Rigby, 9 Beav. 311, 313 348 Riggs v. Clark, 71 Fed. R 560 695 v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 166 818, 835, 827 Ridgway v. Hays, 5 Cranch,C. C. 23 1025 v. Wharton, 3 De G., M. & G. 677, 689 315 Rike v. Floyd, 42 Fed. R 247 944 Riker, In re, 66 Fed. R 290 768 , 107 Fed. R 96 1085 Rindskopf v. Plato, 20 Fed. R. 130 627 Ring, R. & I. M. Co., Re, v. St. Louis Ice Mfg. Co., 67 Fed. R 535 438 Ringgold v. Glover, 2 Cranch, C. C. 427 740 v. Lewis, 3 Cranch, C. C. 367 740 Ringo v. Binns, 10 Pet. 269 176 Rio Arriba L. & C. Co. v. U. S., 167 U. S. 298' 1065 Rio Grande, The, 19 Wall 178 829, 1212 Rio Grande R Co. v.Gomila, 132 U. S. 478, 481 21 Risk v. Kansas Tr. Co., 58 FedLR 45 562 Ritchie v. Aylwin, 15 Ves. 79 372 v. McMullen, 159 U. S. 235 310 v. Sayers, 100 Fed. R 520 28 Ritter v. Mutual L. I. Co. (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R 567 1297 Rivers v. Bradley, 53 Fed. R 305 78, 925 Roach v. Hulings, 16 Pet. 319 809 Road v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 174 258 Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624 838 v. Vo, 155 II S. 13 74 Robbins v. Denis, 1 Blatchf. 238, 243 592 v. Freeland, 14 Ink Rev. Rec. 28 484 Roberdeau v. Rous, 1 Atk. 544 285 Roberts, Ex parte, 6 Pet. 216 816 TABLE OF OASES. CXXXV11 References are to pages. Roberts, Ex parte, 15 Wall. 384 1235 Roberts, In re, 24 Fed. R. 132 836 , 99 Fed. R 948 837 Roberts v. Brooks, 71 Fed. R 914 271 v. C, St. P., M. & O. R Co., 45 Fed. R. 433 933 v. Cooper, 19 How. 373 1242 v. Cooper, 20 How. 467 1296, 1297, 1298 v. Graham, 6 Wall. 578 1285 v. Lewis, 144 U. S. 653 802 v. Nelson, 8 Blatchf. 7 956 v. Pac. & A. Ry. & Nav. Co, 104 Fed. R 577 911, 928, 929, 958 v. Reilly, 110 U. S. 80 838, 848, 851, 1283 v. U. S., 176 TJ. S. 231 820, 823 v. Walley, 14 Fed. R 167 616 v. Williams, 12 East, 33, 37 196 Robertson v. Carson, 19 Wall. 94; s. a, Chase's Deo. 475 70, 152, 155, 178, 183 v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646 193, 194 v. Perkins. 129 U. S. 233 894 v. Scottish U. & Nat Ins. Co., 68 Fed. R. 173 928 Robinson, Ex parte, 19 Wall. 506 " 761, 815 , 6 McLean, 355 842 Robinson v. Alabama & G. Mfg. Co., 67 Fed. R 189; s. G, 72 Fed. R 708 701, 1292 v. Alabama & G. Mfg. Co., 51 Fed. R 268 , 725 v. Anderson, 121 U. S. 522, 524 60, 62, 660 v. Bags of Sugar, 35 Fed. R 603 742, 743 v. Belt (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 328 v. Caldwell, 165 TJ. S. 359 1203 1163, 1195 1173 6 v. Caldwell, 168 U. S. 359 v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212 v. Cathcart, 2 Cranoh C. C. 590 252, 479, 487 v. Hadley, 11 Beav. 614 567 v. Honstain, 79 Fed. R. 678 755 v. Iron Ry. Co., 135 U. S. 532 236, 699 v. Lord Byron, 1 Bro. C. C. 588 41, 487 v. Mandell, 3 Cliff. 169 614 v. Mut. Ben. L. L Co., 16 Blatch. 194, 200 872 v. National Stock-yard Co., 12 Fed. R 361 ' 271, 281 v. Norton, 10 Beav. 484 661 v. Phila. etc. R. Co., 28 Fed. R 340. 342 622 v. Satterlee, 3 Saw. 134, 141 359, 420, 421 v. Scottish TJ. & Nat Ins. Co., 68 Fed. R 173 958 Robinson v. Southern Bank, 94 Fed. R 22 1239 v. Springfield Co., 21 Fla. 203 213 v. Taylor, 42 Fed. R. 803, 812 515, 569 v. Thompson, 3 Ves. & B. 118 293 v. West Va. L. Co., 90 Fed. R 770 53 519 Rob'ison v. Hardy, 38 Fed. R 49 ' 942 Robson v. Dodds. L. R. 8 Eq. 301 454 Roby v. Colehour, 146 U. S. 153 1186, 1187 v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624 24 Roche, In re (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R 956 ■ 1153, 1155 Roche v. Morgell, 2 Sch. & Lef. 721, 725 Rochester v. Lee, 1 Macn. & G. 467 Rochester, Corporation of, v. Lee, 2 De G., M. & G. 427 Rock Island Bank v. J. S. Kea- tor L. Co., 52 Fed. R. 897 935, 936 Rockwood, In re, 91 Fed. R 363 1103 Roddam v. Hetherington, 5 Ves. 91 582, 584 Roddin v. U. S., 6 Ct. CI. 308 1030 Rodgers v. Rodgers, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 424 Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U. S. 103, 106 v. Newwan, 19 Fed. R. 98 v. Simons, 95 U. S. 214 340, 341, 1255 Rogers v. Bitter, 12 Wall. 317 1283 v. Durant, 106 U. S. 644 1395, 1269 v. Goore, 17 Ves. 130 v. Law, 21 How. 526 v. Nashville, C. & St. L Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R. 299 v. Nortwick, 45 Fed. R. 513 303 657 678 375 784 312 362 1298 221 179, 922 v. Oxford, W. & W. Ry. Co., 3 De G. & J. 662 454 v. Reissner, 21 Fed. R 592 388 v. Reissner, 34 Fed. R. 270 779 v. Riley, 80 Fed. R. 759 137 v. Riley, 85 Fed. R 471 55 v. U. S., 141 U. S: 548 873, 1162 v. Vosburgh, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 84 491, 662, 664 Rogers L. Works v. Erie Ry. Co., 5 C. E. Green (20 N. J. Eq.), 379 487, 488 Rollins v. Board of Com'rs. of Gunnison County (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R. 741 1254 v. Chaffee County, 34 Fed. R 21 83 Rollins Gold & S. Min. Co., In re, 102 Fed. R 982 1087 cxxxvm TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Rollins Inv. Co. v. George, 48 Fed. R. 776 176 Rolston v. Chittenden; 130 IT. S. 390 •• 138, 142 Romaine v. Union Ins. Co., 28 Fed. R. 625 271, 272 Roman v. Sharp's Rifle Mfg. Co., 33 Conn. 31 380 v. U. S., 11 Ct. CI. 761 1016 Romanow, In re, 92 Fed. R. 510 1088, 1095 Rome Planing Mill, In re, 96 Fed. R. 812 1091, 1093, 1111 , 99 Fed. R. 937 1093 Romero v. U. S., 1 Wall. 721 1043 Rondot v. Tp. of Rogers (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R. 676 ' 68 Rood v. Whorton, 67 Fed. R. 434 321 Roosevelt v. Columbus, C. & I. C. Ry. Co., U. S. C. C, N. D. 111., Drummond, J., Nov. 15, 1882 695 Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. a 189 * 6, 8, 30, 31 v. Woolworth, 150 U. a 401 72, 410, 776 Rorback v. Dorsheimer, 35 N. J. Eq. 516, 518 292 Rosa, The, 53 Fed. R. 133 993 Roscius, The, 1 Brown, Adm. 442 643 Rose v. Calland, 5 Ves. 186 720 v. Gannel. 3 Atk. 439 624 v. Woodruff, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 547, 548 278 Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 130 U. S. 450 819 v. Council B. Ins. Co., 37 Fed. R 724 72 Rosenbach v. Dre yfuss, 1 Fed. R, 391 806, 807, 809 Rosencrans v. U. S., 165 U. S. '257 , 80,112 Rosenstein v. Burns, 41 Fed. R. 841 216 v. Tarr, 51 Fed. R. 368 30, 858, 1343, 1248 Rosenthal v. Coates, 148 U. S. 142 1259 Rosevelt v. Edson, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 227 497 Ross, In re, 140 U. S. 453 1199 Ross v. City of Ft. Wayne, 58 Fed. R. 404 416, 417 v. Citv of Ft, Wayne (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 466, 469 284, 587 v. Citv of Ft. Wayne, 65 Fed. R. 466 417 v. Prentiss, 4 McLean, 106 789 v. Prentiss, 3 How. 771 49, 1213 v. Saunders (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R. 915 1140 Ross v. So. Cotton Oil Co., 41 Fed. R 152 982 v. Union Pac. R Co., 1 Woolw. 26 27, 34, 456 Ross-Meehan B. S. F. Co. v. So. M. Iron Co., 72 Fed. R. 957 862 Rosse v. Rust, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 300 Rosser, In re, 96 Fed. R. 308 (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R. 562 670 1118 1119, 1154 1016 394 455 747 706 1133 Rothschild v. U. S., 6 Ct. CI. 204 Roundell v. Currer, 6 Ves. 250 Roundtree v. McLain, Hempst. 245 v. Rembert, 71 Fed. R. 255 Rourke v. McLaughlin, 38 Cal. 196 Rouse, In re, 91 Fed. R. 514 Rouse v. Hornsby (C. C. A.). 67 Fed. R 219, 233 443, 445, 1160 v. Hornsby, 161 U. S. 588 445, 1166 v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47 73, 445 Rouse, Hazard & Co., In re (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R. 96 1133, 1153 Rowan v. Ide (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R 161, 164 1190 v. Runnels, 5 How. 134 668, 878 Rowe, In re (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R 161 Rowe v. Blodgett & C. Co., 87 Fed. R. 868 v. Phelps, 153 U. S. 87 Rowell v. Hill, 28 Fed. R. 433 Rowley v. Eccles, 1 S. & S. 512 289, 300 Rowland, Ex parte, 104 U. S. 604 834, 835 Rowlatt v. Cattell, 2 Hare, 186 424 Rowth v. Howell, 3 Ves. 565 Rowzee v. Pierce, 75 Miss. 846; s. C, 23 S. R 307; S, O., 40 L. R. A. 402 Roxbury v. The Lotta, 65 Fed. R. 319 Roy, In re, 96 Fed. R. 400 Roy v. Louisville, N. O. & T. R Co., 34 Fed. R 276 Royall, Ex parte, 117 U. S. 254 842, 843 Royal Exch. Ins. Co. v. Ward, 1 Fowler, Ex. Pr. 335 260 Royle v. Wynne, 1 C. & Ph. 252 310 Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 6 Wall. 153 1226, 1227 v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 807 382, 884, 388 v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 807 259 v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788, 792 30, 306 836 284 1372 951 194, 556 178 22 1147 431 34. TABLE OF OASES. CXXX1X References are to pages. Rubber T. Co. v. Davie, 100 Fed. R. 85 196, 323 Rubel v. Beaver Falls C. Co., 22 Fed. R 282 Ruby v. Atkinson (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R. 577 Ruby C. G. Min. Co. v. Hunter (W. D. S. D.), 60 Fed. R. 305 Rucker v. Bolles, 80 Fed. R. 504 v. Wheeler, 127 U. S. 85 Rude, In re, 101 Fed. R 805 Rudge v. Hopkins, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 70 Rudnick, In re, 93 Fed. R 787 Rugg v. Bucknor, 1 Paine, 358 Ruggles v. Eddy, 11 Blatchf. 524 Rugheimer, Re, 36 Fed. R 369 Ruhlender v. Chesapeake, O. & & W. R Co. (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. . R. 5 525, 528, 535 Rumbly v. Stainton, 24 Ala. 712 657 Rumbold v. Forteath, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 686 Rumford Chemical Works v. Hecker, 11 Off. Gaz. 330 v. Hecker, 5 Off. Gaz. 644 v. Vice, 14 Blatchf. 179, 180 803 1248 935 69 876 1150 208 1141 643 374 906 331 £03 463 314, 475 964 1103 967 475 65 237 Rumsey v. Town, 20 Fed. R. 769 Rumsey & Sikemier Co. v. Nov- elty & Mach. Mfg. Co., 99 Fed. R. 699 Rundell v. La Compagnie Gen- erale (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R 655 v. Murray, Jacob, 311 Ruohs v. Jarvis-Conklin Mtg. Tr. Co., 84 Fed. R. 513 Rush v. First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 71 Fed. R. 102 Russel & Livermore's Case, 35 Ct. CI. 154 1013 Russell, Ex parte, 13 Wall. 664 1050, 1260, 1262 Russell, In re, 97 Fed. R. 32 1100 , 101 Fed. R 228, 248 1154 Russell v. Ashley, Hempst. 546 638, 810 v. Clark, 7 Cranch, 69 35, 178 v. Farley, 105 U. S. 433 11, 506, 508 v. Kearney, 27 Ga. 96 v.Kern (C. C. A.), 64 Fed. R 581; S. C, 69 Fed. R94 v. M'Lellan, 3 W. & M. 157 v. McLennan, Fed. Cas. No. 12,158 v. Place, 94 TJ. S. 606, 610 v. Sharpe.l Jac. & W.482 124, 145 v. Stansell, 105 U. S. 303 1215 v. TJ. S., 15 Ct, CI. 168 809 Russia, The, 5 Ben. 84 743 607 31 645 593 321 Rust v. Brittle Silver Co., 58 Fed. R 611 94, 923 v. United Waterworks (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 129 1122, 1206,- 1217 Rutland R Co. v. Central Vt. R Co., 159 U. S. 630 1187 Ryan, In re, 105 Fed. R. 760 1131 Ryan v. Gould, 32 Fed. R 754 726 v. Koch, 17 Wall. 19 1272 v. Martin, 16 Wis. 57; S. C, 18 Wis. 672 1023 v. Seaboard R. Co., 83 Fed. R. 889 53, 161, 264 Ryckman v. Parkins, 5 Paige (N. Y), 543 557 Rycroft v. Green (E. D. Pa.), 49 Fed. R. 177 935 Ryder v. Bateman, 93 Fed. R. 31 591 v. Bateman, 93 Fed. R. 16 865, 952 v. Holt, 128 IT. S. 525 59, 1280 Rylands v. Latouche, 2 Bligh, 566 180, 367, 404, 776 S. 1263 762 272 749 857 33 S. C. Tyson, The, 105 IT. S. 267 Sabin v. Fogarty, 70 Fed. R. 482 Sackett v. Rumbaugh, 45 Fed. R 23 v. Smith, 46 Fed. R. 39 Sadlier v. Fallon, 2 Curt. 579 Safe Deposit & T. Co. v. City of Annisson, 96 Fed. R. 661, 663 Sage v. Central R. Co. of Iowa, 93 U. S. 412 1240, 1245 v. Memphis St. R Co., 125 U. S. 361 517, 518 v. M. & L. R Co., 125 U. S. 361 516 v. Railroad Co., 96 U. S. 721 1204, 1233, 1235, 1236, 1257 v. Tauszky, 6 Cent. L. J. 7 628, 639, 643 v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 58 Fed. R. 297 314 Sager v. Culver, 147 N. Y. 241, 246 221 Sahlgard v. Kennedy, 2 Fed. R. 295 21 St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350 254, 255, 256, 318 St. Clair Co. v. Lovingston, 18 Wall. 628 1201 St. Helen's S. Co. v. Tipping, 11 H. L. C. 642 466, 467 St. John v. Denison, 9 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 343 551 St. Joseph & G. I. R. Co. v. Steele, 167 U. S. 659 57, 67 cxl TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. 29 67 200 St Joseph & St. L. R Co. v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 105 559 St Lawrence, The, 8 Cranch. 434 1277 St Louis v. Knapp Co., 104 U. S. 658 284, 466, 483 v. Myers, 113 U. S. 566 884 v. Rutz, 138 U. S. 226 884 v. St Louis Gaslight Co., 82 Mo. 354 509 v. W. U. Tel. Co., 148 U. S. 92 871, 1280 St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co. v. Cleveland, C. & C. 1 Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 658 * 525, 532 v. L & St L. R Co., 9 Biss. 144 St LouiV & S. F. Ry. Co. v. James, 161 U. S. 545 v. Johnson, 133 U. S. 566, 577, 578 v. McBride, 141 TJ. S. 127, 132 77, 272 v. Wilson, 114 TJ. S. 60 922, 924 St Louis, I. M & S. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 51 Fed. R. 483 753 v. So. Exp. Co., 108 TJ. S. 24 703, 1201, 1205, 1206 v. Vickers, 122 TJ. S. 360 874, 876 St Louis, K. C. & C. Ry. Co. v. Dewees, 23 Fed. R. 691 425, 468, 566 St. Louis, M. & M. Co. v. Mon- tana M. Co., 58 Fed. R. 129 St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Hen- son (C. G A.), 58 Fed. R. 531 v. Holbrook (C. C. A.), 73 Fed. R. 112 v. Jackson (G C. A.), 95 Fed. R.560 v. Stark, 55 Fed. R 758 535,701 St Louis T. F. v. Carter & G. P. Co., 31 Fed. R. 524 St. Louis Tr. Co. v. Riley (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R 32 St. Louis Un. El. Co. v. Nichols (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R. 832 1218, 1220 St. Louis. V. & T. H. R. Co. v. Terre Haute & L R. Co., 33 Fed. R. 440, 448 76, 77, 203 St. Luke's Hospital v. Barclay, 3 Blatchf. 259 St. Mary M. College, President of, v. Sibthorp, 1 Russ. 154 St Nicholas, The, 49 Fed. R. 671 St Paul v. Starling, 127 U. S. 376 St. Paul's v. Kettle, 2 V. & B. 1 St Paul & C. R. Co. v. McLean, 108 U. S. 212, 217 951, 958 St Paul & D. R. Co. v. TJ. S., 1 12 U. S. 733 1024 St Paul & M. M. Ry. Co. v. Todd County, 142 U. S. 282 1188 467 1284 561 1221 497 530 6 370 563 58 673 St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. Drake (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R. 945 760 St Paul Ry. Co. v. Clark, 178 TJ. S. 353, 364 873 Salaberry, In re, 107 Fed. R. 95 1098 Salamander Co. v. Haven, 3 Dill. 131 339 Sale v. Sale, 1 Beav. 586 124 Salem, City of, 10 Fed. R 843 979 Salkeld v. Science, 2 Ves. Sen. 107 293, 333 Salmon v. Mills (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 32 1202, 1203 Salomon v. Stalman, 4 Beav. 243 424 Saltonstall v. Birtwell, 150 TJ. S. 417 Saltmarsh v. Tuthill, 12 How. 387 Saltus v. Tobias, 7 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 214 Salvidge v. Hyde, 5 Maddook, 138, 146 Sal way v. Sal way, 4 Russ. 60; s. c, 2 R. & M. 215 Sampson v. Johnson, 2 Cranch, C. C. 107 v. Mudge, 13 Fed. R 260 Samuel v. Jones, 2 Hare, 246 Samuel, The, 1 Wheat. 9 637, 1276 San Antonio v. Mehaffy, 96 TJ. S. 312 1288 San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co., In re, 44 Fed. R 145 921, 922, 923 Sanborn, In re, 52 Fed. R. 987 859 , 96 Fed. R. 551 1132 , 148 U. S. 222 1168, 1209 Sanders v. Bluefield Works & Imp. Co. (C. C. A), 106 Fed. R 587 v. Devereux, 60 Fed. R 311 871 1240 303 210 556 866 4 751 1206 302, 670 v. King, 6 Madd. 61 Sanderson v. The City of Toledo, 73 Fed. R. 220 981 Sandford v. Sinclair, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 373 566 Sandilands v. Innes, 3 Sim. 363 128 San Diego Flume Co. v. Souther, 90 Fed. R 164 390 San Francisco Mail Carriers' Case, 33 Ct CI. 417 1014 San Jacinto, The, 30 Fed. R 266 741 San Mateo County v. So. Pac R Co., 116 U. S. 138 1261 San Pedro & Canon A. A. Co. v. U. S., 146 TJ. S. 120 1162, 1249 Sands v. E. S. Greeley & Co., 80 Fed. R 195 438 v. E. S. Greeley & Co. (C. C. A), 88 Fed. R 130 523, 527 v. Smith, 1 Dill. 290 945 Sanford F. & T. Co., In re, 160 TJ. S. 247 366 TABLE OF OASES. axli References are to pages. Sanford v. Gregg, 58 Fed. R 620 34, 140 v. Poe (C. G A.), 69 Fed. E. 546 30, 33 San Lung v. Jackson, 85 Fed. R. 502 1199 Santa Maria, The, 10 Wheat. 431 1292, 1293, 1298 Santee R. C. L. Co. v. James, 50 Fed. R. 360 883, 884 Sanxter v. Foster, Cr. & Ph. 302 467 Sapiro, In re, 92 Fed. R. 340 1114 Sapphire, The, 1 "Wall. 164 408 , 18 Wall. 51 1298 Sarah and Caroline, The, Blatchf. Prize Cas. 123 998 Sarah E. Kennedy, The, 25 Fed. R. 672 967, 984 , 89 Fed. R 264 968 Saranac L. & T. Co. v. Roberts, 68 Fed. R. 521 137 Sargent v. Kindred, 49 Fed. R. 485 909 v. Lamed, 2 Curt. 340 344 v. Read, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 600 567 Saumarez.v. Saumarez, 4 Mylne & Cr. 331, 336 150, 154, 208 Saunders, The, 23 Fed. R. 303 991 Saunders v. Logan, 2 Fish. 167 715 v. Smith, 3 Myl. & Cr. 711 475 Savage, Re, 134 U. S. 176, 177 846 Savage v. Carroll, 1 B. & B. 548, 553 145, 588, 673, 674 v. Carter, 9 Dana (Ky.), 409 384 v. Worsham. 104 Fed. R. 80 369 Savannah v. Jesup, 106 U. S. 562 1217 Savannah Nat. Bank v. Haskins, 101 Mass. 370 3 Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267 762, 766, 768, 836 Sawin v. Kenney, 93 U. S. 289 885 Sawyer, In re, 124 U. S. 200 36, 462, 834, 835 Sawyer v. Birohmore, 1 Keen, 391 683 v. Gill, 3 Woodb. & M. 97 259 v. Kellogg, 9 Fed. R. 601 721 v. Oakman, 11 Blatchf. 65 909 v. Williams, 72 Fed. R. 296 723 Sawyer Sp. Co. v. Turner, 55 Fed. R. 979 472 Saxbv v. Easterbrook, LE.3C. P. D. 339 485 Saxlehner v. Eisner & M. Co., 179 U. S. 19 16 Sayle v. Graham, 5 Sim. 8 415 v. Scott Paper Mfg. Co., 55 Fed. R. 553, 557 775 Sayles v. Erie Ry. Co., 2N.J.L J. 212 360 v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 2 Curt. 212 272 Saviors v. Saylors, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 525 Sayre v. Elyton Land Co., 73 Ala. 85, 96 699, 700 Scaldewell v. Stormesworth, 1 Cal. Ch. 5 Scanlan, In re, 97 Fed. R 26 Scarborough v. Pargoud, 108 U. S. 567 Scatchmer v. Foulkard, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 125 Scatterwood v. Edge, 1 Salk. 229 435 247 1133 1228 433 465 Schaefer, In re, 104 Fed. R. 973 1130 Scharff v. Levy, 112 U. S. 711 Scheck v. Kelly, 95 Fed. R 941 Scheile v. Brakell, 11 W. R 796 945 509 453, 479 1290 Schell v. Dodge, 107 U. S. 629 Schenck v. Diamond Match Co. (U. C. A.), 73 Fed. R. 22 1237 v. Diamond Match Co. (C. C. A.). 77 Fed. R 208; s. C, 71 Fed. R. 521 341 Schermerhorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 Dall. 360 463, 490, 495, 498, 505 Schillinger v. U. S., 155 U. S. 163 129, 1013 Schindelbolz v. Cullum (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R 885 534 Schleisinger v. U. S., 1 Ct. CI. 16 1026 Schlesinger, In re, 97 Fed. R. 930 1118 Schmechel Cloak & Suit Co., In re, 104 Fed. R 64 1130 Schmieder v. Barney, 19 Blatchf. 143; s. a, 7 Fed. R. 451 726 Schnadig v. Flescher, 29 Fed. R. 465 945 Schneider No. 2, In re, 148 U. S. ' 162 834 Schneider v. Lizardi, 9 Beav. 461, 468 506 Schoerken v. Swift C. & B. Co., 7 Fed. R. 469, 471 586, 601 Schofield v. Horse S. C. Co., 65 Fed. R 433, 435 90, 277, 447 Scholle v. Scholle, 101 N. Y. 167, 172 696 Schonenberger, Ex parte, 90 U. S. 369 * 255 School Dist. of Aokley v. Hall, 106 U. S. 428 1253, 1257, 1263 Schoolfield v. Rhodes, 82 Fed. R. 153 802 Schrader v.Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 133 U. S. 67 322 Schreiner v. U. S., 6 Ct. CI. 359 1026 Sohrom, In re, 97 Fed. R. 760 1104 Schubart v. Chicago Gaslight & Coke Co., 41 111. App. 181 216 Schuchardt v. Babridge, 19 How. 239 986 cxlii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Schuessler v. Dudley, 80 Ala. 547 212 Sohulenburg, Ex parte, 25 Fed. R 211 267 Schunk v. Moline M. & S. Co., 147 U. S. 500 55,57,857,1173 Soli upper v. Consumers' Cord- age Co. (S. D. N. Y.), 72 Fed. R. 803 935 Schutte v. Thompson, 15 Wall. 152 636 Schwabacker v. Reilly, 2 Dill. 127 ' 618 Schwanzel v. Holensbade, 3 Fish. 196 715 Scliwarz, In the Matter of, 14 Fed. R. 787 458, 463, 505 Schwarz v. U. S., 35 Ct. CI. 303 1024 Schwed v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188 1215 Schwenk & Co. v. Strang, 59 Fed. R. 209 939, 941, 942 Scobel v. Giles, 19 Fed. R. 224 980 Scotland, The, 105 U. S. 24 993 Scotland County v. Hill, 112 U. S. 183 322, 892 Scotson v. Gaury, 1 Hare, 99 496 Scott, In re, 8 Fed. R. 420 1097 , 11 Fed. R. 133 1146 , 93 Fed. R. 418 1129 , 95 Fed. R 815 1114 , 96 Fed. R. 607 1139 , 99 Fed. R 404 1149, 1151 Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U. S. 499 802, 806, 1177, 1S55 v. Becher, 4 Price, 346 452, 515 v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58 57, 137 v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107 51, 137, 164 v. Dunbar, 1 Molloy, 442 720 v. Hamner (C. C. A.\ 72 Fed. R 789 1192 v. Kelly, 22 Wall. 67 1158 v. McFarland, 70 Fed. R. 280 215 . v. Neely, 14.0 U. S. 106 13, 14, 15 v. Platel, 2 Phil. 229 v. U. S.. 18 Ct. CI. 1 Scottish Am. Mtg. Co. v. Fol- ia nsbee, 14 Fed. R 125 ' Scottish Union, etc. Ins. Co. v. J. H. Mohlmann & Co., 73 Fed. R. 66 Scranton v. Wheeler, 57 Fed. R 803, 807 Scull v. Raymond, 18 Fed. R. 547 Scully, In re, 108 Fed. R. 372 Seagrist v. Crabtree, 127 U. S. 772 Seales v. Pheiffer, 77 Ala. 278 Seaman, Re, Shelf, on Lun. 146 Seai'le v. School District, 324 U. S. 197 916, 917 570 1003 456 129 978 1116 1233 210 516 Searles v. Jacksonville, P. & M. R. Co., 2 Woods, 621 434, 447, 493, 566 Seat v. U. S., 18 Ct. CI. 458 1014 Seattle v. U. Tr. Co., 79 Fed. R. 179 271, 376, 409, 710 Seattle & M. Ry. Co. v. State, 52 Fed. R 594 924 Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208 1215 Seccorub v. Wurster, 83 Fed. R. 856 13 Seckler, In re, 106 Fed. R. 484 1131 Secombe v. Campbell, 1 8 Blatchf. 108 323 Secor, In re, 18 Fed. R 319 1125 Secor v. Singleton, 9 Fed. R. 809 ; S. C, 3 McCrary, 230 297, 298, 330 v. Singleton, 41 Fed. R. 725 408, 412, 414, 416 v. Toledo, P. & W. R. Co., 7 Biss. 513 553 Security Co. v. Pratt, 64 Fed. R. 405 64, 923 Security S. & L. Ass'n v. Bu- chanan, 66 Fed. R. 799 3, 211 Security Tr. Co. v. Sullivan (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R. 778 1206 Sedgwick v. Cleveland, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 290 417 v. Place, 3 N. B. R 35 515 Seeberger v. McCormick, 175 U. S. 274 58, 1187 Seebold, In re (C. C. A.), 105 U. S. 910 1154, 1155 Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11 239, 259, 271, 272 Seiferd v. Mulligan, 36 App. Div. (N. Y.) 33 ' 150 Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580 344, 589 Seligman v. Santa Rosa, 81 Fed. R. 524 73 Sellers v. Bell (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R. 801 1096,1097,1137,1146,1147 Sellon v. Lewen, 3 P. Wms. 239 352 Selma & M. R. Co. v. Louisiana Nat. Bank, 94 U. S. 253 1265 Seminole, The, 42 Fed. R. 924 979 Semmes v. Whitney, 50 Fed. R 666 11 Seney v. Wabash W. Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 310 559 Senhouse v. Earl. 2 Ves. Sen. 450 709 Serapis, The, 37 Fed. R. 436 980 Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332 83. 85 Sergeant v. Biddle,4Wheat.508 650 Serle v. St. Eloy, 2 P. Wms. 386 363 Serrano v. IT: S., 5 Wall. 451 1059, 1060 Sessions v. Romadka, 21 Fed. R. i24, 133 707, 1125 Settlemier v. Sullivan, 97 U. S. 444 146 Seventh Nat. Bank v. Shenan- doah Iron Co., 35 Fed. R 436 53& TABLE OF OASES. cxliii References are to pages. Sexton v. Seelye, 39 Fed. R. 705 922 Seymour v. Bailey, 66 111. 288 610 v. Freer, 5 Wall. 822 1237. 1238 v. Freer, 8 Wall. 202 177, 186 v. Hazard, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 1 579, 580 v. Phillips & C. Const. Co., 7 Biss. 400 71 Shadyside, The, 23 Fed. R. 721 978 Shaffer, In re, 104 Fed. R. 982 1130 Shaft v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 544 420 Shaftoe v. Shaftoe; 7 Ves. 171 580 Shainwald v. Davids, 69 Fed. R. 701, 703 259 v. Lewis, 6 Fed. R. 766 199, 491, 517 v. Lewis, 8 Fed. R. 878 557, 568, 569 v. Lewis, 69 Fed. R. 487 282, 400, 407 v. Lewis, 108 U. S. 158 922 Shakers, Society of, v. Watson (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R. 730 66, 788 Shankwicker v. Reading, 4 Mc- Lean, 240 642 Shapiro, In re, 106 Fed. R. 495 1092 Shapleigh v. Chester El. L. & P. Co., 47 Fed. R. 848 633 Sharkey v. Port B. M. Co., 92 Fed. R. 425; s. C. (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R. 259 913, 963 Sharon v. Hill. 20 Fed. R. 1 27 v. Hill, 22 Fed. R. 28 310, 330, 335 379 v. Hill, 23 Fed. R. 353 ' 194 v. Terry, 36 Fed. R 337 17, 52, 288, 317, 402, 404, 460, 930 v. Tucker, 144 U. S. 533 921 Sharp v. Ashton, 3 V. & B. 144 506 v. Pike's Adm'r, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 155 385 v. Reissner, 20 Blatchf. 10 330 Shattuck v. No. Br. L. & Mer. Ins. Co. (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R. 609 928, 1284 Shauer v. Alterton, 151 U. S. 607 1282 Shaver v. Hardin, 30 Fed. R S01 924 Shaw v. Bill, 95 U. S. 10 412, 414 v. Coster, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 339 242 v. Lyman, 79 Fed. R. 2 310 v. Quincy Min. Co., 145 U. S. 444 77, 78 v. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. 605, 611 159, 547 v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 557 ' 1254 v. Rhodes, 2 Russ. 539 557 v. U. S., 9 Ct. CI. 301 1029 Shaw Stocking Co. v. Mack, 12 Fed. R. 707 457, 477 Shedd v. Fuller, 36 Fed. R. 609 939, 933, 937 Sheffield v. Duchess of Buck- ingham, 1 West, 682 708, 717 v. Newman, 77 Fed. R. 789 313 Sheffield & B. C. I. & Ry. Co. v. Newman (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R. 787 409, 548 Sheffield Furnace Co. v. With- erow, 149 U. S. 574 9, 14, 275, 297. 364 Sheffield Water Works v. Yeo- mans, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 8 166, 456 Sheinbaum. In re, 107 Fed. R. 247 1085 Shelby v. Bacon, 10 How. 56 1177 — — v. Guy, 11 Wheat. 361 878 Sheldon v. Gill, 8 How. 441, 449, 450 83 — — v. Keokuk N. L. Packet Co., 8 Fed. R. 769 219, 282 Sheldrick v. Cockcroft, 27 Fed. R 579 932 Shellebarger v. Oliver, 64 Fed. R. 306 , 634 Shelton v. Berry, 19 Tex. 154 612 v. Piatt, 139 U. S. 591 34 v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163 68, 69 Shephard, In re, 3 Fed. R. 12 618,866 Shepherd v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 130 U. S. 426 321 — — v. Bradstreet Co., 65 Fed. R 142 925 v. Morris, 4 Beav. 252 202 v. Pepper, 133 U. S. 626 716, 1238 Sheppard, In re, 3 Fed. R 12 593 Sheppard v. Adams, 168 U. S. 618 806, 1171, 1172 v. Akers, 1 Tenn. Ch. 326 353 v. Graves. 56 Fed. R. 437 70 v. Wilson, 5 How. 210 1184 Sheridan, In re, 98 Fed. R. 406 1136 Sheriff v. Sparks, West, 130 709 Sherman, In re, 49 Fed. R. 224 1199 Sherman v. Champlain Trans. Co., 31 Vt. 162 601 v. Nutt. 35 Fed. R. 149 483 Sherry V. O! S. N. Co., 72 Fed. R 565 14, 885 v. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212 469 Sheward v. Sheward, 2 V. & B. 116 625 Shewen v. Vanderhorst, 1 Russ. & M. 347 437 Shickle v. South St. Louis F. Co., 22 Fed. R. 105 . 224, 225 Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130 35, 168, 169, 175, 202, 203, 235, 368, 385, 434 v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168 17, 22, 23, 1172, 1174 v. McCandlish, 73 Fed. R 318 49 v. McClung, 6 W. Va. 79 502 cxliv TABLE OF OASES. References are to pajes. Shields v.Thomas, 17 How. 3 53,1214 v. Thomas, 18 How. 253 28, 206, 207 272 Shinney v. N. A. S., L; & Bldg. Ass'n, 97 Fed. R 9 521, 920 Shipp v. Williams (C. C. A.), 62 Fed. R 4 Shirley v. Earl Ferrers, 3 P. Wms. 77 Shoecraft v. Bloxham, 124 U. S. 730 Shoemaker v. Nat. Meoh. Bank, 1 Hughes, 101 Shook v. Rankin, 6 Biss. 477 Shorer, In re, 96 Fed. R. 90 Short v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. R. 114 77, 941, 943 Short v. Hepburn, 75 Fed. R 113 310 v. The Columbia (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R 942 Shoshone M. Co. v. Rutter, 177 U. S. 505 Shreve v. Cheesman (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R. 785 Shreveport v. Holmes, 125 U. S. 694 Shrewsbury v. XJ. S., 9 Ct. CI. 263 " 1028 Shute v. Keyser, 149 U. S. 649 1169, 1234 Shutte v. Thompson, 15 Wall. 152 640, 642, 643 Shuttleworth v. Laycock, 1 Vern. 245 288 Shutts v. First Nat. Bank, 98 Fed. R 705 1136 Sias v. Roger Williams Ins. Co., 8 Fed. R 183 4 Sibbald v. U. S., 13 Pet. 488 ■ 1275, 1293 1295 Sichel v. Raphael, 4 L. T. (N. S.) 114 Sicilies, King of Two, v. Wil- cox, 1 Simons (N. S.), 301 Sickels v. Mitchell, 3 Blatchf. 548 Sickles v. Borden, 4 Blatchf. 14 Sidell v. Grandjean et al., Ill U. S. 412 Sidney v. Perry, 2 Dick. 602 Siebold, Ex parte, 100 U. S. 371 64 624 83 503 609 1146 988 59 1173 1275 584 291 483 501 1061 329 833, 834 1019 Sierra v. U. S., 9 Ct. CI. 224 Sieveking v. Behrens, 2 Myl. & Cr. 581 244 Sievers, In re, 91 Fed. R. 366 1103 Sifford's Case, 5 Am. Law Reg. 659 759 Sigafus v. Porter (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R. 689 1178 Sigel v. Phelps, 7 Sim. 239 123 Silberhorn, In re, 105 Fed. R. 899 1085 573 727 282 664 Silsby v. Foote, 14 How. 218 874 v. Foote, 20 How. 290 805, 1227 Silver v. Bishop of Norwich, 3 Swanst. 112 537 v. Holt, 84 Fed. R 809 59 v. Ladd, 6 Wall. 440 1241 Silverhill v. TJ. S., 5 Ct. CL 610 1025 Silverman, In re, 97 Fed. R. 325 1132, 1150 Silvey v. U. S., 7 Ct. CI. 305 1049 Simms v. Guthrie, 9 Cranch, 19, 25 170, 173 v. Simms, 175 TJ. S. 162 52, 1169, 1211, 1256 Simon v. House, 46 Fed. R 317 56 Simonds R. M. Co. v. Hathorn Mfg. Co., 83 Fed. R 490 618 Simons v. 17. S, 19 Ct. CI. 601 1015 Simonson, In re, 92 Fed. R 904 1095, 1101 Simonson v. Sinsheimer (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R. 948 1089. 1095, 1101 v. Sinsheimer (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R. 426 1089, 1106, 1153 Simpson, Ex parte, 15 Ves. 476 198 , In re, 36 App. Div. 562 Simpson v. Brooks, 3 Blatchf. 456 v. Fogo, 1 J. & H. 18, 23; S. C, 6 Jurist (N. S.), 949 v. Sadd, 16 C. B. 26 Sims v. Hundley, 6 How. 1 615, 1288 v. Schult, 40 Fed. R. 143 745 Sinclair v. James, 1 Dick. 277 394 v. Pierce, 50 Fed. R 851 460, 959 Singer Co. v. Union Co., 1 Holmes, 253, 258 479 Singer Mfg. Co. v. Domestic S. M. Co., 49 Ga. 70 485 v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696 1261 Single v. Scott Paper Mfg. Co., 55 Fed. R. 553 14, 78 Singleton v. Touchard, 1 Black, 342 1070, 1077 Sinnot v. First Nat. Bank, 34 App. Div. 161 Sinsheimer v. Simonson (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R. 898 v. United G. W. of Am., 77 Hun (N. Y.), 215 Sioux City & D. M. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. R 770 Sioux City, O'N. & W. Ry. Co. v. Manhattan Tr. Co., 172 U. S. 642 Sioux City T., R. R. & W. Co. v. Trust Co. of N. A. (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. R 124; s. C, 173 U. S. 99 66, 70 Sioux Falls Nat. Bank v. Swen- son, 48 Fed. R. 621 54 Sipperley v. Smith, 155 U. S. 86 1218 609 1085 469 63 1174 TABLE OF OASES. cxlv References are to pages. Sir John Napier v. Lady Effing- ham, 2 P. Wms. 401 708 Sire v. Ellithorpe Air Brake Go., 137 U. S. 579 1212, 1291 Siren, The, 7 Wall. 152 128, 137 Sizer v. Many, 16 How. 98 1296, 1298 Skeffington v. ,4Ves.66 250,371 Skelly v. U. S., 32 Ct. CI. 227 1030 Skerrett's Minors, 2 Hog. 192 558 Skiddy v. Atlantic, M. & O. R. Co., 3 Hughes, 320 530,531,535,546 Skillern's Ex'rs v. May's Ex'rs, 6 Cranch, 267 318, 1177, 1293 Skinner, In re, 97 Fed. R 190 1146 Skinner v. Harker, 23 Colo. 335 151, 177 Skrine v. Powell, 15 Sim. 81; S. C, 9 Jur. 1054 625 Slack v. Walcott, 3 Mason, 508 404 Slacum v. Pomery, 6 Cranch, 221 " 1255, 1285 v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 501 1255 Slater v. Merritt, 75 N. Y. 268 501, 502 Slaughter House Cases, 10 Wall. 273 459, 636, 1244, 1246 Slavens v. No. Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C. A), 97 Fed. R. 255 613 Slavers, The, 2 Wall. 383 1274 Sleete v. Buel (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R. 968 1156 Slessinger v. Buckingham, 17 Fed. R. 454 344, 482 Slingsby v. Hale, 1 Ch. Cas. 122 787 Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 275, 278 912, 923, 924, 925 v. Martin, 77 Hun (N. Y.), 249 146, 252 Slocum v. U. S., 35 Ct. CI. 485 1015 v. Western Assurance Co., 42 Fed. R. 235 86, 967 Sloo v. Law, 3 Blatchf. 459 452 Sloss I. & S. Co. v. South Caro- lina & G. R Co., 75 Fed. R 106 728, 745, 746 Smale v. Mitchell, 143 U. S. 99 1294 Small v. Atwood, 1 Younge, 407 163 v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 134 TJ. S. 514 1252 Smart v. Flood, 49 L. T. 467 571 Smith, Ex parte, 1 Atk. 139 611 Smith, In re, 9 Fed. R 592 1136 , 16 Fed. R. 465 1144, 1145 , 93 Fed. R. 791 1116,1137 , 96 Fed. R. 832 1137 , 100 Fed. R. 795 1136 Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167 49, 51, 1201, 1211 v. Babcock, 3 Sumner, 583 355, 374 v. Baker, 1 Ban. & A. 117 374,392 v. Belford (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 658 1085, 1109 Smith v. Bivens, 56 Fed. R. 352 51 v. Black, 115 U. S. 308 696 v. Bourbon County, 127 U. S. 105 9, 33 v. Bryon, 3 Madd. 428 293 v. Burnham, 2 Sumn. C. C. 612 201,202,590 v. Canal Boat Wm. L. Nor- man, 49 Fed. R 285 971 v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R. 321 746 v. Clarke, 2 Dick. 455 496 v. Coleman, 2 Cranch, C. C. 237 641 v. Consumers' C. O. Co., 86 Fed. R. 359 65 v. Crosby Lumber Co., 46 _ Fed. R. 819; S. C. (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R 63 941, 942, 944 v. Cummings, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 152 499 v. Day, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 651 510 v. Day, 21 Ch. D. 421 507, 508 v. Davison, 41 Fed. R. 172 588 v. Earl Brownlow, L. R. 9 Eq. 241 166, 208 v. East India Co., 1 Phil- lips, 50 290 v. Gale, 137 TJ. S. 577 1227 \i Glasgow Ins. Co. (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. 332 283 v. Green, 37 Fed. R 424 150 v. Greenhow, 109 U. S. 669 49 v. Hakopee (C. C. A), 97 Fed. R. 974 586 v. Halkyard, 16 Fed. R 414 472 v. Hutchinson S. B. Co., 110 Mo. 492 485 v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 453 817, 818 v. Johnson, 4 Blatchf. 252 475 v. Kernochen, 7 How. 198 83, 878 434 176 77, 912 v. Kraft, 11 Biss. 340 v. Lee, 77 Fed. R 779 v. Lyon, 133 TJ. S. 315 v. M'cCullough, 104 U. S. 25 538, 539, 540, 543, 547 v. Mclntyre,84 Fed. R 721 1250, 1254 v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355 1172, 1174 v. Marshall, 2 Atk. 70 252 v. Mississippi, 162 TJ. £. 592 950 v. Muller, 75 Fed. R 612 32 v. Potter, 3 Wis. 432 588 v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 398 11,36 v. Raynolds, 9 D. C. App. 287, 166 U. S. 717 483 v. Redden, 5 Harr. (Del.) 321 607 v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436 135, 142, 143 v. Richardson, 1 Utah, 194 610 cxlvi TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Smith v. St. Louis M. Ins. Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. 599 276, 346 v. Sargeant Mfg. Co., 67 Fed. R. 801 v. Sohwed, 6 Fed. R. 455 76 161, 497 351 v. Searle, 14 Ves. 415 v. Shoemaker, 17 Wall. 630 1289 v. Smith, 102 Ala. 516 212 v. Smith, L. R. 20 Eq. 500 488 v. Swormstedt,16 How. 388 163 v. Taggart (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R. 94 523 v. Trabue, 9 Pet. 4 1203 Travelers' Ins. Co., 73 Fed. R 513 958 — v. TJ. S., 19 Ct. CI. 690 1033 v. U. S„ 5 Pet. 291 593, 596 v. U. S., 94 TJ. S. 97 1274 v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518 1179 ■ v. Weeks (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R 758 871, 1295 v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167 50, , 811, 812, 813, 991, 1213 v. Woolfolk, 115 U. S. 143, 148 368, 379, 430 Smith-Dimmick Lumber Co. v. Teague, 24 S. R 4 565 Smith M. P. Co. v. McGroarty, 136 U. S. 237 883, 1215 Smithson v. Hubbell, 81 Fed. R. 593 47, 53, 54 Smurr v. State, 88 Ind. 504 262 Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466 9, 29, 39, 138, 140, 143 v. Strader, 12 How. 327 1229 Snavely v. Harkrader, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 112 Snead v. M'Coull, 12 How. 407, 422 368, 375 v. Sellers (C. C. A.), 66 Fed R. 371 Snell v. Hyat, 1 Dick. 287 v. Insurance Co., 98 U. S. 85 Snohomish County Bank v. Puget Sound Nat. Bank, 81 Fed. R. 518 58 Snow, Ex parte, 120 TJ. S. 274 835, 850 Snow v. Mast, 63 Fed. R. 623 238, 290 v. Smith, 4 Hughes 204; S. C, 88 Fed. R. 657 v. U. S., 118 U. S. 346, 347 219 66 146 4 922 918, 1169 613 33 1071 607 Snyder v. Fiedler, 139 TJ. S. 478 v. Marks, 109 U. S. 189 v. Sickles, 98 U. S. 203 v. Wise, 10 Pa. St. 157 Societe Fabriques v. Lueders, 105 Fed. R. 632 303 Societe Fonciere v. Milliken, 135 U. S. 304 806 Socola v. Grant, 15 Fed. R. 487 204 Soden v. Soden, 13 Ves. 118 234 Sohier v. Williams, 1 Curt. 479 158 Solomon v. Bates (N. C), 24 S. E. R 478 216 Somerset, Duke of, v. Cookson, 3 P. Wras. 389 35, 40, 487 Somerville's Ex'rs v. Hamilton, 4 Wheat. 230 1177 Somerville v. French, 1 Cranch C. C. 474 769,770 Sonnentheil v. Christian Moer- lein Br. Co., 172 U. S. 401 61, 1165 Sonstiby v. Keeley, 7 Fed. R. 447 668 Sory, Ex parte, 12 Pet. 339, 342 393 Soule v. Chase, 1 Rob. (N. Y.) 222 612 - — v. Corning. 11 Paige (N.'Y.), 412 662 v. TJ. a, 100 TJ. S. 8. 11 597, 598 South Alabama Devel. Co. v. Or- man, 55 Fed. R. 18 954 South Carolina v. Port Royal & A. Ry. Co., 89 Fed. R 565 543 v. Seymour, 153 U. S. 353 1211 v. Wesley, 155 U. S. 542 1216, 1217, 1254, South Carolina & G. R Co. v. Carolina C. E. & C. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R 543 541 South Ottoway, Town of, v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260 667, 878, 882 Southard v. Brady, 36 Fed. R. 560 977 v. Russell. 16 How. 547 788, 790 Southern B. & T. Co. v. Folsoin (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R 929 20, 23, * 321, 461 Southern Cal. Ry. Co. v. Ruther- ford, 62 Fed. R. 796 480 Southern Exp. Co. v. St., Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 10 Fed. R 210 488, 510, 707 Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 5 Fla. 110 186 Southern L. & Tr. Co. v. Ben- bow, 96 Fed. R. 514 1103, 1132 Southern Pao. Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 202 77, 271, 272, 807, 920 v. Hamilton (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 468 889 v. Rank (C. C.A.), 49 Fed. R. 698 1288 v. Temple, 59 Fed. R 17 279 Southern Pacific Co.'s Case, 28 Ct. 01. 77 1028 Southern Pac. R Co. v. Califor- nia, 118 U. S. 109, 112 57, 929 v. City of Oakland, 58 Fed. R 50 488 v. Goodrich. 57 Fed. R. 879 14 v. Groeck, 68 Fed. R 609 586 v. Stanley, 49 Fed. R. 263 12 v. Townsend, 62 Fed. R. 161 910 TABLE OF CASES. cxlvii References are to pages. 593 142 1203 Southern Pao. R. Co. v. U. S., 168U. S. 1 231, 320, 323, 329, 365 v. Wiggs, 43 Fed. R. 333 27 Southern Ry. Co. v. Bonkright (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R 442 530 v. Carnegie Steel Co., 176 U. S. 257 525, 526, 527, 529, 531, 534 v. North Carolina Corp. Com'rs, 104 Fed. R. 700 v. North Carolina R. Co., 81 Fed. R. 595, 599, 600 v. Postal Tel. Co. (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R 393 Southey v. Sherwood, 2 Meriv. 435 453, 476 South western B. El. L. & P. Co. v. Louisiana El. L. Co., 45 Fed. R 893 499 Southworth v. Howard, 11 Rep. 46 917 v. Reid, 36 Fed. R. 451 923, 963 Sowles v. First Nat. Bank of St. Albans, 46 Fed. R 513 58 v. Witters, 43 Fed. R 700 61, 934, 935 v. Witters, 46 Fed. R 497 63 Spaeth v. Barney, 22 Fed. R 828 225 Stafford v. Goodell, 3 McLean, 97 Spain, King of, v. Machado, 4 Russ. 225 Spalding v. Manasse, 131 U. S. 65 v. Mason, 161 U. S. 375 v. People, 2 How. 66 v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483 Spangler, Matter of, 11 Mich. 298 Spangler v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R Co., 42 Fed. R 305 924, 925, 935 Spanish Consul, Matter of the, 1 Ben. 225 653 Sparhawk v. Union P. R Co., 54 Pa. St. 401 482 v. Yerkes, 142 U. S. 1 1122, 1125 Spark, The, v. Lee Choi Chum, 1 Sawyer, 713 Sparkman v. Higgins, 1 Blatchf. 205 Spaulding v. Keely, 7 Sim. 377 v. Tucker, 2 Saw. 50 771 184 870 1282 1239 1025 24 1200 504 496 725, 746, 748, 749 Spear, In re, 104 Fed. R 779 1147 Specht v. Howard, 16 Wall. 564 880 Speckart v. German Nat. Bank, 85 Fed. R. 12 58,61,157,935 Speigle v. Meredith, 4 Biss. 120 34 Spencer v. Kansas City S. F. Co., 56 Fed. R. 741 78, 263 v. Lapsley, 20 How. 264 1288 Sperry v. Erie Ry. Co., 6 Blatchf. 425 307, 338 Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 143 450, 1183, 1184, 1231 Sp'ies v. Munroe, 35 App. Div. 527,528 611 Spill v. Celluloid M. Co., 28 Fed. R 870 727, 747 Spindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204 137 Spofford, In re, 62 Fed. R. 443 622, 634, 765, 768 Spofford v. Kirk, 97 U. S. 484 1025 Spooner v. McConnell, 1 Mc- Lean, 337 33, 483 Spottiswoode v. Clarke, 2 Phil. 154 476 Spragg v. Binkes, 5 Ves. 587 156 Sprague v. Jones, 9 Paige (N. Y.), 395 779 Spreen v. Delsignore, 94 Fed. R 71 265 Spring v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 6 Wheat. 519 1246 v. South Carolina Ins. Co., 8 Wheat. 268 243 Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 U. S. 49 957 Springfield S. D. & Tr. Co. v. At- tica (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R 387 1232 Springer v. Lawrence, 47 N. J. Eq. 461; S. C, 21 Atl. R 41 209 v. United States, 102 U. S. 586 1283 377 469 1210 678 610 958 Springfield M. Co. v. Barnard S. Mfg. Co., 81 Fed. R. 261 Springfield S. Co. v. Riley, L. R 6 Eq. 551 Springville City v. Thomas, 166 U. S. 707 Stace v. Mabbot, 2 Ves. Sen. 552 Stacy v. Farnham, 2 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 26 Stadleman v. White L. T. Co., 92 Fed. R. 209 Stafford v. Brown, 4 Paige (N. Y,), 360 448. 609, 767 v. Bryan, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 45 792 v. Howlett, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 200 414 v. King (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. R.136 1243 v. Union Bank, 16 How. 135; S. C 17 How. 275 815, 1243, 1246 Stahel v. U. S., 26 Ct. Cl. 193 1026 Stahl v. Ertel, 62 Fed. R. 920 763, 766, . 767 v. Williams, 52 Fed. R. 645 Staines v. Morris, 1 V. & B. 8 Stalker v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 81 Fed. R 989 Stallings v. Goodloe, 3 Murph. 159 Stanbrough v. Cook, 38 Fed. R. 369 913, 921, 924, 926 Standard D. Mfg. Co. v. Nat. Tooth Co., 95 Fed. R 291 t 59 471 718 911 791 cxlviii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Standard El. Co. v. Crane El. Co. (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. R 767 505, 512 Standard Oil Co. v. Bell (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. R 113 1264 v. So. Pao. Ry. Co., 42 Fed. R. 295 ' 300 v. So. Pao. Ry. Co., 54 Fed. R. 521 438 Standard Paint Co. v. Reynolds, 43 Fed. R 304 * 472 Standen v. Edwards, 1 Ves. Jr. 133 678 Standley v. Roberts, 59 Fed. R 836 242, 245, 859, 1202 Stanley v. Robinson, 1 Russ. & M. 527 338 v. Schmally, 147 U. S. 508, 518 16, 128, 129, 314, 439, 1019, 1181 v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255 128, 129, 1185 v. Sullivan, 71 Wis. 585 773 Stanton v. Alabama & C. R. Co., 2 Woods, 506 515, 546, 548, 690 v. Alabama & C. R. Co., 31 Fed. R. 585 540, 548, 551 v. Einbrey, 93 U. S. 548 310, 1023 v. Haskin, 1 MacA. 558, 562 1023 v. U. S., 4 Ct. CI. 456 1023, 1030 Stapilton v. Stapilton, 1 Atk. 2 235 Stapleton v. Foreign V. Ass'n, 12 W. R. 976 Stapylton v. Scott, 13 Ves. 425 453 237, 380 Starcke v. Klein (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 502 817, 1253 Starin v. New York, 115 U. S. 248 57, 924, 925, 929 v. The John Dillon, 46 Fed. R 527 978 Stark, In re, 96 Fed. R. 88 1146 Starr, In re, 56 Fed. R. 142 1141, 1200 Starr v. Stark, 1 Saw. 270 317 v. U. S., 153 IT. S. 614, 625 876 Starror, In re, 63 Fed. R. 564 591 Starten v. Bartholomew, 6 Beav. 143 124 State v. Buller, 47 Fed. R 415 320 v. Coosaw Min. Co., 45 Fed. R. 804 937, -956 v. Hemingway, 69 Miss. 491 661 v. Hehning, 3 S. D. 492 610 v. Port Royal & A. Ry. Co., 84 Fed. R 67 530, 562 v. Rainey, 74 Mo. 229 322 v. Sullivan, 50 Fed. R. 593 826, 829, 832, 948, 959 v. Wakeley, 28 Neb. 431, 437 492, State Bank v. Dodge, 124 IT. S. 333 State ex rel. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Del. & A. Tel. & T. Co., 47 Fed. R. 633 500 1124 818 State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575 33, 237, 238, 507 State Sav. Ass'n v. Howard, 31 Fed. R 433 69 State Tr. Co. v. Nat Land & Mfg. Co., 72 Fed. R 575 560, 568 Stateler v. Cal. Nat. Bank, 77 Fed. R 43 562 Staude v. Keek, 92 Va. 544; s. C, 24 S. E. R.227 210 Stead'sEx'rs v.Course,4Cranch, 403, 410 331, 335, 336 Steam Gauge & Lantern Co. w Roberts, 26 Fed. R. 765 197, 224, 225 Steamboat Planter, The, Newb. Adm. 26 968 Steamer Coquitlain v. TJ. S., 163 U. S. 346 91 Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U.S. 118 67,193,928 Stearns v. Flick, 103 Fed. R 919 1130 v. Page, 1 Story, 204 314, 333 v. U. S., 6 Wall. 589 1058 Stebbins v. Duncan, 108 U. S. 32 641, 766 v. St. Anne, 116 U. S. 386 204, 208 Steel v. Rathburn, 42 Fed. R 390 82 v. Smelting Co., 106 D". S. 447 36 Steele, In re, 98 Fed. R 78 1122, 1136, 1137 Steele v. Buel (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R. 968 1226 Steever v. Rickman, 109 U. S. 74 731 Stegner v.. Blake, 36 Fed. R 183 636 Steiger v. Boon, 4 Fed. R 17 268,618 v. Heidelberger, 4 Fed. R. 455; s. C, 18 Blatchf. 426 310 Stein, In re, 94 Fed. R 124 684, 1139 (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R. 749 1089 Stein v. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209 602, 636 Steinbach v. Stewart, 11 Wall. 566 Steiner v. Eppinger (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R 253 Steines v. Franklin County, 14 Wall. 15,22 - Steinmann v. Strimple, 29 Mo. App. 478 Stelvio, The, 30 Fed. R. 509 Stephen v. Beall, 22 Wall. 329 v. Cini, 4 Ves. 359 Stephen Morgan, The, 94 U. S. 599 Stephens v. Bernays, 44 Fed. R 642 " 47, 58, 86 v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 481 v. Monongahela Bank, 111 U. S. 197 v. Overstolz, 43 Fed. R 771 v. St. Louis & S. F. R' Co., 47 Fed. R, 530 961 1076 613 784 974 172 260 1274 1170 1162 10 TABLE OF CASES. cxlix References are to pages. 1085 1088 613 1227 797 637 928 Stephenson v. Wilson, 2 Vera. 325 3 Stern v. U. S., 77 Fed. R 607 1199 Sternaman v. Peck (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R 883 836 Sternbach, In re, 44 Fed. R. 413 1199 Sterrick v. Pugsley, 11 Flipp. 350 610 Steuer, In re, 104 Fed. R 976 Stevens, In re, 104 Fed. R 323 Stevens v. Bernays, 42 Fed. R 488 v. Clark (C. C. A.), 62 Fed. R321 v. Cooper, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 425 590, 622 v. Davison, 18 Grat. (Va.) 819 537 v. Fuller, 136 U. S. 468 768, 836 v. Guppy, 1 Turn. & Rus. 178 v. Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co., 104 Fed. R 934 Bank, 152 U. S. 454 61, 62, 910, 929 Tennessee Coal, L. & T. B. Co. v. Waller, 37 Fed. R. 545 935 Tenny v. Am. P. Mfg. Co., 96 Fed. R 919 934 Terbell v. Lee, 40 Fed. R 40 698 Terre Haute v. Evansville & T. H. R Co., 106 Fed. R. 549 917, 944 Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Cox (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R. 825 532 v. Struble, 109 U. S. 381 1288 Terrell, In re, 51 Fed. R. 213 836, 843 Terrell v. Allison, 21 Wall. 289 773 Terrill, In re, 103 Fed. R. 781 1150 Territory v. Lockwood, 3 Wall. 236 853 Terry, Ex parte, 128 U. S. 289, 304 762, 766, 768, 833, 835 Terry, In re, 36 Fed. R. 419 762, 766 , 37 Fed. R. 649 769 Terry v. Bank of Cape Fear, 20 Fed. R 777 424 Terry v. Fontaine's Adm'r, 83 Va. 451 280 v. Little, 101 U. S. 216 10, 174 v. -McLure, 103 U. S. 442 376, 669 v. Sharon, 131 U. S. 40 1205 v. Tubman, 92 XT. S. 156 174 Tesla El. Co. v. Scott, 101 Fed. R 524 719, 750 Teslow, In re, 104 Fed. R 229 1130 Texas v. Chiles, 21 Wall. 488 613 v. Day L & C. Co., 41 Fed. R. 228 915 v. D. L & C. Co., 49 Fed. R 593 915 v. White, 7 Wall. 700 42, 43 Texas C. C. & Mfg. Co. v. Stor- row (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R 5 517, 519 Texas Exp. Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 6 Fed. R 426 488 Texas Land & Cattle Co. v. Scott, 137 IT. S. 436 1263 Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ander- son, 149 U. S. 237 1297 v. Bloom (C. C. A), 60 Fed. R. 979 1229 v. Bloom's Adm'r, 164 U. S. 636 1160 v. Cox, 145 TJ. S. 593 47, 61, 77, 562, 891 v. Gentry (C. C. A.), 57 Fed. R. 422 1176, 1276 v. Gentry, 163 TJ. S. 353 1165, 1207, 1214 v. Griffin, 76 Tex. 441 560 v. Humble (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. R. 837 885, 1288 v. Interstate Tr. Co., 45 Fed. R. 5 499 v. Interstate Tr. Co., 155 TJ. S. 585 670 v. Interstate Com. Com., 162 U. S. 197 77 v. Johnson, 151 U. S. 81 460, 560, 563, 1180 v. Kirk, 111 U. S. 486 1231 v. Kuteman (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 547 52, 460 v. Marshall, 136 U. S. 393 34, 39, 456 v. Murphy, 111TJ. S. 488 1227,1241 v. Nelson, 50 Fed. R. 814 807, 874 v. Patton, 61 Fed. R 259 1284 v. Saunders, 151 TJ. S. 105 270, 272, 1172 v. So. Pac. Ry. Co., 137 U. S. 48 1187 v. Wilder (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R. 953 634, 96. 1 v. Volk, 151 TJ. S. 73 893, 1291 Texas & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Rust, 17 Fed. R. 275 89, 957, 961 Texas Trans. Co. v. Seeligson, 122 U. S. 519 926,957 TABLE OF OASES. cliii Keferences are to pages. 375 1'348 687 546 1166 Thackrab. v. Haas, 119 U. S. 499 27 Thatcher v. Gottlieb (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R 373 1298 v. Powell, 9 Wheat. 119 878 Thayer v. Life Ass'n, 112 U. S. 717 175 v. Wales, 9 Blatohf. 170; S. a, 5 Fisher, 130 25, 271, 471 Theberath v. Rubber & C. H. T. 00.^5 Bann. & A. 584 335,336,360 Third Av. Sav. Bank v. Dimock, 9 C. E. Green (N. J. Eq.), 26 Third Nat. Bank v. Gordon, 53 Fed. R. 471 Third Nat. Bank of Philadel- phia v. Nat. Bank of C. V., 86 Fed. R 852 Third St. & S. Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 79 Fed. R. 196 v. Lewis, 173 TJ. S. 457 62, Thomas, In re, 35 Fed. R 337, 339 643, 684. 687. 1108 , 92 Fed. R 912 1145, 1147 , 3 N. B. R. 7 505 Thomas v. Brownville, F. K. & P. R. Co., 109 TJ. S. 522 159 v. Chicago & C. S. Ry. Co., 37 Fed. R. 548 737 v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. R 803, 821 469, 482 v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 91 Fed. R 202 508, 530 v. Dawkin, 1 Ves. Jr. 452 567 v. East Tenn., V. & G. Ry. Co., 60 Fed. R 7 541 v. Harvie's Heirs, 10 Wheat. 146 788, 790 v. Lloyd, 25 Beav. 620 713 v. Nantahala M. & T. Co. (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R 485 227, 292 v. Western Car Co., 149 IT. S. 95 539, 559 v. White, 12 Mass. 367 723 v. Wooldridge, 23 Wall. 283 1262 v. U. S., 15 Ct. CL 335 809, 1029, • 1030 Thomas Sherlock, The, 22 Fed. R 253 978 Thomas & Co. v. Wooldridge, 23 Wall. 283 1207 Thomas H. EL Co. v. Sperry, 46 Fed. R. 75 " 211, 225 Thompson, The, 3 Wall. 155 998 Thompson, Ex parte, 1 Flippin, 507 837 Thompson, In re, 102 Fed. R. 287 1087 Thompson v. Allen County, 115 U. S. 550, 554 9, 33. 39, 537 v. Brown, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 619 491 v. Butler, 95 IT. S. 694 895, 1312 v. Chicago, St. P. & K. C. Ry. Co., 60 Fed. R. 773 911, 952 v. Ferry, 180 U. S. 484 1162 Thompson v. Geary, 5 Beav. 151 502 v. Goulding, 5 Allen (Mass.), 81 779 v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327 878 v.Maxwell, 95 U.S. 391 787,791, 792 v. Maxwell L G. & Ry* Co., 168 U. S. 451 145, 1298 v. No. Pac. Ry. Co., 93 Fed. R. 384, 389 9, 157, 559, 715, 716, 1161 v. Perrine, 103 IT. S. 806; S. 0., 106 U. S. 589 668, 878 v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 136 IT. S. 287 538, 539, 556 v. Pool, 70 Fed. R 725 85 v. Railroad Co., 6 Wall. 134 6, 11, 661 v. Riggs, 5 Wall. 633 890 v. Scott, 4 Dill. 508 128, 553 v. Searcy County, 57 Fed. R 1030 82, 884 v. Selden, 20 How. 194 1288 v. Smith, 2 Bond, 330 593, 594, 685 v. Smith, 1 Dill. 458 v. Thompson, 7 Beav. 350 v. Thompson, 6 Houston (Del.), 225 v. Thompson, cited in 1 T. & V. Ch. Pr. 513 v. Took, 1 Dick. 115 v. IT. S., 103 U. S. 480 v. IT. S., 155 U. S. 271 v. Williams, 1 Jones' (N. C.) 176 Thomson v. Dean, 7 Wall. 343 773 655 190 432 394 826, 827 876 Eq. 468 703, 1204 v. Eastwood, L. R 2 App. Cases, 215 v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327 v. Town of Elton, 100 Fed. R 145 v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104 274, 278, 279, 317, 1249, 1287 Thomson- Houston El. Co. v. El- mira & H. R Co., 71 Fed. R 886 v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 83 Fed. R614 v. Sperry El. Co., 46 Fed. R 75 Thomson-Houston El. Ry. Co. v. Dallas Con. Tr. Ry. Co., 54 Fed. R 1001 Thorley's C. F. Co. v. Massar, L. R. 6 Ch. D. 582 Thornburgh v. Savage Mining Co., 1 Pac. Law Mag. 267 255, 270 Thorne v. Towanda T. Co., 15 Fed. R 289 309, 310 Thornhill v. Thornhill, 14 Sim- ons, 600 567 205 882 82 121, 723 637 438 10 485 cliv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Thornton v. Blackborne, 2 W. Kel. 7 708 Thorp v. Bonnifield, 177 U. S. 15 1212, 1261 v. Orr, 2 Cranch, C. C. 335 643 Thorpe v. Maoauley,5 Madd. 218, 231 301 v. Mattingley, 1 Phillips' Ch. 200 * 869, 1223 v. Simmons, 2 Cranch, 0. C. 195 637, 641 Thorson v. Peterson, 9 Fed. E. 517 587 Thouron v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ey. Co., 38 Fed. E. 673 945 Thring v. Edgar. 2 Sim. & S. 274 333 Thruston v. Big Stone G. I. Co., 86 Fed. E. 484 386 v. Mustin, 3 Cranch, C. C. 335 464 Thurber v. Miller (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. E. 371 921. 925, 926 Tibbol v. Marion, 79 Fed. E. 104 968 Tiernan v. Jackson, 5 Pet. 592 597 Tifft v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 16 Blatchf. 48 459 Tilden, In re, 91 Fed. E. 500 1132, 1137 Tilden v. Blair, 21 Wall. 241 879 Tilford v. Oakley, Hempst. 197 28 Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136 690 v. Werk, 39 Fed. E. 680 787, 790 Tillson v. U. S., 100 U. S. 43 1013 Tilton v. Cofield, 93 U. S. 163, 167 809 Times Pub. Co. v. Carlisle (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. E. 762 874 Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204 129, 322, 439 Tinker, In re, 99 Fed. E. 79 1148 Tinsley v. Lacy, 1 Hem. & M. 747 475 Tinsman v. F. E. Patch Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. E. 373 Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 6 Tioga E. Co. v. Blossburg & C. E. Co., 20 Wall. 137 881, 882 Tipping v. Eckersley, 2 K. & J. 264 456 Titterwan v. Osborne, 1 Dick. 350 186, 656 Titus v. U. S., 16 Ct. CI. 276 1018 Tobin v. Walkinshaw, 1 McAll. 26 176 v. Wilson, 3 J. J. Marsh. 67 243 Tod v. Cleveland & M. V. Ey. Co.. 65 Fed. E. 145 930, 944, 946 Todd v. Daniel, 16 Pet. 521 1219 v. Gee, 17 Ves. 273 286 v. Tulchen, 2 Fed. E. 600 979 Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300 89, 250 272 Toledo, A. A. & N. M. Ey. Co. v.' Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. E. 746, 751 487, 488, 496, 501 1232 1212 Toledo. St. L. & K. C. Ry. Co. v. Continental Tr. Co., 176 U. S. 219 732 v. Continental Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R 497 72, 436, 445, 861, 862 Toler v. East Tenn., V. & G. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. E. 168 160, 227, 436, 442, 696 Tolson v. Lord Fitzwilliam, 4 Madd. 403 299 Tome v. Dubois, 6 Wall. 548 1283 Tomkin v. Lethbridge, 9 Ves. 178 351 Tomlinson v. Ward, 2' Conn. 396 565, 570 Tomlinson & W. Mfg. Co. v. Shatto, 34 Fed. E. 380 13, 516 Tonkin v. Lethbridge, G. Cooper, 43 ~ 404, 414 Toohey v. Harding, 1 Fed. E. 174 600 Tooker v. Thompson, 3 McLean, 92 637, 640, 641, 643 Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156 692, 1288 Tornanses v. Melsing (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 775 513, 515, 1207, 1241 Toronto General Trust Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 37, 47 127 Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U. S. 527 933 Torrent v. Duluth Lumber Co., 32 Fed. R. 229 1276 v. Hamilton, 95 Mich. 159 212 v. S. K. Martin L Co., 37 Fed. R 727 955 Torrey v. Grant L Works, 14 Blatchf. 269 932, 959- Toulmin v. Hamilton, 7 Ala. 362 288 v. Reid, 14 Beav. 499 380 v. Reid, 14 Beav. 505 380 Tourton v. Flower, 3 P. Wms. 369 228, 295, 29$ Towle v. American B. L. & Inv. Soc, 60 Fed. E. 131 53, 220, 222, 519 v. Pierce, 12 Met. (Mass.) 1 329 171, 176, 196 Townley v. Deare, 3 Beav. 213 674 Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall. 326 1061, 1064 v. Ives, 1 Wilson, 216 675 v. St. L. & S. C. & Min. Co., 159 U. S. 21 320 v. Todd, 91 U. S. 452 881, 883 — v. U. S., 1 U. S, L. J. 5346 740 v. Vandernecker, 160 U. S. 171 27, 216 Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426* 1202 v. Morel (D. Nev.), 88 Fed. R 801 911. 935 v. Torrey, 2 Blatchf. 275 499 Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Vickers, L. E. 16 Eq. 303 518 Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82 478- Traer v. Clews, 115 U. a 528 1158 TABLE OF OASES. civ References are to pages. Trafton v. Nougues, 4 Sawyer, 178 * 929 Transatlantic Co. v. Pietroni, Johns. 604 515 Transportation Co. v. Parkers- burg, 107 U. S. 691 283 Travelers' Protective Ass'n v. Gilbert (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R 46 1249 Travis County v. King I. Br. & Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R 690 1196 Travis v. Waters, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 85 395 Treadwell, In re, 23 Fed. R 442 1151 Treadwell v. Lennig, 50 Fed. R 872 591 v. Seymour, 41 Fed. R 579 807, 857, 858 v. United V. G Co., 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 613 693, 694, 695 Treat v. Jemison, 20 Wall. 652 1272 v. Jemison, 131 U. S. cxxxv 1273 Treble v. Bates, 40 Fed. R. 745 889 Trecotbick v. Austin, 4 Mason, 16 172 Tredway v. Sanger, 107 U. S. 323 83 Tremolo Patent, 23 Wall. 518 365, 366, 368, 376 Tremper v. Schurbacher, 84 Fed. R 413 958 Trenton, The, 4 Fed. R. 657 984 Trenton B. Co. v. Russell, 1 Green, Ch. (N. J.) 492 676 Trevelyan v. Charter, 9 Beav. 140 779 Trial, The, 1 Blatchf. & H. 94 739 Triebert v. Burgess, 11 Md. 452 566 Trigg v. Conway, Hempst. 711 869 Trimble v. Erie El. M; Co., 89 Fed. R 51 806 Trimmer v. Bayne, 9 Ves. 209 4 Triplett v. Bank, 3 Cranch, C. C. 646 865, 866 Tripp v. Santa Rosa St. R. Co., 144 U. S. 126 1233, 1234 v. Vincent, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 176 717 Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 441 1024, 1025 Trollupe v. London B. T. Fed'n, 72 Law Times, 342 469 Troth, In re, 104 Fed. R. 291 1151 Trotter v. Trotter, Jacob, 533 770 Troy & B. R Co. v. Boston, H. T. & W. Ry. Co., 86 N. Y. 107 456, 467, 510 Troy L & N. Factory v. Corn- ing, 6 Blatchf. 328 342, 345, 689 v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. 16 726, 727, 747 Truax v. Detweiler, 46 Fed. R 117 764 k 456 163 Tr. & D. Co. v. Spartanburg Wa-ter-Works Co., 91 Fed. R. 324 517, 520 Trust & Fire Ins. Co. v. Jen- kins, 8 Paige (N. Y), 589 276, 372 Trustees v. Greenough, 105 IT. S. 527 161, 434, 533, 703, 718, 724, 751, 752, 753, 754, 755, 1204 Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 N. Y. 404 Trustees of the Wabash & Erie Canal Co. v. Beers, 2 Black, 448 Tryon v. Westminster Im- provement Comm'rs, 6 Jurist (N. S.), 1324 187, 301 Tubman v. Wason Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. R 429 408, 592 Tuchman v. Welch,' 42 Fed. R 548; S. C„ 45 Fed. R. 283 461 Tuck v. Olds, 29 Fed. R 883 727, 747, 750, 754 Tucker v. Carpenter, Hempst. 440 505, 510 Tudor, In re, 100 Fed. R 796 1118 Tufts v. Tufts, 3 W. & M. 429 779, 781, 782 Tug River C. & S. Co. v. Brigel (C. C. A.), 67 Fed; R 625 193, 194, 265, 724 v. Brigel (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 647 720, 752 v. Brigel, 86 Fed. R 818 65, 70 Tugman v. National S. S. Co., 30 Fed. R 802 588 Tullis v. L. E. & W. R Co. (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R. 554 890 Tullock v. Webster County, 40 Fed. R 706 916, 944 Tupper v. Powell, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 436 Turnanses v. Melsing (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 775 Turnbull v. Tyson, 95 U. S. 418 Turnbull Wagon Co. v. Linthi- cum Carriage Co., 80 Fed. R. 4 " 921, 923, 941 Turner v. Am. B. M. Union, 5 McLean, 344 206, 487 v. Bank of N. A., 4 DalL 8 84, 287 v. Berry, 38 111. 541 796 v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 106 U. S. 552 1283 v. I., B. & W. R Co., 8 Biss. 315 524, 695 v. Illinois Cent. R Co., 55 Fed. R 689 934 v. Peoria & S. R Co., 95 111. 134 548 v. Richardson, 180 U. S. 87 1187 v. Robinson, 1 Sim. & S. 3 304, 337 236 703 593 elvi TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Turner v. Southern H, B. & L. Ass'n (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R 308 55 v. Turner, 1 Dickens, 316 276 v. Turner, 2 Stra. 708 125 v. Wight, 4 Beav. 40 464 Turrell v. Spaeth, 9 Off. Gaz. 1663 415, 416 Tuskaloosa No. Ry. Co. v. Gude, 141 U. S. 244 1231 Tuttle v. Clafiin (0. C. A.), 88 Fed. R. 122 1206, 1207, 1216 Twitohell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321 1183, 1184, 1231 Tyler's Petition, In re, 149 U. S. 164 11, 17, 19, 137, 553, 768, 834, 836 Tyler v. Bell, 2 Myl. & Cr. 89 301 v. Galloway, 13 Fed. B. 477 369 v. Hamilton, 62 Fed. E. 87 151 v. Judges, 179 U. S. 405 1181, 1217 v. Last Chance Mine (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. E 394 1297 v. Magwire, 17 Wall. 253 1293, 1296, 1297, 1298 v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79 200 v. Simmons, 6 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 127 691 Tyng v. Grinnell, 92 U. S. 467 871 Tysen v. Wabash E Co., 8 Biss. 247 ' 519, 520 U. Uhle v. Burnham, 42 Fed. R. 1 v. Burnham, 44 Fed. E 729 911, 955 640, 644 755 v. Burnham, 46 Fed. E 500 Uhlmann v. Amholt & S. B. Co., 41 Fed. E. 369 233^353, 355 Ulfelder CI. Co., In re, 98 Fed. R 409 1105 Ulman v. Clark, 75 Fed. E. 868 71 v. Jaeger, 67 Fed. E. 980 213, 215, 283 v. Eitter,72Fed.R1000 505, 764 Ulrich, Ex parte, 43 Fed. R. 661 834 Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250 586 Ung Lung Chung v. Holmes, 98 Fed. R. 323 57 Union, The, 4 Blatchf. 90 983 Union Bank v. Kansas C. Bank, 136 U. S. 223 514 v. Stafford, 12 How. 327 181 Union Bank of Chicago v. Kan- sas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223 883, 1215 Union Bank of G. v. Geary, 5 Pet. 99, 110 344, 346, 589 Union Bank of Louisiana v. Stafford, 12 How. 327 170, 171, 180 Union L & S. Co. v. Philadel- phia R Co., 68 Fed. E. 914 Union L. & T. Co. v. Southern Cal. M. E. Co., 51 Fed. R 106 226 533, 534 17 1246 58 865 1247 33 Union M. & M. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. R 73, 87 173, 209, 214 Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374 1201 Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Mills P. Co., 37 Fed. R. 287 342, 565 v. University of Chicago, 6 Fed. R. 443 v. Windett, 36 Fed. R 838 Union Nat. Bank v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 163 U. S. 325 " » Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford; 141 U. S. 250 v. Callaghan, 161 U. S. 91 v. Cheyenne, 113 U. S. 516 v. Colorado E. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R 22 1225, 1232 v. Hall, 91 U. S. 343 817, 824, 826 v. Harris (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. E. 800 893 v. Harris, 158 U. S. 326 1165 v. McShane, 3 Dill. 303 209, 214 v. Mercer, 28 Fed. R 9 282 v. Myers (Pacific R R. Re- moval Cases), 115 U. S. 1 v. Novak (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R. 573 v. Reed, 80 Fed. R. 234 v. Reese (C. 'C. A.), 56 Fed. R. 288 639, 644 v. U. S., 116 U. S. 154 10,1168,1290 v. U. S., 116 U. S. 402 1249 v. U. S., 59 Fed. R 813 817 v. Yates (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R 584 615 Union Steamboat Co., Ex parte, 178 U. S. 317 1298 Union S. & S. Co. v. Johnson E. R Signal Co., 52 Fed. R 867 154 v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 69 Fed. R833 157,304,330 Union S. R. Co. v. Mathiesson, 3 Cliff. 146 681, 713 v. Mathiesson,2 Cliff. 304 268,618 Union Street Ry. Co. v. City of Saginaw, 73 N. W. R 243 378, 382 Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. Moore (C. C. A«), 79 Fed. R 705 Union Tr. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R Co. (N. M.), 43 Pac. R 701 v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R Co., 87 Fed. R. 530 1283 255 883 178 439 524 TABLE OF OASES. clvii References are to pages. Union Tr. Co. v. Chicago & L. H. Ry. Co., 7 Fed. E. 513 548, 559 v. Illinois Mid. Ey. Co., 117 U. S. 434 516, 539, 543, 546, 547. 572 v. Morrison, 125 U. S. 591 533, 535 v. Eochester & P. E. Co., 29 Fed. E. 609 807 v. Eookford. E. I & St. L. E. Co., 6 Biss. 197 23 v. Souther, 107 U. S. 591 525, 529 v. U. & L. H. Ey. Co., 7 Fed. B. 513 560 v. Walker, 107 TJ. S. 596 525, 535 Union Tr. Co. of N. Y. v. Chicago & L. H. E. Co., 7 Fed. R 513 548 United El. S. Co. v. Louisville El. L. Co., 68 Fed. E 673 66, 73, 444 United L.Tel. Co. v. Boston S. D. &T. Co., 147 U.S. 431 537 United States, Ex parte, 1 Gall. 338 908 , 16 Wall. 699 1050, 1260 United States v. Acosta, 1 How. 24 595 v. Adams, 6 Wall. 101 1258, 1235, 1290 v. Adams, 9 Wall. 661 829, 830 v. Addison, 22 How. 174 816, 1213 v. Addison, 6 Wall. 291 853 v. Ady (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. E. 359 134 v. Agler, 62 Fed. E 824 240, 482 —^ v. Alexander. 148 U. S. 186 1012 — — v. Alexander, 4 Cranch, C. C. 311 v. Alexander, 46 Fed. E 728 210 451. 886 1177 605 v. Ambrose, 108 U. S. 336 v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392 v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 128 U. S. 315 26, 189, 199, 217, 222, 225, 853 v.Am. Bell Tel. Co., 29 Fed. E. 17 257, 258, 269, 272 v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 30 Fed. E 523 286 v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 39 Fed. E. 716 - 375 v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 159 U. S. 548 1165 v. American Lumber Co., 80 Fed. E 309 263, 265 v. Ames, 99 U. S. 35 282 v. Anon., 11 Fed. E 761 766 v. Anonymous, 21 Fed. E 761 ' 762 v. Argona, 120 U. S. 479 1177 v. Armejo, 131 U. S. lxxxii 1234, 1257 v. Ash, 75 Fed. R 651 587 v. Atherton, 102 U. S. 372 199 v. Auditors of Brooklyn, 8 Fed. R 473 825 United States v. Auguisola, 1 Wall. 352 1056, 1061, 1074, 1079 v. Ay res, 9 Wall. 608 1050, 1246, 1260 v. Babbitt, 104 U. S. 767 1287. v. Babcock, Fed. Cas. No. 14,484 593 v. Bache (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R 762 1199 v. Banister, 70 Fed. R 44 806, 859 v. Bank of Metropolis, 15 Pet 377 875 v. Barber, 140 U. S, 164 733, 734 v. Bashaw, 152 U. S. 436 729 v. Bassett, 21 How. 412 1059 v. Batchelder, 9 Int. Rev. Eec. 98 809, 810 v. Baum, 74 Fed. R. 43 909 v. Baxter (C. C. A), 51 Fed. R 624 1228 v. Beebe, 127 U. S. 338 16, 314 v. Belknap, 73 Fed. R 19 60 — v. Bell, 81 Fed. R 830 616 v. Bell, 111 U. S. 477 596 v. Benner, 1 Bald. 234 581, 593, 594 v. Bennitz, 23 How. 255 1059 v. Berreyesa's Heirs, 23 How. 499 1073 v. Biebusch, 1 McCrary, 42 605 v. Billing, 2 Wall. 444 1080 v. Black, 11 Blatchf. 538 484 v. Blackfeather, 155 U. S. 180 1289 v. Bollman, 1 Cranch, C. C. 373 841, 845 v. Bolton, 23 How. 341 1073 v. Booth, 18 How. 477 1185, 1253 v. Bosbyshell(D.C.),73Fed. R 616 596 v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53 1015 v. Bout well, 17 Wall. 604 138,827 v. Boyd, 79 Fed. R 858 752 v. Boyd, 15 Pet. 187 1294 v. Brewer, 139 U. S- 278 1177 v. Bridgman, 8 Am. Law Record, 541 267 v. Britton, 107 U. S. 655 1177 v. Buffalo N. G. F. Co. (C. C. A.). 78 Fed. R 110 1199 v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12 597, 1288 v. Bullock, 6 Pet. 485 816 — - v. Burchard, 125 U. S. 176 1016 v. Burns, 12 Wall. 246 1026 v. Burr, 159 U. S. 78, 85 601 v. California & O. L. Co., 148 U. & 31 336 v. Cambuston, 20 How. 59 1059, 1061, 1066, 1073 v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611 1177 v. Carlowitz (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R 852 598 clviii TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. United States v. Cameron, 15 Fed. R 794 645 v. Carter, 3 Cranch, C. C. 423 762 v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. R 690 469, 470 v. Castillero, 2 Black, 17 1058, 1061, 1064, 1079 v. Castro, 24 How. 346 1061, 1070, 1073 v. Chaboya, 2 Black, 593 1060, 1073 v. Chana, 24 How. 131 1073 v. Chase. 135 U. S. 255 1177 v. Chaves, 159 U. S. 452 585 v. Chicago, 7 How. 185 1177 v. Chung Lee, 71 Fed. R 277 846 v. Cigars, 2 Fed. R. 494 736 v. Circuit Court Judges, 3 "Wall. 673 1080 v. City of Elizabeth, 42 Fed. R45 v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 436 v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37 828 128 1017, 1033, 1290 1079, 1168 1060 v. Coe, 155 U. S. 76 v. Coe, 170 U. S. 681 v. Colgate, 21 Fed. R 318 462 v. Collier, 3 Blatchf. 325 598 v. Commissioner, 5 Wall. 563 821, 824 v. Converse, 63 Fed. R. 423 734 v. Conway, 175 U. S. 60 1064, 1066, 1079 v. Cook, 5 Dillon, 453 838 v. Cooper, 120 U. S. 124 1018 v. Corwin, 129 U. S. 381, 594 1193 v. Coudert (C. C. A.), 73 Fed. R 505 v. County of Clark, 95 U. S. 769 818 v. Covilland, 1 Black, 339 1065, 1066, 1074, 1077 v. Craig, 28 Fed. R. 795 46 v. Crusell, 12 Wall. 175 1050 v. Curry, 6 How. 106 1218, 1234, 1298 v. Curtis, 107 U. S. 671 1177 v. Curtner, 26 Fed. R. 296 215 v. Dalles M. L. Co., 140 U. S. 599 314, 332 v. Dashiel, 3 Wall. 688 1217 v. Davenport's Heirs, 142 U. S. 704 1253, 1257 v. Davis, 5 Cranch, C. C. 632 845 v. Davis (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 147 722, 1199 v. Davis, 131 U. S. 36 133, 134, 1224 v. Dawson, 101 U. S. 569 870 v. Debs, 64 Fed. R 724 470, 766 United States v. De Coursey, 82 Fed. R 302 558 v. De Goer, 38 Fed. R 80 869 v. De La Paz Valdez de Con- way, 175 U. S. 60 1217 v. Delaware, L & W. R Co., 40 Fed. R. 101 817 v. De Morant, 123 U. S. 335 1068 v. Denicke, 35 Fed. R 407, 410 592 v. Devaughan, 3 Cranch, C. C. 84 763 v. Dodge, 2 Gall. 313 766 v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 102 760, 766 32 598 748 597 249 188 — v. V. v. Duell, 172 U. S. 576 v. Dumas, 149 U. S. 278 v. Durling, 4 Biss. 509 v. Ecksford, 1 How. 250 v. Eddy, 28 Fed. R. 226 v. Edmonston, 181 U. S. 500 1015, 1026 v. Edwards, 1 McLean, 347 597 v. Eggleson, 4 Saw. 201 598 v. Elder, 177 U. S. 104 1073 v. Eliason, 16 Pet. 291 873 v. Elizabeth, 9 Rep. 232 825 v. Elliott, 62 Fed. R. 801 482, 502 v. Ellsworth, 101 U. S. 170 1018 Emerson, 4 Cranch, C. C. 762 Emholt, 105 U. S. 414 1160 Engeman, 45 Fed. R. 546 907 Estudillo, 1 Wall. 710 1065, 1066, 1080, 1289 v. Evans, 5 Cranch, 280 1201, 1287 v. Ewan, 40 Fed. R. 451 876 v. Fields, 4 Blatchf. 326 392,399, 417 v. Fifty Boxes and Pack- ages of Lace, 92 Fed. R 601, 603, 604 644. 645, 649, 650, 864 v. Fletcher (C. C. A.), 60 Fed. R 53 134 v. Fletcher, 147 U. S. 664 744, 1015 v. Floumoy L S. & R E. Co., 69 Fed. R 886 215 v. Fossat, 20 How. 413 1080' v. Fossatt, 21 How. 445 815, 1080, 1297 v. Fowkes (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R. 13 846, 848, 1193, 1194 v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315 881 v. Fremont, 18 How. 30 1258, 1297 v. Frerichs, 124 U. S. 315, 320 1052, 1202 v. Fullhart, 47 Fed. R 802 759 v. Galbraith, 22 How. 89 1061 v. Gale, 1 09 U. S. 65 950, 1 177 v. Gaussen, 19 Wall. 198 596, 597, 598 TABLE OF CASES. clix References are to pages. United States v. Gee Lee (C. C. A.), 50 Fed. R. 271 1194 v. Gear, 3 How. 120 464, 466 v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508 1177 v. Gibbons, 109 U. S. 200 1018 v. Gillespie, 6 Fed. R 803 312 v. Gillis, 95 U. S. 407 1024, 1025, 1030 v. Gomez, 1 Wall. 690 829, 1227, 1234, 1253 v. Gomez, 3 Wall. 753 992, 1077, 1080,1185,1235,1253 v. Gomez, 23 How. 326 1275,1290 v. Goodrich, 54 Fed. R 21 1232 v. Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 108 1161 v. Grant, 110 U. S. 225 1209, 1227 v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 112 U. S. 645 1012 v. Green, 3 Mason, 482 838, 845 v. Griffith, 2 Cranch, C. C. • v. Griffith, 141 U. S. 212 596, 597 1260, 1264 1064, v. Grimes, 2 Black, 610 1065, 1066, 1068, 1070 v. Griswold, 30 Fed. R 604; s. C, 12 Sawyer, 398 1024 v. Gunning, 18 Fed. R 511; & C, 22 Fed. R 653 26 v. Haas, 5 Fed. R 29 739 v. Hahn, 91 Fed. R 755 1199 y. Hall, 53 Fed. R 352 613 v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343 1177 v. Halleck, 1 Wall. 439 1070. 1071, 1076, 1077, 1080 v. Hammond (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R 862 1153 v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 268, 282 131, 133, 744 v. Harrill, McAll. 243 598 v. Harsha, 172 U. S. 567 134 v. Hartnell, 22 How. 286 1060 v. The Haytian Republic, 57 Fed. R 508; S. a, 59 Fed. R 476 995 v. Heirs of Berreyesa, 23 How. 499 1070 v. Henderlong, 102 Fed. R 2 46 v. Hess, 124 U. S. 483 1177 — v. Hewecker, 164 U. S. 46 1166 — v. Hewes, Crabbe. 307 859 — v. Hill, 120 U. S. 169 737 — v. Hilliard, 3 McLean, 324 598 — v. Hirsch, 100 U. S. 33 1177 — v. Hodge, 13 How. 478 598 — v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158 813 — v. Hollis, 43 Fed. R 248 615 — v. Hopewell (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R. 798 1194, 1234, 1236 — v. Houston, 48 Fed. R 207 870 — v. Howland, 4 Wheat.- 108 178 — v. Hudson, 65 Fed. R 68 1244 United States v. Hughes, 11 How. 552, 568 v. Humason, 8 Fed. R 71 189 594, 597 598 1066 v. Hunt, 105 U. S. 183 v. Innerarity, 19 Wall. 595 v. Insurance Co., 22 Wall. 99 1023, 1028 v. Insley, 130 U. S. 263 16 v. Insley (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 221 860 v. Irvine, 98 U. S. 450 1177 v. Jacobi, 4 Am. L. T. R 148 770 v. Jahn, 155 U. S. 109 1173, 1174, 1178, 1194, 1195, 1199 v. Jailer of Fayette County, 2 Abb. U. S. 265 810, 844 v. James, 60 Fed. R 257 616 v. Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., 43 Fed. R 898; s. a, 46 Fed. R 432 46, 497, 507 v. Johns, 4 Dall. 412; s. a, 1 Wash. C. C. 363 605 v. Johnson, 124 U. S. 236, 8 Sup. Ct. R 446 131 v. Johnson, 1 Wall. 326 1074, 1079 v. Joint Traffio Ass'n, 171 U. S. 505 482 v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513 906 v. Jones, 119 U. S. 477 1052, 1168 v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375 597, 598 v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1 45, 87, 131, 1013 v. Jones, 147 U. S. 672 733 v. Jones, 149 U. S. 262 889 v. Jordan, 113 U. S. 418 1014 v. Jose, 63 Fed. R 951 767 v. Kagamer, 118 U. S. 375 1177 v. Kane, 23 Fed. R. 748 554 v. Kaufman, 96 U. S. 567 1014, 1026 v. Kelly (C. C. A), 97 Fed. R 460 45 v. Kenworthy (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R. 904 1199 v. Kessel, 63 Fed. R 433 98 v. King, 74 Fed. R 493 819 v. King, 147 U. a 676 726, 735/ 737 v. King, 7 How. 833 1279 v. Klingcnberg, 153 U. S. 93 1199 v. Knight, 1 Blaok, 227 1061, 1074 v. Knight, 1 Black, 488 1275 v. Knight, 14 Pet 301 860 v. Knight's Adm'r, 1 Black, 227 1073, 1076 v. Knight's Adm'r, 1 Black, 488 1071 v. Knox, 128 U. S. 230 1014 v. Krall, 174 U. S. 385 1166 v. Kuhn, 4 Cranch, C. C. 401 597 clx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. United States v. Kurtz, 164 U. S. 49 734, 735 v. Labette County, 7 Fed. R 318 " 818, 826 v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624 1177 v. Lafontaine, 4 Cranoh, C. C. 173 581 v. Lamar, 116 U. S. 423 821 v. Larkin, 18 How. 557 1060, 1071, 1074, 1284 v. Lawson, 101 U. S. 664 1015 v. Lawton, 110 U. S. 146 1018 v. Le Bris, 121 U. S. 278 1177 v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196 129, 137 v. Lee County, 2 Biss. 77 828 v. Lee Yen Tai (C. C. A.), 108 Fed. R 950 1269 v. Liddle, 2. Wash. 205 593 v. Lies, 74 Fed. R 546 1199 v. Lies, 170 U. S. 628 1199 v. Linn, 15 Pet. 290 932 v. Lippitt, 100 U. S. 663 1017 v. Lotridge, 1 McLean, 246 806 v. Louisiana, 123 U. S. 32. 122, 1017 v. Louisiana, 127 U. S. 182 1018 v. Louisville & P. C. Co., 4 Dill. 600 447, 493 v. Loughrey, 43 Fed. R. 449 251 v. Luoero, 1 N. M. 422 1061 v. Lynch, 137 U. S. 280 1169 v. Lynde, 44 Fed. R. 215 909 v. Macon County, 99 U. S. 582 * 818 v. Maney, 61 Fed. R 140 812 v. Mann, 2 Brock. 9 760, 763 v. Marich, 44 Fed. R 19 519 v. Martin, 2 Paine, 68 597 v. Maxwell, 3 Dill. 275 808 v. McCandless, 147 U. S. 692 733, 735 v. McClay, 4 Cent. L. J. 255 837 v. McCrory (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R. 295 1255 v. McDermott, 140 U. S. 157 130 v. McDonald, 128 U. S. 471 131, 1014 v. McKee, 91 U. S. 442 1051 v. McLaughlin, 24 Fed. R 823 346, 353 v. McLemore, 4 How. 286 483 v. McMasters, 4 Wall. 680 1070 v. McRea, L. R 4 Eq. 327; S. C, L. R 3 Ch. App. 79 291 v. Memphis & L. R R Co., 6 Fed. R 237 764, 767 v. Mexican Nat. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R. 269 46 v. Minn. & N. W. R Co., 18 How. 241 1260 v. Minor, 114 U. S. 233 189, 237 United States v. Miss. & R R Boom Co., 3 Fed. R 548; S. C, 1 • McCrary, 601 466. v. Mitchell, 2 Wash. 478 602 v. Mooney, 116 U. S. 104 46, 87 v. Moore, 3 Low. 232 64 v. Morrison, 4 Pet. 124 870' v. Morton (C. C."A.), 65 Fed. R 204 731 v. Morant, 124 U. S. 647 1077 v. Moreno, 1 Wall. 400 1056, 1065, 1073, 1080 v. Morgan, 11 How. Pr. 154 893 v. Morgan (C. C. A), 64 Fed. R.4 134 v. Morgan, 131 U. S. clxiv 1283 v. Morillo, 1 Wall. 706 1064 v. Mosby,133U. S. 273 1055,1167, 1216 v. Moy Yee Tai (C. C. A.), 109 Fed. R 1 v. Mullan, 10 Fed. R 785; S. a, 118 U. S. 271 v. Murphy, 82 Fed. R 893 v. Myers, 2 Brock. 516 v. Nashville, C. & St. L Ry. Co., 118 U. S. 120 v. National Bank, 73 Fed. R 379 30 v. Neleigh, 1 Black, 398 1073, 1074 v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 381 v. New Orleans, 8 Fed. R 112 v. New Orleans, 17 Fed. R 483 v. New York, 160 U. S. 598 1004, 1005, 100& v. New York Indians, 173 U. S. 464 1297 v. Norris, 44 Fed. R 740 891 v. Norsch, 42 Fed. R 417 26,199 v. Northway, 120 U. a 327 1177 — v. Nourse, 9 Pet. 8 483 — v. Nye, 4 Fed. R 888 808 — v. Nye, 21 How. 408 1059 — v. O'Keefe, 11 Wall. 178 1016 — v. Old Settlers, 148 U. S. 427 1053, 1162 — v. One Case, 1 Paine, 400 643 — v. One Case of Silk, 4 Ben. 526 971 — v. One Raft, 13 Fed. R 796 995 — v. Oregon Q Co., 103 Fed. R 549 319 — v. Ortiz, 176 U. S. 422 1073 — v. Osio, 23 How. 273 1073 — v. Oswego, 28 Fed. R 55 835 — v. Pacheco, 20 How. 261 1080. — v. Palmer, 128 U. S. 262 129. 1235 222 809 27 16 818 1241 825 1012, 1013. TABLE OF CASES. clxi References are to pages. United States v. Parrott, 1 McAll, 371 420, 421, 465, 498, 503, 645, 646, 650 v. Patterson, 26 Fed. R. 509 762 v. Patterson, 29 Fed. R. 775 835, 846. v. Patterson, 55 Fed. R. 605 482 v. Patterson, 15 How. 10 1065, 1066, 1274 v. Paxton, 40 Fed. R. 136 876 v. Payne, 147 U. S. 687 726, 733, 734, 735 v. Pearson, 24 Blatchf. 453 819 v. Pena, 175 U. S. 500 1060, 1079, 1225 1235 v. Peralta, 19 How. 343 'l059, 1073 v. Percheman, 7 Pet. 51 1056 v. Perot, 98 U. S. 428 585, 1059, 1070 v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121 992 v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115 815 v. Phillips (C. C. A.), 107 Fed. R 824 445, 1236 v. Phillips, 6 Pet 776 1261 v. Phillips, 121 U. S. 254 1234 v. Phila. & R R Co., 123 U. S. 113 874, 876 v. Pico, 22 How. 406 1057, 1059 v. Pico, 23 How. 321 1061 v. Pico, 5 Wall. 536 1061, 1064,' 1071 v. Pings, 4 Fed. R 714 649 v. Pinson, 102 U. S. 548 597 v. Pitman, 147 IT. S. 669 737 v. Port of Mobile, 12 Fed. R 768 819 v. Pratt C. & C. Co., 18 Fed. R. 708 123, 147, 193, 194, 217, 222, 238, 288, 290, 930 v. Price, 96 Fed. R 960 616 v. Price, 2 Wash. 356 649 v. Pridgeon, 153 IT. 8. 48 834 v. Pugh, 99 IT. S. 265 1290 v. Radowitz, 8 Rep. 263 596 v. Ramsay, 120 U. S. 214 1014 v. Rathbone, 2 Paine, 578 874 v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407 1177 v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297 6 v. Reading, 18 How. 1 1060, 1061, 1065 v. Rector of the Church of the Holy Trinitv, 36 Fed. R 303 46 v. Reed, 53 Fed. R. 405 26 v. Reid, 12 How. 361 613, 808. 887 v. Repentigny, 5 Wall. 211 1056, 1060, 1061, 1065 v. Rider, 163 IT. S. 132 1166, 1177 v. Riley, 104 Fed. R. 275 869 v. Ringgold, 8 Pet. 150 740 756 558 172 United States v. Rio Grande D. & I. Co., 174 U. S. 690, 698 587 v. Ritchie, 17 How. 525 1061, 1064, 1065, 1067, 1080 v. Rocha, 9 Wall. 639 1070 v. Rogers, 23 Fed. R 658 835 v. Rose, 14 Fed. R. 681 806 v. Rose, 23 How. 262 1059 v. Rosen wald (C. G A.), 67 Fed. R 323 1199 v. Runscher, 119 U. S. 407 836 v. St. Charles Co., 31 Fed. R. 442 v. St. Louis, A. & T. R Co., 43 Fed. R. 414 v. Salisbury, 157 U. S. 121 v. Sampeyreac, Hempst. 118 789,790,793,795 v. Sanborn, 28 Fed. R 299 745, 746, 748 v. Sandoval, 167 U. S. 278 1065 v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310 1163 v. Santa Fe, 165 IT. S. 675 1065 v. Santistevan, 1 N. M. 583 1061 ■- v. Sauer, 73 Fed. R. 671 860 v. Saunders (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R 407 v. Savage, 91 Fed. R 490 v. Savings Bank, 104 IT. S. 728 v. Say ward, 160 U. S. 493 v. Scholfield, 1 Cranch, C. C. 130 770 v. Schurz, 102 IT. S. 407 138, 196, 812, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 827 v. Scott, 3 Woods, 334 589 v. Scott, 25 Fed. R. 470 594 v. Scroggins, 3 Woods, 529 772 v. Seton, 10 Pet. 390 1071 v. Severens (C. C. A.), 71 Fed. R 768 817, 1195 v. Shapleigh (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 126, 137 1284, 1289 v. Sherman, 98 IT. S. 565 903, 904, 905 133 838 1014 46 v. Smith, 35 Fed. R. 490 v. Smith, 44 Fed. R 405 v. Smith, 94 IT. S. 214 v. Smith, 3 Cranch, C.C. 66 v. Smith, 4 Day (Conn.), 121 v. Snyder, 14 Fed. R. 554 v. So. Pac. R Co., 56 Fed. R 865 722, 1291 v. So. Pac. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. R. 481 78, 263 v. Spiegel, 116 IT. S. 270 1177 v. State Bank, 96 U. S. 30 1015 v. State, 143 IT. S. 621 v. Steffens et al., 100 IT. S. 82 v. Stephenson, 1 McLean, 462 932 597 739 1289 740 642 598 27 1177 clxii TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. United States v. Stone, 106 U. S. 525 596, 598 v. Stone, 2 Wall. 525 853 ■ v. Sturgis, 14 Fed. R 810 807 v. Sup'rs of Labette Co., 7 Fed. R. 318 828 v. Sutherland, 19 How. 363 1074 v. Sutter, 21 How. 170 1059, 1060, 1065, 1066, 1073 v. Sutton (C. C. A.), 47 Fed. R 129 1173 v. Swan (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R. 647 817,1172,1195,1202,1203 v. Taylor, 44 Fed. R. 2 909 v. Taylor, 147 U. S. 695 733,734, 735, 895 v. Teschmaker, 22 How. 392 1073 v. Tetlow, 2 Lowell, 159 859, 860 v. The Dago (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R 182 782, 1275 v. The Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103 1256 v. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1 1178 v. The Reindeer, 2 Cliff. 57 971 v. Thomas, 151 U. S. 577 1177 v. Thompson, Gilp. 614 856 v. Thompson, 98 U. S. 486 46, 314 v. Three Hundred Barrels of Alcohol, 1 Ben. 72 742 v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61 222, 1066 v. Tilden, 10 Ben. 566 629, 641, 832 v. Tilden, 25 Int. Rev. R 352 617 v. Tilden, Fed. Cas. No. 16,522 638 v. Tinsley (C. C. A), 75 Fed. R 369 134 v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U. S. 290 482. 1165, 1214 v. Treadwell, 15 Fed. R. 532 723 v. Trinidad Coal & Coke Co., 137 U. S. 160 237 v. Truesdell, 148 U. S. 196 1012 v. Turner, 50 Fed. R. 734 808 v. Tyler, 7 Cranch, 285 1177 v. U. P. R Co., 2 Dill. 527 817, 825 v. U. P. R. Co., 4 Dill. 479 826 v. U. P. R Co., 91 U. S. 72 824 v. U. P. R Co., 98 U. S. 569 183, 189, 219, 861 v. U. P. Rv. Co., 160 U. S. 1 26 v. U. P. Ry. Co., 168 U. S. 505,513 1174,1177 v. Vaca, 18 How. 556 1060 v. Vallejo, 1 Black, 541 and 283 1073 v. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 169 733, 735, 736 United States v. Van Zandt, 2 Cranch, C. C. 338 v. Vigil, 13 Wall. 449 v. Villalonga, 23 Wall. 35 v. Waddell, 112 U. S. 76 v. Walla Walla, 44 Fed. R 796 -, — v. Wallace, 46 Fed. R 569, 570 v. Wallamet & C. M. Wagon Road Co., 42 Fed. R 351 v. Walsh, Deady, 281 v. Walters, 51 Fed. R 896 v. Wanamaker, 147 U. S. 149 v. Watkins, 97 U. S. 219 1058, 1059, 1074 v. Wayne, Wall. C. C. 134 767 v. Wells, 11 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 424; s. c, Fed. Cases No. 16,665 v. Whitcomb M. B. Co., 45 Fed. R. 89 86 v. White, 17 Fed. R. 561 190, 233 238 290 v. White, 23 How. 249 1066, 1080 v. Wiggins, 14 Pet. 334 595 v. Wilder, 14 Fed. R. 393 645 t. Wilder, 13 Wall. 254 1018 v. Wilkinson, 12 How. 246 v. Williams, 67 Fed. R 384 597 1060 1051 1177 608 899 16 859 736 1213 24 598 780, 812 586 v. Williams, 6 Met. 379 v. Williams, 4 Cranch, C. C. 372 618 v. Williamson, 3 Am. L. Reg. 729 ; s. .0., 4 Am. L. Reg. 5 845 . v. Wilson, 118 U. S. 86 34, 35 v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 1177 v. Wilson, 1 Black, 267 1058, 1059, 1071 v. Wilson, 168 U. S. 273 1015 v. Wilson, Baldwin, 78 607 v. Wilson, 60 Fed. R 890 594 v. Winans, 73 Fed. R 72 253 v. Wingate, 44 Fed. R 129, 141 891, 893 v. Wong Chow (Q C. A.), 108 Fed. R 376 837 v. Wong Quong, 94 Fed. R 832 616 v. Workingmen's A. C. of N. O., 54 Fed. R 994 482 v. Yates, 6 How. 605 273, 1261 v. Yorba, 1 Wall. 412 1057, 1059, 1060, 1079 v. Young, 94 U. S. 258 828, 839, 1050, 1260 v. Yukers, 60 Fed. R 641 134 United States Annunciator Co. v. Sanderson, 3 Blatchi. 184 499 TABLE OF CASES. clxiii References are to pages. United States Bank v. Bank of 1292 12 1291 276 283 821 Washington, 6 Pet. 8 v. Lyon County, 48 Fed. R 632 . v. Weisiger, 2 Pet. 481 v. White, 8' Pet. 262 United States Credit S. Co. v. Am. Credit Co., 53 Fed. R. 818 United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U. S. 251 Boynton v. Blaine, 139 U. S. 306 820, 821, 823 Deinell v. Arnold, 69 Fed. R 987, 992 811, 859, 860 Dunlap v. Black, 128 U. S. 40 821, 823 Fisher v. Board of Liquida- tion, etc. of New Orleans, 60 Fed. R. 387 827 Goodrich v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284 819, 820, 823 Harless v. Judges (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R 178 Hufty v. Trimble, 14 App. D. C 414 International Contracting Co. v. Lamont, 155 U. S. 303 v. Stockslager, 129 U. S. 470, ApQ - Miller v. Black, 128 U. S. 40,50 Mutual Messenger Co. v. Wright, 15 App. D. C. 463 Redfield v. Windom, 137 U. S. 636 820, 821, 823, 824 United States Exp. Co. v. Poe, 61 Fed. R. 475 United States M. Co. v. V. & G. H. W. Co., 1 Sawy. 685 United States Nat. Bank v. Mo Nair, 56 Fed. R. 323 United States Rubber Co. v. Am. O. L Co. (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. R. 248 United States Sugar Refinery v. Providence S. & G. P. Co. (C. C. A), 63 Fed. R. 375 United States Tr. Co. v. M. Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 18 v. Mercantile Tr. Co., 88 Fed. R. 140 529, 559 v. N. Y. W. S. & B. R. Co., 25 Fed. R. 800 v. Omaha & St. L Ry. Co., 63 Fed. R 737 v. Wabash W. Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 287 v. Western Contract Co. (C. C. A.), 81 Fed. R. 454 444, 535 Universities of Oxford and Cam- bridge v. Richardson, 6 Ves. 689 471 816 823 822 823 820 822 56 488 85 512 719 559 525 550 559 University College v. Foxcroft, 2 Ch. R 244 402 Upshur v. Briscoe, 138 U. S. 365 1148 Upshur County v. Rich, 135 U. S. 467 ~ 916 Urlin v. Hudson, 1 Vern. 332 309, 311,312 Urner v. Kayton, 17 Fed. R. 539; s. C, 17 Fed. R 845 688 Utt, In re (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R. 754 1155 Utterson v. Mair, 2 Ves. Jr. 95 512 Uvedale v. Uvedale, 3 Atk. 117 753 Vaccaro v. Security Bank (C. C, - A.), 103 Fed. R 436 1094 Vaigneur v. Kirk, 2 Desaus. (S. C.) 640 673 Vail v. Knapp, 49 Barb. (N. T.) . 299 463 Val. Blatz Brewing Co. v. Walsh, 84 Fed. R. 5 18 Vallandigham.Ex parte, 1 Wall. ,, 243 6, 829, 839, 840 Vallette v. Whitewater Valley Canal Co., 4 McLean, 193 27, 155 Van Allen, In re, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 225, 231 552 Van Alst v. Hunter, 5 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 148 677 Van Alstyne, In re, 100 Fed. R 920 1121 Van Bell v. Prescott (The Rye & Rock Case), 82 N. Y. 630 478 Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151 32 Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 427 805 v. Royal C. Mfg. Co., 82 Fed. R. 251 551 v. W. A. Vandercook Co., 170 U. S. 468 49 v. Wesley, 85 Fed. R 157 137 Vancouver v. Bliss, 11 Ves. 458 718 Vandervelden v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 61 Fed. R. 54 802 Van Duzee v. U. S., 41 Fed. R 571 735 Van Dyck v. McQuade, 85 N. Y. 616 540, 551, 552 Vane v. Lord Barnard, 2 Vern. 738 465 Van Hook v. Throckmorton, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 33 773 Van Hoorebeke v. U. S., 46 Fed. R 456 726 Van Houten v. Van Winkle, 46 N. J. Eq. 380 210 Vann v. Barnett, 2 Brown Ch. C. 158 564 clxiv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Van Ness v. Heineke, 3 Cranch, C. C. 259 641, 643 v. Van Ness, 6 How. 62 1202 Van Norden v. Benner, 131 U. S. cxlv 1158 v. Morton, 99 U. S. 378 12, 35, 467, 661, 881 Van Orden, Ex parte, 3 Blatchf. 166 828, 829 Van Orden v. Nashville, 67 Fed. R. 331 154, 803 Van Patten v. Chicago, M. & St. P. By. Co., 74 Fed. R 981 76 Van Reimsdyk v. Kane, 1 Gall. 371 156 Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 11 How. 297 878, 881 v. Sheriff of Albany, 1 Cowen (N. T.), 501, 512 824 Van Reynegan v. Bolton, 5 Otto, 33 1071 Vansandan v. Rose, 2 Jac. & W. 264 764 Vansant v. Gaslight Co., 99 U. S. 213 1236 Van Stone v. Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 142 U. S. 128 1272 Vanstophorst v. Maryland, 2 Dall. 401 " 646 Van Veohten v. Terry, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 197 159 Van Vleet v. Sledge, 45 Fed. R. 743, 749 ~ 880 Van Wagenen v. Sewell, 160 U. S. 369 1174, 1175 Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U. S. 360, 370 32 v. Reid, 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 366 611 Varick v. Mayor of N. Y., 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 53 498 Vasse v. Smith, 2 Cranch, C. C. 31 642, 643 Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Pet. 253, 258 180, 358, 395, 396, 404 Vaughan, In re, 97 Fed. R. 560 1135 Vaughan v. Central Pac. R Co., 4 Sawy. 280 9 v. Fitzgerald, 1 Sch. & Lef. 316 ~ 624, 625 v. Vaughn, 1 Dick. 90 571 Vaughan and Telegraph, The, 14 Wall. 258 1383, 1287 Vaughn v. Northrup, 15 Pet. 1 128 Veach v. Rice, 131 U. S. 293 384 Veatch v. Am. L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R. 471 442, 530 v. Am. L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 84 Fed. R. 274 561 Veazie v. Wadleigh, 11 Pet. 55 1177 v. Williams, 3 Story, 611, 632 724 Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92; s. 0., 44 N. E. R. 1077 469 Velie v. Manufacturers' Ace. Ins. Co. (E. D. Wis.), 40 Fed. R 545 935 Venice v. Murdock, 92 U. S. 494 879 Venables v. Foyle, 1 Ch. Cas. 2 799 Venus, The, 1 Wheat. 112 1278 . 5 Wheat. 127 1277 Verden v. Coleman, 18 How. 86 703 v. Coleman, 22 How. 192 1161 Vermeule, Matter of, 10 Ben. 1 736 Vermilya v. Brown, 65 Fed. R 149 857, 912, 955, 960 Vermont v.Society for the Prop- agation of the Gospel, 1 Paine, 652 853, 855, 856 Vermont Mach. Co. v. Gibson, 50 Fed. R. 233 194 Vernon, The, 36 Fed. R. 113 743, 745, 746 Verplanck v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 2 Paige (N. Y.), 438 565. Verplank v. Caines, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 57 281, 285 Very v. Levy, 13 How. 345 479 Vetterlein v. Barker, 45 Fed. R 74 790 v. Barnes, 124 U. S. 169 160, 1136 Vianello v. The Credit Lyon- nais. 15 Fed. R 637 980 Vicksburg & M. R. Co. v. Put- nam, 118 U. S. 545 874, 876 Vicksburg S. & P. R. Co. v. Smith, 135 U. S. 195 50, 1213 Victor G. Bloede Co. v. Joseph Bancroft & Sons, 98 Fed. R 175 865, 866 Videl, In re, 179 U. S. 126 829 Vider v. O'Brien (C. C A.), 62 Fed. R. 326 1272 Vigel v. Hopp, 104 U. S. 441 236, 344, 589 Vigers v. Lord Audley, 9 Sim. 72 413, 418 v. Lord Audley, 9 Sim. 408 415 Vigo's Case, 21 Wall. 648 815 Villa v. Rodriguez, 12 Wall. 323 3 Villabolos v. U. S., 16 How. 81 1236 Villalonga v. U. S.. 10 Ct. CI. 428 1051 Vinal v. Continental C. & I. Co., 34 Fed. R 228 922 Vintschger, In re, 50 Fed. R. 459 819 Vipan v. Mortlock, 2 Meriv. 476 503 Virginia v. Paul, 148 U. S. 107 814, 815, 816, 832, 841, 948 v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313 814, 815, 816, 915 v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39 41, 144 Virginia, The, v. West, 19 How. 182 1297 TABLE OF OASES. clxv References are to pages. Virginia & A. Coal Co. v. Cen- tral R Co., 170 U. S. 355, 365 526. 527, 530 Virginia & A. Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Hale (Cal.), 9 S. R. 256 149 Virginia Corn'rs, Ex parte, 112 U. S. 177 1231, 1234 Virginia, Commonwealth of, v. Bingham, 88 Fed. R. 561 948 Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 269 137, 141, 485 Virginia Home Ins. Co. v. Sund- berg, 54 Fed. R 389 977 Von Schroeder v. Brittan, 93 Fed. R. 9 57, 338 Voorhees v. Dorr, 51 Barb. 580 1023 Vorhees v. John T. Loye Co., 151 U. S. 135 1227 Vose v. Philbrook, 3 Story, C. C. 335 v. Reed, 1 Woods, 647 v. Luke, 1 Cranch, C. C. 331 171 516 769, 770 v. Neinberger, 68 Fed. R 947 67 Voce v. Lawrence, 4 McLean, 203 636, 641, 642 Volk v. B. F. Sturtevant Co. (C. C. A.), 99 Fed. R. 532 1239 Von Auw v. Chicago T. & F. G. Co., 69 Fed. R 448 206 v. Chicago T. & T. G. Co., 70 Fed. R 939 214 Von Hoffman v. Quincy,4 Wall. 535 818 Von Roy v. Blackman, 3 Woods, 98 251 Vreeland v. Vreeland, 48 N. J. L 56; s. a, 24 Atl. R 551 213 w. W. B. Grimes Dry Goods Co. v. Maloomb, 58 Fed. R 670 1289 W. F. Babcock, The (C. C. A), 85 Fed. R 978 607 Wabash Cases, The: Atkins v. Wabash, St. L & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R 161 25 Wabash & E. Canal Co. v. Beers, 1 Black, 54 703, 1204 Wabash R. Co. v. McDaniels, 107 U. S. 454 1281 Wabash, St. L & P. Ry. Co. v. Central Trust Co., 23 Fed. R 269 540 v. Central Tr. Co., 23 Fed. R 513 386, 390, 519, 861, 922 v. Knox, 110 U. S. 304 1212 Wabash W. R. Co. v. Brow, 164 U. S. 271 270, 955 Wachusett Nat. Bank v. Sioux C. S. Works, 56 Fed. R 321 85 912 880 882 1049 63 59 592 156 833 1091 472 Waco Hardware Co. v. Michi- gan Stove Co. (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R. 289 Wade v. Chicago, S. & St. L. R Co., 149 U. S. 327, 343, v. Travis County, 174 U. S. 499 v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 141 v. Wortsman,29Fed.R754 Wader v. Lawder, 165 U. S. 624 Wadley v. Blount, 65 Fed. R. 667 Wagner v. Baird, 7 How. 234, 258 15,313 v. Drake, 31 Fed. R 849 959 v. Mears, 3 Sim. 127 434 v. tJ. S. (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R 133 1104 Wagstaff v. Bryan, 1 R & M 28 403 Wainwright v. Waterman, 1 Ves. Jr. 313 Waite, In re, 81 Fed. R 359 , 1 Lowell, 207 Waite v. Chichester Chair Co., 45 Fed. R 258 v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 62 Fed. R 769 931, 933, 956, 958, 959 Wake v. Parker, 2 Keen, 70 123 Wakelee v. Davis, 48 Fed. R 612 1243 v. Davis, 50 Fed. R 522 460 Wakelin v. Walthal, 2 Ch. Cas. 8 799 Walbridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. R 650 Walburn v. Ingilby, 1 M. &K 61 Walcot v. Walker, 7 Ves. 1 Walden v. Bodley, 14 Pet. 156 374, 670 v. Bodley's Heirs, 9 How. 34,48 1297 v. Craig, 14 Pet. 147, 151 855, 856, 857 v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 577, 588 170 Walker, In re, 96 Fed. R 550 1113 Walker v. Collins, 50 Fed. R. 737 876 v. Collins, 59 Fed. R 70 268, 641 v. Easterby, 6 Ves. 612 755 v. Houghteling (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R 513 v. Jackson, 2 Atk. 625 v. Lea, 47 Fed. R 645 v. O'Neill, 38 Fed. R 374 v. Parker, 5 Cranch, C. C. 639 638, 647, 650 v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245 207, 208, 219, 288, 301 v. Richards, 55 Fed. R 129 912, 125 228 476 236, 1238 4 759 911 - v. Smith, 21 How. 579 - v. State H. Com'rs, 17 Wall. 925 483 648 667 v. U. S., 4 Wall. 163 1811, 1212 v. Walker, 82 N. Y. 260 426 v. Wild, 1 Madd. 528 571 clxvi TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Walker v. Windsor Nat. Bank (C.C.A.).56Fed.R.76 860,875,1380 Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564 833, 842 Walkley v. Muscatine, 6 Wall. 481 33 Wall, Ex parte, 107 U. S. 265 816 Wall v. Chesapeake, etc. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. E. 398 258 v. Cox, 181 U. S. 244 1085, 1103 - — v. Thomas, 41 Fed. R. 620 168, 171, 174, 176 Walla Walla City v. Walla Walla Water Works Co., 172 U. S. 1 62 Wallace v. Anderson, 5 Wheat. 291 853 v. Chicago & E. S. Co., 46 111. App. 571 611 v. Douglas, 116 N. C. 659 1024 v. Holmes, 9 Blatchf. C. C. 65 173 v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146 1, 540, 546, 547 v. McConnell, 13 Peters, 136 20, 858 v. Wallace, Halst. (N. J.) Dig. 173 346 Waller v. Harris, 7 Paige (N.Y.), 167 707 Wallis v. Hodgeson, 2 Atk. 56 593 Wallworth v. Holt, 4 Mylne & Cr. 619 1, 155, 163 Walmsley v. Child, 1 Ves. Sen. 343 240 Walser v. Seligman, 13 Fed. R. 415 36 Walsh v. Memphis, C. & N. W. R. Co., 6 Fed. R. 797 179 v. Meyer, 111 U. 8. 31 1216 v. Preston, 109 U. S. 297 175 v. Trevannion, 16 Simons, 178 707 Walsington v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578 1363 Walter v. N. E. R. Co., 147 U. S. 370 54 Walter A. Wood Co. v. Minne- apolis E. H Co., 61 Fed. R. 256 59 v. Skinner, 139 U. S. 293 1186, 1188 Walter Baker & Co. v. Baker, 89 Fed. R 673 417 Walther, In re, 95 Fed. R. 941 1147 Walton v. Coulson, 1 McLean, 125 145 v. Crowley, 3 Blatchf. 440 477 v. Herbert, 3 Green, Ch. (N. J.) 73 237, 248 v. Johnson, 15 Sim. 352 491, 553 v. Marietta Chair Co., 157 U. S. 342 1231 v. U. S., 9 Wheat 651 889, 890 Wanamaker v. Enterprise Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R. 791 473 Wanata, The, 95 U. S. 600 974, 1248 Warax v. Cincinnati. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 72 Fed. R. 637 925 Warburton v. L. & B. Ry. Co., S Beav. 253 506 Ward, Ex parte, 173 U. S. 452 834 Ward v. Arredondo, Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) R. 213 706 v. Arredondo, 1 Paine, 410 170 v. Blake Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 437 194, 1284 v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430 1177 7. Chamberlain, 21 How. 572 979 v. Cochran (G C. A.), 71 Fed. R. 127 644 v. Congress Const. Co. (C. C. A.), 99 Fed. R 598 914, 919 v. Gregory, 7 Pet. 633 1160 v. Hill, 4 Gray (Mass.), 593 672 v. Joslin (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R 224 332 v. San Diego L. & W. Co., 79 Fed. R. 656, 657; S. C., 94 Fed. R. 849 178 v. Seabry, 4 Wash. 426 258 Wardens, etc. of St. Luke's Church v. Sowles, 51 Fed. R. 609 61 Wardle v. Claxton, 9 Sim. 412 490 Ware v. Grand J. W. W. Co., 2 Russ. & M. 470 485 v. Regents Canal Co., 3 De G. & J. 212 455 v. Ware, 42 Ga. 408 515 Waring v. Crane, 2 Paige (N. Y), 79 125 Warmouth, Ex parte, 17 Wall. 64 812, 853 Warne, In re, 10 Fed. R. 377 ' 1147 Warner v. New Orleans, 167 U. S. 467 1177,1178 v. Norton, 20 How. 448 1288 v. Spooner, 3 Fed. R 890 1129 v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 920 1331 Warner V. S. Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 38 393, 395, 410, 483 Warren, The (Blatchf ord, J.), 25 Fed. R. 782 985 Warren, Ex parte,10 Ves. 622 516, 564 Warren v. Fake, 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 430 518 v. Moody, 9 Fed. R. 673 376, 809 v. W. Y. Ry. Co., 6 Bissell, 425 916 v. Younger, 18 Fed. R. 859 864 Warren F. Co. v. Warner Bros. Co., 92 Fed. R 990 223 Warthen v. Brantley, 5 Ga. 571 218 TABLE OF CASES. clxvii References are to pages. Wartnaby v. Wartnaby, Jac. 377 126 Wasatch Min. Co. v. Creston Min. Co., 148 TJ. S. 283 206 Washburn, In re, 99 Fed. R. 84 1094, 1098 Washburn & M. Mfg. Co. v. Cin- cinnati B. W. F. Co., 42 Fed. E. 675 627 v. Colwell S. B. F. Co., 1 Fed. R. 225 438 v. Freeman Wire Co., 41 Fed. R 410 627 v. H. B. Scott & Co., 22 Fed. R. 710 310, 379, 473 Washington v. Columbus & C. M. R Co., 53 Fed. R. 673 924 Washington Bridge Co. v. Stew- art, 3 How. 413 795, 1275, 1279, 1298 Washington, City of, 13 Blatchf. 410 740, 743 Washington City Sav. Bank v. Thornton, 83 Va. 157 210 Washington Co. Nat. Bank v. Lee, 112 Mass. 521 595 Washington & G. R. Co., In re, 140 U. S. 91 815, 1291, 1293 Washington & G. R. Co. v. Dis- trict of Columbia, 146 U. S. 227 52 v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 571 1280, 1291 Washington & Idaho R. Co. v. Cceur d'Alene Ry. & Nav. Co., 160 U. S. 77 909 Washington Ins. Co. v. Slee, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 365, 368 394 Washington M. Co. v. District of Columbia, 137 U. S. 62 1261 Washington R. R. v. Bradleys, 10 Wall. 303 386, 1255 Washington Tr. R Co. v. Mc- Dade, 135 U. S. 554, 571 875 Waskern v. Diamond, Hempst. 701 641 Waterhouse v. Comer, 55 Fed. R 149 550 Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252 152, 177 Waters v. Barrill, 131 TJ. a lxxxiv 1233 v. Carroll, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 102 570 Waterson v. Payne, 154 U. S. 534 1292 Waterton v. Croft, 5 Simons, 502 259, 260 Waterville v. Van Slyke, 115 U. 8. 290 1263 Watkins, Ex parte, 3 Pet. 193 831, 834, 835 Watkins v. Atchison, 10 Hare Ap. xlvi 625 Watkins v. Stone, 2 Simons, 49 303 v. U. S., 9 Wall. 759 597 Watson, In re, v. Freeman, 6 Curt. 491 860 Watson v. Asbury Pk. & B. St Ry. Co., 73 Fed. R. 1 923 v. Bondurant, 2 Woods, 166 461 v. Freeman, 6 Curtis, 491 860 v. Smith, 7 Fed. R 350 338 v. Stevens (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R 31, 35 788, 1295 v. Sutherland, 5 Wall. 74 35, 468 v. Tarpley, 8 How. 517 878, 879, 881 v. Ulbrich, 18 Neb. 186 701 v. U. S. Sugar Refinery (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R. 769 179, 200, 213 Watt v. Starke, 101 U. S. 247 672, 676, 677, 678 v. Watt, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 371 Watts v. Waddle, 1 McLean, 200 278 170, 1281 667 612 744 v. Waddle, 6 Pet. 389 v. Womack, 44 Ala. 605 Wavelet, The, 25 Fed. R 733 Waxelbaum, In re, 98 Fed. R. 589 1083 Way Tai, In re, 96 Fed, R 484 837 Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 121, 901, 1177 Wead v. Millersburg H. W.Co., 79 Fed. R. 129 " 748 Weale v. West Middlesex Wa- ter Works Co., 1 Jac. & Walk. 358 167 Weaver v. Alter, 3 Woods, 152 381, 384 v. Kelly, 92 Fed. R 417 66, 70 v. Livingston, Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.)595 276 v. Norway Tack Co., 80 Fed. R 700 50 Webb, The, 14 Wall. 406 974 Webb. In re, 98 Fed. R. 404 1146 ■ , Shelf, on Lun. 417 126 Webb v. Byng, 8 De G., M. & G. 633 " 147 v. Dill, 18 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 264 424 v. Pell, 3 Paige (N. Y), 368 794 v. Powers, 2 W. & M. 497, 510 341, 475, 477 v. TJ. S., 20 Ct. CI. 487 1003 v. York (Q C. A), 74 Fed. R 753 848, 1166, 1193 Webber v. Bishop, 12 Fed. R 49 932, 959 v. Humphreys, 5 Dill. 223 918. 919 Weber v. Lee County, 6 Wall. 210 " 818, 825 clxviii TABLE OF OASES. References are to pages. Weber v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 45 Fed. R 657 930 Webster v. Cooper, 14 How. 488 878 v. Crothers, 1 Dili. 301 954 Webster L. Co. v. Higgins, 13 Blatchf. 349 374, 375 v. Higgins, 43 Fed. R 673 687, 782 389 935 752 638 540 14 861 13 275 219 1201 v. Short, 10 Off. Gaz. 1019 Wedekind v. So. Pac. Co., 36 Fed. R. 279, 281 Weed v. Central Ga. Ry. Co., 100 Fed. R. 162 v. Kellogg, 6 McLean, 44 Weeks v. Weeks, 106 N. Y. 626 Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U. S. 314 325 Weid'e v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 3 Chic. L. N. 353 Weidenfeld v. Sugar Run R. Co., 48 Fed. R. 615 Weightman v. Powell, 2 De G. & S. 570 Weir v. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Fed. R 940 Welch v. Mandeville, 7 Cranch, 152 Weller v. J. B. Pace T. Co., 32 Fed. R. 860 922, 924 Welles v. Graves, 41 Fed. R. 459 174 Wellesley v. Mornington, 11 , Beav. 181 501 v. Wellesley, 4 Myl. & Cr. . 554 " 295, 301 Wellford v. Miller, 1 Cranch, C. C. 485 Welling v. La Bau, 34 Fed. R 40 v. La Bau, 35 Fed. R. 302 Wells v. Cruger, 5 Paige (N. Y), 164 v. Higgins, 132 N. Y. 459 v. Lohmiller, 74 Fed. R. 33 v. McGregor, 13 Wall. 188 v. Oregon Ry. & N. Co., 15 Fed. R 561; S. C, 8 Sawyer, 600 v. S. & P. Guano Co., 89 Va. 708 v. Southern Min. Ry. Co., 1 Fed. R. 270 v. Strange, 5 Ga. 22 v. Wilkins, 116 U. S. 393 v. Wood, 10 Ves. 401 Wells, F. & Co. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R. 469 Welsbach Lt. Co. v. Cosmopol- itan Inc. G. L. Co., 100 Fed.R. 648 471 v. Mahler, 88 Fed. R 427 658 v. Rex I. L Co., 87 Fed. R. 477 224 Wenberg v. A Cargo of Mineral Phosphate, 15 Fed. R 285 985 645 690 715 277 559 277 1202 196 212 534 238 1256 375 487 ,472 Wenham v. Switzer, 48 Fed. R. 612 628 Werden v. Serls, 121 U. S. 14 1282 Werder, In re, 15 Fed. R. 789 537, 1123 Werner v. Murphy, 60 Fed. R 769 52, 53, 555, 562 Wert v. Skip, 1 Vesey, 218 776 Wertneim v. Continental Ry. & Tr. Co., 15 Fed. R 716 593 Wescott v. Fairfield, Pet. C. C. 45 66 West v. Duncan, 42 Fed. R 430 154, 176 v. Home Ins. Co., 18 Fed. . R. 622 806 v. Irwin, 54 Fed. R 419, 420 1253 v. Randall, 2 Mason, 181, 200 164, 165, 171, 192, 210, 300 ■ v. Reynolds, 35 Fla. 317, 17 S. R 740 287 v. Smith, 3 Beav. 306 448 West Chicago St. R Co. v. Ells- worth (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R 664 1265 West Co. v. Lea, 174 U. S. 590 1091, 1094 West Portland H. Ass'n v. Lownsdale, 17 Fed. R 205 314 West Pub. Co. v. Lawyers' Co- operative Pub. Co., 64 Fed. R 360; s. O., 79 Fed. R 756 475 West Wisconsin R. Co. v. Foley, 94 U. S. 100 1292 Westbrook's Trusts, In re, L. R. 11 Eq. 252 447 Westcomb v. Westcomb,l Dick. 233 146 Westcott v. Cady, 5 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 334, 342 406 v. Mulvane, 58 Fed. R 305 506 Westerly Waterworks v. Town of Westerly, 77 Fed. R. 783 504 v. Westerly Water Works, 76 Fed. R 467; s. C, 22 C. C. A. 278 511 Western A. L. Cons. Co. v. Mo Allis, 127 U. S. 776 1247, 1257 Western & A. R Co. v. Rober- son (C. C. A.), 61 Fed; R 592 585 Western Elec. Co. v. Reedy, 66 Fed. R. 163 280 v. Williams-Abbott EI. Co., 83 Fed. R. 842 197, 225 Western Metropolis, The, 12 Wall. 389 1277 Western Nat. Bank v. Arm- strong, 152 U. S. 346 172 Western Pacific R Co. v. U. S., 108 U. S. 510 26 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 50 Fed. R 662 655, 656, 689 TABLE OF OASES. clxix References are to pagea. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 178 U. S. 239 57, 62 v. Atl. & Pac. Tel. Co., 7 Biss. 367 543 v. Brown, 32 Fed. R 337 77, 922, 926 927 v. Burlington & S. W. Ry. ' Co., 11 Fed. R. 1 499 v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 93 680 v. City Council, 56 Fed. R 419, 420 47, 52 v. Cook (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R 624 v. Norman, 77 Fed. R 13 v. Poe, 61 Fed. R 449 v. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565 v. St Joseph & W. Ry. Co., 3 Fed. R 430 v. Union Pac. R. Co., 3 Fed. R 721 479, 498 v. "White, 102 Fed. R 709 56 v. Wood (C. C. A.), 57 Fed. R471 v. Wyatt, 98 Fed. R. 335 Western Wheel Scraper Co. v. Drenner, 79 Fed. R 830 Westinghouse v. Carpenter, 43 Fed. R 894 31, 474, 505 Westinghouse A. B. Co. v. Bur- ton S. Car Co. (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R. 301 v. Carpenter, 32 Fed. R 484 v. Great N. Ry. Co., 86 Fed. R 132 v. Great N. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. R 258 Westinghouse El. & Mfg. Co. v. Stanley, 65 Fed. R. 321 305, 325 Westinghouse El. & N. Co v. Mustard, 87 Fed. R. 336 388 Westley v. Williamson, 2 Mol- loy, 458 752 Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 1184 v. Empire Assurance Cor- poration, L. R 6 Eq. 23 202 v. Haggerston, G. Cooper, 134 779 Wetherby v. Stinson, 62 Fed. R 193 65 Wetmore, In re, 99 Fed. R 703 1146 Wetmorev.Rymer,169U.S.115 112, 660 v. Scovell,3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 515 453 v. St. Paul & P. R Co., 3 Fed. R 177 671, 716 v. U. S., 10 Pet. 647 593 Wetzler v. Schaumann, 24 N. J. Eq. 60 Whalen v. Gordon (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R. 305 v. Sheridan, 10 Fed. R 661 879 54 54 1212 479 879 143 1246 473 31 473 257 698 56 889 840 287 Wharam v. Broughton, 1 Ves. Sr. 185 394 Wheaton v. Love, 1 Cranch, C. C. 451 638, 642 Wheel Co. v. Curtis, 53 Fed. R 247 472 Wheeler's Case, 5 Ct. CI. 504 1025 Wheeler v. Cloyd, 134 U.S. 537 1215 v. Harris, 13 Wall. 51 1207, 1256 v. McCormack, 4 Fish. Pat. Cas. 433; s. C, 8 Blatchf. 267 81. 310, 311, 312, 327, 331, 333, 704 v. Sedgwick, 94 U. S. 1 1283 v. Smith, 81 Fed. R 319 562 v. Williamson, 14 Am. Law Reg. 5 Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. v. Filer, 52 N. J. Eq. 164 Wheeling & B. Br. Co. v. Wheel- ing Br. Co., 138 U. S. 287 907, 1203, 1204 Wheeling Br. & T. R Co. v. Cochran (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R 141 524, 1238 Wheelwright v. St. Louis, N. O. & O. Canal Co., 50 Fed. R 709 18, 22, 78, 263 Whelan v. N. Y., L E. & W. R Co., 35 Fed. R 849 54, 944, 945 Whippany Mfg. Co. v. United I. F. Co. (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R 215 472 Whipple v. Cumberland C. Mfg. Co., 3 Story, 84 745, 746 v. Hutchinson, 4 Blatchf. 190 Whistler, The, 13 Fed. R 295 Whistler v. Webb, Bunb. 53 Whitbeck v. Edgar, 2 Barb. Ch. 106 186, 218 Whitbread v. Brockhurst, 1 Brown, Ch. C. 404, 416, note 9; s. C, 2 Ves. & Bea. 154, note Whitcomb v. Hooper (C. C. A.), 81 Fed. R. 946 v. Smithson, 175 U. S. 635 501 977 159 303 White, In re, 45 Fed. R 237 White v. Arthur, 10 Fed. R. 80 551 925, 1262 846 904, 905 v. Berry, 171 U. S. 366 36, 462 v. Bishop of Peterborough, 3 Swanst. 109 v. Bower, 48 Fed. R 186 v. Boyce, 21 Fed. R 228 v. Bromley, 20 How. 235 — v. Buloid, 2 Paige (N. Y), 164 v. Butler, 17-1 U. S. 379 v. Ewing, 159 U. S. 36 47, 63, 73, 554 v. Foljambe, 11 Ves. 337 720 v. Hess, 8 Paige (N. Y), 544 610 537 379 35 607 462 clxx TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. White v. Hillacre, 3 T. & C. 597 162 v. Hunter, 47 Fed. R. 819 471 v. Iowa Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 71 Fed. R 91 1225 v. Keokuk & D. M. Ry. Co., 52 Iowa, 97 * 580 v. Lisle, 3 Swanst. 342 673, 676 v. McClellan, 62 Md. 347 262 v. Miller, 158 U. S. 128 145, 409 v. National Bank, 102 IT. S. 658 880 v. Rankin, 144 U. S. 628 59 v. St. Guirons, Minor (Ala.), 331 593, 594 v. Schloerb, 178 U. S. 542 17, 22, 25, 87, 1085 v. The Renaier, 45 Fed. R 773 977 — - v. Toledo, St. L. & K. O. R. Co., 79 Fed. R. 133 121, 634 v. U. S., 1 Black, 501 815 v. U. S., 19 Ct. CI. 436 1026 v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R 251 1199 v. U. S., 1 Wall. 660 1073 v. Whitman, 1 Curt. 494 310 v. Zust, 28 N. J. Eq. 107 694 White's Adm'r v. U. S., 1 Black, 501 1066 White Dental Mfg. Co. v. John- son, 56 Fed. R 262 472 Whitehead v. Kitson, 119 Mass. 484 485 v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146 8, 12, 14 Whitehouse v. Partridge, 3 Swanst. 365, 377 580 Whitelegg v. Whitelegg, 1 Brown, Ch. C. 57 497 Whiteley v. Central Ir. Co. (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. R. 74 533 Whitener, In re (C. C. A), 105 Fed. R. 180 1085, 1103, 1153, 1154 Whiteside v. Hazleton, 110 U. S. v 296 1264 Whitesides v. Lafferty, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 150 557 Whitfield, Ex parte, 2 Atk. 315 564 Whitfield v. Fausset, 1 Ves. Sen. 392 240 Whitford v. Clark Co., 119 U. S. 522 638 Whiting v. Bank of U. S., 13 Pet. 6 395, 703, 709, 786, 787, 792, 793, 795, 796, 1204 v. Equitable L. A. Soc, 60 Fed. R. 197 890, 1254 Whitman v. Hubbell, 30 Fed. R 81 51 Whitmore, Ex parte, 1 Dick. 143 ' 580 Whitney, Ex parte, 13 Pet. 404 816 Whitney v. Belden, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 140 712 Whitney v. Buckman, 26 Cal. 447 ' 515 Cook, 99 IX S. 607 1262, 1263 120 . Cook, 131 U. S. cxcvii . Fairbanks, 54 Fed. R 985 . Fox, 166 U. S. 637 . Hubbell, 30 Fed. R 81 Huntt, 5 Cranch, C. C. 1291 201, 220 613 161 643 203 595 58 340 3 343 v. Nat. Ex. Bank, 84 Fed. R. 377 698 v. U. S., 18 Ct. CI. 19 1019, 1049 v. U. S.. 167 U. S. 529 587 v. Wilder (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R. 554 459 460 Whitney Nat. Bank v. Parker. 41 Fed. R 402, 406 Whiton v. Albany Ins. Co., 109 Mass. 30 Whittemore t. Amoskeag Nat. Bank, 134 U. S. 527 v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 429 v. Farrington, 76 N. Y. 452 —i— v. Patten, 84 Fed. R 51 Whittelsey v. U. S., 5 Ct. CI. 452 1U03 Whitten, Ex parte, 67 Fed. R 230 836 Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 U. a 231 841,843,845,1249 Whittenton v. M. & O. R P. Co., 19 Fed. R 273 953, 954 Whittingham v. Burgoyne, 3 Anst. 900 v. Woler, 2 Swanst. 428, n. Whittle v. Artis, 55 Fed. R 919 Whittlesey v. Delaney, 73 N. Y. 571 Whitton, Ex parte, 13 Ch. D.881 , 134 U. S. 881 Whorewood v. Whorewood, 1 Ch. Cas. 250 Whyte v. Gibbes, 20 How. 541 Wichita Nat. Bank v. Smith (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R. 568 61, 911 Wickelman v. A. B. Dick Co. (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R. 851 433, 1238 Wickham v. Hull, 60 Fed. R. 326 19 Wickliffe v. Hill, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 330 593, 594 v. Owings, 27 How. 47, 52 306 v. Owings, 17 How. 47 306, 1279 Widmeyer v. Felton, 95 Fed. R. 926 563 Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & Miss. Ry. Co., 142 U. S. 396 1255, 1289 Wight;, In re, 134 V. S. 136 449, 891 Wight v. Roethlisberger, 116 Mich. 41 ; s. C, 74 N. W. R 474 234 Wighton v. Brainerd, 28 Fed. R 29 726 Wilcox v. Henry, 1 Dall. 69 122 v. Jackson, 13 Pet 498 137 294 510 65 552 449 1128 799 1293 TABLE OF CASES. clxxi References axe to pages. Wilcox & Gibbs Guano Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (D. S. C), 69 Fed. R. 929 v. Phenix Ins. Co., 61 Fed. R. 199 Wilde v. Gibson, 1 H. of L. Cases, 605 Wilder, In re, 101 Fed. R. 104 Wilder v. Keeler, 23 Paige (N. Y.), 164 434, 683 v. McCormick, 2 Blatohf. 31 224, 283 v. New Orleans (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R '843 551 v. Virginia T. & C. S. & I. Co., 46 Fed. R. 676 923, 924 935 802 205 1129 808 57 470 148 503 432 552 464 197 411 Wile v. Cohn, 63 Fed. R 759 Wiley v. Sinker, 179 U. S. 58 Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422 v. Fry, 1 Mer. 244, 262 v. Jordan, 3 Wash. C. C. 226 Wilkinson v. Belsher, 2 Brown, Ch. C. 272 v. Culver, 25 Fed. R. 639 v. Dobbie, 12 Blatchf. 298 v. Dodd, 42 N. J. Eq. 234 v. Fowkes. 9 Hare, 193 Willamette, The (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 874 967, 976 Willamette Valley, The (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 565 22 Willard v. Serfell, 63 Fed. R. 625 725, 754 v. Tayloe, 8 Wall. 557, 571 4, 172 v. Wood, 135 U. S. 309 15, 874, 879 Willcox v. Bellaers, T. & R. 491 William Bagaley, The, 5 Wall. 377 William Cox, The. 9 Fed. R. 672 Williams, In re, 37 Fed. R 335 , 99 Fed. R 544 (C. C. A), 105 Fed. R. 906 Williams v. Armroyd, 7 Cranch, 423, 432 316 v. Bank of U. a, 11 Wheat. 414 v. Bankhead. 19 Wall. 563 v. Benedict, 8 How. 107, 1 12 v. Boston & A. R Co., 17 Blatoh. 21 v. Brownhead, 19 Wall. 563 . v. Bruffy, 102 U. S. 248 v. Claflin, 103 IT. S. 753J v. Conger, 131 IT. S. 390 v. Cooke, 10 Ves. 406 v. Corwin, Hopkins Ch. 471 720 1274 724 745 1084 1156 1218 176 19 339 170 1296 1243 1275 397 274, 279 353 198 882 — v. Davies, 1 Sim. & S. 426 — v. Douglas, 5 Beav. 82 — v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304 — v. Empire Tr. Co., 1 N. J. L. J. 315 306, 308 1 Williams v. Gaylord (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R. 372 883 v. Gibbes, 20 How. 535 355 v. Groat, 73 Fed. R. 59 534 v. Heard, 140 U. S. 529 1159 v. Hintermeister, 26 Fed. R. 889 25, 521 v. Jackson, 107 U. S. 478, 484 670 v. Massachusetts Ben. Ass'n, 47 Fed. R. 533 933, 937 v. Mellish, 1 Vern. 117, n. 795 v. Mitchell (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R 168 1232 v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684 5, 159, 435, 445, 700, 1216 v. Nottawa, 104 IT. S. 209 659, 660, 661 v. Price, 4 Price, 156, 160 673 v. IT. S., 137 U. S. 113 607, 608 v. U. S., 138 U. S. 514, 516 3, 143, 175, 203, 206 v. Walker, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 291 v. Williams, 9 Mod. 299 Williams & Co., In re, 1 Lowell, 406 Williams, M. & R. Co. v. Ray- nor, 7 Biss. 245 Williamson v. Gordon, 19 Ves. 114 v. Krohn, 66 Fed. R. 655 v. Wilson, 1 Bland (Md.), 418 556, 557, 568 Willian v. Willian, 16 Ves. 72, 87 792 Willings v. Consequa, Pet. C. C. 301 Willis v. Buoher, 3 Wash. C. C. 369 v. Eastern Tr. & B. Co., 167 IT. S. 76 v. Willis, 42 W. Va. 522; S. C, 26 S. E. R. 515 v. Pauly, 51 Fed. R. 257 Wilmington v. Ricaud (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. R. 212 Washington & W. R Co. v. Als- brook, 146 U. S. 279 v. Board of R. Com'rs, 90 Fed. R 33 Wilson, Ex parte, 114 U. S. 417 243 181 1091 961 708 179 648 599 1214 661 123 1231 319 197 834, 835 Wilson, In re, 140 IT. S. 575 834, 835 Wilson v. Atlantic & St. L. R Co., 2 Fed. R 459 28 — v. Barnum, 1 Wall. Jr. 343 675 v. Blair. 119 U. S. 387 1316 v. City Bank, 3 Sumn. 423 155, 178, 194 v. Consol. Store-Service Co. (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. R 336 471, 472 v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401 49, 51, 1203, 1248 clxjrii TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. 775 1283 694 63, Wilson v. Everett, 139 U.S. 616 1281 v. Fine, 38 Fed. E. 789 806 v. Gaines, 103 U. S. 417 283 v. Ginger, 2 Dick. 521 676 v. Greenwood, 1 Swanst. 471 524, 569 v. Hurst, Pet. C. O. 441 806, 856 v. Jefferson, 78 Fed. E. 366 471 v. Kiesel, 164 U. S. 248 1220 v. Knox County, 43 Fed. R. 481 " 82 v. Koontz, 7 Cranoh, 202 313 v. Lambert, 168 U. S. 611 29, 458 v. Life & Fire Ins. Co., 12 Pet. 140 1218, 1229 v. Luke, 1 Vict. Law R 127 476 v. Martin, etc. Co., 151 v.McNamee, 102 TJ. S. 572 v. N. Y. Mut. L. I. Co., 65 Fed. R. 381 v. Oswego Tp., 151 TJ. S. 56 912 923 v. Owens (C. C. A.), 86 Fed. R 571 586 v. Perrin (C. C. A.), 62 Fed. R 629 883 v. Riddle, 123 IT. S. 608 675, 676 v„ Sandford, 10 How. 99 59 v. Seligman (U. S. C. C. S. D. N. Y., 1880), 10 Rep. 651 392 v. Smith, 66 Fed. R. 81 918 v. Stolley,4McLean,275 195,365, 497 v. Todd, 1 M. & C. 42 181 — — v. Union Saving Ass'n, 30 Fed. R 521 922, 924 v. U. S., 1 Ct. CI. 318 1026 v. Watson, Pet. C. C. 269 856 v. W. U. TeL Co., 34 Fed. R. 561 912, 932 v. Wilson, 1 J. & W. 459 186 v. Winchester & P. R. Co., 82 Fed. R. 15 Wilton v. Jones, 2 Y. & C. 244 Winans v. New York & Erie R. Co., 21 How. 88 644, 649, 650 Winberg v. Berkeley Co. Ey. Ex. Co. (S. D. N. Y.), 29 Fed. R721 Winchester v. Davis Pyrites Co. (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. E. 45 v. Heiskell, 119 U. S. 450 v. Loud, 108 U. S. 130 Winchester, Bishop of, v. Four- nier, 2 Ves. Sen. 445, 446 673, 715 Winder v. Caldwell, 14 How. 434 853, 854 Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274 316, 318 Winegar v. Cahn, 29 Fed. R. 676 728 Wing v. Fairhaven, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 363 495, 510. 934 159 935 1158 922 Winn v. Jackson, 12 Wheat. 135 1801 v. Patterson, 9 Pet. 663 594 Winnisinimet Co. v. U. S., 12 Ct. CI. 319 , 1005, 1017 Winship v. Jewett, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 173 | 277 Winslow v. Nayson, 113 Mass. 411 Winter v. Ludlow, 3 Phila. 464 510 182, 253 656 755 648 63 825 805 791 v. Simonton, 3 Cranch, C. C. 104 - — v. Swinburne, 8 Fed. E 49 63, 73 Winters v. Drake, 102 Fed. E 545 929 v.Ethell,132U. S.207 1207,1227 Winthrop v. Murray, 7 Hare, 150 657 v. Royal Exch. Ass. Co., 1 Dickens, 282 v. Union Ins. Co., 2 Wash. 7 Winthrop Iron Co. v. Meeker, 109 U. S. 180 1205, 1207 Wirt v. Hicks, 46 Fed. R 71 223 Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321 1161 Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265 43, 122 Wisconsin ex rel. v. Bowles Milling Co., 80 Fed. R. 161 Wisdom v. Memphis, 2 Flip. 285 Wise v. Allis, 9 Wall. 737 Wiser v. Blachly, 2 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 488 Wisner v. Barnet, 4 Wash. C. C. 631, 642 148, 171, 289 Wiswell v. Starr, 48 Me. 401 567 Withenbury v. U. S., 5 Wall. 819 1208 Witters v. Foster, 26 Fed. R 737 868 v. Sowles, 31 Fed. R 5 691, 779, 782 Woerishoffer, In re (C. O. A.), 74 Fed. R 911 1240 Wolcott v. Aspen M. & S. Co., 34 Fed. E821 918,919 v. Sprague, 55 Fed. R 545 55, 65, 912, 930 v. Watson, 46 Fed. R 529, 532 942 Wolf, In re, 98 Fed. E 84 1136 Wolf v. Cook, 40 Fed. E 432 809, 858 v. Insurance Co. (D. Mich.), 1 Flip. 377 v. Rabaud, 1 Pet. 476 v. Stix, 96 U. S. 991 Wolfe Tone's Case, Green Bag, vol. V, p. 662 Wolff, In re, 100 Fed. R 430 Wolff v. Archibald, 14 Fed. R 369 v. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 358 Wolfson v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R 430; S. a, 102 Fed. R 134 615 724 881 1158 837 1143 927 818 TABLE OF OASES. clxxiii References are to pages. 861 369 Wollensak v. Eeiher, 115 U. S. 96 225, 230, 288, 289 Wolverton v. Laoey, 18 Law R (N. S.) 672 Womersley v. Merritt, L. R. 4 Eq. 695 Wonderly v. Lafayette County, 74 Fed. R. 702 854, 855, 856 Wood, In re, 98 Fed. R. 972 1146 Wood v. Beadell, 3 Sim. 273 490 v. Brady, 150 U. S. 18 882 v. Brush, 140 U, S. 278; S. C, 140 U. S. 370 842 v. Collins. 60 Fed. R. 139 302, 379 v. Davis, 18 How. 467 63 v. District of Columbia, 6 Mackey (D. C), 142 830 v. Dumtner,3Mason,815 164,210 v. Griffith, 1 Meriv. 35 783 v. Guarantee Tr. & S. D. Co., 128 IT. S. 416 525, 536 v. Lide, 4 Cranch, 180 1233, 1249 v. Mann, 1 Sumn. 506 305, 306, 323 — — v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 316 591, 628, 630 v. N. Y. & N. E. R. Co., 61 Fed. R. 236 554 v. Oregon Dev. Co., 55 Fed. R 901 568 v. Paine, 66 Fed. R. 807 37 v.Richards, 131 U.S. xcviii 1247 v. Strickland, 2 Mer. 461 591 v. Swift, 81 N. Y. 31 243 v. Weimar, 104 U. S. 786 1283 v. Wood, 4 Russ. 558 564 Wood County v. Lackawanna I. & C. Co., 93 U. S. 619 1283 Woodard, In re, 95 Fed* R. 955 1137, 1149, 1160 Woodbridge & T. Eng. Co. v. Ritter, 70 Fed. R. 677 Woodbury, In re, 7 Fed. R. 705 Woodbury v. Allegheny & K. R. Co., 72 Fed. R. 371 Woodbury P. Mach. Co. v. Keith, 101 U. S. 479 Woodgate v. Field, 2 Hare, 211, 213 Woodruff, In re, 96 Fed. R. 317 Woodruff v. Cheeves (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R. 601 1085, 1137 v. Dubuque & S. C. R. Co., 30 Fed. R 91 344 v. North Bloomfield G. M. Co., 16 Fed. R. 25 214 v. North Bloomfield G. M. Co., 18 Fed. R. 753 457, 466 v. North Bloomfield G. M. Co., 45 Fed. R. 129 Woodruff and Bouchard's Case, 7 Ct. CI. 605 Woodrum v. Clay, 33 Fed. R. 897 Woods, In re, 143 17. S. 202, 206 606 736 22 341 437 1145 766 1030 926 1178 Woods v. Lindvall, 48 Fed. R. 73 891, 894 v. Monroe, 17 Mich. 238 5 v. Morrell, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 103 196, 342, 358 v. Woods, 10 Sim. 197 418 v. Woodson (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R. 515 266 — - v. Young, 4 Cranch, 237 1288 Woodside v. Ciceroni (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R. 1 52, 600 Woodside Coal Co., In re, 105 Fed. R 56 1087 , Woodward v. Boston L. M. Co., 63 Fed. R. 609 231 v. Brown, 13 Pet. 1 1254 Bullock, 27 N. J. Eq. 507 698 Hall, 2 Cranch, C. C. 235 642 v. Jewell, 140 U. S. 247 1211, 1212 887 412 v. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453 v. Woodward, 1 Dick. 33 Wood worth v. Edwards, 3 W. & M. 120 v. Hall, 1 W. & M. 248 v. Hall, 1 W. & M. 389 v, Sherman, 3 Story, 171 v. Stone, 3 Story, 749 Woolf v. Chisolm, 30 Fed. R 881 Woollam v. Hearn, 7 Ves. 211, 222 Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. R650 67; 144, 951 Woolsey v. Judd, 4 Duer (N. Y.), 379 Woolstein v. Welch, 42 Fed. R, 566 Wooslin v. Cooper (N. J. Cb., 1897), 36 Atl. R. 281 Wooster v. Blake, 7 Fed. R 816 v. Clark, 9 Fed. R. 854 v. Gumbirnner, 20 Fed. R. 167 684, 687 v. Handy, 23 Fed. R. 49 718, 726, 727,728,750,751 v. Hill, 44 Fed. R 819 745 v. Sidenberg, S. D. N. Y, Nov. 6, 1889 v. Woodhull, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 539 Worcester v. Truman, 1 Mc- Lean, 483 Worcester County, In re (C. C. A). 102 Fed. R 808 1154, 1156, 1226 Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14, 26 767. 769, 1160 Workman v. New York, 179 U. S. 553 884 Works v. Junction R Co., 5 Mc- Lean, 425 466, 483 Worland, In re, 92 Fed. R. 893 1135 World's Columbian Exposition v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 654 33, 1172 503 600 504 755 415 934 670 453 207 156 333 628 627 278 765 clxxiv TABLE OF CASES. References are to pages. Wormald v. De Lisle, 3 Beav. 18 195 Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 431 63, 170 Wormser v. Dahlman, 16 Blatchf. 319 931 Worthington v. Mason, 101 U. S. 149 891,893 v. Scribner, 109 Mass. 487, 493 290 v. Waring, 157 Mass. 421 469 Wortley v. Birkhead, 2 Ves.Sen. 571 789 Wray v. Hutchinson, 2 M & K. 235 370, 372 v. U. S., 19 Ct. CI. 154 1019 Wren v. Kirton, 11 Ves. 377 556 v. Spencer O. Mfg. Co., 18 Off. Gaz. 857 358 v. Weild, L. R. 4 Q. B. 730 485 Wright, In re, 96 Fed. R 820 1156, 1227 , 95 Fed. R. 807 1133 Wright v. Atkyns, 1 V. & B. 313 490 v. Castle, 3 Meriv. 12 657 v. Dame, 1 Met. (Mass.) 237 296 627, v. Frank, 61 Miss. 32 385 v. Hollingsworth, 1 Pet. 165 1287 v. Howard, 1 Sim. & S. 190 720, v. Kentucky & G. E. Ry. Co., 117 U. S. 72 v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 1 Fiippin, 568 722 531 517 . Phipps, 58 Fed. R. 552 395, 963 v. Tatham, 2 Sim. 459 v. Tebbits, 91 U. S. 252 v. Wells, 1 Pet C. C. 220 Wroe v. Clayton, 16 Simons, 183 Wrotesley v. Bendish, 3 P. Wms. 235 Wych v. Meal, 3 P. Wms. 310 Wyckoff v. Wagner T. Co., 88 Fed. R 515 Wylie v. Coxe, 15 How. 415 1023, 1255 Wvly v. Richmond & D. R Co., 63 Fed. R. 487 Wyman, In re, 45 Fed. R. 469 Wynne v. Lord Newborough, 15 Ves. 283 v. Lord Newborough, 1 Ves. Jr. 164; s. a, 3 Brown, Cb, C. 538 Wythe v. Palmer, 3 Saw. 413 625 1023 956 770 588 149 196 306, 963 1199 568 530 333 Yale College, President, etc., v. Sanger, 62 Fed. R. 177 139 Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Colbin, 14 Fed. R 269 726 834 49 47 164 934 369 180 353 1187 922 Yarborougb, Ex parte, 110 U. S. 651, 654 Yarde v. Baltimore & O. R Co., 57 Fed. R 913 Yardley v. Dickson, 47 Fed. R 835 v. Philler, 58 Fed. R 746 Yarnell v. Felton, 102 Fed. R. 369 v. Felton, 104 Fed. R 161 585, 910 Yates v. Arden, 5 Cranch, C. C. 526 v. Hambly, 2 Atk. 237, 238 v. Hardy, Jacob, 223 Yazoo & Miss. R Co. v. Adams, 180 U. S. 41 Yearlan v. Horner, 36 Fed. R 130 Yeatman v. Bradford, 44 Fed.R 536 37 73 Yeaton v. Lenox, 8 Pet. 123 207, 1296 Yellow A. M. & M. Co. v. Win- chell, 95 Fed. R 213 56 Yellow P. L. Co. v. Chapman (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. 444 889 Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line Com'rs, 146 U. S. 646 1187 Yick Wo v. Crowley, 26 Fed. R. 207 459, 468 v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 368 836 Yon ley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276 18, 19 York v. Conde, 147 N. Y. 486 1024 v. White, 10 Jurist, 168 162 v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15 271 York, Archbishop of, v. Staple- ton, 2 Atk. 136 York Co. v. Central R Co., 3 Wall. 107 York, Mayor of, v. Pilkington, 1 Atl:. 282 16" Young, Ex parte, 50 Fed. R. 526 845 Young, In re, 7 Fed. R 855 308, 563, 564 Young v. Alhambra Mine Co., 71 Fed. R 810 221 v. Amy, 171 U. S. 179 1162 v. Bryan, 6 Wheat. 146 84 v. Colt, 2 Blatohf. 373 382 v. Cushing, 4 Biss. 456 175, 176 v. Davidson, 5 Cranch, C. C. 515 639 v. Everest, 1 R. & M. 426 753 v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 9 Fed. R. 348 861, 862 v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51 341, 498, 503, 703 v. Keighly, 16 Ves. 348 789 372 650 214 TABLE OF OASES. clxxv References are to pages. Young v. Mahoning County, 51 Fed. R. 585 802 I v. Martin, 8 Wall. 354 890, 89.4 v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 29 Fed. R. 373 547, 963 . Parker's Adm'r, 133 U. S. 267 945 388 - v. Pott, 4 Wash. 521 v. U. S.,'95 U. S. 641 1288 v. Wempe, 46 Fed. R. 354 553 v. Young. 18 Minn. 90 610 Young R. L. N. Co. v. Young L. N. Co., 73 Fed. R. 62 59 Yov.att v. Winyard, 1 Jac & Walk. 394 452 Yow v. Townsend, 1 Dick. 59 779 Ysleta v. Canda, 67 Fed. R 6 67, 913 Yturbide's Ex'rs v. U. S., 23 How. 290 1079, 1080 Yuenglingv. Johnson, 1 Hughes, 607 "" 422, 492, 495 v. Schile, 12 Fed. R. 97 474 Zacher v. Fidelity Tr. & S. D. Co. (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 593 552, 563 Zadig v. Baldwin, 166 U. S. 485 1186 Zante Currants,' 73 Fed. R. 183 1199 Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617 1212 Zeigler v. Hopkins, 117 TJ. S. 683 1256 Zeller v. Switzer, 91 U. S. 487 1201 Zenbrugg v. Reed (N. J. Ch., 1896), 35 Atl. R. 298 175 Zia v. U. S., 168 U. S. 198 1059. Zeigler v. Lake St. El. R. Co., 76 Fed. R. 662 ' 315 Zimmerman v. So Relle, 80 Fed. R 417 24, 383, 310, 331, 334 Zive v. Peck, 13 Fed. R. 475 715 Zodiac, The, 5 Fed. R. 22 974, 983 Zunkel v. Litchfield, 21 Fed. R. 196 630 CITATIONS. References are to pages. U. S. CONSTITUTION. Art. L §6. §9- Page. 580. 839. Page. Art. IIL 41. §2. 5,6,135,144. > XL Amendment. 5. U. S. KEVISED STATUTES. Page: 1. 609. 103. 616. 156. 1221. 186. 852. 531. 93,98,99,100,101, 103, 105, 106, 110, 112, 118, 119. 532. 90, 106. 533. 92. 534. 93. 535. 94. 536. 96. 538. 102. 540. 105, 541. 108. 542. 108, 114. 543. 108. 544. 110. 545. 112. 546. 112. 547. 114. 548. 114, 117. 549. 118. 550. 120. 563. 87,995,996. 566. 870,981. 567. 910. 568. 910. 569. 909. 572. 92, 93, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 117, 118, 119, 120. Page. . 587. 908. 588. 908. 591. 450. 592. 450. 593. 450. 594. 450. 595. 450. 596. 450. 597. 450. 598. 450,451. 599. 450, 451. 600. 450,451. 601. 450. 602. 450, 809. 603. 450. 604. 88, 89. 605. 450. 606. 450. 608. 89, 90, 92. 609. 450. 615. 909. 616. 909. 617. 450. 618. 450. 629. 45, 46, 995. 631. 702. 636. 809. 639. 938. 641. 24,833,915. 642. 832, 950. 643. 24, 832, 833, 914, 948. 648. 870. 649. 870. 650. 110, 1177. 651. 1166. Page. § 657. 81, 705. 658. 93, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 112, 117, 118, 119, 120. 659. 1177. 664. 93. 674. 1229. 684. 88. 685. 88. 686. 88. 687. 41. 688. 44, 808, 811, 814, 991 692. 702. 693. 1177. 697. 1166. 700. 870. 701. 1278, 1290. 702. 1211, 1224. ,705. 1224, 1279. 707. 133, 134. 1053, 1167. 1211. 708. 134, 1224. 709. 1158, 1161, 1180, 1209, 1278. 710. 1182, 1269. 716. 44, 809. 812, 817, 828. ' 717. 579. 718. 244,422,490,492. 719. 447,449,493. 720. 242.459,485. 721. 16,877. 723. 8.486. CITATIONS. ClXXVll Page. Page. Page. 724. 865. § 863. 4, 617, 625, 635, § 954. 240, 333, 363. 372, 725. 491,621,760, 761. 1069. 446, 803, 806, 726. 886. 864. 625, 636. 809. 729. 81. 865. 625, 632, 636. 955. 398, 401, 867. 737. 168. 866. 622. 956. 867. 738. 706, 711. 867. 622. 966. 903. 740. 79. 868. 619, 622. 967. 896. 741. 79, 253. 869. 620. 968. 721. 742. 253. 870. 620. 969. 722. 743. 79. 871. 620. 970. 996: 744. 80. 872. 620. 983. 725, 748, 754. 745. 80. 873. 620. 984. 754. 747. 240, 326. 874. 621. 985. 759, 901, 903. 750. 717. 875. 652. 986. 759. 751. 44. 832, 948. 876. 617, 618, 745. 987. 886, 904, 7S2. 832. 877. 618. 988. 904. 753. 833, 948. 882. 593. 989. 904, 754. 840. 883. 595. 990. 579. 755. 842, 844, 884. 595. 991. 860. 756. 844. 885. 595. 992. 860. 757. 845. 886. 596. 993. 901. 758. 845. 887. 598. 994. 902. 759. 845. 888. 598. 995. 984. 760. 845. 889. 598. 997. 1248, 1272. 761. 846. 890. 599. 999. 1185, 1186. 762. 844. 891. 599. 1000. 1185, 1186, 1238, 763. 848, 849, 1166. 892. 600. 1240. 764. 847. 893. 600. 1001. 756. 765. 850. 894. 601. 1003. 1189. 768. 851. 895. 601. 1004. 1228. 783. 770. 896. 601. 1005. 1257. 784. 770. 897. 602. 1007. 1239, 1240. 785. 770. 898. 603. 1008. 758, 1159, 1227. 786. 770. ' 899. 603. 1009. 1227. 787. 758, 769, 810, 902. 900. 603, 859. 1010. 1291. 788. 758, 810. 901. 604. 1011. 1162. 799. 1233. 902. 604. 1012. 1238. 800. 803. 903. 604, 1014. 860. 824. 725. 904. 605. 1017. 1181. 827. 729. 905. 605. 1049. 999. 828. 733, 734, 735, 736, 906. 607. 1050. 999. 737, 738. 907. 608. 1051. 999. 829. 738, 739, 740, 742, 908. 608. 1053. 1000. 743,744,617. 909. 608. 1054. 1000. 832. 738. 911. 247. 617, 769, 808, 1055. 1000. 838. 729. 844, 1229. 1056. 1000. 839. 737. 912. 617,808,844,1228. 1057. 1000. 840. 736. 914. 734,801,809. 1058. 1000. 841. 737. 915. 857. 1059. 1002, 1011. 842. 737. 916. 758, 900. 1060. 1002. 843. 737. 917. 120. 1061. 1003. 844. 730, 737. 918. 121. 1062. 1003. 845. 737. 919. 995. 1063. 1004. 846. 737. 921. 861. 1064. 1004. 848. 745. 922. 251. 1065. 1004. 849. 748. 923. 771. 1066. 1010. 850. 748. 938. 996. 1067. 1010. 858. 344, 613. 940. 996. 1068. 1010, 1017. 859. 616. 941. 975. 1069. 1017. 860. 616. 945. 609. 1071. 1031. 861. 585. 948. 809. 1072. 133, 1019. 862. 585. 949. 1269. 1074. 1032, 1041. clxxviii Page. § 1075. 1032. 1076. 1032. 1077. 1032. 1078. 1033. 1080. 1032. 1081. 1033. 1082. 1034. 1083. 1033. 1084. 1033. 1086. 1051. 1087. 1047. 1088. 1047. 1089. 1053. 1090. 1051. 1091. 133, 1051. 1092. 1053. 1093. 1052. 1117. 837. , 1750. 351. 1778. 982. 1908. 40. 1979. 461. 2159. 46. 2326. 1204 3213. 46. 3220. 1014 3224. 484 3228. 1014 3477. 1023. 3490. 86. 3636. 481. 3637. 481. 3737. 1025. 4063. 581. CITATIONS. Page. 4064 581. 4065. 581. 4066. 581. 4071. 653. 4072. 653. 4073. 653. 4074 654 4092. 1199. 4093. 1200. 4094 1200. 4095. 1200. 4096. 1200. 4613. 996. 4614 996. 4615. 996. 4616. 996. 4617. 996. 4618. 996. 4619. 996. 4620. 996. 4621. 996. 4622. 996. 4623. 996. 4624. 996. 4625. 996. 4626. 996, 997. 4627. 996, 998. 4628. 996. 4629. 996, 998. 4630. 996. 4646. 729, 996. 4647. 729, 996. 4648. 996. 4649. 996. § 4650. 4651. 4652. 4799. 4886. 4887. 4917. 4918. 4919. 4920. 4921. 4922. 4969. 4970. 5013. 5141. 5191. 5195. 5201. 5205. 5234 5235. 5236. 5237. 5239. 5242. 5298. 5300. 5595. 5596. Pare. 996. 996. 996. 88. 495. 495. 152. 715. 383, 715. 803. 339. 803, 804 457, 715. 723 803, 805. 457. 1154 350. 517. 517. 517. 517. 517. 514, 517. 514, 517. 514, 517. 482, 514 10. 858. 759. 759. 809. 809. STATUTES AT LAEGE. Vol. 4 Page. Page. p. 209. 1058. p. 281. 900. 355. 1058. 659. 854. 755. 839. Vol. 9. 887. 1058. Page. p. 253. 820. 631. 1059, 1065. Page. 922. 1056, 1057. Vol. 10. Page. p. 125. 1058. p. 308. 1058, 1062. , Page. 1031. 1056, 1058. p. 482. 588. 839. 1058. VOL. 11. 734 839. Page. p. 374 1058. VOL. 12. Page. Page. p. 275. 1058. p. 71. 1058. 342. 1058. 172. 105a 438. 1058. Vol. la Vol. 14 Vol. 15. Vol.16. Page. p. 64. 1058. 291. 1058. 373. 1058. Vol. 17. Page. p. 197. 857. 509. 817. vouia Page. p. 15. 98. 27. 1162. 53. 118. 75. 120. 76. 110. 157. 833. 195. 89, 90. 230. 92. 251. 96. 252. 999. 333. 737, 817. 315. 672, 674, 1166. 318. 1162. 371. 905. 401. 24, 914, 948. 470. 306, 829, 938, 951, 953. 472. 659, 706, 711. 473. 1221, 1222. 478. 46. 480. 114. 481. 1008. Vol. 19. Page. ». 4. 106, 110. 61. 88, 93. 63. 514. 517. 206. 609. 230. 92. 241. 654 253. 812. Vol. SO. Page. p. 27. 119. 101. 110. 145. 75a 166. 96. 171. 1010. 173. 108. 175. 80, 102. 206. 80, 114. 259. 119. 263. 80, 105. 280. 93. 318. 324. 117. 1010. 355. 98. 415. 569, 680. 592. iosa 695. 25a CITATIONS. < Vol. 21. Page. p. 10. 117. 41. 93. 45. 98. 62. 79, 94. 63. 79, 80, 110. 148. 117. 155. 80, 98. 252. 1053. 308. 608. 324. 118. 330. 106. 502. 478. 507. 100. 511. 96. 571. 96. 751. 80, 114. . 757. 114 784. 1010. Vol. 22. Page. p. 32. 108. 33. 108. 101. 104. 103. 104. 168. 1012. 172. 98. 176. no. 284. 1010. 402. 114. 443. 729. 485. 1005, 1006. 6oa 730. VOL 23. Page. p. 1. 100. 8. 92. 18. 79, 90. 19. 79. 24. 40. 35. 117. 50. 94. 57. 993. 72. 92, 98, 117. 75. 92. 98. 148. 117. 242. 1010. 257. 1010. 280. 114 283. 1010. 321. 46. 332. 45. 372. 1010. 381. 1010. 437. 847. 443. 1168, 1169, 1210, 1211 655. 119. Vol 24 Page. p. 8. 514 45. 92. 80. 993. clxxix C1XXX CITATIONS. Page. Page. p. 83. 93. p. 50. 608. 106. 93. 67. 80, 109. 127. 104 68. 109. 214 9a 71. 112. 253. 737. 72. so, ioa 308. 93. 81. 40. 336. 112. 106. 105. 359. 133. 129. 80. 98. 376. 45. 131. 1197. 380. 482. 138. 46, 1226, 1269. 409. 46. 180. 90. 433. 102. 209. 45, 78, 482. 434. 80, 105. 210. 253. 430. 104 213. 96. 431. 127. 317. 89, 95. 443. 96. 225. 120. 505. 45, 87, 130, 1001, 1005, 1006, 316. 907. 1007, 1053. 369. 105. 506. 132, 133, 134 1033, 1211. 406. 105. 507. 133, 134 474 118. 508. 722, 13a 505. 1234 541. 737. 517. 1300. 552. 44. 49, 81, 288, 306, 308 680, 539. 1067, 1069. 723, 910, 911, 913, 938 965. 627. 998. 554 68. 558, 561. 767. 98. 605. 130. 826. 89, 511, 731, 848, 849, 1209,1210,. 1228, 1274, 1290. VOL. 25. 827. 998, 1159, 1164, 1171, 1189,. Pass. 1190, 1192. 1209. p. 43. 947. 104 98. 828. 830, 987, 1066, 1165, 1166, 1175,. 78. 87. 1176, 1190, 1191, 1201, 1209,. 1224 88. 105. 829. 44, 809, 817, 987, 1155. 1192,. 151. 357. 119. 45, 87, 896, 897, 906. 830. 1210, 1224, 1228, 1278, 1279. 89. 388. 80, 99, 100. 851. 1010. 389. 99. 854 1056, 1059, 1061, 1062, 1063, 390. 80. 1064, 1065, 1067, 1068, 1069 r 392. 98. 1070, 1071, 1073, 1075. 1076, 433. 48, 76, 829, 938, 1152. 1077, 1078, 1079, 1168, 1211,. 436. 438. 443. 558, 561. 80. 100. 105. 858. 905. 1334, 1328. 1228. 1169. 498. 105. 1084 45. 554 570. 1110. 94 655. 89, 92, 112, 1169. 656. 1239. 1344 1269. Vol, 87. 671. 79,94 Pagb 676. 88, 89. 109. p - k 98. 682. 89, 105, 119, 909. 92. 690. 94 7. 864 783. 40. 11. 101. 786. 92. 13. 120. 787. 117. 14 119. 823. 951, 95a 17. 634 862. 817. 30. 34 105. 80, 98. Vol. 26. 35. 845. Page. 39. 120. p. 3. 117. 72. 95. 14 80. 252. 80, 105, 431, 756. 45. 80, 119. 254 119. CITATIONS. clxxxi PAGE. p. 261. 112. 347. 745. 436. 1168. 470. 1070. 751. 849, 903. 754 694. Vol Pass. p. 5. 80, 95, 113. 36. 914. 67. 80, 102. 73. 120. 99. 118. 103. 80. 107. 88. 114. 104. 117. 93. 149. 93. 221. 105. 274. 108. 375. 108. 279. 257. 305. 47. 390. 837. 397. 1192. 504. 94 570. 482. 601. 608. 620. 117. 642. 109. 666. 493. 693. 40. 764. 98, 596. 813. 897. Vol. Fags. p. 2. 98. ^ 39. 114 110. 117. 135. 93. 180. 72a 181. 728,744, 182. 744 183. 744 186. 728. 317. 93. 456. 117. 481. 494 482. 764 493. 116% 502. 105. 516. 117. 536. 731. 577. 1061. 590. 80. 591. 92. 620. 80. 695. 76,81. Vol. 30. Page. p. 83. 40. 240. 117. 339. 135. 397. 117. 416. 45. 423. 95. 444 1122. 494 87. 495. 45, 130. 544 515, 1081, 1083, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1088, 1090, 1091, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096. 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1105, 1106, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1115, 1116. 1118, 1119, 1120, 1122, 1124, 1127, 1131, 1137, 1139, 1140. 1142, 1148, 1149. 1150, 1151, 1152, 1155, 1156, 1157. 1167, 1193, 1209. 1210, 1240. 545. 40, 1031, 1083. 1092, 1102 1115. 546. 515, 1083, 1091,1096,1102, 1119, 1148. 547. 1086, 1087, 1091, 1096, 1111, 1148. 1097. 548. 1088, 1137. 549. 1090, 1096, 1102, 1120, 1140. 1137, 550. 1118, 1140, 1142. 551. 1095, 1100, 1105, 1106. 552. 48, 87, 1085. 1112, 1152. 553. 44, 48, 1120, 1155, 1157, 1193, 1209, 1210, 1226. 1167, 554 1099, 1109, 1143, 1156, 1209. 1157, 555. 1106, 1107, 1109, 1120. 556. 1109, 1110, 1117, 1151. 557. 1110, 1111, 1116, 1117, 1120. 1137, 1151. 1119, 558. 1119, 1149, 1151. 559. 1115, 1149. 560. 1115, 1127. 561. 1088, 1094, 1100, 1101, 1127. 1112, 562. 1122, 1124, 1127. 1149. 563. 1127, 1132, 1139, 1150. 564 24 i 565. 1102, 1131, 1132. 567. 1122. 591. 88, 1170, 1192, 1228. 685. 105. 769. 112. 812. 117. 814 114 836. 96. 976. 92. 977. 104 995. 104 1002. 117. clxxxii Vol. 31. Page. ). 5. 114. 27. 117. 73. 93, 94. 74. 117. 84 40, 111, 1081^ 85. Ill, 1081, 12l0, 1211, 1224 158. 40, 95, 1171, 1193, 1209. 175. 108. 176. 108. 183. 114 185. 1170. 218. 117. 219. 93, 120. 249. 98. 322. 40, 91. 323. 91. CITATIONS. Paqb. p. 334 91. 325. 91. 326. 91. 657. 40. 660. 493, 511, 1190, 1191,1201, 1207 730. 98. 1 733. 92. 735. 114. 738. 119. 739. 105. 781. 99. 783. 99. 798. 117. 818. 93. 880. 112. 1227. 1210, 1211. CITATIONS. clxxxiii U. S. EQUITY EULES. Page. Page. - Page. 2. 273,431. 31 397, 313, 336. 65. 354. 3. 433, 801. 33 385,393,303,337. 66. 329,359. 4. 431, 434, 765. 83. 339, 335, 360. 67. 203,633,634. 5. 431, 446. 34. 896, 299, 301. 68. 635. 6. 433, 438, 446. 35. 333, 336, 365. 70. 635. 7. 350, 773. 36. 385, 386, 333. 73. 389. 8. 714, 757, 760, 765, 37. 386, 333. 73. 680,715. 771. 38. 398, 329, 359. 74. 681. 9. 773, 773. 39. 285, 391, 306, 337, 75. 681, 683, 684 10. 765. 337, 345, 349. 76. 687. 11. 349. 40. 333. 77. 683,686. 13. 248, 349, 374 41. 333, 233, 336, 344. 78. 687. 13. 350, 353. 43. 333. 79. 573,684. 14. 350. 43. 333. 80. 684. 15. 351, 353, 771. 44. 391, 346, 349. 81. 686, 687. 16. 351, 354. 45. 358, 365. 83. 680. 688, 760. 17. 373. ■ 46. 373. 83. 689; 690. 18. 375, 376, 379, 393, 47. 168. 84. 693. 334,337,348.590. 49. 159. 86. 713. 19. 377, 590. 53. 313. 87. 133, 135, 144, 146. 30. 193. 55. 433, 489, 492, 1191. 88. 781,783. 31. 193, 331, 491, 565. 56. 350, 401, 405. 90. 775. 33. 168. 57. 413, 418. 91. 350. 33. 339, 1391. 58. 399, 413. 93. 710, 715, 757. 34. 340, 390. 59. 351. 93. 1344. 36. 196, 390, 343. 60. 373. 94. 320,241,454 37. 198, 343. 61. 353. 107. 497. 38. 364. • 62. 349. 113. 497. 39. 336, 364, 408. 63. 354. 30. 365. 64. 275, 354. SUPREME COURT RULES. Page. Page. Page. 3. 43. 17. 1273. 29. 1341. 5. 43, 347. 354. 1338. 18. 1259, 1273. 31. 1367. 6. 430, 1363, 1364, 1373. 19. 1259, 1270. 33. 1369. 8. 1329,1348,1350, 1351. 20. 1368. 1273. 33. 1351. 9. 1253,1253,1355,1258. 21. 1233.1259,1271,1372, 34. 850, 1344. 10. 731. 749, 760, 1253, 1373. 35. 1348.1253,1257,1373. 1267. 32. 739, 1373. 36. 1344. -11. 1251. 24. 733, 729. 37. 1176. 13. 970. 26. 1269, 137a 39. 1296. 14. 1353, 1354, 37. 1368. 63. 1080. 16. 1358, 1361, 1273. 38. 1359. * CIRCUIT C OURT OF APPEA1 JS RULES. Page. Page. Page. 11. 1353,1357.1373,1273. 19. 1355. 36. 733. 13. 989, 1341, 1344. 30. 1359, 1367. 30. 1291. 14. 1339,1248,1250,1351. 21. 1373. 31. 723. 15. 1251. 33. 1358, 1359. 1361. 33. 1344 16. 1258, 1270. 33. 733, 733, 749, 1267. 34. 1351. 17. 1259. 34. 1233, 1259, 1273. 18. 1353, 1354. 25. 1273. clxxxiv CITATIONS. COURT OF CLAIMS EULES. Page. Page. Page. 1. 1030. 34 1036. 67. 1040. 2. 1034 35. 1036. 68. 1040. 3. 1031. 36. 1036. 69. 1040. 4 1031. 37. 1037. - 70. 1021. 5. 1031. 38. 1037. 71. 1021. 6. 1031. 39. 1037. 72. 1021. 7. 1019, 1020. 40. 1037. 73. 1028. a 1020. 41. 1037. 74 1043. 9. 1020. 42. 1037. 75. 1042. 10. 1020. 43. 103a 76. 1047. n. 1020. 44 1038. 77. 1047. 12. 1020. 45. 1038. 78. 1048. 13. 1020, 1039. 46. 1038. 79. 1048. 14 1042. 47. 1038. 80. 1048. 15. 1027. 48. 1038. 81. 1048. 16. 1027, 1029. 49. 1039. 82. 1055. 17. 1037. 50. 1039. 83. 1055. 18. 1028. 51. 1043. 90. 1043. 19. 1041. 52. 1043. 93. 1021. 20. 1043. 53. 1044 94 1021. 21. 1042. 54 1044 95. 1021. 22. 1042. 55. 1044 96. 1031. 23. 1042. 56. 1044. 97. 1023. 24 1034 57. 1044 99. 1040. 25. 1034 58. 1044. 100. 1045. 26. 1035. 59. 1044 101. 1041. 27. 1034 60. 1044. 102. 1041. 28. 1034 61. 1045. 103. 1041. 29. 1033. 62. 1045. 104 1041. 30. 1035. 63. 1039. 105. 1022. 31. 1035. 64 1039. 106. 1046. 32. 1036. 65. 1039. 107. 1023. 33. 1036. 66. 1040. APPEALS FROM COUKT OF CLAIMS EULES. Page. Page. 1. 1054 3. 1054 2. 1054 4 1054 Page. 5. 1054 EULES OF COUET OF PEIVATE LAND CLAIMS. Page. Page. 1. 1067, 1074, 1075. 4 1072. 3. 1068. 5. 1072. 3. 1069. 6. 1073. Page. 7. 1069. 8. 1069. CITATIONS. ClxXXY ADMIRALTY KULES. Paoh. Page. Page. 1. 966. 41. 984. 55. 994, 10. 984, 42. 984. 56. 994. 22. 995. 52. 1250. 23. 966. 54. 994, - ADMIRALTY EULES SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. Page. 4, 1250. Page. 5. 1250. GENEEAL OEDEES IN BANKEUPTCY. Page. Page. Pass. 3. 1099. 15. 1116. 29. 1124 5. 1095. 16. 1116. 30. 1138. 6. 1083, 1084 17. 1123. 31. 1143. 8. 1100. 20. 1110. 32. 1144 9. 1096. 21. 1129. 34 1148. 10. 1150. 22. 1112. 35, 1150. 11. 1098. 2a 1110. 36. 1153, 1156. 12. 1110, 1138, 1144 26. 1107. 37. 1086. 13. 1116. 27. 1111. 14. 1116. 28. 1123. FEDERAL EQUITY PRACTICE. CHAPTER I. JUKISDICTTON. § 1. Equitable jurisdiction in general. — Equity is that sys- tem of jurisprudence which was administered by the High Court of Chancery of England in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, 1 and which has been amplified and extended by the more modern decisions of the English and American courts. It owed its origin to a desire upon the part of the English sovereigns and their chancellors to supplement the deficiencies and soften the rigors of the common law ; and whereas the well- springs of this were such of the customs of the German tribes as had been brought with them from their Fatherland by the Jutes and Angles; 2 those of that, which was administered at first exclusively by ecclesiastics, are in the canon, which was itself derived from the greatest monument of the genius of ancient Some, the civil law. 3 Since the time of Nottingham, before whom each succeeding chancellor had decided the cases brought before him in accordance with his own notions of what was proper, or in the language of Selden, 4 measured justice out by the length of his foot, the same respect has been paid to prece- dent in the courts of equity and common law. But the rules regulating the remedies administered by the former are much more plastic. And even at the present time cases often occur where judges sitting at equity, with the approval and assist- ance of the profession, invent and adopt new remedies suited to a state of society and of civilization unknown and not an- ticipated when the procedure in chancery first assumed the form that it still substantially retains. 5 The chronicles of the §1. iMitford's Pleadings; Pisp- 4 Selden's Table Talk, Title ham's Equity, § 1. "Equity." , 2 Holmes' Com. Law. 5 Kennedy v. St. Paul & Pacific E. 'Langdell's Eq. PL, Introduction. Co., 2 Dill. 448; Wallace v. Loomis, 97 1 2 JURISDICTION. [§ 1. growth and development of equity abound with names well known to the students, as well of general history as of juris- prudence. Among them Wolsey, More, Bacon, Clarendon, Somers, and Erskine are the most familiar to the former, while the members of the profession look back with especial admira- tion upon the careers of Nottingham, Hardwicke, Eldon, West- bury, Kent, Story, and Taney. Although originally no one could seek their aid who was not denied justice by the courts of common law ; yet after he had once shown a title to their assistance, courts of equity would almost always give a suitor complete relief in the matter about which he complained. 6 And now that since the time of Mansfield the courts of common law have, abandoning their former jealousy, in many instances of their own accord as well as under the compulsion of statutes, accepted doctrines first created by courts of equity," the latter have not felt obliged to relinquish the jurisdiction which they formerly acquired. 8 One of the marked characteristics which distinguish equity from the common law, is that, while the latter, as a general rule, acts against and exercises control over property alone ; has but a very limited and merely incidental power, mostly borrowed from chancery, to enforce obedience to a personal command, its procedure being founded upon the theory that the parties to an action owe no obedience to the court; 9 and is consequently restricted in its operation when the property which is the subject of a contention is beyond the reach of its process : equity acts directly against and exercises complete control over persons, and does not lose jurisdiction when the parties are subject to its process, because the prop- erty over which it thereby assumes control is beyond the ter- ritory under those laws whence its own power is derived. 10 U. S. 146; Joy v. St. Louis, 138 U. S. "Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 1, 50; Toledo, A. A. & N. M. Ey. Co. v. 365. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. R. 746, 751 ; » Langdell's Eq. PI., § 40. Wallworth v. Holt, 4 Mylne & Cr. 10 Archer v. Preston, 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. 619. 133, pL 3, cited and followed in Ar- * 1 Fonblanque's Equity, b. i, ch. i, glasse v. Muschamp, 1 Vern. 75; s. C, §3, note (/); Motteux v. London 1 Vern. 135; Penn v. Lord Baltimore, Assur. Co., 1 Atk. 545; Tayloe v. Mer- 1 Ves. Sr. 444; Massie v. Watts, 6 chants' Fire Ins. Co., 9 How. 390, 405. Cranoh, 148; Muller v. Dows, 94 TJ. S. 'Moses v. Macferlan, 2 Burr. 1005; 444, at pages 449-450. The authorities Diokerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578. are well collected in a learned opinion § 2.] STTRVEY OF THE JURISDICTION OF COUETS OF EQUITY. 3 § 2. General survey of the jurisdiction of courts of equity. The jurisdiction of courts of equity is exercised either for the protection of rights which the common law does not recognize; or for the prevention or redress of wrongs for which the com- mon law affords no adequate remedy. A full consideration of this topic is beyond the scope of this treatise. The follow- ing summary, although imperfect, may occasionally assist the reader. The rights which a court of equity alone respects are : the rights of beneficiaries under a trust, 1 either express or im- plied, — which latter term includes those which are resulting a or constructive : 3 the right to be relieved from an obligation which has been entered into, or to recover a right which has been lost by accident, — which expression is said to include the cases where one has become subject to a penalty or forfeiture, 4 or has lost a document the possession of which was essential to his success in an action at common law, 5 and is also often used to bolster up a weak equity of another kind — ; 6 by mis- take, — which must be mutual, material, and not caused by the negligence of the party seeking relief, 7 and which, if solely of a point of law, will very rarely release one from his contract obligations — ; 8 by fraud, whether actual 9 or constructive; 10 by Judge, subsequently Chief Judge, not, it has been said, to assist in Henry E. Davies, in Gardner v. maintaining an action for a tort Ogden, 23 N. Y. 327. Cf. Carpenter Security S. & L. Ass'n v. Buchanan v. Strange, 141 U. S. 87, 106, cited (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 799. infra, § 325. Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 256. 4 * Wheelwright v. St. Louis, N. O. See also Be La Vergne R M. Co. v. & O., C. & T. Co., 50 Fed. R 709, 711. Palmetto Br. Co., 72 Fed. R 579; But see Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172. Woodbury v. Allegheny & K. R. Co., 44 Porter v. Sabin, 149 17. S. 473. 72 Fed. R. 371. It has been held that 45 Merritt v. American S. B. Co., 79 a vessel operated by a State receiver Fed. R 228; Eejall v. Greenhood, 60 can be seized in a foreign State by Fed. R. 784. Cf. Huntington v. Laid- the United States District Court in ley, 176 U. S. 668. But see infra, § 129. admiralty there held upon a libel 46 Teff t v. Sternberg, 40 Fed. R. 2, to enforce a claim which arose dur- 6, per Speer, J., citing Covell v. Hey- ing his management of the vessel, man. 111 U. S. 176. See Moran v. The Willamette Valley (C. C. A), 66 Sturges, 154 U. S. 256, 284. Fed. R 565; s. C, Chandler v. The « Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 5S3; Willamette Valley, 63 Fed. R 130. Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil-cloth Co., Cf. Roxbury v. The Lotta, 65 Fed. R 112 U. S. 294. 319. It seems, however, that a court § 9.] PROPERTY IN CUSTODY OF STATE COURTS. 23 the sheriff held property under summary proceedings for a foreclosure under the Georgia statute, it was held to be in the custody of a State court. 81 But it was held that property was not put in the custody of a State court by the institution of a suit to establish and enforce a lien thereupon, when no actual possession had been taken. 53 Property continues in the custody of the State courts until the cause is practically terminated, or the custody finally abandoned, although it has been held that a formal order of termination is not indispensable. 53 After a Federal court had discharged a receivership and surrendered the property in re- turn for a bond given in lieu of the same, it was held that the State court might appoint a receiver, and that it was improper for the Circuit Court of the United States to vacate its order of discharge and claim possession by virtue of its prior receiver- ship. 54 The discharge of a Federal receivership before the ap- pointment of a State receiver was held to validate the latter, although made in a suit instituted during the pendency of the Federal receivership. 55 It has been held that the sheriff may seize property while still in the possession of the United States marshal after an order by. the Federal court directing its re- turn to its owner. 56 Where suits are pending in a State and a Federal court td enforce the same cause of action, the usual practice is to stay proceedings in the court where the second case was com- menced until the first is determined; not to dismiss the sec- ond suit. 57 But a bill against an administrator which sought of admiralty in the same district can- see Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168, not take possession of a vessel held 181; Missouri Pac.R Co. v. Fitzgerald, by a State receiver in a proceeding 160 U. S. 556. to enforce a claim which arose be- 54 Shields v. Coleman, 157 U. S. 168, fore the receiver's appointment The 178, 179. But see Union T. Co. v. J. G. Chapman, 62 Fed. R 939; Kres- Eockford, R I & St L. R Co., 6 sel v. E. L. Cain, 45 Fed. R 367. Biss. 197. As to the effect of such 51 Tefft v. Sternberg, 40 Fed. R 2. a bond when, jurisdiction was first 52 Compton v. Jesup, 68 Fed. R. 263, acquired by the State court, see 283. Southern R & T. Co. v. Folsom, 75 53 Buck v. Piedmont & A. L. Ins. Fed. R 929. Co., 4 Fed. R 849; Andrews v. Smith, S5 Liggett v. Glenn, 51 Fed. R 381. 5 Fed. R 833; Lake Nat. Bank v. 56 Daniels v. Lazarus, 65 Fed. R Wolfeborough Sav. Bank (C. C. A.), 718; Lazarus v. McCarthy, 32 N. Y. 78 Fed. E. 517; Foster v. Lebanon Supp. 833. Springs R Co., 100 Fed. R 543. But « Hughes v. Green (C. C. A.), 84 24 JUKISDICTION. [§ 9. to interfere with assets in the custody of a State court of pro- bate was held to be demurrable. 58 It has been said that " when a State court and a court of the United States may each take jurisdiction of a matter, the tri- bunal where jurisdiction first attaches holds it to the exclu- sion of the other, until its duty is fully performed and the jurisdiction involved is exhausted, and this rule applies alone in both civil and criminal cases." 59 Thus, the Federal courts ordinarily refuse to discharge by habeas corpus before his trial, and even in some cases before he has exhausted his remedy by writ of error or appeal, after conviction, a prisoner held under indictment by a State court. 60 So, where the marshal had seized under a charge of a crime against the United States a prisoner held by the sheriff under a charge of a violation of the State criminal law, the Federal court upon a plea in abate- ment sustained the indictment found by its own grand jury, but ordered that the accused be returned to the State authori- ties. 61 Conversely, a State court has no power to release by habeas corpus a prisoner held under the process of a court of the United States. 62 The acts of Congress, however, authorize in certain cases the removal of criminal proceedings from a State to a Federal court. 63 The institution of a proceeding in bankruptcy gives jurisdic- tion to the District Court of the United States to take from the custody of a State court in certain cases property seized by it within four months before the filing of the petition. 64 A Dis- trict Court of the United States will enjoin a suit in a State Fed. R 833; Zimmerman v. So Eelle, order of a Federal court or an execu- 80 Fed. R. 417; infra, § 129. See U. S. tive department of the United States. v. Belknap, 73 Fed. R 19. In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1; Anderson ssLant v. Manley, 71 Fed. R 7; re- v. Elliott (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R 609. versed on another point, a C. (C. C. 61 U. S. v. Wells, 11 Am. Law Reg. A), 75 Fed. R 637. (N. S.) 424; s. C, Fed. Cases No. 16,665. ^Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. ^Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506. 148, 164, per Shiras, J., citing Ex See Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. 397; Robb parte Crouch, 112 U. S. 178. v. Connolly, 111 IT. S. 624; In the so Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, Matter of Spangler, 11 Mich. 298. 254; infra, § 367. A Federal court 63 U. S. R S., §§ 641, 643; 18 St, at can discharge by habeas corpus a L., p. 401; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 marshal or deputy marshal who has U. S. 257; infra, §§ 383, 388, 389. been arrested under State process in 64 30 St. at L., p. 564. See chapter a criminal proceeding to punish him on Bankruptcy Practice, infra. for an act done in obedience to an § 10.] PEOPEETY IN CUSTODY OF ANOTHEB FEDERAL COUBT. 25 court commenced subsequent to an adjudication of bankruptcy to take possession of property held by the bankrupt or his trustee. 65 § 10. Property in the custody of another Federal court. — The different Circuit Courts of the United States, acting upon the principle of judicial comity, usually, when property has been taken into the custody of another Circuit Court, or when proceedings have been instituted therein for such a purpose, refuse to interfere with the same. Thus, where proceedings to cancel a mortgage had been instituted in one district, the Circuit Court of another district stayed proceedings upon a bill therein filed for the foreclosure of such mortgage until the determination of the first suit. 1 So, where a receiver has been appointed to take possession of certain property, such as a rail- road, which is situated in several districts, it is the usual prac- tice for the Circuit Courts in the other districts to appoint the same person as ancillary receiver of the property within their territorial jurisdiction ; 2 to treat the court in which the pro- ceedings were first instituted as that of primary jurisdiction and of principal decree, and to make the administration of the property in the latter court ancillary thereto. 3 Accordingly, the court of ancillary jurisdiction refused to direct the pay- ment of a judgment against the corporation recovered in a State court within its district where an account of the funds in its receiver's hands was necessary, and referred the peti- tioner to the court of primary jurisdiction for relief. 4 This rule, however, is largely within the discretion of each Circuit Court, and cases have arisen in which each court has admin- istered the assets within its jurisdiction- independently of the administration of the court of primary jurisdiction. 8 « White v. Schloerb, 178 U. S. 542. Wabash, St. L. & P, Ry. Co., 29 Fed. § 10. i Hurd v. Moiles, 38 Fed. R R 161; Central T. Co. v. Wabash, St. 897. L. & P. Ey. Co., 29 Fed. R 618; U. S. z Williams v. Hintermeister,26 Fed. T. Co, v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., R 889; Parsons v. Charter Oak L. I. 42 Fed. R 34a See also Mercantile Co., 31 Fed. R 305; infra, § 242. T. Co. v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co., 39 • s Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Northern Fed. R 337; Central T. Co. v. East Pac. Ry. Co., 72 Fed. R 26, 30, 31; Tenn., Va. & G. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. R Clyde v. Richmond & D. R Co., 65 658; N. Y. Security' & T. Co. v. Equi- Fed. R 336. table Mtg. Co., 71 Fed. R. 556; Rey- 4 Central T. Co. v. East Tenn., Va. nolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, 272; & G R Co., 30 Fed. R. 895. infra. § 242. 6 The Wabash Cases: Atkins t. 26 , JUBISDIOTIOS'. [§ 11. Where the trustees of a second mortgage on a railroad had begun a foreclosure suit, making the trustee of the first mort- gage a, party, and receivei's had been appointed and taken pos- session, it was held that the first mortgagee should not be allowed to bring an independent foreclosure suit, but must seek the relief he wished in the suit instituted by the second mortgagee. 6 So, where a prisoner is held under the criminal process of one court of the United States or of a Territorial court, or other court created by Congress, it seems that he cannot law- fully be arrested under the authority of another Federal 1 court until the final determination of the first proceeding in which he was first seized and taken into custody. 7 § 11. Illustrations of equitable jurisdiction in the Federal courts. — The following instances where Federal courts of equity have assumed, and where they have refused to take juris- diction in equitjr, the subject-matter and the parties being within their jurisdiction, although by no means exhaustive, may be useful to the practitioner. It has been held that bills in equity will be sustained when filed by the United States to determine a controversy as to the boundaries between a State and a Ter- ritory ; 1 to compel the cancellation of illegal contracts between a railroad company and a telegraph company, when legal pro- ceedings were authorized by statute; 2 to enforce their priority of payment out of a trust fund ; 3 to cancel a land patent, 4 or a patent for an invention 5 which had been obtained by fraud, 6 or a land patent which had been by a mistake of law issued in violation of a statute, 7 or, it seems, a certificate of naturaliza- tion obtained by fraud. 8 By a municipal corporation to enjoin 6 Mercantile T. Co. v. Atlantic & Fed. R. 511; S. a, 22 Fed. R 653; P. R Co., 70 Fed. R. 518. Noble v. Union River Logging R. 'In re Johnson, 167 U. S. 120, 125. Co., 147 U. S. 165. § 11. 1 U. S. v. State, 143 U. S. 621. « Moffat v. U. S., 112 U. S. 24; IT. & 2 U. S. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 160 v. Gunning, 18 Fed. R 511; s. C, 22 U. S. 1. Fed. R. 653. 3 Hunter v. U. S., 5 Pet. 172. » Mullan v. U. S., 118 U. S. 271; Mc- * Moffat v. U. S., 112 U. a 24; U. a Laughlin v. U. S., 107 U. S. 526; West- v. Trinidad Coal & Coke Co., 137 era Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 108 U. a 510. U. a 160. See U. S. v. Reed. 53 Fed. R. 405. «U. S. v. Am. Bell Telephone Co., , 8 U. S. v. Norsch, 42 Fed. R. 417. 128 U. a 315; U. a v. Gunning, 18 § 11.] EQUITABLE JUEISDICTION IN THE FEDEEAL COTJET. 27 ihe sale on execution of property held by it in trust. 9 To en- join the head of a department of the national government from acting beyond the scope of his authority to the prejudice of the complainant. 10 By a legatee against an executor u and by one of the next of kin against an administrator and his sureties, 12 to recover the complainant's share of a decedent's estate. By a married woman to recover money which belongs to her sepa- rate estate. 13 By a single man to have declared null and void a paper purporting to be a marriage contract executed by him. 1 * To set aside a contract obtained by fraud. 15 To set aside a land patent issued in violation of a statute. 16 To reform an instru- ment executed by mistake. 17 To set aside a conveyance ob- tained for a grossly inadequate consideration from a man in a state of intoxication, partly caused by the acts of the defend- ant. 18 By the beneficiary of a trust against his trustee and a debtor of the trust estate. 19 By the holder of a corporate bond or other claim to enforce his lien upon tolls or other income pledged to secure its payment. 20 By a stockholder in a corpo- ration to recover its money fraudulently misappropriated by its directors. 21 By a stockholder against a corporation to compel the transfer of stock fraudulently transferred to another; K and to compel the transfer of stock to its equitable owner, 23 unless it has been acquired unconscientiously or for speculative pur- poses, 24 or perhaps when the stock is of a kind that can be readily bought in open market. 25 To compel specific performance of a » New Orleans v. Morris, 105 U. S. WThackrah v. Haas, 119 U. S. 499. 600. 19 U. S. v. Myers, 2 Brook. 516. i° Noble v. Union Eiver Logging 20 Good Templars' L.Ass'n v. United R. Co., 147 U. S. 165. L. L Ass'n, 59 Fed. R 220: Grand u Mayer v. Foulkrod, 4 Wash. C. C. Trunk Ey. Co. v. Central Vt. Ey. Co., 349. So may an executor to estab- 85 Fed. E. 87. See Townsend v. Van- lish his individual claim against the derwerker, 160 U. S. 171; Vallette v. estate. Glover v. Patten, 165 U. S. White W. V. C. Co., 4 McLean, 192. 394. 2 i Gindrat v. Dane, 4 Cliff. 260. "Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall 425; ^Kilgour v. N. O. Gas-Light Co., Pratt v. Northam, 5 Mason, 95. 2 Woods, 144. "Hunt v. Danforth, 2 Curt. 592. 23 Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. i* Sharon v. Hill, 20 Fed. E 1. 299. is Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210. M Mississippi & Mo. E. Co. v. Crom- w Southern Pac. E Co. v. Wiggs, well, 91 U. S. 643; Foil's Appeal, 91 43 Fed. E 333. .Pa. St. 434, 438; Eandolph's Ex'r v. "Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. Quidnick Co., 135 U. S. 457. 577. m Ross v. Union Pac. Ey. Co., 28 JURISDICTION. [§ 11. contract for the sale of a patent-right. 26 To compel specific performance of a contract to issue an insurance policy, and in the same suit to compel payment of the policy. 27 In Yirginia, by a creditor of an insolvent firm which is disposing of its as- sets in fraud of creditors, filed on behalf of the other creditors as well as himself, and praying the appointment of a receiver, an injunction against any interference by others with the firm assets and the distribution of those assets among the creditors equally. 28 By a trustee and his beneficiary to obtain possession of land subject to the trust. 29 To recover from a bank money of the plaintiff deposited by a third person in the latter's name. 3 ' To enjoin a township from setting up, as a defense to an action upon bonds issued by it, the accidental omission of the town seal thereon. 31 By a judgment creditor against a city for an ac- counting of taxes collected by it which had been pledged for the payment of complainant's demand. 32 To enforce a decree for the payment of money, at least when made by another court of equity. 33 To set aside an invalid tax deed, or a deed executed under a decree of a court which had no jurisdiction over the matter, when the invalidity or want of jurisdiction must be made to appear by facts not apparent upon the deed itself. 34 To enforce the payment of alimony directed to be paid in the final judgment or decree of a State court. 35 To set aside a judgment obtained by accident, mistake, or fraud. 3 " To set aside an award by arbitrators upon allegations of misconduct not apparent on the face of the award, nor affecting the juris- diction of the arbitrators. 37 By a creditor of a decedent to set 1 Woolw. 26, 33; Fallon v. Railroad (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R. 574. See infra, Co., 1 Dill. 121. But see Wilspn v. § 12, notes 6, 7, 8, 9. Atlantic & St. L. R Co., 2 Fed. R. 459. 33 Shields v. Thomas, 18 How. 253, 26 Hall v. Pitrat, 45 Fed. R. 94. 262. But see Tilford v. Oakley, "Tayloe v. Merchants' F. Ins. Co., Hempst. 197. 9 How. 390 ; Hebert v. Mutual L. Ins. « 4 Ritchie v. Sayers, 100 Fed. R. 520. Co., 12 Fed. R. 807; Brugger v. State But see Little Rock Junction Co. v. Inv. Ins. Co., 5 Saw. 304. Burke (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 83; Morri 28 Fink v. Patterson, 21 Fed. R 602. son v. Marker, 93 Fed. R 692. 2 * Harrison v.Rowan, 4 Wash. C.C. » Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582i 202. Knapp v, Knapp, 59 Fed. R 641. Cf. so Union S. Y. Bank v. Gillespie, 137 Johnson v. Johnson, 13 Fed. R 193; U. S. 411, 420; National Bank v. In- Bowman v. Bowman, 80 Fed. R. 849. surance Co., 104 U. S. 54. 86 Metcalf v. Williams, 104 U. S. 93, 81 Bernards Township v. Stebbins, 95. 109 U. S. 341. s7 Hartford F. Ins. Co. v. Bonnei 82 City of New Orleans v. Fisher Mercantile Co., 44 Fed. R. 151, 156. § 11.] EQUITABLE JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 29 aside a fraudulent conveyance of his estate made after his death by the order of a court. 38 By a judgment creditor to apply to the satisfaction of his debt any interest which his debtor may hold in a patent or copyright, 39 or in a license to use a pat- ented invention. 40 In the absence of any statutory restrictions, by a resident taxpayer in a county to prevent an illegal dispo- sition of the county funds, or the illegal -creation of a debt which he in common with the other property holders there may be compelled to pay. 41 In certain cases, by a landowner to prevent an assessment for betterment under an unconstitu- tional statute. 42 For an injunction against irremediable injury to property pending an action of ejectment, although filed by a party out of possession. 43 To set aside and to declare null and void a municipal ordinance which impairs the operation of a contract with the complainants, when the invalidity of the or- dinance does not appear upon its face, but must be proved by evidence aliunde, and it is a cloud upon the title of the com- plainants to a franchise. 44 To compel the assignment to a principal by his agent of judgments recovered by the latter for the benefit of the former. 45 Under special circumstances, to compel specific performance of a lease of a railroad or line of electric wire and a guaranty of the covenants therein contained, 46 and of an agreement to allow a telegraph com- pany to use a railway track on equitable terms. 47 By a c6rporation, and in special cases by its stockholders and by its mortgagee, to enjoin a State railroad commission and other State officers from executing an order unauthorized by law or an unconstitutional statute. 48 To enjoin a State board of ss Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640. « Wilson v. Lambert, 168 U. S. 611. s^Ager v. Murray, 105 TJ. S. 126. "Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 537. See Maitland v. Gibson, 79 Fed. R.. "Los Angeles v. Los Angeles C. 136, cited infra, §§ 21, 96, 349a, 380. Water Co., 177 It. S. 558, 568, 580. Whether a Federal court will enter- 45 Burke v. Davis, 63 Fed. R. 456. tain a creditor's bill founded upon 46 Pennsylvania R Co. v. St. L., A. the judgment of a State court within & T. H. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290 ; St. Louis, the distriqt has been doubted. Davis A. & T. H. R. Co. v. I. & St. L. R. Co., v. Davis, 65 Fed. R. 380. But that it 9 Biss. 144. can be was held in Bacon v. Harris, 47 Franklin Tel. Co. v. Harrison, 145 62 Fed. R. 99; Bidwell v. Huff, 103 U. S. 459. Fed. R. 362. « Smyth v. Ames, 169 TJ. a 466; <° Matthews v. Green, 19 Fed. R. Dinsmore v. Southern Exp. Co., 92 649. Fed. R. 714; Reagan v. Farmers' L. & « Field, J., in Crampton' v. Za- T. Co., 154 U. S. 362., But see infra, briskia 101 TJ S. 601, 609. § 37. 30 JURISDICTION. [§ 11. equalization from certifying to the different counties an assess- ment of a railroad for taxation at a higher percentage of its real value than the assessment of other property by the county officers, although the board had assessed the railroad at no more than its value, and the State Constitution ordained that all property be taxed according to its value, when, if the com- plainant was remitted to its remedy at law, a cloud would be cast upon its title and it would be obliged to bring at least thirty-five suits to obtain relief. 49 , To compel an accounting by persons standing in a trust re- lation to the plaintiff, 50 and by those against whom an action for account render would lie at common law, 51 namely, guard- ians in socage, bailiffs, receivers, and merchants in their deal- ings with each other; 53 but not otherwise, 53 unless the accounts are mutual or very complicated and intricate, 54 or the account- ing is supplemental to some other equitable relief; 65 For ex- ample, an account will not be decreed against the infringer of a patent upon a bill filed after the term of the patent has ex- pired ; 56 but a bill filed only a few days before the expiration of a parent may be sustained, if it is possible to obtain equita- ble relief during the life of the patent, 57 unless under the prac- 49 Taylor v. Louisville & N. R Co. 801; Gunn v. Brinckley Car "Works (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. R. 350, 356, 358. Of. & Mfg. Co., 66 Fed. R 382. Sanford v. Poe (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R « Eilbourn v. Sutherland, 130 U. a 546; Ogden City v. Armstrong, 168 505; John Crossley Sons v. New Or- U. S. 224. - See infra, § 12. leans, 20 Fed. R. 352; Pacific R. Co. 6U Pacific R of Mo. v. Atlantic & v. Atlantic & Pac. R. Co., 20 Fed. R Pac. R. Co., 20 Fed. R 277; Fowle v. .277; Gunn v. Brinckley C. W. & Mfg. Lawrason, 5 Pet. 494, 502; Littlefield Co. (C. C. A), 66 Fed. R 382; Baker v. v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205. Biddle, Bald. 394; Blakeley v. Biscoe, 51 Mitchell v. Manufacturing Co., Hempst. 114; Kilbourn v. Sutherland, 2 Story, 648; Linson v. Hutton, 98 130 U. S. 505. But see Lord v. White- U. S. 79; Fowle v. Lawrason, 5 Pet. head, etc. Mach. Co., 24 Fed. R'801; 494, 5Q2; U. S. v. National Bank, 73 Adams v. Bridge water Iron Co.,. 26 Fed. R 379. Fed. R 324; Hagenbeckv.'Hagenbeck a* Bispham's Equity, sec. 481; 1 Co. Zoo. A Co., 59 Fed. R 14. Litt. 90 b; 1 Co. Litt. 172 a; Bacon's as Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. Abr., Account, A; Buller's Nisi 788; Root v. Railway Co., 105 U.S. Prius, 127; Earl of Devonshire's Case, 189. 11 Coke, 89. , 56 Root v. Railway Co., 105 17. S. 53 Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. i89; Brooks v. Miller, 28 Fed. R 615, 189; Consol. Safety Valve Co. v. Ash- 617. ton Valve Co., 26 Fed. R 319; Lord v. 6 < Beedle v. Bennett, 122 U. S. 71; Whitehead, etc. Mach. Co., 24 Fed. R. Clark v. Wooster, 119 U. S. 322, 324; § 11.] EQUITABLE JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 31 tice of the court no injunction could possibly have been ob- tained before the expiration of the patent ; 58 and also, perhaps, even when the bill has been filed after the expiration of the patent, if the infringing articles were made during its life. 59 Since imported goods in the custody of the collector cannot be replevied, 60 a bill in equity may be maintained to recover their possession. 61 The Kevised Statutes provide that "Whenever a patent on application is refused, either by the Commissioner of Patents or by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon ap- peal from the Commissioner, the applicant may have remedy by bill in equity ; and the court having cognizance thereof, on notice to adverse parties and other due proceedings had, may adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in his claim, or any part thereof, as the facts in the case may appear. And such adjudication, if it be in favor of the right of the appli- cant, shall authorize the Commissioner to issue such patent N on the applicant filing in the patent-offi.ce a copy of the adjudica- tion, and otherwise complying with the requirements of law. In all cases, where there is no opposing party, a copy of the bill shall be served on the Commissioner; and all the expenses of the proceeding shall be paid by the applicant, whether the final decision is in his favor or not." 62 It has been held that the bill cannot be brought; until the determination of an ap- Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Car- Root v. Railway Co., 105 TJ. S. 189; penter, 32 Fed. R 484, per Brewer, American D. R B. Co. v. Rutland J. i Kittle v. De Graaf, 30 Fed. R 089, Marble Co., 2 Fed. R 356; American per Coxe, J.; Adams v. Bridge water D. R B. Co. v. Sheldon, 1 Fed. R 870; Iron Co., 26 Fed. R 324; Brooks v. Crossley v. Derby Gas Light Co., 4 Miller, 28 Fed. R 615, 617; Russell v. L. J. Ch. (N. S.) 25. But see West- Kern (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R 94. inghouse v. Carpenter, 43 Fed. R 894, S8 Clark v. Wooster, 119 U. S. 322, and infra, §§ 216, 236. 324; American Cable Ry. Co. v. Citi- «» U. S. R S., § 934. zens' Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R 484; Keyes 61 Pollard v. Reardon, 65 Fed. R 848. v. Eureka Con. Mfg. Co., 45 Fed. R 62 tj. g. r. Sij § 4 g 15 . 37 st at L . 199; American Cable Ry. Co. v. Chi- 434; Runstetler v. Atkinson, 23 Off. •cago City Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R 522; Gaz. 1025; Greeley v. Commissioner, Russell v. Kern (C. C. A.), 64 Fed. R 6 Fisher, 675; s. C, 1 Holmes, 284; 681; S. C, 69 Fed. R 94; McDonald v. Ex parte Arkell. 15 Blatchf. 437; But- Miller, 84 Fed. R 344 terworth v. Hill, 114 U. S. 128; Hill 6» N. Y. Belting & Packing Co. v. v. Wooster, 132 U. S. 69a Magowan, 27 Fed. R 111; citing 32 JURISDICTION. [§ 12. peal to the District Court of Appeals ; 63 and that the statute authorizing the appeal to the District Court of Appeals is con- stitutional. 64 The Commissioner of Patents is not a necessary party when there is a party to oppose the bill, 65 but when the patent has been issued and assigned, the assignee is a neces- sary party. 68 It has been held that the statute does not author- ize an injunction against the issue of a patent by the Com- missioner to some one other than the plaintiff. 67 A bill for an account of general average and decree of contribution has been sustained. 68 It has been held that there is jurisdic- tion in equity to open a closed account, although there is a remedy at law, in a case where, were the accounts still open, equity might have entertained a bill for an accounting. 69 " It is possible that one who holds land under grant from the United States, who has done everything in his power to entitle him to a patent (which he cannot compel the United States to issue to him), and is deemed the legal owner, so far as to render the land taxable to' him by the State in which it lies, may be considered as having sufficient title to sustain a bill in equity to quiet his right and possession." 70 § 1^. Illustrations of cases where the Federal courts hare refused to assume equitable jurisdiction. — Equity will not entertain a bill to restrain the President of the United States from carrying into effect an unconstitutional act of Congress, in the discharge of duties " purely executive and political." * Nor a bill to protect rights which are purely political, even though rights of property may be thereby incidentally affected. 2 Nor a bill to enforce an " abstract right " which the complain- ant asserts, and which he may never practically exercise ; as, «3 Smith v. Muller, 75 Fed. R. 612. U. S. 552, 556, citing Carroll v. Saf- e* IT. S. v. Duell, 172 U. S. 576. ford, 3 How. 441, 463; Van Wyck v. M Butler v. Shaw, 21 Fed. R 321; Knevals, 106 U. S. 360, 370; Van Graham v. Teter, 25 Fed. E. 555. Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151, 66 Graham v. Teter, 25 Fed. R. 555. 169. See Illingworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. R § 12. i Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 141,145. Wall. 475. 6' Illingworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. R 2 Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50. 141. 144. Cf. Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wall. 241; 68 Sturgess v. Cary, 2 Curt. 59. Clough v. Curtis, 134 U. S. 361 ; Smith 6S BischofEsheim v. Baltzer, 20 Fed. v. Board County Com'rs Skogit R 890. County, 45 Fed. R. 725 ; Mills v. Green, 71) Gray, J., in Frost v. Spitley, 121 69 Fed. R 852. § 12.] WHEN THERE IS NO JURISDICTION IN EQUITY. 33 for example, the right to remove an obstruction from a navi- gable river, when he does not allege that he is about to navi- gate the same. 3 Nor a bill by the United States to enjoin a corporation from opening an exhibition upon Sunday, where Congress had made an appropriation toward the expense of the enterprise upon the express condition that it should be closed on the first day of each week. 4 Nor a bill by a coupon-holder, who does not allege that he is a taxpayer, to enjoin a State officer from refusing to receive his coupons in payment of taxes, as is required by a contract between the coupon-holder and the State. 5 Nor a bill to compel municipal, county or State officers to levy a tax; 6 or to issue bonds, even in the case of a contract ; T since the remedy, when it exists at all, is by man- damus. Nor a bill for the appointment of a receiver to levy taxes, or to collect taxes previously levied. 8 Nor a bill to en- join an insolvent municipality from expending its funds for other municipal purposes. 9 Nor a bill to enjoin the collection of an internal revenue tax imposed by the United States and illegally assessed. 10 Nor a bill to restrain the collection of a State tax, no matter how illegally imposed, 11 unless its en- forcement would lead to a multiplicity of suits, 12 or produce 'Spoonerv. McConnell,l McLean, i»U. S. E. S., § 3224; Snyder v. 337. Marks, 109 U. S. 189. But see Pollock * World's .Columbian Exposition v. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 157 U. S. 429; U. S., 56 Fed. R 654, , supra, § 11. 8 Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325. u Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 See Parsons v. Slaughter, 63 Fed. R WalL 548; Dows v. Chicago, 11 WalL 876. 108; State Eailroad Tax Cases, 92 6 Walkley v. Muscatine, 6 WalL U. S. 575; Milwaukee v. Koeffler, 116 481. U. & 219; Pittsburg, eta Ey. Co. v. i Smith v. Bourbon County, 127 Board of Public Works, 172 U. S. 32. U. S. 105. 12 Union Pac. Ey. Co. v. Cheyenne, » Eees v. Watertown, 19 Wall. 107; 113 U. S. 516; Dundee Mtge. T. Invt. Heine v. Levee Com'rs, 19 WalL 655; Co. v. School District, 19 Fed. R 359; Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 TJ. S. 472. Cummings v. National Bank, 101 9 Thompson v. Allen County, 115 U. S. 153, 156; Taylor v. Louisville & U. S. 550. See supra, § 11, note 32; N. E. Co. (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. E. 350, Safe Deposit & T. Co. v. City of Annis- 357 ; Sanf ord v. Poe (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. ton, 96 Fed. R 661, 663, per Shelby, J. : R 546. " It is real and not imaginary " If the remedy at law is adequate in suits, it is probable and not possible theory it deprives equity of jurisdic- danger of a multiplicity of suits, that tion, although practically it may be will warrant the assumption of juris- inadequate to secure the collection diction on that ground. While it is of the claim sued on." true, as the plaintiff contends, that 3 34 JURISDICTION. [§12. irreparable injury, 13 or throw a cloud upon the title of real estate, 14 or possibly when its assessment was made by a fraud of which equity would take cognizance, or when there is at law no means of recovering its amount. 15 Nor a bill to compel a railway company to maintain its permanent terminus at a certain place. 16 Nor, except perhaps under special circum- stances, to compel a railroad company to compel specific per- formance by either party to a contract for the construction of a railroad. 17 Nor solely for purposes that could be accom- plished by an action in ejectment. 18 Nor to quiet the title to real estate when the complainant's rights are purely equita- ble; 19 nor, in the absence of a State statute authorizing such a the State might bring a separate suit for each day's penalty " for failure to pay a tax, " the court would hardly be justified in acting on the assump- tion that it would do so. The State is not to be looked upon in the light of a barrator, and the court will not impute to it, or to its officers acting in its name, a litigious or vindictive spirit, or a purpose needlessly to vex and harass the citizen with lawsuits. Whatever the rule may be in the case of natural persons, the court will presume that a State is incapable of such a vulgar passion, and, until the fact is shown to be otherwise, will act on the assumption that a State will not bring any more suits than are fairly necessary to establish and maintain its rights." Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 44 Fed. E 310, 315, per Caldwell, J. "See Taylor v. Louisville & N. E. Co. (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. E. 350. "Sanford v. Gregg, 58 Fed. E 620; Taylor v. Louisville & N. E Co. (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. E 350, 358. 18 First Nat. Bank v. Douglass County, 3 DilL 298; Union Pac. E. Co. v. McShane, 3 Dill. 303, 312. In Shelton v. Piatt, 139 U. S. 591, 596, 597, where the only jurisdictional averments were "that the property of the United States Express Com- pany in Tennessee is employed in in- terstate commerce in the said ex- press business, and necessary to the conduct of it; that if seized by the said sheriff it will greatly embarrass the company in the conduct of such business, and subject it to heavy loss and damage, and the public served by it to great loss and inconven- ience;" and "that your orator and the United States Express Company are without adequate remedy at law in the premises;" it was held that no injunction should issue." See Allen v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 139 U. S. 658. See also Keithsburg Bridge Co. v. McKay, 42 Fed. E 427; Pacific Exp. Co. v. Seibert, 44 Fed. R. 310; Hoey v. Coleman, 46 Fed. E 221, 223. 16 Texas & Pac. Ey. Co. v. Marshall, 136 U. S. 393. "Strang v. Eichmond, P. & C. E. Co., 93 Fed. E. 71. See also Fallon v. Eailroad Co., 1 Dill. 121; Eoss v. Union Pac. Ey. Co., 1 Woolw. 26. is Hipp v. Babin, 19 How. 271; Lewis v. Cooks, 23 Wall. 466; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485; Killian v. Eb- binghaus, 110 U. S. 568; U. S. v. Wil- son, 118 U. S. 86; Speigle v. Meredith, 4 Biss. 120. is Frost v. Spitley, 121 U. & 553. § 12.] WHEN THEKE IS NO JURISDICTION IN EQUITY. 35 suit, when he is not in possession of the land. 20 Nor a bill for a partition filed by a tenant in common out of possession ; 21 or where the complainant's title is denied; 23 except when the complainant's title is not recognized at common law. 23 Nor, usually, to restrain the seizure or to compel the return of per- sonal property, 24 unless its loss by the owner would result in irreparable injury by the destruction of his business and com- mercial credit, 25 or by rendering it impossible for him to man- age his farm, 26 or on account of its unique value, 27 or if it be held in trust. 28 That the value of the property is so great that the complainant is unable to give the bond required in an action of replevin affords no ground for the interference of equity. 29 Nor can a bill be sustained which seeks to recover •damages for a conversion, 80 or for a fraudulent misrepresenta- tion, 31 even when sought as an alternative to a prayer for a rescission, 82 or for a fraudulent conspiracy. 38 Nor to collect a note from its maker 3 * or an indorsee. 35 Nor to collect the amount of an insurance policy. 86 Nor a bill filed by an insur- ance company, after a loss has occurred, to obtain the cancella- tion of a policy procured by fraud. 87 Nor, except in a very SOU. S. v. Wilson, 118 TJ. S. 86; 8 » Dumont v. Fry, IS Fed. R 21. Frost v. Spitley, 131 U. S. 552; supra, "Russell v. Clark, 7 Cranch, 69; §7. White v. Boyce, 21 Fed. R 228. "In 21 Frey v. Willoughby, 63 Fed. R. cases of fraud and mistake, as under 565. any other head of chancery jurisdic- 22 American Ass'n v. Eastern Ey. tion, a court of the United States will Land Co., 68 Fed. R 721. But see not sustain a bill in equity to obtain Fuller v. Montague, 59 Fed. R 212. only a decree for the payment of 23 Hopkins v Grimshaw, 165 U. S. money by way of damages, when the -342, 358. like amount can be recovered in an 21 Knox v. Smith, 4 How. 298; Van action sounding in tort or for money Norden v. Morton, 99 TJ. S. 378. But had and received." Per Gray, J., in :see Crane v. McCoy, 1 Bond, 422. Buzard v. Houston, 119 TJ. S. 347, 352. 2 « Watson v. Sutherland, 5 WalL S2 Alger v. Anderson, 92 Fed. R 696. 74; North v. Peters, 138 TJ. S. 271. 33 Ambler v. Choteau, 107 U. S. 586. a* Breeden v. Lee, 2 Hughes, 484. « Dowell v. Mitchell, 105 U. S. 430. 27 Pusey v. Pusey, 1 Vera. 273; Duke 35 Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130. ■of Somerset v. Cookson, 3 P. Wms. 3B Graves v. Boston Marine Ins. Co., 389. But see Lawrence v. Times 2 Cranch, 419. Printing Co., 90 Fed. R. 24 8'Home Ins. Co. v. Stanchfleld, 1 28 New Orleans v. Morris, 105 TJ. S. Dill. 424; Insurance Co. v. Bailey, 13 600 ; Reynes v. Dumont, 130 TJ. S. 354, Wa& 616. 29 In re Oregon Iron Works, 4 Saw. 169, 170; s, G, 17 N. B. R 404 36 JUEISDICTION. [§ 12. extraordinary case, a bill to enjoin slanders or libels. 38 Nor a bill to enjoin criminal proceedings. 39 Nor a bill to enjoin the removal of an officer of the United States or of a State or a municipality, 40 or' the enactment of a municipal ordinance, 41 except perhaps when the ordinance would impose a municipal indebtedness. 42 Nor a bill to compel a public officer to perform a ministerial duty. 43 Nor a bill by the assignee of a cause of action to enforce for his own use the legal right of his as- signor, when he seeks the aid of equity merely upon the ground that he cannot maintain an action at law in his own name. 44 Nor a bill by a private citizen to set aside a land-patent of the United States, on account of fraud upon the government used in its procurement, 45 although if fraud were then practiced upon the plaintiff he might have relief upon the ground of es- toppel. 46 Nor a bill filed by a creditor for himself alone to apply equitable assets to the payment of his debt, unless he has, obtained a judgment for his claim in a court of the same State or judicial district, and had the return of an execution issued thereon unsatisfied ; 47 not even, it has been held, when it is shown that the debtor is insolvent, and has no property which can be reached by legal process, 48 unless to enforce a trust or equitable right. 49 Nor, in the absence of a State statute au- thorizing such a proceeding, a bill to set aside the probate of a will, 50 or to cancel a will itself, 51 on account of a mistake, 88 Francis t. Flinn, 118 U. S. 385; « Steel v. Smelting Co., 106 U. S. Baltimore Car Wheel Co. v. Bemis, 447. 29 Fed. E. 95. Contra, Emaok v. « Steel v. Smelting Co., 106 U. S. Kane, 34 Fed. R 46 ; Fougeres v. Mur- 447, 454. barger, 44 Fed. R 292. See § 233. « Case v. Beauregard, 99 U. S. 119; a^Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. Smith v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 398; 148; Fitts v. McGhee, 172U. S. 51& Walser v. Seligman, 13 Fed. R. 415; « In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200 ; White Swan L. & C. Co. v. Frank, 148 U. a v. Berry, 171 U. S. 366, 376-378. 603; Hollins v. Brierfleld C. & I. Co., « New Orleans Water Works Co. 150 U. S. 371. v. New Orleans, 164 U. S. 471. But « Walser v. Seligman, 13 Fed. R see LosAngeles v. Los Angeles Water 415. But see Case v. Beauregard, 101 Co., 177 U. S. 558; supra, § 11. U. S. 688, 690. « Murphy v. Bast Portland, 42 Fed. 49 Case v. Beauregard, 101 U. S. 688, R. 308. 690; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Chat- « Craig v. Leitensdorfer, 123 U. S. tanooga Constr. Co., 53 Fed. R 314 189. 60 Broderiok's Will, 21 Wall 503; « Hay ward v. Andrews, 106 U. S. Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485; Simmons 672; New York Guaranty Co. v. v. Saul, 138 U. S. 439. Memphis Water Co., 107 U. S. 205. « Oakley v. Taylor, 64 Fed. R 245. § 12.] WHEN THEBE IS NO JURISDICTION IN EQUITY. 37 undue influence, forgery or other fraud ; but a Federal court may enforce a bill for the construction of a will duly estab- lished. 52 Nov to enjoin an action at law to which the com- plainant has a clear legal defense. 53 Nor to set aside or enjoin proceedings to' enforce a judgment at law because of fraud ; unless the complainant had a defense to the action upon the merits, 54 and either the fraud was extrinsic to the matter tried and not in issue in the former suit, nor then known to the complainant, or else some unconscientious advantage was taken of the successful judgment debtor during the progress of the suit without any fault or negligence upon his part. 55 Nor to set aside a judgment at law 56 or a decree in equity 57 for an omission to serve a party to the same, except perhaps when the record shows an apparent service. It has been said that a receiver, assignee in bankruptcy, or assignee under a volun- tary general assignment, each of whom represents creditors as well as the debtor, cannot maintain a bill to enforce a col- lateral obligation given to a creditor or to a body of creditors by a third person for the payment of the debts of the in- solvent. 58 A bill was dismissed which sought to enforce spe- cific performance of a contract containing a power of revocation by the defendant. 59 So was a bill to compel the transfer of corporate stock, which the complainant obtained for an inade- quate consideration, and which he wished to use for purely speculative purposes and to gain thereby an unconscientious advantage. 60 In the absence of statutory authority, a private 53 Wood v. Paine, 66 Fed. R 807. A judgment creditor of a national 53 Grand Chutev. Winegar, 15 Wall, bank cannot sue in equity to com- 373; Francis v. Flinn, 118 U. S. 385; pel the receiver of the bank to recog- Hapgood v. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226. nize his judgment and to enjoin the See Drexel v. Berney, 122 U. S. 241. receiver from refusing such recog- 54 White v. Crow, 110 U. S. 183. nition; because he has an adequate Contra, Mills v. Scott, 43 Fed. R. 452. remedy by an action at law in the 85 Life Ins. Co. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. Federal court against the receiver 780,782; Cragin v. Lovell, 109 U.S. upon the judgment of the State court 194 See Knox County v. Harshman, against the bank. Denton v. Baker, 133 IT. S. 152; Leavenworth County 79 Fed. R 189. Com'rs v. Chicago, R L & P. Ry. 69 Express Co. v. Railroad Co., 99 Co., 134 U. S. 688. " F. S. 191. « Lewis v. Cocks, 23 Wall. 466. 6 »M. & M. R. Co. v. Cromwell, 91 S7 Yeatman v. Bradford, 44 Fed. R. U. S. 643. See Foil's Appeal, 91 Pa. 536. St. 434; Randolph's Ex'r v. Quidnick « Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. R 454. Co., 135 U. S. 457, 459. 38 JUBISDIOTION. [§ 12. individual cannot file a bill to obtain the forfeiture of a corpo- rate franchise, 61 nor a stockholder a bill to dissolve a foreign corporation under a statute of the country which chartered it. 6 * Nor can a corporation be enjoined from acting beyond its legal powers at the suit of a business rival not one of its stockhold- ers. 63 Nor can a stockholder file a bill, founded upon rights which may properly be asserted by his corporation, against it and other parties, unless there exists, " as the foundation of the suit, some action or threatened action of the managing board of directors or trustees of the corporation which is beyond the authority conferred on them by their charter or other source of organization; or such a fraudulent transaction completed or contemplated by the acting managers, in connection with some other party, or among themselves, or with other shareholders, as will result in serious injury to the corporation, or to the in- terests of the other shareholders ; or where the board of direct- ors, or a majority of them, are acting for their own interest, in a manner destructive of the corporation itself, or of the rights of the other shareholders ; or where the majority of sharehold- ers themselves are oppressively and illegally pursuing a course in the name of the corporation which is in violation of the rights of the other shareholders, and which can only be re- strained by the aid of a court of equity. Possibly other cases may arise in which, to prevent irremediable injury or a total failure of justice, the court would be justified in exercising its powers; but the foregoing may be regarded as an outline of the principles which govern this class of cases. But in addi- tion to the existence of grievances which call for this kind of relief, it is equally important that before the shareholder is permitted in his own name to institute and conduct a litiga- tion which usually belongs to the corporation, he should show to the satisfaction of the court that he has exhausted all the means within his reach to obtain, within the corporation itself, the redress of his grievances, or action in conformity to his wishes. He must make an earnest, not a simulated, effort with the managing body of the corporation to induce remedial ac- 61 Gaylord v. Fort Wayne, M. & 0. 6S Railroad Co. v. Ellerman, 105 E. Co., 6 Biss. 286. XT. S. 166. ^Republican Silver Mines v. Brown, 68 Fed. R. 644 § 13.] FEDERAL COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION IN EQUITY. 39 tion on their part, and this must be made apparent to the court. If time permits, or has permitted, he must show, if he fails with the directors, that he has made an honest effort to obtain action by the stockholders as a body, in the matter of which he complains. And he must show a case, if this is not done, where it could not be done or it was not reasonable to require it." M It seems that this rule does not apply where the suit arises under the' Constitution of the United States; 65 nor to a suit by a mortgagee. 66 Analogous rules regulate a suit by a stockholder to set aside a contract by the corporation as be- yond the powers conferred in its charter. 67 It has been said that a court of equity has no power to seize a man's property, and through its officers complete a bridge in pursuance of a contract which he has made. 68 Nor is it a sufficient ground for the interference of a court of equity that the evidence in a cause is voluminous and tedious. 69 Nor, it has been said, upon^ the mere allegation of insolvency of the defendant. 70 " To give a court of equity jurisdiction, the nature of the relief asked must be equitable, even when the suit is based on an equitable title." n The inadequacy of the remedy at law which will justify relief in equity does not consist merely in its failure to produce the relief sought, — that is a not unusual result of all remedies, — but that in its nature or character it is not fitted or adapted to the end in view. 72 § 13. Federal courts which have jurisdiction in equity. — The equitable jurisdiction of the Federal courts, from which category the courts of the Territories and of the District of 64 Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 67 Dimpfell v. Ohio & Miss. E Co., 450, 460, 461, per Miller, J. See also 110 U. S. 209; Tazewell & Farmers' Huntington v. Palmer, 104 U. S. 482; Loan & T. Co., 12 Fed. E 752; Green- Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S. wood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S. 13. 13; Detroit v. Dean, 106 U. S. 537; 6 8Texas & St. Louis Ey. Co. v. Quincy v. Steel, 120 TJ. S. 241 ; County Eust, 17 Fed. B. 275. of Tazewell v. Farmers' T. & Tr. Co., » Bowen v. Chase, 94 TJ. S. 812, 824 12 Fed. B. 752; Symmes v. Union 70 Strang v. Richmond, P. & C. E. Trust Co. of N. Y., 60 Fed. R 830, 858. Co., 93 Fed. B. 71, 74. See also Equity Eule 94, and infra, 71 Fussell v. Gregg, 113 U. S. 55Q, §§ 76, 87, 207. 554, per Woods, J. 65 Ball v. Eutland E Co., 93 Fed. R Ti Miller, J., in Thompson v. Allen 513. See Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. County, 115 U. S. 550,554 Of. Texas 466. & P. Ey. Co. v. Marshall, 136 U. S. •» Consolidated Water Co. v. City 393, 405. of San Diego, 89 Fed. E 272. 40 JUEISDICTION. [§13. Columbia are here excluded, 1 is in the Supreme Court, the Cir- cuit Courts of Appeal, the Circuit Courts, the District Courts, the Court of Claims, 2 the Court of Private Land Claims. 3 The following courts also have, under statutes of the United States, jurisdiction at equity and common law, which is in some re- spects analogous to those of the Federal courts: the District Court of Alaska, 4 the Supreme Court of Arizona, 5 the Supreme and District Courts of Oklahoma, 6 the United States court and the Court of Appeals of the Indian Territory, 7 the District Court of Porto Eico, 8 the District Court of Hawaii, 9 the Su- preme Court of the District of Columbia, 10 and the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. 11 § 13. 1 See Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 WalL 434; McAllister v. U. S., 141 U. S. 174 But see Cross v. U. S., 145 TJ. S. 571, 576. 2 The jurisdiction and practice of the Court of Claims is described infra, ch. XXXL 3 The jurisdiction and practice of the Court of Private Land Claims is described infra, ch XXXII. <33 St. at L. 24; 30 St at L. 545; L. 1900, p. 322; infra, § 26a. «U. S. R. S., §1908. «26 St. at L. 81. 7 25 St. at L. 783; 28 St. at L. 693; 30 St. at L. 83; St. 1900, p. 657. 8 St. 1900, p. 84; infra, § 26a. s St. 1900, p. 158; infra, § 26a. "The Supreme Court of the Dis- trict of Columbia has the same juris- diction as the Circuit Courts of the United States. D. C. Code, § 61. It has the same jurisdiction in bank- ruptcy, when the bankrupt resides in the district, that is vested in the District Courts of the United States. E. S. D. C, § 765. It has jurisdiction of applications for divorce. D. C. Code, § 963. It has generally the same jurisdiction that was vested in the General Court or the Supreme Court of Chancery of Maryland, February 27, 1801. D. C. Code, § 61 ; 19 St. at L. 253. But it has no jurisdiction of suits against persons not inhabitants of the district, except in the same way that non-residents were pro- ceeded against in the General Court or the Supreme Court of Chancery of Maryland (May 3, 1802); and where such jurisdiction is conferred by spe- cial statutes. D. C. Code, §§ 105-112. For its jurisdiction to grant writs of mandamus, see infra, § 363a; prohi- bition, § 362; quo warranto, § 368a. U D. C. Code, § 226. "Any party aggrieved by any final order, judg- ment or decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, or of any justice thereof, including any final order or judgment in any case heard on appeal from a justice of the peace, may appeal therefrom to the Court of Appeals, hereby created ; and upon such appeal the Court of Appeals shall review such order, judgment or decree, and affirm, reverse or modify the same, as shall be just. Appeals shall also be allowed to said Court of Appeals from all interlocutory orders of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, or by any justice thereof, whereby the possession of property is changed or affected, such as orders for the appointment of receivers, granting injunctions, dissolving writs of attachment, and the like; and also from any other interlocu- tory order, in the discretion of said Court of Appeals, whenever it is § 14] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 41 § 14. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. — The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction both at law and equity in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State is a party, 1 except where a citizen of the same State is a party, when it has no jurisdiction. 2 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over controversies to which a State is a party is exclusive, except as regards contro- versies between a State and its citizens, or between a State and citizens of other States. 3 In suits to which a State is a party the practice in equity is followed. 4 The Supreme Court has exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits against ambassadors or other public ministers, or their domestics or domestic servants, as a court of law can have consistently with the law of nations ; and original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul is a party. 5 A State may file a bill against another State to settle and establish a disputed boundary. 6 In such a suit the United States has an interest in the controversy, and the attorney-general on his application may intervene, appear on behalf of the United States, adduce proofs and be heard in argument without mak- ing the United States a party in the technical sense of the term ; but he has no right to interfere in the pleading or evidence or admissions of either of the States; and in such a suit the made to appear to said court upon petition that it will be in the interest of justice to allow such appeal." " i'he determination of appeals from the decision of the Commis- sioner of Patents, now vested in the general term of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, in pursu- ance of the provisions of section 780 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to the District of Co- lumbia, shall hereafter be, and the same is hereby vested in the Court of Appeals created by this act; and, in addition, any party aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in any inference case may appeal therefrom to said Court of Appeals." Ibid., § 228; 27 St. at L. 436, §9. § 14. i Const., art. III. 2 California v. Southern Pao. Co., 157 U. S. 229. SU. S. E. S., §687. 4 Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 DalL 402; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 266. 5U. S. RS.,§687. 6 New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461; S. a, 5 Pet 284; S. C., 6 Pet. 323; Massachusetts v. Ehode Island, 13 Pet 755; Rhode Island v. Massachu- setts, 13 Pet. 23; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Rhode Island v. Massa- chusetts, 15 Pet 233; s. C, 4 How. 591; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660-; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Vir- ginia v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39; Missouri v. Iowa, 10 How. 1; Alabama v.. Georgia, 23 How. 505; Missouri v. Kentucky, 11 WalL 395. 42 JURISDICTION. [§ 14. judgment cannot be either for or against the United States. 7 "Written authority from the governor of a State is sufficient to authorize a suit on behalf of the State. 8 All process of the court is in the name of the President of the United States. 9 In a suit by a State against another State the service of a sub- poena sixty days before the return day is sufficient. 10 Service should be made on both the governor and the attorney -general. 11 In one case a subpoena served upon the governor by leaving a copy at his house and there showing the original to the secre- tary of state was held sufficient. 12 The filing of a pleading by the attorney-general of a State who has been admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the United States is an appearance on behalf of such State. 13 The rules concerning the time for pleading in suits between indi- viduals do not apply to suits between the different States. 14 The State of Massachusetts was allowed to answer an amended bill of the State of Rhode Island one year after the filing of such amended bill. 18 If the State fail to appear, or if the State withdraw its appearance, no coercive, measures will be taken to compel its appearance, but the complainant may be allowed to proceed expcwte. 16 A State cannot maintain a bill in equity to protect a purely political right. 17 Nor, it seems, except to abate a nuisance, 18 to redress the wrongs of a part of her citizens. 19 A State cannot obtain an order or judgment compelling the governor of another State to return a fugitive from labor or justice. 20 In a suit to settle a disputed boundary, the most ap- propriate mode of proceeding is by bill and cross-bill. 21 In suits against a State the practice is very liberal, and the utmost lib- 7 Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478. I4 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, s Texas v. White, 7 WalL 700, 719. 13 Pet. 23. 'Supreme Court Rule 5; New Jer- 15 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, sey v. New York, 6 Pet 323. 13 Pet. 2a i° Supreme Court Rule 5; Chisholm 16 Massachusetts v. Rhode Island, v. Georgia, 2 DalL 419; Grayson v. 12 Pet. 755; Oswald v. New York, 2 Virginia, 3 DalL 320; New Jersey v. DalL 415; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 DalL New York, 3 Pet 461; s. C, 5 Pet. 419. 284; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. W Georgia v. Stanton, 6 "WalL 50. 66. 18 Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S. 208. H Supreme Court Rule 5. , 19 Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1. i 2 Huger v. South Carolina, 3 DalL 20 Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 839. 66. w New Jersey v. New York, 6 Pet 21 Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660. 623. § 14.] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 43 erality is exercised by the court in the correction of slips of prac- tice or errors. 22 A State cannot sue one of its own citizens in the Supreme Court of the United States. 23 The allegation that a defendant corporation is " a body politic in the law of and doing business in the State of California " is insufficient to establish that the defendant is a California corporation, and is insufficient to show that the defendant is not a Pennsylvania corporation. 24 A State cannot sue another State to collect bonds and coupons of the defendant which have been assigned to the plaintiff by its own citizens in order that it may collect them and pay the proceeds to the assignors. 25 A suit by a State to collect a judg- ment for penalties obtained in one of its own courts against a foreign corporation cannot be maintained in the Supreme Court of the United States. 28 A State may sue for an injunc- tion against the collection by citizens of other States of cer- tain bonds of the United States which are the property of such State, and for the delivery to it of such bonds, and for a dec- laration that the contract under which the defendants claim a title to such bonds is void. 27 A State may maintain a bill against citizens of other States to enforce its title to a rail- road. 28 The fact that a State is a stockholder in a corporation by or against which a suit is brought does not make the State a party to such suit. 29 The court considers the former practice of the courts of Chancery and of King's Bench, in England, as affording out- lines for its practice. 30 It has made a few rules regulating the same. 31 It is the regular practice to obtain leave of the court upon a motion, which is usually heard ex parte, but of which, under special circumstances, the court will require notice to be served upon the proposed defendant, before an original bill in equity is filed in the Supreme Court. 83 22 Iowa v. Illinois, 151 U. S. 238; * Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 Ehode Island v. Massachusetts, 13 U. S. 265. Pet. 23. 27 Texas v. White, 7 WalL 700, 741- 28 Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 743. 10 Wall. 553. 28 Florida v. Anderson, 91 U. S. 667. 24 Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 2!) Bank of U. S. v. Planters' Bank 10 WalL 553. of Ga., 9 Wheat. 904. 25 New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 so Supreme Court Rule 3. U. S. 76. 31 See Appendix. a 2 Georgia v. Grant, 6 WalL 241. 44 . JUBISDIOTION. [§§ l&a, 15. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is explained in the final chapter of this work. Incidental to such appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has power in certain limited cases to issue writs of prohibition, 33 mandamus, 34 habeas cor- pus, 35 scire facias, and other writs. 38 § 14a. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of Appeal. — There are nine Circuit Courts of Appeal, one in each circuit. 1 Their jurisdiction is exclusively appellate, and will be ex- plained in the concluding chapter of this work. Incidental to such appellate jurisdiction, they have the power to issue writs of scire facias and all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which are necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. 2 § 15. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States. — The Circuit Courts of the United States have origi- nal cognizance, concurrently with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners ; suits in which there is a controversy between citizens of different States, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid ; or a controversy between citizens of the same State, claiming land under grants of different States, or a controversy between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens or subjects, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, ex- clusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid ; 1 and, irrespective of the value of the matter in dispute, of cases com- menced 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; 2 and of all suits authorized by law 83 U. a R. S., § 688. See infra, §§ 361, * XT. a R. a, § 716; 26 St. at L. 829, 362. §12. See infra, §§ 361-368. a* IT. S. R S., § 688. See infra, §§ 361, § 15. 1 24 St. at L., ch. 373, p. 552. 363, 364 2 24 St. at L., ch. 373, § 4, p. 552; 30 as IT. S. R. S., § 751. See infra, §§ 366, St. at L., p. 553. See Armstrong v. 367, 368. • Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. R. 209: Armstrong 36 IT. S. R. S., § 688. See infra, §§ 361, v. Trautmann, 36 Fed. R. 275 ; Mo 365. Conville v. Gilmour, 36 Fed. R. 277. §14o. 1 26 St. at L. 829, §12. § 15.] JURISDICTION OF THE CIKCUIT COURTS. 45 to be brought by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, of any right, privilege, or immunity, se- cured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law providing for equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, whether such suit was originally brought in one of them or removed there according to law from a State court; 3 of suits against the United States, to collect claims of more than $1,000 and not exceeding $10,000, for money only, founded upon the Constitution of the United States or any law of Congress, except for pensions, or upon any contract, ex- pressed or implied, with the government of the United States, except to recover fees, salary or compensation for official serv- ices, 4 or to recover damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort in respect of which claims the plaint- iff would be entitled to redress against the United States, in a court of law, equity, or admiralty, if the United States were suable, — except war claims, 5 and except other claims, which, before March 3, 1887, were rejected or reported on adversely by any court, department, or commission authorized to hear and determine the same; 6 of suits in equity brought by a ten- ant in common or a joint tenant for the partition of land in cases where the United States is one of such tenants in com- mon or joint tenants ; ' of proceedings to condemn for national public uses land within their respective districts ; 8 of suits to recover penalties under the act forbidding the importation of persons under a contract to perform labor; 9 of suits to enforce and prevent violations of the acts to protect trade and com- merce against unlawful restraints, 10 the act to prevent the un- 'U. S. E. S., § 629;" 24 St, at L., ch. 8 25 st. at L., ch, 728, p. 357.' See 376, § 5. See Carter v. Greenhow, infra, § 381. 114 U. S. 317. 9 23 St. at L. 332; U. S. v. Mexican * 30 St. at L. 495; Strong v. U. S., 93 Nat. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. E. 269. See U. S. Fed. R 257; U. S. v. Kelly (C. C. A.), v. Rector of the Church of the Holy 97 Fed. R 460; 24 St at L. 505; U. S. Trinity, 36 Fed. R 303; U. S. v. Craig, v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1. See infra, § 36. 28 Fed. R 795; 26 St. at L. 1084. « Bodemuller v. U. S., 39 Fed. R 437. " 26 St at L. 209 ; U. S. v. - Jellico 6 24 St. at L. 505; 30 St. at L. 495; Mountain Coke & Coal Co., 43 Fed. U. S. v. Jones, 131 U. S. L See infra, R 898; S. 0., 46 Fed. R 432. See § 36. American Biscuit & Mfg. Co. v. Klitz, 1 30 St at L. 416. 44 Fed. R 721, 725, 726. 4:6 JUEISBIOTION. [§ 15. lawful occupation of public lands, 11 and the act to execute pro- visions of the treaties with China ; 12 proceedings to review the decisions of the general appraisers ls and under certain special statutes. Formerly Circuit Courts of the United States had jurisdiction, without regard to the value of the matter in dis- pute, of all suits at law or in equity arising under the patent, trade-mark, or copyright laws of the United States, or under any act providing for internal revenue, or revenue from im- ports or tonnage, or under the postal laws, or under any of the laws relating to the slave and cooley trade ; of suits by the assignees of debentures for drawback of duties; and of pro- ceedings by the writ of quo warranto prosecuted by a district attorney of the United States for the removal from office of any person holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amend- ment to the Constitution, except a member of Congress or of a State legislature. 14 It has been held that those courts still have jurisdiction, irrespective of the value of the matter in dispute, of suits at law or in equity arising under the patent and copy- right laws, 15 but not of those arising under the trade-mark laws, 18 of suits at law or in equity arising under the revenue laws; 17 of actions at common law by the United States 18 or an officer thereof, including in this term a receiver of a national bank appointed by the comptroller; 19 but not, it has been held, of " 23 St. at L. 321. name of the United States for the 12 24 St. at L. 409. benefit of a third person, it was held 13 26 St. at L. 138; In re Blumlein, that it should be dismissed because 45 Fed. R. 236; In re Dieckerhoff, 45 the matter in dispute was less than Fed. R 235; In re Dowling, 45 Fed. $2,000. U. S. v. Henderlong, 102 Fed. R 412. R 2. »U. S. R S., §§ 629, 2159, 3213; 18 "Armstrong v. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. St. at L. 478. R 209; Armstrong v. Trautmann, 36 is In re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653; In re Fed. R. 275; McConville v. Gilmour, Keasbey & Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 221, 36 Fed. R 277; Stephens v. Bernays, 230; Miller-Magee Co. v. Carpenter, 44 Fed. R. 642; Fisher v. Yoder, 53 34 Fed. R 433. See U. S. v. Mooney, Fed. R 565; Brown v. Smith, 88 Fed. 116 U. S. 104, 107. A suit to enjoin a R. 565; Yardley v. Dickson, 47 Fed. tax on a patent does not arise under R 835. See Auten v. IT. S. Nat. Bank, the patent laws. Holt v. Indiana 174 U. S. 125. Contra, as to receivers Mfg. Co., 176 U. S. 68. of national banks where the matter 16 In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., in dispute is less than $2,000, held 160 U. S. 221, 230. in Brown v. Ellis, 95 Fed. R 1; Sulli- " Ames v. Hager, 36 Fed. R. 129. van v. Swain, 96 Fed. R 259. As to w U. S. v. Say ward, 160 U. S. 493. the agent of a shareholder of a na- Where a suit was brought in the tional bank elected while its affairs § 15.] JURISDICTION OF THE 0IE0UIT COUETS. 4:7 suits against such receivers where the matter in dispute, ex- clusive of interest and costs, is less than $2,000. 20 The Circuit Courts also have jurisdiction of suits brought by or against re- ceivers appointed by a Federal court, 21 but whether their juris- diction in such cases is limited to suits in which the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds $2,000, is a disputed ques- . tion. 22 They have also exclusive jurisdiction of prosecutions for all capital crimes against the United States and for deposit- ing fraudulent papers in the archives of the office of the Sur- veyor General in California; and concurrent jurisdiction with the District Courts of all other crimes against the United States, except as limited by special statutes. 23 The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction, irrespective of the amount involved, to try and determine any action, suit, or spe- cial proceeding arising within their respective jurisdictions, in- volving the right of any person, in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent, to any allotment of land under any law or treaty. The judgment or decree of any such court in favor of any claimant to any allotment of land has the same effect, when properly certified to the Secretary of the Interior, as if such allotment had been allowed and approved by him. This jurisdiction does not extend to any lands held on August 15, 1894, by either of the five civilized tribes, nor to any lands within the Quapaw Indian agency. 24 The Judiciary Act of 1887 provides: "That all national banking associations established under the laws of the United States shall, for the purposes of all actions by or against them, are being wound up, see Snohomish 21 White v. Ewing, 159 U. S. 36. County v. Puget Sound Nat. Bank, 22 The following cases hold that 81 Fed. R 518. There is a dictum they are: Carpenter v. Northern that a corporation, such as a tele- Pac. R Co., 75 Fed, R. 850; Sullivan graph company which is an agent of v. Bannon, 81 Fed. R 886. See also the United States, can, in all mat- Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. ters affecting its existence as an 593; White v. Ewing, 159 TJ. S. 36, 39; agent, sue in a Circuit Court irre- Gilmore v. Herrick, 93 Fed. R 525; spective of the amount in contro- Ray v. Pierce, 81 Fed. R 881 ; Pitkin versy. W. TJ. Tel. Co. v. City Coun- v. Cowen, 91 Fed. R 599. See infra, oil, 56 Fed. R. 419. §§ 17, 21, 249, 251. 2«Smithson v. Hubbell, 81 Fed. R 23 U. S. R S., §§ 629, 5412; 18 St. at 593; Follett v. Tillinghast, 82 Fed. R L. 470. 241; Sullivan v. Swain, 96 Fed. R 2i 28 St. at L. 805. 259. Of. Gilbert v. McNulta, 96 Fed. R. sa 48 JURISDICTION. [§ 15. real, personal or mixed, and all suits in equity should be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located; and in such cases the Circuit and District Courts shall not have jurisdiction over them such as they would have in cases be- tween individual citizens of the same State. The provisions of this section shall not be held to affect the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in cases commenced by the United States or by direction of any officer thereof, or cases for wind- ing up the affairs of any such bank." 25 It further provides: " Nor shall any Circuit or District Court have cognizance of any suit, except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the con- tents of any promissory note, or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder if such instru- ment be payable to bearer and be not made by any corpora- tion, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made ; and the Circuit Courts shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the District Courts under the regulations and restrictions prescribed by law." 26 The Bankruptcy Act provides that " the United States Cir- cuit Courts shall have jurisdiction of all controversies of law and in equity, as distinguished from proceedings in bankruptcy, between trustees as such and adverse claimants concerning the property acquired or claimed by the trustees, in the same man- ner and to the same extent only as though bankruptcy pro- ceedings had not been instituted, and such controversies had been between the bankrupts and such adverse claimants. Suits by the trustee shall only be brought or prosecuted in the courts where the bankrupt, whose estate is being administered by such trustee, might have brought or prosecuted them if pro- ceedings in bankruptcy had not been instituted, unless by con- sent of the proposed defendant. The United States Circuit Courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of bankruptcy, within their respective territorial limits, of the offenses enumerated in this act." ' a The Circuit Courts also have certain ancillary jurisdiction which is hereinafter ex- plained. 28 2»25 St. at L. 433. See infra, § 17. 27 30 St. at L. 552, 553. See infra, 26 Ibid. See infra, § 24. §25. 28 Infra, §21. § 16.] MATTEB IN DISPUTE. 4d § 16. "Value of the matter in disputed— The value of the matter in dispute must ordinarily exceed, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of two thousand dollars. 1 This signifies not the amount of any contingent loss or damage which one of the parties may sustain by a decision against him, but the amount in dispute between the parties in the pending suit. 2 ,Thus, the reason that, on account of its probative force, the judgment may operate as an estoppel in a subsequent proceed- ing, 3 or affect his rights against a stranger to the suit, 4 does not increase the value of the matter in dispute. Where the suit is upon a demand on which the law liquidates the damages for a default, the amount of the damages as liquidated by the law, not the amount named in the plaintiff's pleading, is the value of the matter in dispute; 5 but where the alleged cause of ac- tion is one in which the law does not liquidate the damages, the amount for which the plaintiff demands judgment is alone to be considered, 6 unless it clearly appears that the amount named is merely colorable, and beyond the amount of a rea- sonable expectation of recovery. 7 Chould the latter fact ap- pear for the first time upon the trial, it seems that the court would then be justified in dismissing the case at the close of plaintiff's evidence. 8 In an action of. debt on a bond of $100, the principal and interest are put in demand, and no more can be § 16. ! Act of March 3, 1887, § 1; 24 the death of plaintiff's husband and St. at L., ch. 373, p. 552. father, the sum named and prayed s Ross v. Prentiss, 3 How. 771, 772; for was thousand dollars. It Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 579; Bruce was held that the case could not be v. M. & K. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514, removed. Yarde v. Baltimore & O. s Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 579; R. Co., 57 Fed. R. 913. Bruce v. M. & K. R. Co., 117 TJ. S. 514; 7 L ee v. Watson, 1 Wall. 337; Bow- Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v. Postal man v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 115 Tel. C. Co., 62 Fed. R. 500. U. S. 611, 616; Smith v. Greenhow, i Smith v. Adams, 130 TJ. S. 167. 109 U. S. 669; Mayor, etc. of Balti- » Wilson v. Daniel, 3 DalL 401,407; more v. Postal TeL. C. Co., 62 Fed. Barry v. Edmunds, 116 TJ. S. 550, 560; R. 500; Bank of Arapahoe v. David Cabot v. McMaster, 61 Fed. R 129; Bradley & Co., 72 Fed. R 867; Shields North Am. T. & T. Co. v. Morrison, 178 v. McCandlish, 73 Fed. R. 318. TJ. S. 262; Vance v. W. A. Vander- 8 Maxwell v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., cook Co., 170 TJ. S. 468. 34 Fed. R. 286, 290; Holden v. Utah « Smith v. Greenhow, 109 U. S. 669 Wilson v, Daniel, 3 Dall. 401, 407 Barry v. Edmunds, 116 TJ. S. 550, 560 S. & M. M. ,Co., 83 Fed. R 209; Cabot v. McMaster, 61 Fed. R. 129. For what is sufficient evidence of good Gorman v. Havird, 141 TJ. S. 206. In faith, see Peeler v. Lathrop, 48 Fed. an action for damages resulting from R. 780 ; infra, § 293. 4. 50 JUEISDICTION. [§ 16. recovered except costs, though the plaintiff lay his damages at $10,000. The value of the matter in dispute cannot, there- fore, exceed $100 with interest and costs. 9 Where, however, a receiver claimed property attached upon- a claim for less than the jurisdictional amount, it was held that the property attached, not the claim against the debtor, was the matter in dispute between the plaintiff and the receiver. 10 In an action for false imprisonment 11 or assault and battery, or in which exemplary damages may properly be claimed, the law prescribes no limitation to the amount that can be recovered ; and the amount claimed by the plaintiff is the sole criterion to which resort can be had in settling the question of jurisdiction. 12 In ejectment the value of the matter in dispute is that of the in- terest in the laud to recover which the suit is brought, although the defendant only claims an easement in the same. 13 In a suit affecting the right to hold an office, the amount of the salary for the term claimed is the value of the matter in dispute. 14 The value of the property sued for is not always the matter in dis- pute. 15 Where a complaint contains several counts, each for a a separate sum alleged to be due, and disputed by the defendant, the aggregate of the sums constitutes the value of the matter in dispute. 16 The value of the matter in dispute, in a suit for an accounting, has been said to be the amount of the disputed items 9 Wilson v. Daniel, 3 DalL 401, 407. R; 209; Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 io Hoover & Allen Co. v. Columbia Fed. R 885, 887; Weaver v. Norway S. P. Co., 68 Fed. R 945. Tack Co., 80 Fed. R 700. An as- 11 Hynes v. Briggs, 41 Fed. R 468. signee of several claims, each of 12 Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401, 407; which is less than the jurisdictional Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550, 560. amount, may sue in a Circuit Court But see Maxwell v. A., T. &S. F. R. Co., when the sum exceeds it, provided 34 Fed. R. 286. See as to trespass, his bill is not-multifarious, and that Brown v. Webster, 156 U. S. 328. his assignors as well as himself have isMcCormick v. Gray, 13 How. 26; the requisite difference of citizen- Greene v. Tacoma, 53 Fed. R 562. ship. Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 Fed. See Vicksburg, S. & P. R Co. v. R 885, 887; Bowden v. Burnham (C. Smith, 135 U. S. 195. . C. A.), 59 Fed. R 752; Davis v. Mills, "Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 99 Fed. R 39; Chase v. Sheldon R 173; Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 167, M. Co., 56 Fed. R 625: Bergman v. 175; Armstrong v. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. Inman P. & Co., 91 Fed. R 293; R. 209; Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 Hammond v. Cleveland, 23 Fed. R. 1; Fed. R 885, 887. infra, % 24 As to multifariousness, is Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, see Fitchett v. Blows (C. C. A.), 74 29, per Gray, J. Fed. R. 47; infra, §§ 71-75. M Armstrong v. Ettlosohn, 36 Fed. § 16.] MATTEK IN DISPUTE. 51 of the account. 17 In a suit for an injunction the amount in dis- pute is the value of the object to be gained by the bill, not merely the amount of damages already suffered by the complainant. 18 Thus in a suit to enjoin the use of a trade-mark and compel an account of profits, the value of the matter in dispute is the value of the trade-mark, not the amount of profits which the defendant has derived from its use. 19 In a suit to enjoin the use of a railway by a party not its owner, the value of the use of the railway, not the value of the railway, was held to be the value of the matter in dispute. 20 Upon a bill to abate a nuisance, the value of the property sought to be ^destroyed, not the amount of plaintiff's damages, is the value of the mat- ter in dispute. 21 Upon a bill to enjoin the illegal seizure of imported liquors, it was held sufficient to allege that defend- ants had already seized several packages of the same imported for the plaintiff's own use and consumption; that his right to make such importation for his own use was of the money value of upwards of $2,000; and that the value of said articles which he intended to import for his own use and consumption, and which defendants threatened to seize, exceeded the sum of $2,000. 22 Upon a bill to enjoin a trespass, which it was alleged would entirely destroy the use of certain land, it was held that the value of the land was the jurisdictional test. 23 In a suit by a railway company to enjoin a shipper from a multi- plicity of suits to recover overcharges, the value of the matter in dispute was held to be the value to the railroad of the main- tenance of its schedule rates. 24 The allegation by a mortgagee that the act which he sought to enjoin would impair the value of his security to the extent of more than $2,000 was held to be sufficient to support the jurisdiction. 25 It has been held that the jurisdictional test in a suit to enjoin the collection of "McCormick v. Gray, 13 How. 36. Fed. R 443; Mississippi & Mo. R Co. is Mississippi & Mo. R Co. v. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485; Maffet v. Ward, 2 Black, 485; Market Co. v. Quine, 95 Fed. R 199. But see Ken- Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112; Symonds yon v. Knipe, 46 Fed. R 309. v. Greene, 28 Fed. R. 834; Whitman ^Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107, v. Hubbell, 30 Fed. R 81. 115. • 9 Symonds v. Greene, 28 Fed. R 2sg m i t h v . Bivens, 56 Fed. R 352. 634. 24 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Kuteman 2 »01eson v. Northern Pac. R Co., (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R 547. Cf. Lan- 44 Fed. R 1. ning v. Osborne, 79 Fed. R. 657. 21 Rainey v. Herbert (C. C. A.), 55 M Clapp v. Spokane, 53 Fed. R 515. 52 JTJEISDICTION. [§ 16 a tax is the amount of the tax, not the value of the property which the defendant threatens to seize ; * but that where it is sought to enjoin the collection of an annual tax or license fee imposed upon a franchise or right to exercise a certain busi- ness, the value of the right to exemption, not the amount of the tax or fee claimed to be due, is to be considered. 27 Upon a taxpayer's bill to enjoin the issue of municipal bonds, it was held that the value of the matter in dispute was the amount of the consequent tax he would have to pay, not the amount of the bonds. 28 Upon a creditor's bill, the value of the com- plainant's claim, not the value of the property sought to be reached was held to be the jurisdictional test when he sued for himself alone. 29 In a suit to cancel a paper purporting to be a marriage contract, the amount of the provision which the woman would be entitled to receive from her husband, were the contract held binding, is the value of the matter in dispute. 30 But upon a bill for divorce claiming alimony which alleged that the defendant's income was $10,000 a year, it was held that since the alimony was incidental to the main object of the suit, and its allowance and amount were discretionary, the value of the matter in dispute did not appear. 31 The value of the right to appeal from the probate of a will was held to be at least equal to -the share of the appellant in case the decedent, had died intestate. 32 In a suit to quiet title, or to remove a cloud therefrom, the test is the value of the plaintiff's property affected by the adverse claim. 33 In a suit to compel the issue 26Linehan Ry. Tr. Co. v. Pender- Fed. R 68; Alkire Gr. Co. v. Rich- gass (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R 1 ; Wash- esin, 91 Fed. R 79. So where a cred- ington & G. R. Co. v. District of Co- itor of a corporation sought to set lumbia, 146 IT. S. 227, 232. aside its fraudulent conveyances. 2' W. U. TeL Co. v. City Council, Werner v. Murphy, 60 Fed. R 769. 56 Fed. R. 419, 420; Humes v. Fort so Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. R 337. Smith (Ark.), 93 Fed. R 857. Of. sl Bowman v. Bowman, 30 Fed. R. Am. Fertilizer Co. v. Board of Agri- 849. But see Simms v. Simms, 175 culture, 43 Fed. R. 609. But see Citi- U. S. 162. zens' Bank v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319. s^Erwin v. Walsh, 27 Fed. R 579. 28 Calvin v. Jacksonville, 158 IT. S. M Parker v. Morrill, 106 U. S. 1; Le- 456; Murphy v. East Portland, 42 Fed. high Z. S. Co. v. N. J. Zinc & Iron R 308. But see Brown v. Trousdale, Co., 43 Fed. R 545; Woodside v. Cice- 138 U. S. 389. roni (C. C. A), 93 Fed. R 1; Felch » Werner v. Murphy, 60 Fed. R v. Travis, 92 Fed. R 210; Fuller v. 769. See Stillwell, Bierce & S. V. Grand Rapids, 40 Mich. 395. Co. v. Williamston O. & F. Co., 80 § 16.] MATTER IN DISPUTE. 53 to complainant of a certificate of corporate stock and the can- cellation of that issued to another, the par value of the stock was held to be the value of the matter in dispute. 34 In a stockholder's suit to enforce a cause of action belonging to his corporation, the value of the matter in dispute was held to be the value of the corporate right sought to be enforced, not the value of the plaintiff's interest therein. 35 In a stockholder's suit for a receiver of the corporate assets, the value of the assets, not the value of his stock, was held to be that of the matter in dispute. 36 In a suit for the administration of a trust fund, the value of the matter in dispute was held to be the fund, not the complainant's interest therein; 37 but in a suit by a cred- itor to enjoin the receiver of a national bank from paying, a fraudulent claim, it was held that the amount of the plaintiff's claim, not of that attacked, was held ,to be the test. 38 In a suit to redeem land, the value of the equity of redemption is the value of the matter in dispute. 39 It has been held that where a number of plaintiffs, claiming under the same title and having a common and undivided in- terest in the relief sought, unite in a suit, action or proceed- ing, their united interests constitute the matter in dispute ; w but where a suit is brought by one or more for themselves and all others of a class similarly situated, the aggregate interest of those who join in the suit, not that of the whole class, con- stitutes the matter in dispute. 41 Mr. Justice Brown said: " Where two or more plaintiffs, having several interests, unite s* Ryan v. Seaboard & R R Co., 89 "Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3; Fed. R 397. Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 85 Hill v. Glasgow R Co., 41 Fed. 112; Davies v. Corbin, 112 TJ. S. 36; R. 610. Estes v. Gunter, 121 U. S. 183; Lov- 86 Towle v. American Bldg., L. & L ett v. Prentice, 44 Fed. R. 459; Prince Soc, 60 Fed. R. 131. Of. Robinson v. v. Towns, 33 Fed. R. 161; Hartford W. Va. Loan Co., 90 Fed. R 770. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bonner M. Co., 56 "Putnam v. Timothy D. &.S. C. Fed. R 378; Herbert v. Raney, 54 Co., 79 Fed. R 454 Fed. R 248; s. C. in C. C. A., 55 Fed. R 88 Smithson v. Hubbell, 81 Fed. R. 443. Of. Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. a 593. See Werner v. Murphy, 60 Fed. 27; Clay v. Field, 138 U. S. 464, 479. R. 769. 41 Bruce v. Manchester & K R Co., OTCarne v. Russ, 152 U. S. 250. In 117 U. S. 514, 516; Massa v. Cutting, a suit to foreclose a mortgage, held 30 Fed. R 1 ; Adams v. Board of that the matter in dispute was the County Com'rs, MoCahon (U. S. C. C debt. SUUwell B. & S. V. Co. v. D. Kan.), 235; Rich v. Bray, 37 Fed. Williamston O. & F. Co., 80 Fed. R. 273; Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. R. 68. 640; Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. 366, 54 JUBISDICTION. [§ 16. for the convenience of litigation in a single suit, it can only be sustained in the court of original jurisdiction, or on appeal to this court, as to those whose claims exceed the jurisdictional amount ; 42 and that, where two or more defendants are sued by the same plaintiff in one suit, the test of jurisdiction is the joint or several character of the liability to the plaintiff." 43 Thus, where a corporation sued to enjoin several county offi- cials from the levy of State, school and county taxes, it was held that the amount of the largest tax which one county sought to levy was the test of the jurisdiction, 44 although the State railroad commissioners, who had already acted, were also made defendants ; M but in a suit to enjoin a State court, which had not acted, from certifying an assessment to the dif- ferent counties, it was held that the whole amount which they threatened to certify, not the amount in any county, was the value of the matter in dispute. 46 The interest excluded from consideration includes interest accrued on the demand before the suit was brought. 47 It includes interest which is collected only as an incident of the principal demand, and not interest which is the subject of a separate contract, and which might be the subject of a separate suit. 48 So the face value of cou- pons due before the suit may be added to the principal named in the bond when the jurisdictional amount is determined ; 49 but interest which accrued upon bonds and coupons after their 869; Miller v. Clark, 138 U. S. 333; Falls Nat. Bank v. Swenson, 48 Fed. Smithson v. Hubbell, 81 Fed. R. 593; R. 631. Sioux Falls Nat. Bank v. Swenson, « Walter v. N. E. R. Co., 147 U. S. 48 Fed. R. 631. See Brown v. Trous- 370; Northern Pao. R Co. v. Walker, dale. 138 U. S. 389; Hill v. Glasgow 148 U. S. 391; Citizens' Bank v. Can- R. Co., 41 Fed. R 610. non, 164 U. S. 319. ^Ogden City v. Armstrong, 168 ^Fishback v. W. U. TeL Co., 161 U. S. 334; Whelen v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 96. U. S. 379; Auer v. Lombard, 73 « W. U. Tel. Co. v. Poe, 61 Fed. R Fed. R. 309. See Putney v. Whit- 449; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Norman, 77 mire, 66 Fed. R 385; Holt v. Berge- Fed. R 13. vine, 60 Fed. R 1; Rich v. Bray, 37 « Moore v. Edgefield, 32 Fed. R Fed. R. 273; Busey v. Smith, 67 Fed. 498. R 13. « Edwards "v. Bates County, 163 « Walter v. Northeastern R Co., U. S. 269. 147 U.S. 370,373; Pacific Live Stock « Edwards v. Bates County, 163 Co. v. Hanley,98Fed.R337: Stemm- U. S. 369. But see Home S. F. In v. ler v. McNeill, 103 Fed. R 660. See & A. Co. v. Ray, 69 Fed. R 657. Busey v. Smith, 67 Fed. R 13; Sioux § -16.] MATTER IN DISPUTE. 55 maturity cannot. 50 Where the relief sought did not include interest, as such, together with a principal to which it was in- cidental, but a calculation of interest was used as an instru- mentality in determining, the amount of damages caused by a breach of warranty, it was held that the interest was a part of the jurisdictional amount. 51 "Where the' bill claimed pay- ment of a sum as the amount of a bid for an advance by a building and loan association, it was held that the court could not arbitrarily assume that it was usurious interest cloaked with that name. 52 In a suit to foreclose a mortgage, premiums paid by the mortgagee, when claimed, are part of the jurisdic- tional amount. 53 It has been held that notarial fees for the presentment and protest of a note, although paid before suit brought, are costs, not damages, and cannot be counted in es- timating the value of the matter in dispute ; M but that an at- torney's fee, stipulated for in a note, is not costs, and is a part of the jurisdictional amount. 55 > The fact that the plaintiff's pleading shows a sufficient de- fense to part of his claim to reduce it below the jurisdictional amount has been held not to divest the court of jurisdiction be- fore answer. 56 "Whether the amount of a counter-claim should be added to that of the plaintiff's claim in determining the juris- dictional amount has been the subject of conflicting adjudica- tions. 57 "Where the counter-claim belonged to a class which by the State statute was barred unless pleaded in the suit, it was 50 Greene County v. Kortrecht (C. 67 It was held that it should be, in C. A), 81 Fed. R 241. Clarkson v. Manson, 4 Fed. R 257; si Brown v. Webster, 156 U. S. 328. Carson & R L. Co. v. Holtzclaw, 39 52 Building* L. Ass'n v. Price, 169 Fed. R 578; Falls W. Mfg. Co. v. TJ. S. 45. See Turner v. Southern H. Broderick,6Fed.R 654;LaMontagne B & L. Ass'n (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R v. T. Harvey Lumber Co., 44 Fed. R 308. 645; Bennett v. Devine, 45 Fed. R 53Coolidge v. Ray, 75 Fed. R 39. 705; Wolcott v. Sprague, 55 Fed. R 54 Baker v. Howell, 44 Fed. R 113. 545. See N. Y. L & P. Co. v. Milburn See Less v. English (C. C. A), 85 Fed. G. & M. Co., 35 Fed. R 225; McGinity R. 471. v. White, 3 Dillon, 350; s. c, Fed. 65 Rogers v. Riley, 85 Fed. R 471. Cases No. 8,802. See also Dushane 56Schunk v. Moline & S. Co., 147 v. Benedict, 120 U. S. 630; Lovell v. U. S. 500; Harding v. Cass County, Cragin, 136 U. S. 130, 146; Block v. 42 Fed. R 652. But see Edwards v. Darling, 140 U. S. 234; Bennett v. Bates County, 55 Fed. R 436; s. C, Forest, 69 Fed. R 421. Contra, In- 163 U. S. 269; Chicago Cheese Co. v. dustrial & M. G. Co. v. El. Supply Co. Fogg, 53 Fed. R 72. (C. C. A), 58 Fed. R 732. 56 JURISDICTION. [§16. held that it was to be included. 58 The admission in the defend- ant's pleading of part of the plaintiff's claim will not divest the court of jurisdiction ; 89 at least where there was a substantial dispute thereabout when the suit was commenced. 60 The pleadings on the petition for removal must show that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdictional amount. 61 The court, may, however, where the bill or declara- tion is defective in that respect, retain jurisdiction and permit an amendment which shows the jurisdictional value of the mat- ter in dispute. 62 Where the averments of the bill were suffi- cient, but it appeared by uncontradicted affidavits that the value of the matter in dispute was less than $2,000, it was held that a preliminary injunction should be denied. 63 If at any time in the progress of the case it appears that the allegation concerning the jurisdictional amount was not made in good faith and that the dispute is for less than $2,000, the court will > immediately dismiss the case. 64 It has been said that the bur- 58 Lee v. Continental Ins. Co., 74 Fed. E. 424 89 Fuller v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 3? Fed R 163. See Stillwell B. & S. V. Co. v. Williamston O. & F. Co., 80 Fed. R 68. 6» Jones v. Rowley, 73 Fed. R. 286; infra, § 293. "Yellow A. M. & M. Co. v. Win- chell, 95 Fed. R. 213; Back v. Sierra N. C. M. Co., 46 Fed. R. 673; Stras- burger v. Beecher, 44 Fed. R. 209 ; Har- vey v. Raleigh & G. R. Co., 89 Fed. R. 115. An allegation that the •' amount in dispute" exceeds the jurisdic- tional sum is not insufficient because it uses the word " amount " instead of " matter " in dispute. Blackburn v. Portland G. M. Co., 175 U. S. 571. The pleading or petition for removal must show the value at the time the suit was brought. Strasburger v. Beecher, 44 Fed. R 209. Where the complaint was silent, the allegation in the answer was held to be con- clusive. W. U. TeL Co. v. White, 103 Fed. R 705. 62 Davis v. Kansas City, S. & M. R Co., 32 Fed. R 863; Whalen v. Gor- don (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R. 305; John- ston v. Trippe, 33 Fed. R. 530. See Citizens' Bank v. Cannon, 164 U. S. 319. «3 U. S. Exp. Co. v. Poe, 61 Fed. R. 475. But see Hat Sweat Mfg. Co. v. Porter, 46 Fed. R 757. 64 Chicago Cheese Co. v. Fogg, 53 Fed. R. 72; Simon v. House, 46 Fed. R 317; Holden v. Utah & M. Mach. Co., 82 Fed. R 209; Horst v. Merkley, 59 Fed. R 502; Maxwell v. A., T. & S. F. R Co., 34 Fed. R. 286; Bedford Quarries Co. v. Welch, 100 Fed. R 513; Bank of Arapahoe v. David Bradley Co. (C. C. A), 72 Fed. R 867. Where, however, the plaintiff sued in good faith for a principal sum in excess of $2,000, and the defendant proved a set-off, the exact amount of which plaintiff d id not know when he commenced the suit, it was held that the court might retain jurisdiction. Pickham v. Wheeler B. Mfg. Co. (C. C. A), 77 Fed. R. 663; s. C 69 Fed. R 419; Stillwell B. & S. V. Co. v. Williamston O. & F. Co., 80 Fed. § 17.] SUITS UNDER CONSTITUTION OK LAWS OF UNITED STATES. 57 den of proof that the matter in dispute is less than the juris- dictional amount, when the plaintiff's pleading alleges that fact, rests upon the defendant; should be set up by a plea in abatement ; and is waived by an answer to the merits. 65 § 17. Suits arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. — A suit arises under the Constitution or a law of the United States whenever its correct decision depends on the construction of either. 1 "When a proposition has once been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, it can no longer be said that in it there still remains a Federal question. More correctly it is said that there is no question, State or Federal." 2 The Federal question in the case must be substantial and not merely colorable. 8 When either party is a corporation chartered by Congress, the case is one arising under a law of the United States. 4 Not, however, when the sole corporate party derives its charter from a Territorial stat- ute. 5 Suits to which national banks are parties are exempted from the operation of this rule by the Judiciary Act of 18S7, except cases commenced by the United States or by direction of any officer thereof, or cases for winding up the affairs of any R 68. See also Schunk v. Moline 248, 257; Southern Pac. R Co. v. Cali- M. & S. Co., 147 TJ. S. 500; Kunkel v. forma, 118 U. S. 109, 112; Wiley v. Brown (C. C. A.), 99 Fed. R 593; Sinker, 179 U.S. 58. But see Kentucky Jones v. McCormiok H. M. Co. (C. C. v.Louisville Bridge Co., 42 Fed. R.241. A.), 82 Fed. R 295; Hayward v. Nord- 2 Brewer, J., in Kansas v. Bradley, burg Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R. 26 Fed. R. 289, 290. 4; Ung Lung Chung v. Holmes, 93 8 Starin v. New York, 115 TJ. S. 248, Fed. R 823; Tennent-Stribiing Shoe 257; Southern Pac. R Co. v. Cali- Co. v. Roper, 94 Fed. R 739; Scott v. fornia, 118 (J. S. 109, 112; New Or- Donald, 165 TJ. S. 58; Von Schroeder leans v. Benjamin, 153 U. S. 411; St. v. Brittan. 93 Fed. R 9. Joseph & G. I, R Co. v. Steele, 167 «» Butchers' & D. S. Y. Co. v. Louis- U. S. 659; McCain v. Des Moines, 174 viile & N. R Co. (C. C. A), 67 Fed. R. U. S. 168; Blue Bird Min. Co. v. Lar- 35. See Pine v. New York, 103 Fed. gey, 49 Fed. R 289, 291; W. U. Tel. R 337; g§ 125, 293. But see Greene Co. v. Ann Arbor R Co., 178 U. S. 239. v. Tacoma, 53 Fed. R. 562. 4 Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. In revising section 16 the writer 738, 823; Pacific Railroad Removal has been aided by a valuable note Cases, 115 U. S. 1 ; Northern Pac. R by W. L. Clarke, Esq., published in Co. v. Amato, 144 TJ. S. 465; St 19 C. C. A. 75. Joseph & G. I. R Co. v. Steele, 167 §17. ^Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. U. S. 659. 264, 379; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 6 Adams Express Co. v. Denver & 257, 264; Starin v. New York, 115 TJ. S. R G. R. Co., 16 Fed. R. 712. 58 JURISDICTION. [§ 17: such bank. 6 This exception leaves the Circuit and District Courts with jurisdiction oyer cases therein included com- menced after the act of 188Y. 7 A suit seeking a receiver of the assets of a national bank which were in the hands of a statu- tory agent of the shareholders was held to be within the juris- diction of a Federal Circuit Court. 8 Where all the parties -on the other side of the controversy are citizens of a different State from that where the national bank is located, the Circuit Court may have jurisdiction of the case if the residence and value of the subject-matter fulfill the statutory requirements. 9 A suit by a national bank upon the bond of its cashier, condi-. tioned upon the performance of his duties " according to law and the by-laws" of the bank, was held to arise under the statutes of the United States. 10 Suits to determine the title to. a patent, 11 which are not founded upon section 4915 of the Ee- vised Statutes, 12 to compel the assignment of a patent 13 or copyright, 14 and to enforce by a judgment for royalties 15 or «Act of March 3, 1887, § 4, 24 St. at L. 552. See Armstrong v. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. R 209; Armstrong v. TramV mann, 36 Fed. R 275; McConville v. Gilmour, 36 Fed. R. 277: Whittemore v. Amoskeag Nat. Bank, 134 U. S. 527; First Nat Bank v. Forest, 40 Fed. R 705; Ex parte Jones, 164 U. S. 691; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. McElhinney, 42 Fed. R 801; Sowles v. First Nat. Bank of St. Albans, 46 Fed. R 513; Bailey v. Mosher (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R 488; Bailey v. Mosher, 74 Fed. R 15; Prescott v. Haughey, 65 Fed. R 653; Speokart v. German Nat. Bank, 85 Fed. R. 12. As to the right to review the State court's decisions in such cases, see McCormick v. Market Nat. Bank, 165 U. S. 538; Seeberger v. McCormick, 175 U. S. 274; First Nat. Bank v. An- derson, 172 U. S. 573; Capital Nat. Bank v. First Nat Bank, 172 U. S. 425; Chemical Nat. Bank v. City Bank, 160 U. S. 646; Union Nat. Bank v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 163 U. S. 325; Logan County Nat. Bank y. Townsend, 139 U. S. 67; Leyson v. Davis, 170 U. S. 36; Miller v. Lan- caster Nat. Bank, 106 U. S. 542; Cali- fornia Nat Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362. 7 Stephens v. Bernays, 44 Fed. R 642. 8 Snohomish County Bank v. Puget Sound Nat. Bank, 81 Fed. R. 518; Lake Nat Bank v. Wolfeborough Nat. Bank (C. C. A), 78 Fed. R 517.. 9 Petri v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 142 U. S. 644; First Nat. Bank v. Forest, 40 Fed. R 705. M Walker v. Windsor Nat Bank (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R. 76. 11 Montgomery P. S. C. Co. v. Street S. C. Line, 43 Fed. R. 329. 1 2 Bernardin v. Northall, 77 Fed. R 849. 1 3 Pliable Shoe Co. v. Bogart, 81 Fed. R. 521. "Hoyt v. Bates, 81 Fed. R 641. is Albright v. Teass, 106 U. S. 613; Dale Tile Mfg. Co. v. Hyatt, 125 U. S. 46; Felix v. Scharnweber, 125 U. S. 54. But see St. Paul v. Starling, 127 U. S. 376. § 17.] SUITS UNDER CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF UNITED STATES. 59 otherwise, 16 or to set aside" a contract for the use of a patent or copyright, such as a license, at least where the validity of the patents and copyrights are not disputed, do not arise under the laws of the United States. But a suit arises under the laws of the United States when brought to enjoin the infringe- ment of a patent although the defendant does not deny the validity thereof. 18 It has been said that a dispute as to the as- signability of a license to use a patent arises under the laws of the United States. 19 A suit to enjoin an imitation of a trade- mark does not arise under the laws of the United States, un- less the bill shows that the trade-mark is duly registered, and that it is used on goods intended to be transported to a foreign country, or to be used in lawful trade with an Indian tribe. 20 A suit to restrain unfair competition in trade where the com- plainant seeks no protection for a registered trade-mark does not present a Federal question in the absence of special circum- stances. 21 A proceeding under United States Kevised Statutes, section 2326, for the trial of adverse claims to a mining patent is not cognizable by the Federal courts unless there is a dis- pute as to the construction or validity of an act of Congress or a difference of citizenship. 22 It has been held that questions of fact as to whether a mine is a "vein," "lode," or -"ledge," and as to what is the top or apex of a vein within the meaning of United States Ee vised Statutes, sections 2320, 2322 and 2325, and as to what are the boundaries mentioned in a mining patent or land grant, do not involve Federal questions; 23 that a suit "Marsh v. Nichols S. S. Co., 140 Nichols (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. E. 215. U. S. 344; Pratt v. Paris G. L. & Co., But see Silver v. Holt, 84 Fed. R. 809. 168 U. S. 255. 19 Walter A. Wood Co. v. Minne- « Wilson v. Sandford, 10 How. 99; apolis E. H. Co., 61 Fed. E. 256. Hartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. 547; 2 » Allen B. Wrisley Co. v. George Wader v. Lawder, 165 U. S. 624; Mc- E. Rouse S. Co. (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. R. Mullen v. Bowers (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. 6; Ryder v. Holt, 128 U. S. 525; Trade- R. 494; Standard D. Mfg. Co. v. Nat mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82. Tooth Co., 95 Fed. R 291. 21 Illinois Watch Co. v. Elgin Nat. is White v. Rankin, 144 IT. S. 628; W. Co. (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R. 667; s. a., Walter A. Wood H. Co. v. Minne- 179 U. S. 665, 677; Burt v. Smith apolis E. H Co., 61 Fed. R. 256; Ather- (C. C. A.), 71 Fed. R. 161. ton Mach. Co. v. Atwood-Morrison 22 Blackburn v. Porland G. M. Co., Co. (C. C. A.), 102 Fed. R. 949; Dun- 175 U. S. 571; Shoshone M. Co. v. ham v. Bent, 73 Fed. R. 60; Young Rutter, 177 U. S. 505. R L. N. Co. v. Young L. N. Co., 72 2S Blue Bird Min. Co. v. Largey, 49 Fed. R 62; Elgin W. P. & P. Co. v. Fed. R 289; Largey v. Blue Bird Min. 60 JTJBISDICTION. [§ 17. to set aside a land patent solely on account of fraud does not arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States, 24 ' nor does a bill when filed by a homestead entryman to secure his protection while making the improvements required by the acts of Congress from interference by parties who claimed the land under the Town Site Act, but whose claims had been re- jected by the Secretary of the Interior. 25 "Where, however, the decision of a case depends upon the construction of the land laws, the suit arises under the laws of the United States. 26 Actions upon bonds required by orders of Federal courts, 27 upon the bonds of deputy collectors, 28 cashiers of national banks 29 and Federal marshals, 30 or other public officers, 31 arise under the laws of the United States. A suit against a marshal for an abuse of Federal process against the defendant to the writ, 32 or for levying under a writ upon property claimed by a stranger to the suit, but which the marshal claims belonged to the de- fendant to the writ, 33 arises under the laws of the United States; but a suit against a marshal for a levy upon goods, which he does not claim to be the property of a person named in the writ, does not. 34 A suit was held to arise under the laws of the United States when brought against a private person for Co., 49 Fed. R 292; Eobinson v. An- 161; Pierce v. Molliken, 78 Fed. R. derson, 121 U. S. 522; Lamb v. Ewing, 196. 54 Fed. R. 269; Dewey Min. Co. v. ' 27 Leslie v. Brown (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. Miller, 96 Fed. R. 1; Montana O. P. R. 171. See Lamb v. Ewing, 54 Fed. Co. v. Boston & M. C. C. & S. M. Co. R 269, and infra, % 21. (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R 867. But see 28 Crawford v. Johnson, Deady, 457. Nevada S. O. Co. v. Miller, 97 Fed. R 29 Walker v. Windsor Nat. Bank 681. (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 76. 24 Holland v. Hyde, 41 Fed. R 877. sopeibelman v. Packard, 109 U. S. But see Cates v. Producers' C. 0. Co., 421; Bachrack v. Norton, 132 U. S. 96 Fed. R. 7. 337. 2* King v. Lawson, 84 Fed. R 209; 31 U. S. v. Belknap, 73 Fed. R. 19. Butler v. Shafer, 67 Fed. R 161. But 32 Front st Cable Ry. Co. v. Drake, see Jones v. Florida, C. & P. R Co., 65 Fed. R. 539. 41 Fed. R 70. 83 Book v. Perkins, 139 U. S. 628. 26Dunton v. Muth, 45 Fed. R 390, See Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 531. 395; Jones v. Florida, C. & P. R Co., But in such a case the declaration 41 Fed. R 70; Murray v. Blue Bird need not allege that the defendant Min. Co. Ld., 45 Fed. R 385; Chees- acted as marshal. Drake v. Paul- man v. Shreve, 37 Fed. R. 36; Evans hamus (C. C. A), 66 Fed. R 895. v. Durango Land & Coal Co., 80 Fed. »* Buok v. Colbath, 3 Wall 5a R 433; Butler v. Shafer, 67 Fed. R § 17.] SUITS UNDER CONSTITUTION OE LAWS OF UNITED STATES. 61 wrongfully causing a marshal. to levy a Federal execution upon the plaintiff's property, claimed by the defendants to belong to the judgment debtor. 35 A suit against the receiver of a national bank to establish a claim against .the corporation arises under the laws of the United States. 36 It was held that the receiver of a national bank appointed by the Comptroller could intervene and remove a suit instituted before his appointment against the bank and others to recover money fraudulently obtained, since it was a , case " for the winding up of the affairs of the business." 37 But a bill against a national bank receiver and an executor to re- cover a legacy, where some of the decedent's assets were depos- ited in the bank, was dismissed at circuit as not arising under a law of the United States. 38 Where either party is the receiver of a corporation created by an act of Congress, the suit arises under the laws of the United States. 89 So does a suit by or against the receiver of a State corporation appointed by a Federal court when the va- lidity or construction of an order of that court is in question; 40 but otherwise, it seems, not a suit against such a receiver for negligence, 41 nor a suit by such a receiver to enforce a cause of action vested in the corporation before his appointment, 42 although in the latter case, at least, the Federal court may exer- cise a jurisdiction which is ancillary to that over the suit in which he was appointed. 43 85 Hurst v.Cobb, 61 Fed. R.l. Orig- M. Br. Co., 172 TJ. S. 401; Bartley v. inal jurisdiction of suits against col- Hayden, 74 Fed. R 913. lectors of internal revenue was de- 89 Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cox, 145 nied. Cincinnati Br. Co. v. Bettman, U. S. 593. 102 Fed. R 16. 4 °Pope v. Louisville, N. A. & C. 86 Auten v. U. S. Nat. Bank, 174 Ry. Co., 173 TJ. S. 573, 581; Board of U. S. 125, 141; Sowles v. Witters, 43 Com'rs v. Peirce, 90 Fed. R. 764; Fed. R 700. See Kennedy v. Gibson, infra, § 249. 8 WalL 488; Wichita Nat Bank v. 41 Bausman v. Dixon, 173 U. S. 113; Smith (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R. 568. Pope v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., « Speckart v. German Nat. Bank, 173 U. S. 573, 579; Gableman v. P. D. 85 Fed. R 12. & E. Ry. Co., 179 U. S. 335; infra, 88 Wardens, etc. of St. Luke's §249. Church v. Sowles, 51 Fed. R. 609. 42 Pope v. Louisville, N. A. & C.Ry. But see Speckart v. German Nat. Co., 173 TJ. S. 573; infra, § 249. Bank, 85 Fed. R 12; Metropolitan « White v. Ewing, 159 TJ. S. 536; T. Co. v. Columbus, S. & H. R Co., 93 infra, §§ 21, 249. Fed. R 689;.Sonnentheil,y. Christian 62 JUEISDICTION. [§ 17. A suit upon a judgment recovered in a Federal court is not necessarily a suit arising under the laws of the United States. 44 But it was held that a suit to enjoin a tax levy ordered by the mandamus of a Federal court, 45 and a suit where there was a dispute as to how far a State statute concerning liens upon land applied to a Federal judgment, 46 arose under the laws of the United States. An action by an attorney for damages caused by his disbar- ment by a State court for language spoken in a Federal court does not. 47 A case does not arise under the laws of the United States simply because a Federal court has decided in another suit the questions of law which were involved. 48 A suit does not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States unless the Federal question appears clearly, not merely infer- entially, 49 upon the face of the plaintiff's pleadings in his state- ment of his own case. 50 His allegation that the defendant will set up a defense based upon a Federal statute or the Constitu- tion of the United States will not bring the case within the Federal jurisdiction. 51 A Federal question raised for the first time by-the defendant must be tried by the State court, sub- ject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States. 52 It has been held that where the complaint set up a Federal ques- tion, but the answer disclaimed any controversy upon that point, the case should be dismissed or remanded for want of Federal "Provident Sav. Soo. v. Ford, 114 "Hanford v. Davies, 163 U. S. 273; U. S. 685; Metoalf v. Watertown, 128 W. U. Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R Co., U. S. 586. See Winter v, Swinburne, 178 U. S. 239. 8 Fed. R 49, and infra, § 21. An issue B0 Tennessee v. Union and Planters' whether full force and effect had Bank, 152 U. S. 454; Chappell v. Wa- been given to the judgment of a terworth, 155 U. S. 103; Third St. S. State court was held not to involve Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 173 TJ. S. 457. the construction of the Constitution 51 Florida Cent. & P. R Co. v. Bell, of the United States. Merritt v. 176 U. S. 321; City Ry. Co. v. Citi- American Steel Barge Co. (C. C. A.), zens' St. R Co., 166 U. S. 557; Mon- 75 Fed. R 813. tana O. P. Co. v. Boston & M. C. C. « First Nat. Bank v. Society for S. M. Co. (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. R 274 Savings (C. C. A), 80 Fed. R. 581. But see Walla Walla City v. Walla « Cooke v. Avery, 147 U. S. 375; Walla Water Works Co., 172 U. S. 1; Sowles v. Witters, 46 Fed. R. 497. Cox v. Gilmer, 88 Fed. R. 343. « Green v. Elbert, 63 Fed. R 308; ' 52 Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Green v. Rogers, 56 Fed. R 220. Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 462. 48 Leather Mf'rs Bank v. Cooper, 120 U. S. 778, 781. § 1 8.] CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES. 63 jurisdiction, 53 and that where the Federal cause of action fails, relief cannot be granted upon another ground. 54 § 18. Controversy between citizens of different States. — A controversy between citizens of different States is one in which every party upon one side is a citizen of a different State from every party upon the other. 1 The citizenship 6i formal parties with no real interest in the controversy does not affect the jurisdiction. 3 Such are the hus- band of the plaintiff when made a defendant to a suit against another to enforce the trusts of a marriage settlement; 3 a State in a suit for the use of an individual brought upon a bond given by a public officer, 4 an administrator, 5 or an attaching creditor; 6 an agent 7 or attoi'ney 8 of a corporation when a de- fendant to a suit against it seeking no relief against him; the sheriff and the commissioners of appraisal summoned by him, when defendants to a suit to enjoin a, corporation from prose- cuting condemnation proceedings. 9 Such have been held not to be a mere stakeholder in posses- sion of property to recover which the suit is brought; 10 an ad- s' Robinson v. Anderson, 121 U. S. 522. 524; Crystal Springs L. & W. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 82 Fed. R 114, M Larrowe-Loisette v. O'Loughlin, 88 Fed. R 896. § 18. i Blake v. McKim, 103 U. S. 33& 2 Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457; Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205; Har- ter v. Kernochan, 103 U. S. 562; Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U. S. 490; Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421; Taylor v. Holmes, 14Fed. R 499; New Chester Water Co. v. Holly Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R 19, 26; infra, §§ 38, 51, 383, 384. But see Blackburn v!" Portland G. M. Co., 175 U. S. 571; Pittsburg, C. & St L. Ry. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co. (C. C. A), 61 Fed. R. 705. 3 Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421. * Indiana ex reL Stanton v. Glover, 155 XJ. S. 513. See National Bank v. Rutledge, 84 Fed. R 400. « Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U. S. 490. See also Northman v. Wade, 77 Ga. 651. 6 Wisconsin ex rel. v. Bowles Mill- ing Co., 80 Fed. R 161. So a mar- shal in such a suit upon a bond given to him. Wade v. Wortsman, 29 Fed. R754. 'Wood v. Davis, 18 How. 467; Brown v. Murray Nelson & Co., 43 Fed. R. 614; Overman Wheel Co. v. Pope Mfg. Co., 46 Fed. R. 577. 8 Brown v. Murray Nelson & Co., 43 Fed. R 614, 3 Sioux City & D. M. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St P. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. R770. m Wilson v. Oswego Tp., 151 U. a 56; Massachusetts & S. Constr. Co. v. Cane Creek Tp., 155 U. S. 283. But see Pacific R Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 289, 298; Bacon v. Rives, 106 U. S. 99; N. Y. Constr. Co. v. Simon, 53 Fed. R. 14; Reeves v. Corning, 51 Fed. R. 774, 778, and cases cited. 64 JURISDICTION. [§ 18. ministrator with the will annexed in a suit for a construction of the will ; u and a corporation in a suit by its mortgagee to cancel a contract made with it, although it was alleged that its assets were insufficient to pay the mortgage. 12 In determining between whom the controversy exists, the court is not bound by the title of the cause, or the form of the pleadings, but should examine the record, ascertain the matter in dispute, and arrange the parties on opposite sides of the same according to the facts, no matter what their technical place as plaintiffs or defendants may be. 13 In a suit by tax- payers against county officers and bondholders to enjoin pay- ment of the bonds, the defendant officers were presumed to take the same side of the controversy as the taxpayers. 14 It has been held that, in a suit by a bondholder to enforce a right after his trustee has refused to sue upon the same, the defend- ant trustee is upon the same side of the controversy as the plaintiff, 15 unless the latter seeks some relief antagonistic to the other beneficiaries of the trust, 16 or, perhaps when he claims some substantial relief against the trustee. Where, upon the foreclosure of a second mortgage, the plaintiff claimed that the first mortgage had been paid, and the first mortgagee, who was a defendant to that foreclosure, filed a cross-bill to fore- close his prior mortgage, it was held that in the controversy upon such cross-bill the mortgagor and the second mortgagee, "Security Co. v. Pratt, 64 Fed. R 562; Anderson v. Bowers, 40 Fed. R. 405. 708. "Consol. Water Co. v. Babcock,76 " Pacific R Co. v. Ketchum, 101 Fed. R 243. U. S. 289; Blacklock v. Small, 127 is Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, 468 ; U. S. 96; Shipp v. Williams (C. C. A.), Pacific R. Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 62 Fed. R. 4; First Nat. Bank v. Rad- 289; Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205; ford Tr. Go. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 569, Carson v. Hyatt, 118 U. S. 279, 286; 573; Barry v. Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co., Brown v. Murray Nelson & Co., 43 27 Fed. R 1. But see Bowdoin Col- Fed. R 614; Anderson v. Bowers, 40 lege v. Merritt, 63 Fed. R. 213; Rein- Fed. R. 708; Cilley v. Patten, 62 Fed. ach v. Atlantic & G. W. R. Co., 58 R. 498; Board of Trustees v. Blair, Fed. R 33; Kildare Lumber Co. v. 70 Fed. R. 414; Blacklock v. Small, National Bank (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R 2. 127 U. S. 96; Mangels v. Donau Br. i6Fj rs t Nat. Bank v. Radford Tr. Co., 53 Fed. R. 513; Oberlin College Co., 80 Fed. R 569, 571, 573; Rust v. v. Blair, 70 Fed. R 414. But see Rea vis Brittle Silver Co. (C. C A.), 58 Fed. v. Reavis, 98 Fed. R. 145. R 611; Kildare Lumber Co. v. Na- il Harter v. Kernochan, 103 U. S. tional Bank (C. C. A.), 69 Fed. R 2. § 18.] CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES. 65 i who was the original plaintiff, were on the same side and op- posed to the cross-complainant." In a suit by a mortgagee to protect the mortgaged property, a defendant mortgagor is upon the plaintiff's side of the controversy unless affirmative relief is sought against him. 18 It was held that, in a suit for specific performance, one of the joint vendors who wished to have the sale perfected was properly made a co-plaintiff with the vendees and was on their side of the controversy. 19 When at the time a bill is filed the court has no jurisdiction, jurisdiction cannot subsequently be conferred by an amend- ment striking out a party plaintiff who was properly and nec- essarily made such at the commencement of the suit ; 20 but in one case the court retained jurisdiction by allowing an amend- ment which made one of the original plaintiffs a defendant. 21 When they are not indispensable parties, jurisdiction may be retained upon a discontinuance or dismissal as regards defend- ants who are citizens of the same State as the plaintiff; 22 but the resignation after suit brought of a defendant trustee, 23 and the filing of a disclaimer by a defendant, 24 who were citizens of the complainant's State, were held not to save the jurisdic- tion. Jurisdiction is not lost because a defendant ceases to resist the plaintiff's demand; 25 nor by the addition by amendment, 28 » Woloott v. Sprague, 55 Fed. R del, 50 Fed. R 368; Hicklin v. Marco 545. (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 549 ; Horn v. Look- is Consol. Water Co. v. Babcock, 76 hart, 17 Wall. 570; Bane v. Keefer, Fed. R 243; Boston S. D. & Tr. Co. 66 Fed. R.610; Mason v. Dullingham, v. Racine, 97 Fed. R817; Old Colony 82 Fed. R 689; Grove v. Grove, 93 Tr. Co. v. Atlanta Ry. Co., 100 Fed. Fed. R 865; Hopkins v. Oxley Stave R 798. Cf. Mercantile Tr. & D. Co. Co., 83 Fed. R 912; Smith v. Con- v. Collins P. & B. R Co., 99 Fed. R Burners* C. O. Co., 86 Fed. R 359; Tug 812. R C. & S. Co. v. Brigel, 86 Fed. R ]» Megibben's Adm'rs v. Perin, 49 818; infra, §§ 19, 391. Fed. R 183. Approved as to this 23 Ruohs v. Jarvis-Conklin Mtg. Tr. point upon reversal, Perin v. Megib- Co., 84 Fed. R 513. ben, 53 Fed. R. 86, 91. 24 Wetherby v. Stinson, 62 Fed. R 2« Anderson v. Watt, 138 TJ. S. 694 193. But see Frazer Lubricator Co. But see Hicklin v. Marco (C. C. A,), v. Frazer, 23 Fed. R 805. 56 Fed. R 549; Whittle v. Artis, 55 2* Park v . n. Y., L. E. & W. R Co., Fed. R 919. 70 Fed. R 641. si Conolly v. Taylor. 2 Peters, 556. ae Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 199, 22 Beebe v.- Louisville, N. O. &T.R 206; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. & Co., 39 Fed. R 481, 484; Morse v. South, 61, 64; Phelps v. Oakes, 117 U. S. 236; 80 Fed. R 206, 207; Claiborne v. Wad- Hardenberg v. Ray, 151 U. & 112. 5 66 JURISDICTION. [§19. or intervention, 27 of new parties whose citizenship would have prevented their original joinder in the suit; nor by the transfer of the plaintiff's interest to a citizen of the same State as the defendant. 28 § 19. Citizenship. — If there are no other grounds of juris- diction, the Federal courts do not take cognizance of a contro- versy between two aliens; l nor of one between a citizen of the District of Columbia, 2 or a citizen of a Territory, 8 and a citi- zen of a State. A suit brought by a State against one of, its own citizens, or against a citizen of another State, cannot, in- dependently of other grounds, be maintained in the Circuit Court of the United States. 4 If one of the parties sues or is sued as a trustee, 5 receiver, 6 executor or administrator, 7 his own But see Weaver v. Kelly, 92 Fed. R 417; Mangels v. Donau Br. Co., 53 Fed. R 513. 27 Park v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R Co. (S. D. N. Y.), 70 Fed. R. 641; Society of Shakers v. Watson (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R 730; Osborne & Co. v. Barge, 30 Fed. R 805: United EL S. Co. v. La. EL L. Co., 68 Fed. R 673; Hen- derson v. Goode, 49 Fed. R. 887; Bel- mont Nail Co. v. CoL I. & S. Co., 46 Fed. R 336; infra, % 201. Contra, Forest Oil Co. v. Crawford (C. C. A., Third Cfc), 101 Fed. R 849. See also Clyde v. Richmond & D. R Co., 65 Fed. R. 336. In a case where the jurisdiction had been saved by dis- missing the bill as to certain unnec- essary defendants, whose citizenship was the same as that of the com- plainant, it was held that they could subsequently be joined upon their own petition of intervention without defeating the jurisdiction. Sioux City T., R. R & W. Co. v. Trust Co. of N. A. (C. C. A), 82 Fed. R 124; S. C, 173 U. S. 99. 28 Jarhoe v. Templer, 38 Fed. R 213 ; Glover v. Shepperd, 21 Fed. R 481. Contra, Adams Exp. Co. v. Denver & R G. Ry. Co., 16 Fed. E. 712. § 19. iMossman v. Higginson, 4 DalL 12; Rateau v. Bernard, 3 Blatchf. 244. 2 Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; Wescott v. Fairfield, Pet. C, C. 45; Barney v. Baltimore, 1 Hughes, 118; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322; Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S. 395. 3 New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 9; Snead v. Sellers (C. C. A), 66 Fed. . R. 371; Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U. S. 322. It has been held that a citizen of the island of Cuba is an alien. Betancourt v. Mutual R F. L. Ass'n, 101 Fed. R 305. 1 Alabama v. Wolffe, 18 Fed. R 836; Postal Tel. C. Co. v. Alabama, 155 U. S. 482; Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430; Indiana v. Tolleston Club, 53 Fed. R 18; Minnesota v. Guaranty Tr. & S. D. Co., 73 Fed. R 914. 6 Dodge v. Tulley, 144 U. S. 451. SDavies v. Lathrop, 12 Fed. R 353; Farlow v. Lea, 2 C. L. R 329; Bris- enden v. Chamberlain, 53 Fed. R 307; Snead v. Sellers (C. C. A,), 66 Fed. R 371. 7 Continental L. Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237; Bradford v. Williams, 3 How. 574; Browne v. Browne, 1 Wash. 429; Harper v. Norfolk & W. R Co., 36 Fed. R 102. § 19.] CITIZENSHIP. 67 .citizenship, not that of his beneficiaries nor the location of the trust estate, is alone to be considered. When an infant sues by his next friend or special guardian, the citizenship of the infant alone is to be considered. 8 A corporation is conclusively pre- sumed to be composed of citizens of the State or Nation which chartered it, or from which it derives its powers. 9 A munici- pal corporation is treated as a citizen of the State within which it is situated; 10 This presumption is not made in the case of unincorporated joint-stock companies n or copartnerships, whether limited 12 or general, even in States where the law authorizes them to sue and be sued in the name of an officer, or in the copartnership name. Where a corporation is chartered by two or more States, the former rule seems to have been that it should be treated for the purpose of jurisdiction as composed of citizens of the State where the suit was brought. 18 The rule now seems to be: that for purposes of jurisdiction it is conclusively pre- sumed to be composed of citizens of the State which first gave it corporate existence; but that, unless the case arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the Federal court cannot adjudicate its rights or liabilities as a corporation of a State, citizens of which are upon the other side of the contro- versy. 14 The present rule as to consolidated corporations is not clearly settled. 15 A national bank is considered as if it s Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. R 177 U. S. 449. But see Liverpool Ins. ■650; Voss v. Neinberger, 68 Fed. R Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 WalL 566. 947. "Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 'Louisville, C. & C. R. Co. v. Let- Black, 286; Railway Co.- v. Whitton, son, 2 How. 497; Marshall v. Balti- 13 Wall. 270; Muller v. Dows,91U. S. more & O. R. Co., 16 How. 314; Mul- 444; Memphis & C. R Co. v. Ala- ler v. Dows, 94 U. S. 446; Steamship bama, 107 U. S. 581. Co. v. Tugman, 106 U. S. 118. For an "Louisville, N. A & C. Ry. Co. v. able criticism of these rulings, see Louisville Tr. Co., 174 TJ. S. 552, 563, the address of Hon. Alfred Russell 576, 577. See also St. Louis & S. F. before the American Bar Association Ry. Co. v. James, 161 U. S. 545; St. in August, 1891 (25 Am. Law Rev. Joseph & G. I R. Co. v. Steele, 167 795-803). U. S. 659; Taylor v. Illinois Cent. R. io Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 WalL Co., 89 Fed. R. 119; Harv. Law Rev., 118; City of Ysleta v. Canda, 67 Fed. vol. XII. p. 350. E. 6. 15 See Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. n Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677. v. Louisville Tr. Co., 174 U. S. 558; I 2 Great So. F. P. H. Co. v. Jones, Graham v. Boston & E. R Co., 118 68 JURISDICTION. [§19-- were a citizen of the State in which it is located. 16 The loca- tion of the principal place of business of a corporation, which is not a national bank, does not affect the jurisdiction." The filing of a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States does not terminate a party's alienage, al- though he is permitted by the laws of the State of his resi- dence to vote and hold office. 18 An allegation that a party was " a citizen of London, England," was held to be insuffi- cient to show that he was an alien. 19 Residence is not con- clusive evidence of citizenship. 20 An exercise of the right of U. S. 161; Nashua & L. R Co. v. Bos- ton & L. R. Co„ 136 U. S. 856; Paul v. B. & O. R Co., 44 Fed. R. 513; Baldwin v. Chicago & N. W. R Co., 86 Fed. R 167. "34 St at L., p. 554; First Nat. Bank v. Forest, 40 Fed. R. 705; Farm- ers' Nat. Bank v. McElhinney, 43 Fed. R 801; Petri v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 143 U. & 644; supra, § 17. "Phinizy v. Augusta & K. R. Co., 56 Fed. R 373, 376. "Lauz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 435; Maloy v. Duden, 35 Fed. R 673. "Stuart v. Easton, 156 U. S. 46. Cf. Rondot v. Tp. of Rogers (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R. 676; Jennes v. Laudes, 84 Fed. R 73; s. C, 85 Fed. R 801. But see Betan court v. Mutual R F. L. Ass'n, 101 Fed. R 305. 2" Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163, 185; Reynolds v. Adden, 136 U. S. 348, 353; Kemna v. Brockhaus, 5 Fed. R 763, 763, 764, 766, 767, per Dyer, J.: "The general rule upon the sub- ject of citizenship is well settled. It is that, 'in order to give jurisdiction to the courts of the United States, the citizenship of the party must be founded on a change of domicile, and permanent residence in the State to which he may have removed from another State. Mere residence is prima facie evidence of such change, although when it is ex- plained and shown to have been for temporary purposes, the presump- tion is destroyed. The intention is. to be collected from acts.' Lessee of Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash. 101; 1 Abb. (U. S.) Pr. 311. 'If a citizen of one State think proper to change his domicile, and to remove himself and family . . . into another State, with a bona fide intention of abandoning his former place of resi- dence, and to become an inhabitant or resident of the State to which he removes, he becomes, immediately upon such removal, accompanied with suoh intention, a resident citi- zen of that State within the mean- ing of the provision of the Constitu- tion relative to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and may main- tain an action in the Circuit Court of the State which he has aban- doned. . . . Time in relation to. his new residence, occupation, a sud- den removal back after instituting a suit, and the like, are circum- stances which may be relied upon to- show that his first removal was not bona fide or permanent, but will not disprove his citizenship in the place of his new domicile, if the jury are satisfied that his first removal was bona fide and without an intention of returning.' Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. 564, 'If there has been an actual removal, with intent to make a permanent residence, and the acts § 19.] CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES. 69 suffrage by a citizen of the United States is conclusive evidence of his citizenship. 21 Less evidence may, however, be sufficient to establish a change of citizenship. 22 A statement in a docu- ment signed by him that a person is " of " a specified State is evidence that he is a citizen of the same, 23 but does not estop him from proving the contrary. 24 It has been held that a party may testify that up to a certain date he was a citizen of a specified State, and that others cannot, but must confine their testimony to facts from which his citizenship can be inferred. 25 It has been held that a husband and wife who are not living apart under a legal separation cannot 1 be citizens of different States. 26 The fact that a plaintiff has changed his residence and citizenship for the purpose of bringing suit in the Federal court does not divest the jurisdiction if the change has actually of the party correspond with the purpose, the change of domicile is completed, and the law forces upon him the character of a citizen of the State where he has chosen his domi- cile.' Butler v. Farnsworth, supra. A temporary return to one's former place of residence, with views and for objects merely temporary, does not revive a former citizenship. Burnham v. Eangely, 1 Woodb. & M. 7. 'If the change of residence or citizenship is apparent only, and there has been, in fact, no change of residence, but only a transfer of ap- parent residence, animo reverlendi, to give color of jurisdiction in a suit in the State of actual residence, it may not avail; but, where there is an actual change of residence and citizenship before suit brought, the motive to such change is not mate- rial, even if it was a desire to give capacity to sue in the courts of the United States.' Pond v. Vermont Valley R. Co., 12 Blatchf. 293. So, to eif ect a change of citizenship from one State to another, there must be an actual removal, an actual change of domicile, with a bona fide inten- tion of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one, and the acts of the party must correspond with such purpose. . . . The question is one of fixed law and fact. . . . It is apparent that the circumstance of the plaintiff's re- turn to Milwaukee in December was one which, if unexplained, would tend to throw doubt upon the per- manency of the alleged settlement in Minnesota. But if her return was for an object merely temporary, as she alleges, then her domiciliary status in that State would not be affected." "Rabaud v. D'Wolf, 1 Paine, 580; State Sav. Ass'n v. Howard, 31 Fed. R, 433; McDonald v. Salem C. F. Milla Co., 31 Fed. R. 577. 22Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. (IT. S.) 163, 185; Marks v. Marks, 75 Fed. R. 321. MRucker v. Bolles (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 504. « Reynolds v. Adden, 136 TJ. & 848. 25 Rucker v. Bolles, 80 Fed. R. 504; Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 TJ. S. 327. 26 Nichols v. Nichols, 92 Fed, R. 1. 70 JURISDICTION. [§ 20. been made K without any intention to return. 28 But where the stockholders of a corporation reincorporated in another State . solely for that purpose, it was held that the case should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 29 It has been held that when the necessary difference of citizenship is duly alleged and is traversed, the defendant has the burden of proof to show that it does not exist. 30 A change of citizenship after the ju- risdiction has once attached will not divest it ; 31 even, it was held, in case of a change of citizenship made before an amended bill was filed. 32 A dismissal of the bill as to parties not indis- pensable to the suit, or an amendment dropping them, may cure a defect of jurisdiction, 33 even, it was held, where they were restored a few days later upon their petition for inter- vention. 34 § 20. Under grants of different States. — Where there is a controversy between citizens of the same State claiming land under grants of different States, it seems that the Circuit Court of the United States has jurisdiction irrespective of the amount involved. 1 Where one party claimed land under a grant of 2 ?Briggs v. French, 2 Sumn. 251, "Ober Vl Gallagher, 93 U. S. 199, 255, 256; Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co., 206; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 1 Paine, 594; Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 61, 64; Phelps v. Oakes, 117 U. S. 236; Wash. C. C. 546, 553; Case v. Clarke, Hardenbergh v. Bay, 151 U. S. 112. 5 Mason, 70; -Robertson v. Carson, 19 But see Weaver v. Kelly, 92 Fed. R Wall. 94, 106. 417; Mangels v. Donau B. Co., 53 Fed. 28 Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315;. B. 513. Ala. G. S. R Co. v. Carroll (C. C. A.), 3 -Tug Eiver C. & S. Co. v. Brigel, 84 Fed. R 772; Kingman v. Holthaus, 86 Fed. R 818. 59 Fed. R 305; King v. U. S., 59 Fed. »» Powers v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. R. 9; Chambers v. Prince, 75 Fed. R Co., 169 U. S. 92; Sioux City T. R & , 176; Allen v. So. CaL Ry. Co., 70 Fed. W. Co. v. Trust Co. of N. Am., 82 Fed. R 370. An intention to return un- R 124; Hopkins v. Oxley S. Co., 83 accompanied by acts does not restore Fed. R 912; Oxley S. Co. v. Coopers' the former residence after it has Int. Union, 72 Fed. R 695; Tug River been actually changed. Pacific M. C. & S. Co. v. Brigel, 86 Fed. R 818; L. I. Co. v. Tompkins (C. C. A), 101 supra, § 18; infra, § 391. Fed. R 539. " Sioux City T. & W. Co. v. Trust 29 Lehigh Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, Co. of N. Am. (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. R 160 U. S. 327. 124. 3" Foster v. Cleveland, C, C. & St. § 20. 1 See Holt on Concurrent L. Ry. Co., 56 Fed. R 434; Sheppard Jurisdiction, § 60; In re Hohorst, 150 v. Graves, 56 Fed. R 437; Nat. M U. S. 653, 659, 660; In re Keasby & Ace. Ass'n v. Sparks (C. C. A), 83 Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 221, 230. Fed. R 225. § 21.-] ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. VI New Hampshire made when Vermont was a part of that State, and the other under a grant from Vermont made after their separation, it was held that the controversy arose between per- sons claiming land under grants of different States. 2 "Where a controversy is founded upon conflicting grants of different States, the Federal courts have jurisdiction irrespective of the equitable title of the parties before either grant. 3 § 21, Ancillary jurisdiction. — After a Federal court has ac- quired jurisdiction, through the existence of the necessary differ- ence of citizenship between the original parties, ancillary pro- ceedings may be therein instituted, although parties upon the different sides of the controversy are citizens of the same State and there is no other ground of Federal j urisdiction. 1 " The ques- tion is not whether the proceeding is supplemental and ancil- lary, or is independent and original, in the sense of the rules of equity pleading, but whether it is supplemental and ancillary, or is to be considered entirely new and original, in the sense which this court has sanctioned with reference to the line which divides the jurisdiction of the Federal courts from that of the State courts." 2 Thus, not only can a bill of revivor or a supple- mental bill, 8 or a cross-bill, 4 be maintained in a Federal court which had jurisdiction of the original litigation; but so can a bill to enjoin the prosecution of proceedings therein at law or in equity, 8 or a bill to restrain or to regulate, 6 or to set aside, 7 «Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292; 4 Morgan's La. & T. E. & St Co. v. Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheat. 377. Texas Cent. By. Co.. 137 U. a 171. » Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheat. 377, 379. See infra, § 172; Central Trust Co. v. §21. iDunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet 1; Bridges, 57 Fed. R 753. Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 163; 5 Bradshaw v. Miners' Bank (C. C. Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450, 460; A.), 81 Fed. R 902; Krippendorf v . Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276. So can a bill for 609; Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327; the appointment of a receiver of Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276; rents and profits pending an eject- Pacific R of Mo. v. Mo. P. R Co., Ill ment suit in the Federal court. Ul- TJ. S. 505, 522; Dewey v. W. F. G. C. man v. Clark, 75 Fed. R. 868. Co., 123 17. a 329; Gumbel v. Pitkin, «Dunn v. Clark, 8 Pet 1; Freeman 124 U. S. 131; Seymour v. Phillips & v. Howe, 24 How. 450, 460; Jones v. G. Const. Co., 7 Biss. 460. But see Andrews, 10 Wall. 327; Krippendorf Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wall. 69. v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 376; Johnson v. " Miller, J., in Minnesota Co. v. St Christian, 125 tT. S. 642. Paul Co., 2 Wall. 609, 633. 7 Pacific B, of Mo. v. Mo. P. R Co., ' Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164, 111 U. S. 505, 522; Foster v. Mansfield, JUBISDICTION. [§21. or to obtain a judicial construction, 8 or to enforce by injunc- tion, 9 scire facias™ or otherwise, 11 a judgment or decree, or a bond 12 of a Federal court; even where other incidental relief is prayed. 13 A bill for the reformation of a policy of insurance is ancillary to an action upon such policy. 14 A creditor's bill between citizens of the same State founded upon a decree in admiralty has been held not within the jurisdiction of a Fed- eral court. 15 An original bill to foreclose a mortgage, 16 or a mechanic's lien " or other lien 18 upon a railway or other prop- erty, or upon the proceeds of property in the possession of a receiver appointed by a Federal court in a prior suit, to fore- close a prior or subsequent mortgage, or otherwise in the pos- session of such court, can be brought in such Federal court C. & L. M. E. Co., 36 Fed. R 627; s. C, 146 U. S. 88; Carey v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 161 U. S. 115; Maitland v. Gibson, 79 Fed. R 136; Lacanagrues v. Chapins, 144 U. S. 119; Broadis v. Broadis, 86 Fed. R. 951; Ladd v. West, 55 Fed. R 353; Hill v. Kuhlman (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R 498; McDonald v. Seligmans, 81 Fed. R 753; Richardson v. Loree (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R. 375. 8 Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 WalL 609; Jenks v. Brewster, 96 Fed. R625. 'Railroad Co. v. Chamberlain, 6 WalL 748; Root v. Wool worth, 150 U. S. 401. So can a bill in aid of an execution or attachment. Lant v. Manley (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R 627. But where a railroad had been sold under a decree of foreclosure by a Federal court, it was held that such court had no jurisdiction over a subsequent suit to restrain the enforcement of a State judgment of ejectment ob- tained by a plaintiff who was not a party to the foreclosure. Central Trust Co. v. Grantham, 83 Fed. R 540. M Pullman's P. C. Co. v. Washburn, 66 Fed. R 790; S. C. in C. C. A., 76 Fed. R 1005; Lafayette County v. Wonderly (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R 313. " Maitland v. Gibson, 79 Fed. R 136. But see Central Trust Co. v. Grantham, 83 Fed. R 540. 12 Lamb v. Ewing, 56 Fed. R 269; Leslie v. Brown, 95 Fed. R 171. is Hill v. Kuhlman (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R 498. u Rosenbaum v. Council B. Ins. Co., 37 Fed. R 724; Abraham v. North G. F. Ins. Co., 37 Fed. R 731. 15 Winter v. Swinburne, 8 Fed. R 49. See Provident Savings Soo. v. Ford, 114 U. S. 635; Metcalf v. Water- town, 128 U. S. 586; supra, § 17. i" Morgan's L. & T. R & S. S. Co. v. Texas Cent. Ry. Co., 137 U. S. 171; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R 115; Carey v. Houston, T. & C. R Co., 52 Fed. R 671; Compton v. Jesup, 68 Fed. R 263; Toledo, St. L. &K. C. Ry. Co. v. Continental T. R Co. (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R 497. « Central Tr. Co. v. Bridges (C. C. A.), 57 Fed. R 753. is Blake v. Pine M. I & C. Co. (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. R 624; Central Tr. Co. v. Benedict (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R 198; Central Tr. Co. v. Carter (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R. 225. As to jurisdiction by cross-bill, see also Everett v. Inde- pendent School District, 103 Fed. R 529; Brooks v. Laurent (C. C. A.), 98 Fed. R 647; infra, §§ 170, 17a § 21.] ANCILLARY JURISDICTION. 73 independent of the citizenship of the parties, even after sale in the former suit. After a Federal court has appointed a receiver, it has ancillary jurisdiction over all suits brought, by him irrespective of the amount involved. 19 He cannot, however, remove into such a court all suits brought against him. 20 It has been held at Circuit that a suit pending against the corporation at the time of the receivership may, on the petition of the receiver, be removed into the Federal court, at least when the plaintiff has intervened there, although orig- inal jurisdiction over the 'same could not have been enter- tained. 21 Where assets are in the course of administration, all persons entitled to participate may come in under the jurisdic- tion acquired between the parties by ancillary or supplemental pleading, even though jurisdiction would be lacking if said proceedings had been originally and independently prosecuted. 22 It has been held that a person, whose citizenship if an original party would have deprived the court of jurisdiction, cannot in- tervene when the court has possession of no fund or property in. which he is interested. 28 It has been held at Circuit that a bill cannot thus be sustained, irrespective of the citizenship of the parties, when filed to set aside for fraud, subsequent to its entry, the decree of the Federal court or a contract affecting such decree, 24 nor when filed to set aside for fraud a stipulation and decree in a former suit, the defendants to the bill being neither parties to the former suit nor the personal representa- tives of such parties, but trustees created by a defendant to such suit after the decree, and where none of the property af- fected by the former suit was within the custody of the court; M nor when filed against defendants to a former decree and a third party to whom it was alleged that lands, the subject- is White v. Ewing, 159 U. S. 53; Z2 Fuller, C. J., in Rouse v. Letcher, Pope v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 156 U. S. 47, 49. See note 18, supra; 173 TJ. S. 573; Connor v. Alligator L and Henderson v. Goode, 49 Fed. R Co., 98 Fed. R 155. 887; infra, § 201. ^Gableman v. Peoria, Decatur & 23 Seligman v. Santa Rosa, 81 Fed. Evansville Ry. Co., 179 U. S. 335; R 524; United EL S. Co. v. La. El'. L Baggs v. Martin, 179 U. a 206; supra, Co., 68 Fed. R 673. §§ 15, 17. 24 Yeatman v. Bradford, 44 Fed. B. » Rice v. Durham Water Co., 91 536. Fed. R. 433. M Ralston v. Sharon, 51 Fed. R 702. ?4 JURISDICTION. [§ 21. matter of the former suit, were conveyed prior to the com- mencement of the same. 26 Conversely, there is a similar limitation upon the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. This is well explained in the following extract from an opinion . by Bradley, J. : " The question pre- sented with regard to the jurisdiction of- the Circuit Court is, whether the proceeding to procure nullity of the former judg- ment in such a case as the present is or is not in its nature a separate suit, or whether it is a supplementary proceeding, so connected with the original suit as to form an incident to it, and substantially a continuation of it. If the proceeding is merely tantamount to the common-law practice of moving to set aside a judgment for irregularity, or to a writ of error, or to a bill of review, or an appeal, it would belong to the lat- ter category, and the United States court could not properly entertain jurisdiction of the case. 27 Otherwise, the Circuit Courts of the United States would become invested with power to control the proceedings in the State courts, or would have appellate jurisdiction over them in all cases where the parties are citizens of different States. Such a result would be totally inadmissible. On the other hand, if the proceedings are tanta- mount to a bill in equity to set aside a decree for fraud in the obtaining thereof, then they constitute an original and inde- pendent proceeding, and, according to the doctrine laid down in Gaines v. Fuentes™ the case might be within the cognizance of the Federal courts. The distinction between the two classes, of cases may be somewhat nice, but it may be affirmed to exist. In the one class there would be a mere revision of errors and irregularities, or of the legality and correctness of the judg- es Anglo Florida P. H. Co. v. Mc- H. R Co. v. Cable T. W. Co., 33 Fed. Kibben, 65 Fed. E. 529. After a final E. 689. See also Montgomery v. Mo- decree granting damages for the in- Dermott, 99 Fed. R 502. jury to a street railway by the con- w Graver v. Faurot, 64 Fed. R 241 ; struction of another railroad, where Little Rock Ry. Co. v. Burke, 66 the jurisdiction had attached be- Fed. R 83. But see Northern Pac. cause a constitutional question was Ry. Co. v. Kurtzman, 82 Fed. R 241. involved, Mr. Justice Brewer re- 28 92 U. S. 10. See Arrowsmith v. fused to take jurisdiction of a sup- Gleason, 129 17. S. 86; Robb v. Vo, plemental bill to enjoin the con- 155 TJ. S. 13; Hatch v. Ferguson, 52 struction of the rival railroad upon Fed. R. 833; Davenport v. Moore, 74 other grounds, none of which pre- Fed. R. 945. sented a Federal question. Omaha § 22.J LIMITATIONS UPON JURISDICTION BY RESIDENCE. 75 ments and decrees of ihe State courts, and in the other class the investigation of a new case arising upon new facts, al- though having relation to the validity of an actual judgment or decree, or the party's right to claim any benefit by reason thereof." M A suit to make the judgment or decree of a State court the judgment or decree of the Federal court, respect- ively, can be maintained at common law 30 and in equity. 31 Proceedings supplementary to execution under the judgment of a State court authorized by State statutes against a judg- ment debtor or third persons cannot be instituted in or re- moved to the Federal courts, although a creditor's bill may be. 32 A petition, after judgment in a State court, bj T plaintiff in ejectment to have the defendant's damages allowed to him, is a mere incident to the ejectment suit and the Federal courts can take no jurisdiction of it. 33 It has been held that a bill cannot be maintained to set aside or interfere with the enforce- ment of an interlocutory decree in a cause pending in another court, when such decree is not a contempt of a Federal court. 34 The dependence of an ancillary suit upon an original suit for purposes of jurisdiction does not throw both cases into hotchpot, and dispense with the ordinary rules of pleading and practice as to parties proper and necessary to each cause of action. The parties to the original bill have no more right to intervene in the dependent cause than if the court had in- dependent jurisdiction of the same; and after jurisdiction has been acquired, the pleadings, practice and proceedings are pur- sued exactly as if it were an original suit. 35 The court does not in the second suit take judicial notice of the pleadings or proceedings in the former litigation, unless they are formally put in evidence. 36 §22. Limitations upon jurisdiction by residence. — The Judiciary Act of 1887 limits the jurisdiction of the Circuit 29 Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U. S. 80, 253; s. a, 10 Fed. R. 406; Flash v. 83. See Furnald v. Glenn, 56 Fed. R. Dillon, 22 Fed. E. 1. 872. 3S Chapman v. Barger, 4 Dillon, 587. so Barr v. Simpson, Baldwin, 543. 84 Furnald v. Glenn (C. C. A.), 64 "See Davis v. Davis, 65 Fed. R Fed. R 49. 880. S5 Continental Tr. Co. v. Toledo, St. »» Webber v. Humphreys, 5 DilL L. & K. C. R Co., 82 Fed. R 642,645, 223; Poole v. Thatcherdeft, 19 Fed. per Taf t, J. R 49 j Buford v. Strother, 3 McCrary, 3(i Richardson v. Loree, 94 Fed. R, 375. But see infra, § 264. 76 JUBISDICTION. [§ 22. Courts of the United States as follows: "But no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil ac- tion before a Circuit or District Court ; and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant ; but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant." l This limitation as to the residence of the defendant does not apply to a suit against an alien, who may be sued in any dis- trict where he can be served with process ; 2 nor to the case of an alien corporation even where the State statute deprives its courts of jurisdiction. 3 An alien cannot sue a citizen of the United States except in the district which the defendant in- habits, where the jurisdiction depends upon the alienage.' The limitation does not apply to a suit for the infringement of a patent 5 or of a copyright; 6 nor, it has been said, to any case of which the Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. 7 In all these cases the defendant may be sued wherever he can be served, except in a patent case, where the defendant can only be sued in the district where his infringement occurred, and he has a regularly established place of business ; or else in the district of which he is an inhabitant. 8 The rule is otherwise in trade-mark cases. 9 Where the jurisdiction depends upon the existence of a Federal question and is concurrent with that of the State courts, the defendant must be sued in the district which he inhabits; 10 but where it depends upon citizenship § 22. 1 Act of March 3, 1887, sec. 1, 450; In re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653, 661; 24 St. at L. 522; as amended, 25 St at In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., 160 L. 433. U. S. 221, 230 ; Van Patten v. Chicago, * 2 In re Hohorst, 150 IT. S. 653; Bar- M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 74 Fed. R 981. row S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100. 8 29 St. at L., p. 695; Bowers v. At- 8 Barrow S. S. Co. v. Kane, 170 TJ. S. lantio G. & P. Co. (S. D. N. Y., Coxe, 100. J-). 104 Fed. R, 887. 4 Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. 9 In re Keasbey & Mattison Co., 160 Gonzales, 151 U. S. 496. TJ. S. 221. ' « 29 St. at L. 695; Smith v. Sargent 10 McCormick H. M. Co. v. Walth- Mfg. Co., 67 Fed. R 801; In re Ho- ers, 134 U. S. 41, 43; St Louis, V. & T. horst, 150 U. S. 653, 661. H. R Co. v. Terre Haute & L R Co., « Lederer v. Rankin, 90 Fed. R. 449. 33 Fed. R 385, 386; In re Keasbey & i Lederer v. Rankin, 90 Fed. R 449, Mattison Co., 160 U. S. 221. § 22.] LIMITATIONS UTON JURISDICTION BY RESIDENCE. 77 in different States, the, suit may be brought in the district in which either the plaintiff or the defendant resides, provided the defendant can be duly served. 11 " A corporation chartered by one of the United States cannot have a residence in another State, 12 even where it has, as a condition of doing business in the State, filed a stipulation authorizing service of process upon its agents within the State and agreeing not to remove a suit to the Federal court on the ground of difference of citizenship or non-residence. 13 In the absence of any provision in the charter, the principal office and the domicile of a railroad company incorporated by Con- gress is where the meetings of its stockholders and directors are held, and the records thereof with the registry of its stock are kept, and not where the general administrative offices of the heads of its departments are located. 14 When one of the plaintiffs was a resident of the district, and the other plaintiff and the defendant, who were citizens of different States, were non-residents, it was held that the court had no jurisdiction. 15 It has been held at Circuit that the non-resident defendant alone can object because the suit is not brought in the proper district. 16 The objection is usually waived by a general ap- pearance without raising it, 17 even when neither party is a res- ident of the district. 18 u McCormick H. M. Co. v. Walth- Fed. R 76. It has been held that a ers, 134 XL S. 41 ; Pitkin Min. Co. v. Circuit Court has no jurisdiction, Markell, 33 Fed. R 386; St Louis, V. upon the ground of diverse citizen- & T. H. R. Co. v. Terra Haute & L R. ship, of a suit brought by residents Co., 33 Fed. R. 385, 386; Fales v. Chi- of other districts than that for which cago, M. & St P. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R. 673 ; the court sits, against several def end- Short v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., ants, only one of whom is a resident 33 Fed. R. 114; Gavin v. Vance, 33 of such district Excelsior P. P. Co. Fed. R. 84; W. U. TeL Co. v. Brown, . v. Brown (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R 321. 32 Fed. R 337. 16 Jewett v. Bradford Sav. Bank & 12 Shaw v. Quincy Min. Co., 145 U. S. Tr. Co., 45 Fed. R 801. But see In- 444 453; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. terior Const & L Co. v. Gibney, 160 Co. v. Gonzales, 151 U. S. 496. U. S. 217, 220; Elkhart Nat. Bank v. is Southern Pac. Co. v. Denton, 146 N. W. G. L. Co., 84 Fed. R 76; infra, U.S. 202, 207. • §101. "Interstate Com. Com. v. Texas* "St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Mc- Pac. Ry. Co., 57 Fed. R 948, 955; Bride, 141 U.S. 127; Texas & P. Ry. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593, 603; Interior Com. Com., 162 U. S. 197, 204. Const. & I. Co. v. Gibney, 160 U. S. 217. is Smith v. Lyon, 133 U. S. 315 ; Elk- w Central Tr. Co. v. McGeorge, 151 hart Nat Bank v. N. W. G. L. Co., 84 U. S. 129. 78 JUEISDICTION. [§ 22. It has been held that the rule requires the suit to be brought in the district in which the plaintiff or defendant re- sides and is a citizen ; and "does not authorize a suit in a State of which neither is a citizen. 19 " The word ' inhabitant ' in that act was apparently used not in any larger meaning than ' citizen,' but to avoid the incongruity of speaking of a citizen of less than a State, when the intention was to cover not only a dis- trict which included a whole State, but also two districts in one State." 20 The word "inhabitant" seems, however, to be more limited than resident. 21 The Judiciary Act of 1887 does not require the bringing of the suit in the division of the dis- trict in which one of the parties resides. 22 An omission to al- lege the defendant's residence was held to be fatal upon a de- murrer. 23 The limitation as to residence does not apply to the defendants who are served in pursuance of the Revised Stat utes by publication or without the State or district, 24 even when they are the only defendants. 25 This statute does not affect the jurisdiction in admiralty. 26 A special rule regulates proceedings under the Act to protect Trade and Commerce from unlawful Restraints and Monopo- lies. 27 The Ee vised Statutes previously provided as follows: "When a State contains more than one district, every suit not of a local nature in the Circuit or District Courts thereof, against a single defendant, inhabitant of such State, must be brought in the district where he resides ; but if there are two or more de- fendants, residing in different districts of the State, it may be brought in either district, and a duplicate writ may be issued 19 Bicycle Stepladder Co. v. Gordon, v. Southern Pao. R Co., 63 Fed. E. 57 Fed. R. 529; Shaw v. Quincy Min. 4S1; Wheelright v. St. Louis, N. O. Co., 145 U. S. 444, 447. & O. Canal Co., 50 Fed. R 709; infra, 20 Gray, J., in Shaw v. Quincy Min. § 97. See Kuhn v. Morrison, 75 Fed. Co., 145 U. S. 444, 447. R 81. 21 For oases of residence, see King 25 Dick v. Foraker, 155 U. S. 404; v. U. S., 59 Fed. R. 9; Rivers v. Brad- Wheelright v. St. Louis, N. O. & O. • ley, 53 Fed. R. 305. ' Canal Co.,. 50 Fed. R. 709; U. S. v. 22 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Chat- Southern Pac. R. Co., 63 Fed. R, 481; tanooga Const. Co., 53 Fed. R. 314. Single v. Scott Paper Mfg. Co., 55 23 Laskey v. Newtown Mining Co., Fed. R. 553; Spencer v. Kansas City 50 Fed. R 634; infra, § 66. S. Y. Co., 53 Fed. R. 741. 24 Greeley v. Lowe, 155 U. S. 58; 2S In re Louisville Underwriters, Dick v. Foraker, 155 U. S. 404; Ames 134 U. S. 488. v. Holderbaum, 43 Fed. R 341; U. S. « 26 St. at L. 209. § 22,] LIMITATIONS UPON JUEISDIOTION BY KESIDENCE. T9 against the defendants, directed to the marshal of any other district in which any defendant resides. The clerk issuing the duplicate writ shall indorse thereon that it is a true copy of a writ sued out of the court of the proper district; and such original and duplicate writs, when executed and returned into the office from which they issue, shall constitute and be pro- ceeded on as one suit; and upon any judgment or decree ren- dered therein, execution may be issued, directed to the marshal of any district in the same State." 28 " In suits of a local nature, where the defendant resides in a different district, in the same State, from that in which the suit is brought, the plaintiff may have original and final process against him, directed to the marshal of the district in which he resides." M " Any suit of a local nature, at law or in equity, where the land or other sub- ject-matter of a fixed character lies partly in one district and partly in another, within the same State, may be brought in the Circuit or District Court of either district; and the court in which it is brought shall have jurisdiction to hear and de- cide it, and to cause mesne or final process to be issued and executed, as fully as if the said subject-matter were wholly within the district for which such court is constituted." s0 It has been held that these sections have not been repealed. 81 The statutes which divide certain judicial districts into divis- ions usually provide that all suits, not of a local nature, against a single defendant, or when all the defendants reside in the same division of the district, shall be brought in the division in which the defendant or defendants reside ; but that if there are two or more defendants residing in different divisions, the suit may be brought in either division ; and further, that where cases are removed from the State courts, such removal shall be to the United States Circuit Courts in the division in which the county is situated from which the removal is made; and that prosecutions for crimes or offenses committed in either of the divisions shall be cognizable within such divisions. 32 » U. S. R. a, § 740. 58, 72. Contra, Lacombe, J., in N. J. »U. S. R a, § 741. Steel & I. Co. v. Chormann, 105 Fed. *>U. &R. a, §748. R532. 81 East Tennessee, V. & G-. R Co. v. S2 Alabama: 23 St. at L. 18, 19. Atlanta & T. R Co., 49 Fed. R 608, Georgia: 21 St. at L. 62, 63; 25 St. ac ■616; Goddard v. Hailler, 80 Fed. R L. 671. which provides that " when 423. See Greeley v. Lowe, 155 IT. a the defendant is a non-resident of 80 JURISDICTION. [§ 22. It has been held that a suit in a Circuit Court of the United States in Iowa, against a defendant who is a resident of an- other State, need not be brought in the division of the district where the plaintiff resides. 33 It has been held of the statute dividiug the district of Wash- ington that the exception of suits " of a local character " di- rects by implication that such a suit must be brought in the district where the thing or property proceeded against hap- pens to be situated ; and that a libel in admiralty is a suit of a local nature, which consequently must be prosecuted in the division where the vessel is seized, although her home port is in another division. 34 The act dividing the district of Montana into two divisions omits the customary clause as to the criminal jurisdiction of the same, and consequently an indictment can be found in either for a crime committed in the other division. 35 This pro- vides as to the southern division that " where one or more de- fendants in any civil cause shall reside in said division, and one or more defendants in such cause shall reside out of said division but in said district, then the plaintiff may institute his action either in the court having jurisdiction of the latter or in the said division." m The section of the Revised Statutes which divides the district of South Carolina into " Eastern and "West- ern Districts " makes geographical divisions of the same, not separate judicial districts; and indictments may be found and trials held in either for offenses committed anywhere in the State" either division, an action may, if souri: 20 St at L. S63; 24 St. at L. plaintiff is a citizen of the district, be 424 North Dakota: 26 St. at L. 67. brought in that division where the Ohio: 21 St. at L. 63. South Dakota: defendant may be found." Idaho: 30 26 St. at L. 14; 28 St. at L. 5. Ten- St. at L. 423. Iowa: U. S. E S., g 744, nessee: 20 St. at L. 206; 21 St. at L. 21 St. at L. 155. Kansas: 26 St. at L. 751. Utah: 29 St. at L. 620. Wash- 129; 27 St. at L. 24 Kentucky: U. S. ington, 26 St. at L. 45. But see as to E. S., § 745, 25 St. at L. 390. Louisir Arkansas, 29 St. at L. 590. ana: 25 St. at L. 388, 438. Michigan: 33 Dinzy v. Illinois Cent. E Co., 61 20 St. at L. 175; 28 St at L. 67, which Fed. E. 49. provides that " actions in rem in ad- 3i The Williamette, 53 Fed. E. 602. miralty may be brought in whatever S5 27 St. at L. 252; Eosencrans v. division of the district service can U. S., 165 U. S. 257. be had upon the res." Minnesota: S6 Ibid. 26 St at L. 72; 28 St. at L. 102. See " Barrett v. U. &, 169 U. S. 218; Post v. U. S., 161 U. S. 583. Mis- S. a, 169 U. S. 231. §§ 23, 24.] CIEOUIT COUBT FOE SOUTHEBHT DISTEICT OF N. T. 81 The Revised Statutes further direct that " the trial of offenses punishable with death shall be had in the county where the offense was committed, where it can be done without great in- convenience." 88 The fact that a suit relates to land within, the district does not give the Circuit Court jurisdiction where there is no Federal question nor difference of citizenship. 39 Where a suit is brought in a Circuit Court to recover land in another district together with the rent of the same, the court has juris- diction to award judgment for the value of the rents. 46 §23. Special limitation upon jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for Southern District of New York.— The Eevised Stat- utes provide that " the original jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York shall not be construed to extend to causes of action arising within the Northern Dis- trict of said State." 1 This does not exclude from the jurisdic- tion of the court causes of action that arise without the State. 2 It has been held that this forbids the issue by that court of an injunction to prevent the infringement of a patent when the sole previous cases of infringement occurred in the northern district of New York. 3 The effect of a recent statute upon this limitation has not been decided. 4 § 24. Suits by assignees. — The statutes further limit the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States by providing that no Circuit or District Court shall " have cognizance of any suit, except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the con- tents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder, if such instru- ment be payable to bearer and be not made by any corpora- tion, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made." 1 The words " if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation " do not limit the comprehensive- "U. S. R S., § 729. See Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Co- » Pooley v. Luco, 72 Fed. R 561 lumbian F. Co., 73 Fed. R 828. As to 40 Healey v. Humphrey (C. C A.), the Eastern District, see National 81 Fed. R 990. Button Works v. Wade, 72 Fed. R §23. i U.S. R a, §657. 298. 2 Wheeler v. MoCormiok, 8 Blatchf. * 29 St. at L., p. 695 ; supra, § 22. 268. § 24. i Act of March 3, 1887, § 1, 24 s Black v. Thome, 10 Blatchf. 66. St. at L. 552. 6 82 JUKISDICTION. [§ 24-. ners of the phrase " chose in action." 2 The effect of this clause Is to deprive the Circuit Courts of all jurisdiction for the re- covery of promissory notes or other choses in action, except (1) suits upon foreign bills of exchange ; (2) suits which might have been brought there had no assignment or transfer been made ; and (3) suits upon choses in action made by corporations and payable to bearer. 3 A draft drawn in one State and payable in another of the United States is a foreign bill of exchange. 4 A check is a bill of exchange. 5 A promissory note payable " to the order of " is equivalent to a promissory note pay- able to bearer. 6 A bill of exchange or promissory note drawn to the order of the bearer and by him indorsed in blank is pay- able to bearer within the meaning of the statute. 7 A county warrant payable to a specified person or bearer is equivalent to one payable to bearer. 8 A city, 9 county, 10 incorporated town, 11 or township, 12 is held to be a corporation, and the holder of their bonds, warrants or other written obligations payable to bearer can sue in a Federal court in a proper case irrespect- ive of the citizenship of any previous holder. The assignee of a city warrant not payable to bearer cannot sue in a Federal court which would have had no jurisdiction of a suit by his assignor. 13 " The terms used, ' the contents of any promissory 2 Mexican Nat. E. Co. v. Davison, - is overdue when it is assigned does 157 U. S. 201, 206, 207. notdeprive the assignee of his right 3 Newgass v. New Orleans, 33 Fed. to seek the Federal jurisdiction. E. 196; New Orleans v. Quinlan, 173 Cross v. Allen, 141 U. S. 528. U. S. 191. 8 Thompson v. Searcy County (C. * Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586, 593. C. A.), 57 Fed. R 1030; Jerome v. Eio * Bull v. Bank of Kasson, 123 TJ. S. Grande Co. Com'rs, 18 Fed. R 873. 105. So is a county drain order. Gratiot « Steel v. Eathburn, 42 Fed. B. 390; County v. Aylesworth, 159 IT. a 250. Lyon "County v. Keene F. C. Sav. 9 New Orleans v. Quinlan, 173 U. S. Bank (C. C. A), 100 Fed. E. 337. 191. 'Bank of British N. A v. Barling, "Leake Co. Com'rs v. Dudley, 173 46 Fed. R. 357; & C. in C. C. A, 56 U. S. 243; Rollins v. Chaffee County, Fed. E. 260 ; Jones v. Shapero, 57 Fed. . 34 Fed. E. 91 ; Wilson v. Knox County, R 457. A promissory note payable 43 Fed. E. 481. to the order of a specified person u A New York town, Andes v. Ely, and indorsed by him in blank is not 158 U. S. 312. a promissory note payable to bearer 12 An Ohio township, Loebv. Trust- within the statutory exception, ees of Columbia Tp., 91 Fed. B. 37. Thomson v. Town of Elton, 100 Fed. " Cloud v. City of Sumas, 52 Fed. E. 145. The fact that a note payable E. 177; New Orleans v. Benjamin, to bearer and secured by a mortgage 153 U, S. 41L The acceptance by a §24.] SUITS BY ASSIGNEES. 83 note or other chose in action,' were designed to embrace the rights the instrument conferred which were capable of enforce- ment by suit. They were not happily chosen to convey this meaning; but they have received a construction substantially to that purport in repeated decisions." 14 The phrase " suit to recover the contents of a chose in action " includes suits to recover debts, or any claims for damages for breach of contract, or for torts connected with contract. 15 The phrase also includes suits to foreclose mortgages, 16 and to en- force the specific performance of contracts for the delivery of real or personal property, 17 and to recover upon a contract of insurance with a reformation of the policy. 18 The phrase ■does not include a suit of replevin 19 or ejectment, 20 or other- wise brought to recover property taken by the defendant be- fore the assignment of the title to the plaintiff; 21 nor a suit to recover damages for, the conversion of personal property; 22 nor a suit in equity to compel the transfer of stock on the books of a corporation ; 2S nor, it has been held, a suit by the city of an order by a contractor di- recting the payment to a third per- son of part of the contract price was held to constitute a new contract be- tween the city and the payee, and not to be the assignment of the orig- inal contract City of Superior v. Ripley, 138 U. S. 93. "Shoecraft v. Bloxham, 124 U. S. 730, 735; affirmed in Plant Inv. Co. t. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ey. Co., 152 IT. S. 71, 76. is Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387; 390; Sere v. Pitot. 6 Cranch, 332, 335, 536; Sheldon v. Gill, 8 How. 441, 449, 450; Tredwayv. Sanger, 107 IT. S.323, •325; Mersman v. Werges, 112 IT. S. 139, 143; Corbin v. County of Black Hawk, 105 U. S. 659, 665, 666. But not a suit by the assignee of a note to recover damages against a public officer for the illegal execution of the •same. Indiana v. Glover, 155 IT. S. 513. is The holder of a promissory note payable to .bearer, which is secured by a mortgage, may foreclose in a Federal court in a case where the original holder could not. Tredway v. Sanger, 107 U. S. 323; Cross v. Allen, 141 IT. S. 528. Not, however, where the note is void and the mortgage valid. Mersman v. Werges, 112 XT. S. 139. 17 Corbin v. County of Black Hawk, 105 U. S. 659, 665; Shoecraft v. Blox- ham, 124 IT. S. 730; Plant Inv. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K, W. Ey. Co., 152 U. S. 71, 76; Jackson & S. Co. v. Pearson, 60 Fed. R 113. 18 Laird v. Indemnity Mut. M. Co., 44 Fed. R 712. "Deshler v. Dodge, 16 How. 622, 631. 20 Smith v. Kernochen, 7 How. 198. 2 ,i Gest v. Packwood, 39 Fed. E 525. a Ambler v. Eppinger, 137 IT. & 480. Nor a claim against a railroad company to recover excessive over- charges for freight. Conn v. Chi- cago, B. & Q. E Co., 48 Fed. E 177. 28 Jewett v. Bradford S. B. Tr. Co., > 45 Fed. E 801. 84 JURISDICTION. [§ 24. assignee of a corporate debt to enforce the individual liability of a stockholder; 24 nor a suit by the assignee of a claim against a decedent to set aside a decree for fraud and to compel the payment of the claim; 25 nor a suit founded upon a judgment which seeks other relief than the payment of the same, al- though the suit in which the judgment was recovered could not have been brought in a Federal court. 26 But it seems that a suit to collect a judgment cannot be brought by an assignee in a Federal court unless his assignor might have suedthere; 27 and the holder of a municipal warrant who seeks to recover municipal assets without a previous judgment at law is within the meaning of the phrase. 28 It has been suggested that the restriction applies only to contracts " which may be properly said to have contents," not to " mere naked rights of action founded on some wrongful act," — some neglect of duty to which the law attaches damages, such as failure to protest a note; but to "rights of action founded on contracts which contain within themselves some promise or duty to be performed." 29 It has been held that an indorsee who is a citizen of the same State as the maker of the note may sue his immediate indorser in a Federal court, if that indorser be a citizen of a different State ; 30 but that when, in a suit against a remote indorser, the plaintiff derives his title through a citizen of the same State as the defendant, there is no jurisdiction on account of the difference of citizen- ship between the latter and the plaintiff; 31 that the person who has advanced money upon an accommodation note can sue the 2* Ballard v. Bell, 1 Mason, 243. 28 New Orleans v. Benjamin, 153 25 Bertha Z. & M. Co. v. Vaughn, U. S. 411. 88 Fed. R 566. 29 Barney v. Globe Bank, 5 Blatch. 2«Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason, 252, 269; 107. See, however, Bushnell v. Ken- Ober v. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 199, 206; nedy, 9 WalL 387, 391; Ambler v. Ep- Mississippi Mills v. Cohn, 150 U. S. pinger, 137 U. S. 480, 483. 202. But see Metoalf v. Watertown, so Young v. Bryan, 6 Wheat. 146; 128 U. S. 586. Nor a suit to vacate Manufacturing Co. v. Bradley, 105 the satisfaction of a judgment. Hay U. S. 175; Parker v. Ormsby, 141 v. Alexandria & W. K. Co., 20 Fed. U. S. 81. R 15. But see Blacklock v. Small, 81 Turner v. Bank of N. A., 4 DalL 127 U. S. 96. 8; Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 2'Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 538. But see Portage Q R Co. v. 586; First Nat. Bank v. Dull County, Portage, 102 Fed. R. 769. 74 Fed. R 37a § 24.] SUITS BY ASSIGNEES. 85 maker, if a citizen of a different State, in a Federal court, al- though the indorser is a citizen of the same State ; 38 and that under similar circumstances the payee of a bill of exchange can sue the acceptor although he could not have sued the drawer in the Federal court. 33 Assignees in insolvency M are included within this restriction ; but receivers S5 and executors and administrators 3fi are not. A party who claims the benefit of -a contract as an incident to another contract is to be con- sidered as the assignee of the former when he sues to enforce it, although it has never been formally assigned to him. 37 A party who claims by subrogation is not within this restriction. 38 It has been held that the restriction does not apply when the only reason why the assignor could not have sued was that his claim was less in value than the jurisdictional amount. 39 The assignee must aver in his pleading that his assignor might have sued in the Federal court. 40 An allegation in a bill filed by an assignee of claims against a Louisiana corporation, that the assignors are and were citizens of States other than Louisi- ana, and competent as such to sue the defendant, in the Circuit Court, if no assignment has been made, was held to be insuffi- cient to confer jurisdiction on the Circuit Court because the State or States of which the assignors were citizens were not specifically designated. 41 "Where at the time of the commence- ment of the suit the assignor might have sued in the Federal court, but at the time of the assignment he could not, it was 'z Goldsmith v. Holmes, 36 Fed. R. & K. W. Ry. Co., 152 U. S. 71, 76. But 484; s. a, Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 see Portage C. W. Co. v. Portage, 102 U.S. 150; Wachusett Nat. Bank v. Fed. R. 769. Sioux C. S. Works, 56 Fed. R 321. S8 New Orleans v. Caines' Adm'r,138 S3 Superior v. Ripley* 138 U. S. 93. U. S. 595, 606. 84 Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332, 336. S9 Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 Fed. So are buyers at a judicial sale. R 885, 887; Bowden v. Burnham (C. Glass v. Concordia P. Police Jury, 176 C. A.), 59 Fed. R 752; Bergman v. In- U. S. 207. man, 91 Fed. R 293; Chase v. Shel- ls Davies v. Lathrop, 12 Fed. R 353. don R M. Co., 56 Fed. R 625. See But see U. S. Nat Bank v. McNair, also Hammond v. Cleaveland, 23 Fed. 56 Fed. R 323; Thompson v. Pool, R 1. 70 Fed. R 725. 40 Parker v. Ormsby, 141 U. S. 81; 36 Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332, 836; U. S. Nat. Bank v. McNair, 56 Fed. Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 R 323. Cranch, 306; Childress v. Emory, 8 41 Benjamin v. New Orleans (C. C. Wheat. 642. A.), 74 Fed. R 417. " Plant Inv. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. 86 JUBI8DI0TI0N. [§ 25. held that there was jurisdiction. 42 The statute does not forbid one of the original contractors from suing in a Federal court the assignee of the other party, although the citizenship of the plaintiff is the same as that of the assignor. 43 § 25. Jurisdiction of the District Courts of the United States. — The jurisdiction of the District Courts of the United States in civil causes extends to suits for penalties and forfeit- ures incurred under any law of the United States, including the contract labor law; 1 suits at common law brought by the United States or any officer thereof authorized by law to sue, including a receiver of a national banking association appointed by the comptroller; 2 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 for the recovery of any forfeiture or damages under section 3490 of the Revised Statutes ; causes of action arising under the postal laws of the United States; civil causes of admiralty ' and maritime jurisdiction, and all seizures on land and water not within admiralty and maritime jurisdic- tion; prizes on land and water; suits brought by the assignees of debentures for drawback of duties to enforce such debent- ures; all suits under the civil rights laws, including a suit by colored children alleging that, under the State statutes, they » were denied the equal protection of the laws by their exclusion from certain public schools; 4 proceedings by quo warranto, « Jones v. Shapero (C. O. A), 57 28 Fed. R 855; s. c., 30 Fed. E. 142. Fed. R 457. A District Court may, however, in its 43 Brooks v. Laurent (C. C. A.), 98 discretion refuse to entertain suit by- Fed. R. 647. foreign seamen against a foreign ship § 25. i U. S. v. Whitcomb M. B. Co., for wages when the result would be 45 Fed. R. 89. a detention of the vessel and the 2 Stephens v. Bernays, 44 Fed. R. sailors' employment has not termi- 643. An action by the United States nated. Slocum v. Western Assur. in the name of a State upon a sheriff's Co., 42 Fed. R 235. A District Court, bond for an escape was allowed in a however, entertained jurisdiction of District Court. Tennessee v. Hill, 60 a suit by an American citizen, who Fed. R. 1005. did not reside within the district, to * This includes jurisdiction over a recover upon a marine policy of in- suit against a vessel within the juris- surance executed in a foreign coun- diction to recover for a tort com- try by a foreign corporation. Ibid, mitted upon the high seas, although 4 Davenport v. Cloverport, 72 Fed. the vessel, the libelant and the tort- R 689. feasor are aliens. The Noddleburn, § 25.] DISTEIOT COUETS. 87 prosecuted by a district attorney of the United States, for the removal from office of a person disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution; suits by aliens for torts " only " in violation of the law of nations or of a treaty of the United States ; suits against consuls or vice-consuls ; 5 and all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy. 6 They have also ju- risdiction over prosecutions for all crimes against the United States not capital committed within their respective districts or upon the high seas, except for depositing fraudulent papers in the archives of the office of the Surveyor General in Cali- fornia, and as limited by special statutes. 7 A District Court can, by the defendant's consent, but not otherwise, entertain jurisdiction over a suit brought by trustees in bankruptcy to set aside fraudulent transfers of money or property made by the bankrupt to third parties before the institution of the proceedings in bankruptcy; 8 or suits of re- plevin to recover personal property similarly fraudulently con- veyed. 9 The District Courts also have jurisdiction of suits against the United States to collect claims not exceeding $1,000 ; for money only, founded upon the Constitution of the United States ; or such suits founded upon any law of Congress, ex- cept for pensions; or upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the government of the United States, except to recover fees, salary or compensation for official services; and of suits for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort, in respect of which claims the plaintiff would be en- titled to redress against the United States in a court of law, equity or admiralty, if the United States were suable, ex- cept war claims which, before March 3, 1887, were rejected or reported on adversely by any court, department or commis- sion authorized to hear and determine the samef 10 and proceed- ings to condemn for national public purposes land situated within their respective districts. 11 It has been held that a District Court may punish as a contempt the unlawful ouster of the court, its officers and records from the rooms of a pub- »U. S. E. S., § 563. See TJ. S. v. 9 Mitchell v. McClure, 178 T7. S. 539. Mooney; 116 U. S. 104. Cf. White v. Schloerb, 178 U. S. 543. 6 U. S. R. S., § 563; 30 St. at L. 545, 10 24 St. at L. 505; 30 St. at L. 494. 546, 552. See U. S. v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1; infra, ?TJ. S. R. S., §§563,5412. §36. SBardes v. Ha warden Bank, 178 " 25 St. at L. 357. See infra, §381. U. S. 524, 539; Hicks v. Knost, 178 U. S. 541. 88 K JUKISDIOTION. • [§ 26. lie building where they are located, and as incidental to the contempt proceeding it may issue a stay order against such a removal. 12 § 26. Territorial jurisdiction and terms of the Supreme Court and Circuit Courts of Appeal of the United States. — The Supreme Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States. It holds one term annually, at Washington, commenc- ing on the second Monday of October. 1 It may also hold ad- journed and special terms. 2 In case of a contagious or epi- demic disease, a term may be held at another place. 8 The territorial jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of Appeals is as follows : The first circuit includes the districts of .Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. 4 The sec- ond circuit includes the districts of Vermont, Connecticut, and New York. 5 The third circuit includes the districts of Penn- sylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. 6 The fourth circuit in- cludes the districts of Maryland, Virginia, "West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. 7 The fifth circuit includes the districts of Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. 8 The sixth circuit includes the districts of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. 9 The seventh circuit in- cludes the districts of Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. 10 The eighth circuit includes the districts of Colorado, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming. 11 The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the eighth judicial circuit is also extended to writs of error to, and ap- peals from, the final decisions of the Appellate Court of the Indian Territory, in the same manner and under the same reg- ulations as appeals are taken from the Circuit Courts of the United States, except in citizenship cases, when appeals are taken immediately to the Supreme Court of the United States. 13 The ninth circuit includes the districts of Alaska, Arizona, 12 In re Lyman, 55 Fed. R 29, 43. » U. S. E. S., § 604, § 26. 1 U. S. R. a, § 684. 'U.&E. S., § 604 2 U. a R. S., §§ 684-686. » U. S. R S., § 604 » U. a R a, § 4799. " TJ. S. R. a, § 604; 19 St. at L. 61; * U. a R a, § 604 25 St. at L. 676; 139 U. a 707; 26 St. 5 U. S. R. S., g 604 at L. 215, 826, 830; 28 St. at L. 107. , « U. S. R S., § 604 i 2 28 St. at L. 698; 30 St. at L. 591, 'U.&R S., § 604 See Brown v. U. S., 171 TJ. a 631. § 26a.] JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS. 89 California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. 13 The term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the first cir- cuit is held in the city of Boston on the first Tuesday of Octo- ber. The term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the second circuit is held in the city of New York on the last Tuesday of October. The term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the third circuit is held in Philadelphia on the first Tuesday of March and the third Tuesday of September. The terms of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit are held in Eichmond on the first Tuesdays of February, May and November. The term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit is held in New Orleans on the third Monday of November. The term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the sixth circuit is held in Cincinnati on the Tuesday after the first Monday of October. The term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the seventh circuit is held in Chicago on the first Tuesday of Octo- ber. The terms of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the eighth circuit are held at St. Paul, Minnesota, on the first Monday of May, and at St. Louis, Missouri, on the first Monday of De- cember. The term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit is held at San Francisco on the first Monday of October. 11 The terms of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal may be also held at such times and places as the courts may designate. 15 § 26a. Territorial jurisdiction and terms of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States. — There is a Cir- cuit Court in each judicial district of the United States. 1 A Circuit Court cannot serve process, except in some cases a sub- poena, beyond its district. 2 It has been said that when one term begins, the preceding term, at least when held in the same place, ends, unless it was the evident intention of the statutes that the two terms should be concurrent in whole or in part. 8 The term does not expire "U. S. E. a, § 604; 25 St. at L. § 26a. 'U. S. R S., § 608; 18 St. at 676; 26 St. at L 830; 139 U. S. 707; 26 L. 195; 25 St. at L. 655; 25 St. at L., St. at L. 217; St. 1900, 158. ch. 180, p. 682. m 26 St at L. 826; Amended Rules 2 Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 328. of C. C. A., 90 Fed. R lii-lxi, Ixxiii, 3 Ex parte Friday, 43 Fed. R. 916, lxxix, lxxxix, lxxxxviii, cxi, cxxiii, 918. It has been held that the term cxxxiv; 91 Fed. R. iii. of a Circuit Court does not neoessa- 16 26 St. at L. 826. rily end at the opening of a term 90 JTJEISDIOTION. [§ 26«. until the limit set by law for its continuance, 4 unless, perhaps, when it has been formally adjourned without a day. / There is a District Court in each judicial district of the United States. I The judicial districts and the terms of. the Circuit and Dis- trict Courts held therein are as follows: — In Alabama, three districts, — the Southern, Middle, and Northern. The Southern District of Alabama includes the counties of Mobile, "Washington, Baldwin, Clarke, MarengOj Wilcox, Monroe, Choctaw, Escambia, and Conecuh. The terms for this district of both the Circuit and District Courts are held at the city of Mobile on the fourth Monday of November and the first Monday in May. A Circuit and a District Court for the Middle District of Alabama are held at the city of Montgomery. This includes the counties of Montgomery, Autauga, Coosa, Tallapoosa, Chambers, Kandolph, Macon, Kussell, Barbour, Pike, Henry, Dale, Coffee, Covington, Lowndes, Dallas, Perry, Butler, Bullock, Chilton, Crenshaw, Elmore, Geneva, and Lee. The terms of the Circuit and District Courts for this dis- trict are held at the city of Montgomery on the first Mon- days of May and November. There is a Circuit and a District Court for the Northern District, which includes the remainder of the State. This district is divided into two divisions. The Southern Division" of the Northern District contains the coun- ties of Sumter, Greene, Hale, Pickens, Tuscaloosa, Lamar, Fay- ette, "Walker, Jefferson, Blount, Bibb, Shelby, Saint Clair, Eto- wah, Calhoun, Cleburne, Clay, Talladega, Cherokee, and De Kalb, in which the court is held at Birmingham. In this divis- ion of the Northern District, terms of both Circuit and District Courts are held at the city of Birmingham on the first Mon- days of March and September. The Northern Division of the Northern District includes the remaining counties in it, and both the Circuit and District Courts are held in this division at the city of Huntsville on the first Monday of April and the second Monday of October. 6 held at another place in the same place during the adjourned term. district (East Tennessee Iron & Coal State of Florida v. Charlotte Harbor Co.v.Wiggin (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R. 446); Phosphate Co. (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R, and that a term of a Circuit Court 883. may be adjourned to a distant day 4 Schofield v. Horse Springs Cattle and its sessions then resumed as a Co., 65 Fed. R. 433. part of the same term, although an- 5 u. S. R S., §§ 532, 608; 18 St. at I* other ter:n has been held at another 195; 23 St. at L. 18; 26 St. at L. 180. § 26ff.] DISTRICTS OF ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS. 91 Alaska: In Alaska there is a District Court with general juris- , diction in civil, criminal, equity and admiralty cases. The court consists of three divisions, each of which is held by a different judge with separate clerk, district attorney and marshal. The jurisdiction of each division extends over the entire terri- tory; but the court, where an action is pending, may change the place of trial from one place to another in the same or an- other division for local prejudice, for the convenience of wit- nesses, disqualification of the division judge or the convenience of the defendant, and in criminal prosecutions also to save ex- pense to the United States, where the defendant will not be prejudiced thereby. In Division One at least four terms of court are annually held, two at Juneau and two at Skaguay, at times designated by the judge in January. In Division Two at least one term a year is held at Saint Michaels, beginning on the third Mon- day in June. In Division Three at least one term a year is held at Eagle City, beginning on the first Monday of June. Special terms may also be held upon thirty days' notice of the time and place. For recording purposes, the district judges are directed to divide the district into three recording divis- ions and to define the boundaries of the same. 6 In Arkansas, two districts, — the Eastern and "Western. The "Western District of Arkansas includes the counties of Benton, "Washington, Carroll, Boone, Madison, Newton, Crawford, Franklin, Johnson, Logan, Sebastian, Scott, Tell, Polk, Sevier, Howard, Pike, Little Eiver, Hempstead, Miller, Lafayette, Ne- vada, Columbia, Union, Ouachita and Calhoun. The Western District is divided into two divisions known as the Texarkana and Fort Smith divisions. The Texarkana Division includes the counties of Sevier, Howard, Pike, Little Eiver, Hempstead, Miller, Lafayette, Columbia, Nevada, Ouachita, Calhoun and Union. The remaining counties of the Western District com- pose the Fort Smith Division. Terms of the District and Cir- cuit Courts for the Western District are held each year at the city of Texarkana, in the county of Miller, on the second Mon- days in May and November, and at the city of Fort Smith, in the county of Sebastian, on the second Mondays in January « 31 St. at L. 323-326. See Ex parte quitlam v. U. S., 163 IT. S. 846; Decker Cooper, 143 U. S. 472; Steamer Co- v. Williams, 73 Fed. R. 30a 92 jubisdiotion. [§ 26a. and June. The Eastern District includes the residue of the State, and is divided into two divisions, — the Northern and Western. The Eastern Division consists of the counties of Mississippi, Crittenden, Lee, Phillips, Clay, Craighead, Poin- sett, Greene, Cross, Saint Francis, and Monroe. The Northern Division includes the counties of Independence, Cleburne, Stone, Izard, Baxter, Searcy, Marion, Sharp, Eulton, Eandolph, Lawrence and Jackson. The remaining counties of the East- ern District constitute the "Western Division. Terms of the District and Circuit Courts for the Eastern District are held at the city of Batesville, in the county of In- dependence, commencing on the fourth Monday of May and the second Monday of December ; at the city of Helena, in the county of Phillips, on the second Mondays in March and Oc- tober ; at the city of Little Kock, in the county of Pulaski, terms of the District Court are held on the first Monday in April and the third Monday in October. 7 In California, two districts, — the Northern and the Southern. The Southern District is divided into two divisions. The Northern Division consists of the counties of Inyo, Mariposa- Tulare, Merced, Madera, Eresno, Kings and Kern. The South, era Division consists of the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Eiverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Yentura. The remainder of California is com- prised in the Northern District. Terms of both Circuit and District Courts for the Northern Division of the Southern District are held at Fresno on the first Monday of May and the second Monday of November. Terms of both courts for the Southern Division of the Southern District at Los Angeles on the second Mondays of January and July. In the Northern District, terms of both Circuit and District Courts are held at San Francisco on the first Monday in March, the second Monday in July, and the first Monday in Novem- ber. Prior to the division of the original district of California, ' TJ. S. R S., §§ 608, 533, 572; 18 St. Fe Railroad Company, and the South- at L, 230; 19 St. at L. 230; 24 St. at era Kansas Railway Company, see 23 L. 83, 45; 25 St. at L. 655; 27 St. at St. at L. 8, 72; 23 St. atL.75; Briscoe L. 3; 29 St. at L. 591; 30 St. at L. v. Southern Kan. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R 976; 31 St. at L. 733. For the special 273; s. c, 144 U. S. 133. As to Indian jurisdiction of courts held in the Territory, see 25 St. at L. 786; Gowen western district over controversies v. Harley, 56 Fed, R 973. affecting the Gulf, Colorado & Santa § 26».] 00L0BAD0, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, FLOEIDA, GEORGIA. 93 provision was made for holding special sessions of the Circuit Court. 8 Colorado constitutes one judicial district. Terms of Circuit and District Courts for this district are held at Denver on the first Tuesdays in May and November, at Pueblo on the first Tuesday in April, and at Del Norte on the first Tuesday in August. 9 Connecticut constitutes one judicial district. District Courts are held at New Haven on the Fourth Tuesday in February, at Hartford on the fourth Tuesday in May, at New Haven on the fourth Tuesday in August, and at Hartford on the first Tuesday of December. A Circuit Court for this district is held at New Haven on the fourth Tuesday in April, and at Hart- ford on the second Tuesday in October. 10 , Delaware constitutes one judicial district. The District Court is held at "Wilmington on the second Tuesdays in January, April, June, and September. The Circuit Court is held at Wil- mington on the third Tuesdays in June and October. 11 In Florida, two districts, — the Northern and Southern. The Southern District embraces the counties of Hernando, Hills- borough, Polk, Manatee, Monroe, Alabama, Baker, Bradford, Brevard, Clay, Columbia, Dade, Duval, Hamilton, Lake, Mad- ison, Marion, Nassau, Orange, Osceola, Putnam, Saint John, Sumter, Suwannee and Yolusia. The rest of the State consti- tutes the Northern District. In the Southern District, Circuit and District Courts are held at Tampa on the second Monday in February, at Key "West on the first Mondays of May and November, at Jacksonville on the first Monday in December, and at Ocala on the third Monday of February. In the North- ern District, both the District and Circuit Courts are held at Tallahasse on the first Monday in February, at Pensacola on the first Monday in March. 13 In Georgia, two districts, — the Northern and Southern. The Northern District of Georgia originally included the coun- ties of Troup, Meriwether, Pike, Butts, Jasper, Morgan, Green, Taliaferro, Wilkes, and Lincoln as they existed August 11, 1848, 8 U. S. E. S., § 664; 24 St. at L. 308- « U. S. R. S., §§ 531, 572, 65a 310; 29 St. at L. 135; 31 St. at L. 219. « U. S. R. S., §§ 534, 572, 658; 20 St. 9 19 St. at L. 61; 24 St at L. 214. at L. 280; 24 St at L. 106; 28 St at WIT. S. E. S., §§ 531, 572; 21 St at L. 117, 149; 31 St. at L. 73, 818. L. 41; 29 St at L. 317. 94: JURISDICTION. [§ 26#. i with all the counties north of them. Pike, Butts, Jasper, Lin- coln, "Wilkes, and Taliaferro have since been annexed to the Southern District. The Eastern, "Western and Northwestern Divisions of the Northern District have recently been consti- tuted. The Eastern Division consists of the counties of Banks, Clarke, Franklin, Greene, Habersham, Hart, Jackson, Morgan, Madison, Oglethorpe, Ownee, Walton, Kabun, "White, and El- bert. The Northwestern Division consists of the counties of Dade, "Walker, Catoosa, "Whitfield, Murray, Chattooga, Gordon, Floyd, Bartow, Polk, Paulding, Haralson, and Carroll. The "Western Division consists of the counties of Muscogee, Heard, Troup, Meriwether, Harris, Talbot, Taylor, Marion, Chatta- hoochee, Stewart, Schley, "Webster, Quitman, Clay, Eandolph, Early, Miller, and Terrell. The Southern District is divided into Eastern, Northeastern, and "Western Divisions. The "Western Division consists of the following counties: Bibb, Monroe, Jones, Twiggs, Houston, Crawford, Baldwin, "Wilkinson, Lau- rence, Pulaski, Dooly, Macon, Upson, Pike, Butts, Jasper, Putnam, Hancock, Warren, Dodge, Wilcox, Telfair^ Sumter, Lee, Calhoun, Dougherty, Baker, and Mitchell. The Eastern Division consists of the remaining counties of the district. The counties of Warren, Glascock, McDuffie, Columbia, Bich- mond, Burke, Jefferson, Johnson, Washington, Lincoln, Wilkes, and Taliaferro compose the Northeastern Division. In the Northern District terms of both courts are held at Atlanta on the second Monday in March and on the first Monday in Oc- tober ; at Athens on the third Monday in April and the first Mon- day in October ; at Columbus, Muscogee county, on the first Mon- days of May and December, and at Borne on the third Mondays of May and November, to continue as long as the presiding judge deems necessary. In the Southern District terms of the District Court are held at Savannah on the second Tuesdays in February, May, August, and November, and of the Circuit Court on the second Monday of April and the Thursday after the first Monday in November; at Macon, of both courts on the first Mondays of May and October, and at Augusta of both courts on the first Monday of April and the third Monday of November. 13 "U. S. R. S., §§ 535, 573, 658; 21 St. 671, 690; 26 St. at L. 1110; 28 St. at at L. 62; 23 St. at L. 50; 25 St. at L. L. 504; 31 St. at L. 73. § 26 § 26«.J DISTRICTS OF MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN. 101 Maryland forms one judicial district, the District Courts of which are held at Baltimore on the first Tuesdays in March, June, September, and December. The terms of the Circuit Courts for the same district are held at Baltimore on the first Mondays in April and November. Terms of both courts are held at Cumberland on the second Monday of May and the last Monday of September. 23 Massachusetts forms one judicial district. The terms of the District Courts are held at Boston on the third Tuesday in March, on the fourth Tuesday in June, on the second Tuesday in September, and on the first Tuesday in December. The terms of the United States Circuit Courts for this district are held at Boston, on the fifteenth days of May and October. 24 In Michigan, two districts, the Eastern and Western; and the latter has a Northern and a Southern Division. The North- ern Division of the Western District includes all the territory and waters of the upper peninsula of the State. The Southern Division of this district comprises all that portion of the south- ern or lower peninsula lying west of a line described as fol- lows by the Revised Statutes : — " Commencing at the southwest corner of Branch county, in said State, and running thence north on the west line of Branch and Calhoun counties, to the south line of Barry county; thence east on the north line of Calhoun and Jackson counties, to the southeast corner of Eaton county ; thence north on the east boundary of Eaton county to the south line of Clinton county ; thence west on the south boundary of said county to the south- west corner thereof; thence north on the west boundary of Clinton and Gratiot counties, to the south boundary of Isabella county ; thence west on its south boundary, to the southwest corner of said last named county ; thence north on the west line of Isabella and Clare counties, to the south boundary of Missaukee county; thence east, on its south boundary, to the southeast corner of Missaukee county; thence north, on the east line of Missaukee, Kalcaska, and Antrim counties, to the south boundary of Emmett county; thence east, to the southeast corner of Emmett county ; thence north on the east boundary of Emmett county, to the straits of Mackinac ; thence north to midway across said straits; thence westerly in a di- MU.S.R S., §§ 531, 572, 658; 37 St. at L. 11. « TJ. S. R. S., §§ 531, 572, 586. 102 JTJEISDICTION. [§ 26». rect line to a point on the shore of Lake Michigan where the north boundary of Delta county reaches Lake Michigan." The Eastern District is also divided into two divisions known as the Northern and Southern Divisions. The follow- ing counties compose the Northern Division: Cheboygan, Presque Isle, Otsego, Montmorency, Alpena, Crawford, Os- coda, Alcona, Roscommon, Ogeman, Iosco, Clare, Gladwin, Arenac, Isabella, Midland Bay, Tuscola, Huron, Gratiot, Sagi- naw, Shiowassee, and Genesee. And the following counties constitute the Southern Division: Saint Clair, Lapeer, Sani- lac, Macomb, Oakland, Livingston, Ingham, Clinton, Jackson, "Washtenaw, "Wayne, Branch, Hillsdale, Lenawee, Calhoun and Monroe. Terms of both Circuit and District Courts in the Southern Division of the Western District are held at Grand Eapids on the first Tuesdays of March and October; and in the Northern Division, at Marquette, on the first Tuesdays of May and September. At least two regular sessions of the Cir- cuit and District Courts are held at Bay City in the Northern Division commencing on the first Tuesday of May and October in each year; and in the Southern Division at Detroit, on the first Tuesdays of March, June, and November. There is also a special or adjourned term of the District Court for the hear- ing of admiralty cases held at Bay City, beginning in the month of February of each year. 25 Minnesota constitutes one judicial district, which is divided into six divisions, known as the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Divisions. That portion of the State of Min- nesota comprising the counties of Winona, Wabasha, Olmsted, Dodge, Steele, Mower, Fillmore, and Houston constitute the First Division, the courts of which are held at Winona; the counties of Freeborn, Faribault, Martin, Jackson, Nobles, Bock, Pipestone, Murray, Cottonwood, Watonwan, Blue Earth, Wa- seca, Le Sueur, Nicollet, Brown, Bedwood, Lyon, Lincoln, Yel- low Medicine, Sibley, and Lac Qui Parle, constitute the Second Division, the courts of which are held at Mankato; the counties of Chicago, Washington, Ramsey, Dakota, Goodhue, Rice, and Scott constitute the Third Division, the courts of which are held at St. Paul ; the counties of Hennepin, Wright, Meeker, Kandiyohi, Swift, Chippewa, Renville, MoLeod, Carver, Anoka, » U. S. R. S., §§ 538, 572, 658; 20 St. 67. See Bigelow v. Niokerson (G C. tal* 175; 24 St. at L. 423; 28 St. at L. A.). 70 Fed. R. 113. § 26a.] DISTBIOT OF MISSISSIPPI. 103 Sherburne, and Isanti constitute the Fourth Division, the courts of which are held at Minneapolis ; the counties of Cook, Lake, St. Louis, Itasca, Cass, Crow Wing, Aitkin, Carlton, Pine, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, and Benton constitute the Fifth Division, the courts of which are held at Duluth ; the counties of Stearns, Pope, Stevens, Big Stone, Traverse, Grant, Douglas, Todd, Otter Tail, Wilkin, Clay, Becker, Wadena, Norman, Polk, Marshall, Kittson, Beltromi, and Hubbard constitute the Sixth Division, the courts of which are held at Fergus Falls. The terms of the Circuit and District Courts are held, for the First Division, on the first Tuesdays of June and December; for the Second Division, on the third Tuesday of April and the first Tuesday of November; for the Third Division, on the fourth Tuesday of June and the second Tuesday of January; for the Fourth Division, on the first Tuesday in March and the first Tuesday in September; for the Fifth Division, on the sec- ond Tuesdays of May and October; and for the Sixth Division, on the fourth Tuesdays of March and September. 26 In Mississippi, two districts, the Northern and Southern. The Northern District is subdivided into Eastern and Western Divisions. The Eastern Division of the Northern District in- cludes the counties of Tishamingo, Alcorn, Prentiss, Itawamba, Lee, Pontotoc, Monroe, Chickasaw, Clay, Oktibbeha, Lowndes, Winston, Choctaw and Attala, as they existed June 15, 1882. The Western Division of the Northern District comprises the counties of Carroll, Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, De Soto, Tate, Marshall, Panola, Benton, Tippah, Sunflower, Montgomery, Grenada, Tallahatchee, La Fayette, Union, Webster, Calhoun, Quitman, and Yalabusha, as they existed in June, 1882. Terms of both Circuit and District Courts in the Eastern Division of the Northern District are held at Aberdeen, on the first Mondays of April and October, to continue twenty-four judicial days if the business so long require. The terms of both courts for the Western Division are held at Oxford, on the first Mondays of June and December, to continue so long as the business may require. In the Northern District the judge is authorized to appoint and hold additional special terms. The Southern District of Mississippi is divided into three 26 U. S. R. S., § 581; 26 St. at L. 72, Great Lakes, see The Lindsay, 02 73. For the power to execute pro- Fed. R. 851. cess upon the open waters of the 104: JTJEISDICTION. [§ 26«. divisions. The "Western Division consists of the counties of Washington, Sharkey, Inaquena, Motte, and Claiborne. The Eastern Division consists of the counties of Lauderdale, Kem- per, Noxubee, Leake, Neshova, Newton, Jasper, Clarke, Wayne, and Jones. The Southern Division consists of the counties of Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Marion, Perry, and Green. The terms of the Circuit and District Courts for the Western Divis- ion are held at Ticksburg, on the first Mondays of January and July in each year ; for the Southern Division, at Biloxi, on the third Mondays of February and August ; for the Eastern Division, at the city of Meriden on the second Mondays of March and September of each year, to continue three weeks. 27 In Missouri, two districts, the Eastern and Western. The Eastern District of Missouri embraces the following counties: St. Louis, Franklin, Gasconade, Jefferson, Crawford, Washing- ton, St. Francois, St. Genevieve, Dent, Iron, Madison, Perry, Bollinger, Cape Girardeau, Shannon, Keynolds, Wayne, Scott, Carter, Oregon, Kipley, Butler, Stoddard, New Madrid, Mis- sissippi, Dunklin, Pemiscot, Montgomery, Lincoln, Warren, St. Charles, Macon, Adair, Clarke, Knox, Lewis, Marion, Monroe, Pike, Kails, Schuyler, Scotland, Shelly, Kandolph, and Au- drain. The remaining counties of the State form the Western District. There are two divisions in the Eastern District. The city of St. Louis and the counties of St. Louis, Franklin, Gasconade, Jefferson, Crawford, Washington, St. Francois, St. Genevieve, Dent, Iron, Madison, Perry, Bollinger, Cape Girardeau, Shan- non, Reynolds, Wayne, Scott, Carter, Oregon, Eipley, Butler, Stoddard, New Madrid, Mississippi, Dunklin, Pemiscot, Mont- gomery, Lincoln, Warren, and St. Charles form the Eastern Division. The remaining counties of the Eastern District con- stitute the Northern Division. The Western District of Missouri is divided into four divis- ions. The counties of Clay, Kay, Carroll, Chariton, Sullivan, Jackson, La Fayette, Saline, Cass, Johnson, Bates, Henry, Put- nam, Caldwell, Livingston, Grundy, Mercer, Linn, and St. Clair form the Western Division of the Western District. The coun- ties of Atchison, Nodaway, Holt, Andrew, Buchanan, Platte, Clinton, Harrison, Daviess, De Kalb, Gentry, and Worth form « TJ. 8. R. 8., §§ 572, 658; 22 St. at ' St. at L. 78; 2S St. at L. 114; 80 St. L. 101, 103; 24 St. at L. 127, 430; 25 at L. 977, 995. § 26a.] DISTRICTS OF MONTANA AND NEBKASKA. 105 the St. Joseph Division. The counties of Cedar, Polk, Dallas, Laclede, Pulaski, Dade, Greene, Webster, "Wright, Texas, Chris- tian, Douglas, Howell, Taney, and Ozark form the Southern Division of the Western District. The counties of Jasper, New- ton, Barton, Yernon, Barry, Lawrence, McDonald, and Stone form the Southwestern Division. The remaining counties of the Western District form the Central Division. In each of the divisions of the Eastern and Western Districts there are established a District and a Circuit Court of the United States. There are held two terms of the District and Circuit Courts in each year in each of the divisions. The times and places of holding the District Court in the Eastern District are, for the Eastern Division, at St. Louis, on the first Mondays in May and November; and for the Circuit Court, at the same place, on the third Mondays in March and September. For the Northern Division, for both courts, at Hannibal, on the first Mondays in May and November. Courts for the Western Dis- trict are held as follows : Both courts at Kansas City, on the fourth Monday in April and the first Monday in November annually ; both courts at St. Joseph, on the first Monday in March and the third Monday in September annually; both courts at Springfield, on the first Monday in April and the first Monday in October annually; both courts at Jefferson City, on the third Monday in March and the third Monday in October annually ; both courts at Joplin, on the second Mondays of June and January. 28 Montana constitutes one district. The Southern Division embraces the counties of Beaverhead, Madison, and Silver Bow. Terms of the Circuit and District Courts are held at Butte City on the first Tuesdays in February and September in each year. 29 Nebraska forms one judicial district. The time and places of holding courts therein, Circuit and District, are at Omaha, on the first Monday of May and the second Monday of Novem- ber; at Lincoln, on the third Monday of January and the first Monday of October; at Hastings, on the third Monday in April; and at Norfolk, on the fourth Monday of April. 30 * U. a R. S., §§ 540, 572, 658; 20 2 »25 St at L. 682; 27 St. at L. 252; St at L. 263; 24 St at L. 424; 25 St. 30 St. at L. 685. at L. 88, 498; 26 St at L 106, 369, 406; 3 » U. S. R. S., § 531; 25 St at L. 443; 27 St at L. 20; 29 St at L. 502; 31 St 28 St. at L. 221. at L. 739. See The L. B. X., 88 Fed. B.290. 106 jurisdiction. [§ 26a. Nevada forms one judicial district. The District Courts therein are held at Carson City, on the first Mondays in Feb- ruary, May, and October. And the Circuit Courts for the same are held at Carson City, on the third Monday of March and the first Monday of November of each year." New Hampshire forms one judicial district, the District Courts in which are held at Portsmouth on the third Tuesday in March and September, and at Concord, on the third Tues- day in June and December. The terms of the Circuit Court for the same are held at Portsmouth pn the eighth day of May, and at Concord on the eighth day of October. A term of the Circuit and District Courts is held annually, on the last Tuesday of August, in the town of Littleton. 82 New Jersey constitutes one judicial district, in which the terms of the District Court are held at Trenton on the third Tuesdays in January, April, June, and September. The terms of the Circuit Court fcr the same district are held at Trenton on the fourth Tuesdays in March and September in each year. 33 In New York, four districts, the "Western, Northern, Eastern, and Southern. The Western District includes the counties of Allegheny, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Niagara, Ontario, Orleans, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, "Wayne, Wyoming and Yates, with the waters thereof. The Northern District includes the counties of Albany, Brown, Cayuga, Chenango, Clinton, Cortland, Delaware, Essex, Frank- lin, Fulton, Hamilton, Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Montgomery, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, Eensselaer, Saint Lawrence, Saratoga, Schenectady, Scoharie, Tioga, Tompkins, Warren and Washington, with the waters thereof. The East- ern District includes the counties of Bichmond, Kings, Queens, Yernon and Suffolk, with the waters thereof. The Southern District includes the residue of the State, with the waters thereof. The Revised Statutes granted to the District Courts of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York concurrent jurisdiction over the waters within the counties of New York,, Kings, Queens, and Suffolk, and over all seizures made and all matters done in such waters. "U. S. E. &, §§ 532, 572; 19 St. at «TJ. S. R. S., §§ 572, 658; 21 St. at L. 4 I* 330. 'a TJ. a E. S., §§ 531, 572, 658. § 26a.] DISTKIOT OF NEW YOKE. 107 The terras of the District Court for the "Western District of New York are held at Elmira on the second Tuesday of Jan- uary ; at Buffalo on the second Tuesdays of March and Novem- ber; at ^Rochester, on the second Tuesday of May; at James- town, on the second Tuesday of July; at Lockport, on the second Tuesday of October ; for the hearing of motions and for the trial of causes in admiralty and for proceedings in bankruptcy in Buffalo at least two weeks in each month, ex- cept August, unless the business is sooner disposed of. The terms of the Circuit Court for the "Western District of New York are held at Rochester on the second Tuesday of May; at Canandaigua, on the second Tuesday of September; at Buffalo, on the second Tuesday of November. The terms of the District Courts for the Northern District of New York at Albany, on the second Tuesday of February; at Utica, on the first Tuesday of December; at Binghamton, on the second Tuesday of June; at Auburn, on the first Tues- day of October; at Syracuse, on the first Tuesday of April; and in the discretion of the judge of the court, one term an- nually at such time and place as he may appoint, by a notice of at least twenty days, published in a newspaper published at the place where the court is held, in the counties of Saratoga, Onondago, Saint Lawrence, Clinton, Jefferson, Oswego and Franklin. The terms of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of New York are held at Utica on the first Tuesday of December; at Syracuse, on the first Tuesday of April; and at Albany, on the second Tuesday of February. District and Circuit Courts for the Eastern District of New York are held at Brooklyn on the first "Wednesday in every month. The terms of the District Court for the Southern District of New York are held in the city of New York, on the first Tues- day in every month. The terms of the Circuit Court for the same district are held at the city of New York on the first Monday in April, and the third Monday in October; and for the trial of criminal causes and suits in equity, on the last Monday in February; and, exclusively for the trial and dis- posal of criminal cases and matters arising and pending in said court, on the second "Wednesdays in January, March, and May, on the third "Wednesday in June, and on the second "Wednes- 108 jurisdiction. [§ 26a. days in October and December: "Provided, that the holding of any of the last-mentioned terms for criminal business shall not dispense with nor affect the holding of any other term of court at the same time, and that the pending of any other term of court shall not prevent the holding of any of said terms for criminal business." 34 In North Carolina, two judicial districts, the Eastern and the "Western. The Western District includes the counties of Mecklenburg, Cabarras, Stanly, Montgomery, Davie, David- son, Eandolph, Guilford, Eockingham, Stokes, Forsyth, Union, Anson, Caswell, Alamance, Orange, Clay, Cherokee, Swain, Macon, Jackson, Graham, Haywood, Transylvania, Henderson, Buncombe, Madison, Yancey, Mitchell, "Watauga, Ashe, Alle- ghany, Caldwell, Burke, McDowell, Eutherford, Polk, Cleve- land, Gaston, Lincoln, Catawba, Alexander, "Wilkes, Surry, Iredell, Yadkin, and Eowan, and all counties which have been formed within this territory since June 4th, 1879. The East- ern District includes the residue of the State. The terms of District and Circuit Courts for the Western District of North Carolina are held at Greensborough, on the first Mondays in April and October; at Statesville, on the third Mondays in April and October ; at Asheville, on the first Mondays in May and November; and at Charlotte, on the second Mondays of June and December. The terms of the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina are held at Elizabeth City, on the third Mondays in April and October; at Newberne, on the fourth Mondays in April and October; at Wilmington on the first Mondays after the fourth Mondays in April and Octo- ber; and at Ealeigh on the fourth Monday of May, and the first Monday of December. The terms of the Circuit Court for the same district are held at Ealeigh on the first Monday in June and first Monday in December ; and at Newberne on the fourth Mondays in April and October; and at Wilmington, on the first Mondays after the fourth Mondays in April and October. 35 North Dakota constitutes one judicial district, which is dir vided into four divisions, known as the Southwestern, South- MTJ.S.R S., §§ 541, 542. 572, 658; 22 » U. S. E. &, §§ 543, 572, 658; 20 St. St. at L. 32, 33; 31 St. at L. 175, 176. at L. 173; 28 St. at L. 274, 275; 31 St. See supra, § 23; Coudert v. U. S., 85 at L. 274. Fed. K. 844; Jones v. Navigation Co., 11 Blatchf. 844, § 26«f.] DISTRICTS OF NOETH DAKOTA AND OHIO. 109 eastern, Northeastern, and Northwestern Divisions. The portion of the State comprising the counties of Burleigh, Stutsman, Logan, Mcintosh, Emmons, Kidder, Foster, "Wells, McLean, and all territory in said State of North Dakota lying south and west of the Missouri River constitute the Southwestern Division, as said counties were bounded on April 26, 1890, the court for which is held at the city of Bismarck. That portion of the State comprising the present counties of Cass, Bichland, Barnes, Sargent, Dickey, La Moure, Eansom, Griggs, and Steele constitutes the Southeastern Division, as said counties were bounded on April 26, 1890, the court for which is held at the city of Fargo. The portion of the State comprising the pres- ent counties of Grand Forks, Traill, Walsh, Pembina, Cavalier, and Nelson, as said counties were bounded on April 26, 1890, constitutes the Northeastern Division, the court for which is held in the city of Grand Forks. That portion of the State comprising the present counties of Bamsey, Eddy, Benson, Towner, Eolette, Bottineau, Pierce, McHenry, and "Ward, and all the territory in said State of North Dakota lying north of the Southwestern Division, constitute the Northwestern Divis- ion, as said counties were bounded April 26, 1890, the court for which is held in the city of Devil's Lake. The terms of the District and Circuit Courts are held each year for the Southwestern Division at Bismarck on the first Tuesday of March; for the Southeastern Division at Fargo on the third Tuesday of May; for the Northeastern Division at Grand Forks on the second "Tuesday of November; and for the North- western Division at Devil's Lake on the first Tuesday of July. 36 In Ohio, two districts, — the Northern and the Southern. The Southern District includes the counties of Belmont, Guernsey, Muskingum, Licking, Franklin, Madison, Cham- paign, Shelby, and Mercer, as they existed February 10, 1855, with all the counties south of them, and also the counties of Union, Delaware, Morrow, Knox, Coshocton, Harrison, and Jef- ferson. The Northern District included the residue of the State. The Northern District of Ohio is divided into two divisions. The counties of "Williams, Defiance, Paulding, Van Wert, Mer- cer, Auglaize, Allen, Putnam, Henry, Fulton, Lucas, Wood, Han- cock, Hardin, Logan, Marion, Wyandot, Seneca, Sandusky, Ot- * 25 St at L. 676; 26 St at L. 67, 68; 28 St at L. 642. 110 JURISDICTION. [§ 26Port Royal & A. Ry. Co. v. South Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 TJ. S. 148. Carolina, 60 Fed. R 552. 85 See Smyth v. Ames, 169 TJ. S. "Abeel v. Culberson, 55 Fed. R. 466; Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 329. See infra, §§ 211, 223, 391. 144: PLAINTIFFS OB DEFENDANTS IN SUIT IN EQUITY. [§ 39. citizens or subjects." 1 The Eleventh Amendment has not taken away the liability of one of the United States to a suit by another such State or a foreign State. Such jurisdiction, however, is confined to controversies concerning rights affect- ing property; not to those merely affecting political rights: 8 It includes controversies concerning boundaries between dif- ferent States, even though the complainant claim no title other than that of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the lands in question. 3 For, " in this country, where feudal tenures are abolished, in cases of escheat the State takes the place of the feudal lord, by virtue of its sovereignty, as the original and ultimate proprietor of all the lands within its jurisdiction." 4 If, however, in a bill which prays relief against a threatened invasion of rights purely political in their nature, a threatened injury to property be stated " only by way of showing one of the grievances resulting from the threatened destruction of the State, and in aggravation of it, not as a specific ground of relief ; " and " this matter of property is neither stated as an independent ground, nor is it noticed at all in the prayers for relief," the bill will be dismissed. 5 A suit cannot be main- tained when brought by one State against another, to enforce the payment by the latter of its bonds originally held by citi- zens of the former State, and assigned by them to it solely for the purpose of collection, 6 nor to prevent the enforcement of quarantine regulations which impose unreasonable restraint upon the commerce between parts of the two States. 7 A tribe of Indians domiciled within the borders of the United States does not constitute a foreign State within the meaning of the Constitution. 8 § 39. Suits against infants. — An infant when sued should be provided by the court with a guardian ad litem} For an § 38. 1 Art III, § 2. "New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 2 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 U. S. 76. Pet. 1; Georgia v. Stanton, 6 WalL 'Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1. 50; Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wall. 241. But see Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U. S., 3 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 supra, § It Pet. 657; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 8 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 660; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Pet. 1. Alabama v. Georgia, 23 How. 505; §39. JRule 87; Bank of U. S. v. Virginiav.WestVirginia,llWall.39. Ritchie, 8 Pet 128, 144. See Wool- * Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, 73. ridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. R 650, 670. Georgia v. Stanton, 6 WaR 50, 77. § 39.] SUITS AGAINST INFANTS. 145 omission to appoint a guardian ad litem, a decree against an infant will be reversed upon appeal. 2 An application for the appointment. of a guardian ad litem tor an infant should be made by petition, which, if the appointment of a particular person is desired, should state his name and his consent to act as such. 3 The court will usually appoint the infant's general guardian or " the nearest relative not concerned, in point of interest, in the matter in question ; " 4 but the choice of the guardian rests in the sound discretion of the court, and only in an extraordinary case would a decree be reversed for an error in this respect. 5 The interests of an infant are guarded jealously by the court, which will not hold him bound by any admission made by him or in his behalf, whether in the plead- ings 6 or otherwise; 7 but a decree by consent as the result of a compromise approved by the court may be made without a reference to a master, 8 although the safer practice is to have it referred. The guardian ad litem is responsible for the pro- priety of the defense. 9 He must pay costs for scandal ; 10 and he may be removed by the court at any time." This may be done if he is unable or unwilling to pay the expenses of the defense. 12 If no person of substance is willing to serve for the infants, the court " might suspend further proceedings until it could send a next friend or guardian ad litem to the State courts having jurisdiction of their person and property, to secure such guardianship as would protect them." 13 Infants may defend in forma pauperis; but, except in very extraordinary circum- stances, their expenses will not be advanced out of a fund in 2 0'Harav.MacConnell,93U. S.150. *Legard v - Sheffield, 2 Atk. 377; 'Rhinelander v. Sanford, 3 Day White v. Miller, 158 U. S. 128. See (U. S. O. C. D. Conn.), 279. also Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. * Bank of U. S. v. Ritchie, 8 Pet 650; Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U. S. 186. 128, 144; Story's Eq. PL, g 70; Calvert 8 Thompson v. Maxwell L. G. & Ry. on Parties, Book III, ch. xxxi Co., 168 U. S. 451. (Bank of U. S. v. Ritchie, 8 Pet. 9 Knickerbacker v. De Freest, 2 128, 144. See Kingsbury v. Buckner, Paige (N. Y.), 304 134 U. a 650. 10 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 204. 6 Bank of U. S. v. Ritchie, 8 Pet. "Russell v. Sharpe, 1 Jac. & W. 128, 144, 145; Walton v. Coulson, 1 482. McLean, 125; s. C., Coulson v. Walton, 12 Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. R. 771, 9 Pet. 62, 84; Hawkins v. Luscombe, 772. 2 Swanst. 375, 390; Savage v. Car- l» Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed, R. 771, roll, 1 Ball & R 55a 772. 10 146 PLAINTIFFS OR DEFENDANTS IN SUIT IN EQUITY. [§ 40. the hands of a receiver. 14 A guardian ad litem may recoup his expenses from the infant's property. 15 According to the English practice, an appearance could be entered for an infant before a guardian ad litem had been appointed. 16 . It is the safer prac- tice in this country to serve the infant with a subpoena before the appointment of a guardian ad litem; " but where a guard- ian ad litem has been appointed, it will be presumed, in the ab- sence of evidence to the contrary, that the infant was duly served. 18 A decree against an infant is void unless he has been personally served with process, although a general guardian has appeared for him, 19 except in cases mentioned in section 738 of the Eevised Statutes. 20 ' § 40. Suits against idiots, lunatics, and persons of weak mind. — Idiots and lunatics defend by guardians ad litem, ap- pointed for them by the court. 1 A committee will usually be appointed guardian ad litem of the person in his charge, 2 unless his interest be opposed to that of the idiot or lunatic, 8 or per- haps if he refuse to answer or defend. 4 The guardian ad litem is usually joined with the idiot or lunatic as co-defendant. 5 It was held by Chancellor Kent, that in New York the committee appointed in accordance with statute, and not the idiot or lunatic, is the proper party to the bill; 8 but the rule in the Federal courts seems to be otherwise. 7 "A person reduced by age or infirmity to a second infancy may defend by guardian." 8 It is said that the answer of a superannuated person, put in by guardian, may be read against him as an answer of one of full age put in in person ; and that the difference in this respect be- tween such answer and that of an infant put in by guardian is, 14 Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. R 771. 2 Story's Eq. PL, § 70; Westcomb v. 15 Ferguson v. Bent, 15 Fed. R 771, Westcomb, .1 Dick. 233; Harrison v. 772. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. O. 202, 207. is Braithwaite's Pr. 322. s Snell v. Hyat, 1 Dick. 287; Story's " Smith v. Reid, 134 N. T. 568 ; Set- Eq. PL, § 70. tlemier v. Sullivan, 97 U. S. 444; * Lloyd v. , 2 Diok. 460. infra, §94 6 Harrison v. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. is Sloane v. Martin, 77 Hun (N. T.), 202. 249; infra, § 94 « Brasher's Ex'rs v. Van Cortlandt, w N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Bangs, 103 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 242. TJ. S. 435. 7 Harrison v. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. so Infra, §97. 202,207. § 40. ! Rule 87; Harrison v. Rowan, 8 Markle v. Markle, 4 J. Ch. 168. 4 Wash. C. C. 202, 207. § 41.] SUITS AGAINST MAEEIED WOMEN. 147 because an infant improves and mends, and therefore is to have a day to show cause after he comes of age; but the other grows worse, and is to have no day. 9 §41. Suits against married women. — In suits against a married woman by a third person, her husband, if not civilly dead or permanently absent from the State, should be joined with her as a co-defendant; 1 except perhaps in States where she has. the same rights and liabilities as a spinster, 2 or when she is sued in a representative capacity. 3 She may, however, answer separately from her husband. 4 A bill filed in the name of a married woman suing alone, may be amended by the addi- tion of a next friend, when necessary. 8 » Daniell's Ch. Pr. (3d Am. ed.) 224, 14 Fed. R. 499, 514; Douglas v. Butler, 225; citing Leving v. Caverly, Preo. 6 Fed. R 238; U. S. v. Pratt Coal & Ch. 239. Coke Co., 18 Fed. R 708; O'Hara v. § 41. i Story's Eq. PI., § 71 ; Calvert MacConnell, 93 U. S. 150. on Parties, Book HE, ch. xxx ; Hulme s Moore v. Mey nell, 2 Vern. 614, note. v. Tenant, 1 Brown, Ch. C. 16; Taylor * Duke of Chandos v. Talbot, 2 P. v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R 498, 514 Wms. 372. "Lorillard v. Standard Oil Co., 2 * Douglas v. Butler, 6 Fed. R 238. Fed. R 902. But see Taylor v. Holmes, CHAPTER III. PARTIES. § 42. General rule as to r parties. — In ordinary cases, all persons should be made parties to a suit in equity, who are di- rectly interested in obtaining or resisting the relief prayed for in the bill or granted in the decree. 1 If interested in obtain- ing the relief prayed for, they should join as plaintiffs ; unless some refuse to appear, in that capacity, when the rest should make them defendants. 2 This rule has been also stated by the expressions : that " all persons interested in the subject of the suit should be before the court;" 3 and that "all persons who have in the object or objects of the suit an interest or interests apparent upon the record, are necessary parties." 4 " In determining who are proper parties to a suit, courts of equity are guided by two leading principles. One of them is a principle admitted in all courts of justice in this country, upon questions affecting liberty, or life, or property; namely, that no proceedings shall take place with respect to the rights of any one, except in his presence. Thus a decree of a court of equity binds no one who is not to be regarded, according to the rules of the court, either as a party, or else as one who claims under a party, to the suit. The second is a principle which in this country is peculiar to courts of equity ; namely, that when a decision is made, it shall provide for all the rights which different persons have in the matters decided. For a court of equity in all cases delights to do complete justice, and not by halves ; 5 to put an end to litigation, and to give decrees of such a nature that the performance of them may be per- fectly safe to all who obey them: interest revpublicce ut sitfiiiis § 42. i Calvert on Parties, Book I, Fed. E. 549. For the rule in patent ch. i, and oases there cited. cases, see infra, § 44 2 Harding v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 103; 3 Sir William Grant in Wilkins v. Wisner v. Barnet, 4 Wash. C. C. 631, Fry, 1 Mer. 244, 262. 642; Fallows v. Williamson, 11 Ves. * Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), p. 13, 313; Calvert on Parties, Book I, ch. and cases there cited, viii. But see Hicklin v. Marco, 56 B Knight v. Knight, 8 P. Wms. 33a § 43.] PARTIES WITH NO INTEREST- IN SUBJECT-MATTER. 149 litium. In this respect there is a manifest distinction between the practice of a court of law and that of a court of equity. A court of law decides some one individual question which is brought before it; a court of equity not merely makes a de- cision to that extent, but also arranges all the rights which the decision immediately affects." 6 Thus, when a person who is charged with the payment of a sum of money is surety to an- other, the principal must be joined as defendant to the bill; as in the case of a suit against an heir for the performance of a covenant by his ancestor which binds him as well as the an- cestor's personal estate, when the personal representative must also be joined. For " the court of equity in all cases delights to do complete justice, and not by halves : as, first, to decree the heir to perform this covenant, and then to put the heir upon another bill against the executor to reimburse himself out of the personal assets, which, for aught appears to the contrary, may be more than sufficient to answer the covenant; and when the executor and heir are both brought before the court, com- plete justice may be done by decreeing the executor to perform this covenant as far as the personal assets will extend, the rest to be made good by the heir out of the real assets. And here appears no difficulty or inconvenience in bringing the executor before the court. On the contrary, it would prevent a multi- plicity of suits, which a court of equity ought to do." T § 43. Parties with no interest in the subject-matter of the suit. — Although as a general rule no person can be made a party against whom, if brought to a hearing, the plaintiff can have no decree, 1 yet the English practice allowed strangers in certain cases to be made parties for the sake of discovery, and even in order to mulct them with costs. In a suit against a corporation, its officers, book-keeper, or members might be made parties for the sake of discovery concerning matters which had come to their knowledge while transacting the busi- ness of the corporation ; 2 but not, it seems, to obtain discovery 6 Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), pp. 3, 3. Anon., 1 Vera. 117 ; Fenton v. Hughes, f Lord Chancellor Talbot in Knight 7 Ves. 289 ; Gly n v. Soares, 1 Y. & C. v. Knight, 3 P. Wins. 331, 334 644; Many v. Beekman Iron Co., 9 §43. iWych v. Meal, 3 P. "Wms. Paige (N. Y.), 189; Doyle v. San Diego 310, 311, note; Dan. Cb, Pr. (2d Am. L. & Tr. Co., 43 Fed. K. 349; Virginia ed.) 342. & A, Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Hale (Cal.), 9 ^Wyoh v. Meal, 3 P. Wms. 310; S. E. 256; Continental Nat. Bank v. 150 PARTIES. - [§ 44. of such as they knew only through their participation in its formation. 3 It is held in the Federal courts that when an an- swer under oath is waived, it is improper to make the officers of a corporation parties to a suit against it, if no relief is asked against them; and a demurrer by them to such a bill making them parties defendant will be sustained. 4 Agents to sell, auctioneers, arbitrators, and attorneys could formerly be made defendants for a similar purpose in suits against their princi- pals concerning transactions with which they were connected,* but not where their principals were pecuniarily responsible. 8 And in a few cases of fraud it has been held that persons im- plicated in the fraud might be made parties merely to make them liable for costs. 7 § 44. Persons who on account of their inteYest need not be made parties to a suit in equity. — No persons should be joined as parties to a. suit in equity, either as co-plaintiffs or co-defendants, who are not directly interested in obtaining or resisting the relief prayed for in the bill, 1 nor who claim the property in question under inconsistent titles. 2 Thus, prior in- cumbrancers should not be made parties to a bill for the fore- closure of a mortgage, 3 unless it prays for a receiver,* or seeks Heilman,66 Fed. E 184; Consolidated (N. T.)33; Bowles v. Stewart, 1 Soho. Brake-Shoe Co. v. Chicago, P. & St. & Lef. 209. L. By. Co., 69 Fed. E 412; Calvert on 1 Taylour v. Eoohford, 2 Ves. Sen. Parties (2d ed.), 92-94. But see Bos- 281; Smith v. Green, 37 Fed. R 434; ton W. H. Co. v. Star E Co., 40 Fed. Huggins v. King, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 617; R 167; Cleveland F. & R Co. v. U. S. Hammond v. Hudson R I & N. Co., Rolling S. Co., 41 Fed. R 476. 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 386; Pritchard v. s MoComb v. Chicago, St. L. & N. Palmer, 88 Hun, 412; Calvert On Par- O. R Co., 7 Fed. R 426. ties (2d ed.), 96, and cases citedi See 1 * Colonial & IT. S. Mtg. Co., Ld., v. Ewin v. Oregon Ey. & Nav. Co., 27 Hutchinson Mtg. Co., 44 Fed. E 219; Fed. R 625. Matthews & W. Mfg. Co. v. Trenton §44. i Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), L. Co., 73 Fed. R 212. See Boston 6; Mare v. Malachy^ 1 M. & C. 559. W. H. Co. v. Star Rubber Co., 40 Fed. 2 Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 105; R 167. Marquis Cholmondely v. Lord Clin- SFenton v. Hughes, 7 Ves. 288, ton, 2 Jac. & W. 138; Saumarez v. 289; Dummerv. Corporation of Chip- Saumarez; 4 M. & C. 331; Dial v. penham, 14 Ves. 252; Bowles v. Stew- Eeynolds, 96 U. S; 340; infra, § 73. art, 1 Scho. & Lefr. 209; Brady v. » Hagan v. Walker, 14 How. 29, 37; McCorker, 1 N. Y. 214; s, C., 1 Barb. Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. & 734; Ch. 343. Nalle v. Young, 160 U. S. 624. 6 Seif erd v. Mulligan, 36 App. Div. 4 Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 286, 306. § 44.] PERSONS WHO NEED NOT BE MADE PARTIES TO SUIT. 151 to obtain a sale of the entire mortgaged property free from all liens, 5 or unless " there is substantial doubt respecting the amount of debts due prior lien creditors," in which case " there is obvious propriety in making them parties, that the amount of the charge remaining on the land after the sale may be de- termined, and that purchasers at the sale may be advised of what they are purchasing;" 6 or unless there are other pecul- iar circumstances making it necessary. Nor need' a mortgagor who has sold his equity of redemption, 7 nor a guarantor of the mortgage, even if he has paid interest, 8 be made a party to. a foreclosure, unless relief is sought against him. 9 When, how- ever, such relief is sought against the mortgagor or a grantee of the equity of redemption who has assumed payment of the mortgage, all grantees who have made, such an assumption should ordinarily be joined as defendants in order that their respective rights may be determined. 10 Lessees are not neces- sary, although they are proper parties to a suit to foreclose a mortgage prior to their leases, 11 or to foreclose a vendor's lien. 12 In a suit by the holders of bonds secured by a trust mortgage to recover damages from the trustee for his negligent admin- istration of the trust, the mortgagor need not be made a party, but it has been held that the bill must be filed on behalf of all 5 Hagan v. Walker, 44 How. 29; closure suit, and that their rights are Jerome v. MoCarter, 94 U. S. 734, 735; therefore extinguished by the fore- McClure v. Adams, 76 Fed. R. 899. closure sale (Ibid.), and that neither 6 Strong, J., in Jerome v. McCar- the first mortgagee, the mortgagor, ter, 94 U. S. 734, 735, 736. nor any lessor, is a necessary party to I Kanawha Coal Co. v. Kanawha the foreclosure of a second railroad & O. C. Co., 7 Blatoh. 391, 416; Grove mortgage covering leased lines, but v. Grove, 91 Fed. K. 865. But see not affecting the rights of the lessors, Matcalm v. Smith, 6 McLean, 416. when all the property is in the hands As to receivers, infra, § 45. of the receivers. Grand Trunk Ry. 8 Columbia F. & Trust Co. v. Ken- Co. v. Central "Vt. R Co., 88 Fed. R. tucky U. Ry. Co., 60 Fed. R. 794. 622. 9 Ayers v. Wisawall, 112 U. S, 187. 12 Brisco v. Minah Consol. Min. Co., io Skinner v. Harker, 23 Colo. 333; 82 Fed. R. 953. It was held in Missis- S. C 48 Pac. R 648. But see Kelly sippi, where a mortgagor had con- v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610, 626; infra, veyed land to the children of his § 53. mortgagee, that the latter were not II Tyler v. Hamilton, 62 Fed. R necessary parties to a suit by the 187. It has, been held that tenants mortgagor against the mortgagee under leases by a railway company, for an injunction and an account- subject to mortgages of the property, ing. Lipscomb v. Jack (Miss., 1896), are not necessary parties to a fore- 20 S. R 883. 152 PAETIES. [§44. the bondholders and not merely on behalf of those who are joined as complainants. 13 So, in suits for specific performance, it is a general rule that none are necessary parties but parties to the contract, or their representatives, 14 including in a proper case their heirs 15 and devisees; 16 unless there are other persons •with such an interest in the contract or the property agreed to be sold that concur- rence is necessary to the completion of the title, or that their rights would be prejudiced were a decree made in their ab- sence. 17 Nor need the assignor of the whole interest in a thing in action be made a party to a suit by the assignee ; 18 except in the case of a suit by the equitable assignee of a patent, 19 or copyright, 20 or trade-mark, 21 or by the licensee, 82 or mortgagor is Frishmuth v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 95 Fed. R 5. " Tasker v. Small, 3 M. & C. 63, 68; Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), Book III, oh. xvii. 15 Morgan's Heirs v. Morgan, Wheat. 290. w Buck v. Buck, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 170. 17 Jones v. Lewis, 1 Cox Eq. 199; Evans v. Jackson, 8 Sim. 217; Cal- vert on Parties, Book III, oh. xvii. Where the contract is made by an agent in his own name he is a neces- sary party to a suit by his principal for specific performance. Pennsyl- vania & N. J. R Co. v. Byerson, 36 N. J. Eq. 112, 116. It has been held that in such a case he can sue with- out joining his principal although defendant knew that he acted as an agent only. Kelley v. Tracy, 102 Mo. 522. 1 8 Harris v. Johnston, 3 Cranch, 811; Boon v. Chiles, 8 Pet. 532; Rob- ertson v. Carson, 19 WalL 94; s. C, Chase's Dec. 475; Bates ville Institute v. Kauffman, 18 WalL 151; Fulham v. McCarthy, 1 H L. C. 703. 19 Stimpson v. Rogers, 4 Blatchf. 833; North v. Kershaw, 4 Blatchf. 70; Patterson v. Stapler, 7 Fed. R 210; Goodyear v. Allen, 3 Fisher, 284. 20 Colburn v. Duncombe, 9 Sim. 151; Chappell v. Purday, 4 Y. & C. 485; Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 315. 21 Krauss v. Jos. R Peebles Sons Co., 58 Fed. R 585. 22 Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 255, 256, 260, 261, per Gray, J.: "The patentee or his assigns may, by instrument in writing, assign, grant and convey either, first, the whole patent, comprising the exclu- sive right to make, use and vend the invention throughout the United States; or, second, an undivided part or share of that exclusive right; or, third, the exclusive right under the patent within and throughout a specified part of the United States. R S., § 4898. A transfer of either of these three kinds of interests is an assignment, properly speaking, and vests in the assignee a title in so much of the patent itself, with a right to sue infringers; in the second case, jointly with the assignor; in the first and third cases, in the name of the assignee alone. Any assign- ment or transfer, short of one of these, is a mere license, giving the licensee no title in the patent, and no right to sue at law in his own name for an infringement. R S., § 4919; Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. §44] PEKS0NS WHO NEED NOT BE MADE PARTIES TO SUIT. 153 by a mortgage duly recorded at Washington, 23 or by an as- signee under an assignment still executory, 24 or by an assignee, 477, 494, 495; Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. 515. In equity, as at law, when the transfer amounts to a li- cense only, the title remains in the owner of the patent; and suit must be brought in his name, and never in the name of the licensee alone, unless that is necessary to prevent an absolute failure of justice, as where the patentee is the infringer, and canrot sue himself." Adriance, P. & Co. v. McCormick H. M. Co. (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 918; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205. "Any rights of the licensee must be enforced through or in the name of the owner of the patent, and perhaps, if neces- sary, to protect the rights of all par- ties, joining the licensee with him as a plaintiff. R S.,§4921; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205, 223; Paper Bag Cases, 105 U. S. 766-771; Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112. XJ. S. 485-487. And see Renard v. Levinstein, 2 Hem. & Mil 628. Whether a transfer of a par- ticular right or interest under a patent is an assignment or a license does not depend upon the name by' which it calls itself, but upon the legal effect of its provisions. For instance, a grant of an exclusive right to make, use and vend two patented machines within a certain district is an assignment, and gives the grantee the right to sue in his own name for an infringement within the district, because the right, although limited to making, using and vend- ing two machines, excludes all other persons, even the patentee, from making, using or vending like ma- chines within the district. Wilson ▼. Rousseau, 4 How. 646, 686. On the other hand, the grant of an exclu- sive right under the patent within a certain district, which does not in- clude the right to make, and the right to use, and the right to sell, is not a grant of a title in the whole patent-right within the district, and is therefore only a license. Such, for instance, is a grant of ' the full and exclusive right to make and vend' within a certain district, re- serving to the grantor the right to make within the district to be sold outside of it. Gayler v. Wilder, above cited. So is a grant of 'the exclusive right to make and use,' but not to sell, patented machines within a certain district. Mitchell v. Hawley, 16 Wall. 544. So is an instrument granting ' the sole right and privilege of manufacturing and selling' patented articles, and not expressly authorizing their use, be- cause, though this might carry by implication the right to use articles made under the patent by the li- censee, it certainly would not au- thorize him to use such articles made by others. Hayward v. Andrews, 106 U. S. 672. See also Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works. 109 TJ. S. 75. A patent-right is incorporeal property, not susceptible of actual delivery or possession; and the re- cording of a mortgage thereof in the Patent Office, in accordance with the act of Congress, is equivalent to a delivery of possession, and makes the title of the mortgagee complete towards all other persons, as well as against the mortgagor. . . . The necessary conclusion appears to us to be that Shipman, being the pres- ent owner of the whole title in the patent under a mortgage duly exe- cuted and recorded, was the'person, and the only person, entitled to main- tain such a bill as this, and that the plea, therefore, was rightly adjudged good." 23 Ibid. 2i Land Co. of New Mexico v. Elk- ins, 20 Fed. R 545. 154 PAKTIES. [§ 44. such as a pledgee, whose assignor has an equitable interest in the property, 25 when it is the safer practice to join, as plaintiff or defendant, the assignor, licensor or mortgagee, as the case may be. The exclusive licensee of a patent for a specified ter- ritory has the implied authority, even against the will of the owner, to join him as a co-complainant in a bill to enjoin an infringement. 26 The patentee and his exclusive licensee may join in a suit to enjoin the infringement of a patent, 27 but the patentee and a licensee whose license is not exclusive cannot. 28 Such a licensee is ordinarily not a proper party plaintiff. 29 An exclusive licensee need not ordinarily be joined as a complain- ant with the patentee. 80 The assignee of the whole of a pat- ent, so far as a particular territory is concerned, need not be made a party to a suit by the assignor to enjoin infringements elsewhere. 31 It has been held at Circuit that a tax collector is not a proper party to a bill to set aside a conveyance made by him. 32 And, as has been said before, no persons should be joined as plaint- iffs, 33 or defendants, 84 who claim the property in question under inconsistent titles. For example, a mortgagee cannot main- tain a bill against the mortgagor for a foreclosure, which at M Hubbard v. Manhattan Trust Co. s » Union S. & & Co. v. Johnson R (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. E. 51, 57; Western. R. Signal Co., 52 Fed. R. 867; Gayler Nat Bank v. Armstrong, 152 U. S. v. Wilder, 10 How. 477. "In the case 346; Ackerson v. Long Branch & L. of Waterman v. MacKenzie, 138 U. S. Co., 28 N. J. Eq. 542. > 252, 11 Supr. Ct. R 334, the Supreme 26 Brush-Swan El. L. Co. v. Thorn- Court held that a licensee might sue son-Houston EL Co., 48 Fed. R 224; in his own name when it was neces- Brush EL Co. v. EL Imp. Co., 49 Fed. sary to prevent an absolute failure R. 73; Brush El. Co. v. California EL of justice. This is the effect, I take L. Co. (C. C. A.), 52 Fed. R. 945; Ex- it, of the language of the court there celsior W. P. Co. v. Allen (C. C. A), used." Knowles, D. J., in Brush El. 104 Fed. R. 553. It was held in Van Co. v. California E. L. Co. (C. C. A.); Orden v. Nashville, 67 Fed. R 331, 52 Fed. R 945, 961. that the part owner of a patent can- 81 Canton S. R. Co. v. Kanneberg, not sue at law for damages caused 51 Fed. R 599, 600. by an infringement without joining 32 West v. Duncan, 42 Fed. R. 430. his fellow-owners as co-plaintiffs, and 33 Marquis Cholmondeley v. Lord that he cannot make them defend- Clinton, 2 Jac. & W. 1, at p. 135; ants when they refuse to sue. Saumarez v. Saumarez, 4 M. & C. 331, 27 ibid. • 336. See Parsons v. Lyman, 4 Blatchf. 28 Blair v. Lippincott GL Co., 52 C. C. 432; infra, § 73. Fed. R 226. 3* Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340; 2» Ibid. mfra,%TA. § 45.] CASES WHEEE LAW HAS FURNISHED REPRESENTATIVE. 155 the same time seeks to enjoin a claimant adverse to both mort- gagor and mortgagee from asserting his title to the mortgaged property. 35 An interest in the question of law involved is not sufficient to make a person a necessary or even a proper party, 36 except when a bill of peace is filed. The equity rules, follow- ing the English orders in chancery, also provide that " in all cases in which the plaintiff has a joint and several demand against several persons, either as principals or sureties, it shall not be necessary to bring before the court as parties to a suit concerning such demand all the persons liable thereto; but the plaintiff may proceed against one or more of the persons severally liable." 37 This rule, however, only applies, when the demand is both joint and several, not when it is merely joint ; ss and when one of two or more jointly and severally indebted is the principal debtor, to whom the others are sureties, he must, it seems, always be joined in a bill filed by the creditor to enforce a security against either of the latter. 39 Concerning the chancery order from which Rule 51 was copied, Yice- Ohancellor Shadwell said that it " applied to cases where sev- eral persons were liable in different characters, — that is, some as principals and the rest as sureties; and then it was suffi- cient to make one individual of each class a party; but where there was only one principal and one surety, both of them must be made parties." " § 45. Cases where the law has furnished a representative. On account of the inconvenience which would be caused if the general rule were enforced in all cases, there are several classes of exceptions to it. 1 The first of these exists when the law has furnished a representative of the interest in question. In such a case, those whom he represents are not usually necessary par- ties to the suit. 2 Thus, until they have distributed the deced- ent's estate, 3 executors and administrators are deemed suffi- '5 Ibid. But see Hefner v. North- Allen v. Houlden, 6Beav.l48; Pinkus western Life Ins. Co., 123 U. 8. 747. v. Peters, 5 Beav. 253. ^Vallette v. Whitewater Valley "Lloyd v. Smith, 13 Sim. 457, 458, Canal Co., 4 McLean, 192. 459. "Rule 51, copied from the 32d §45. i Wallworth v. Holt, 4 M. & Order in Chancery of August, 1841. C. 619; Powell v. Wright, 7 Beav. 449. ''Pierson v. Robinson, 3 Swanst. 2 Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 22. 139, n. See Hopkins v. Page, 2 Brock. 20, 42. ^ Robertson v. Carson, 19 Wall. 94; 8 Carey v. Roosevelt, 81 Fed. R 608. Wilson v. City Bank, 3 Sumn. 423; 156 PARTIES. [§ 45. eiently to represent all legatees, creditors and next of kin in suits brought by or against them in their representative ca- pacity, 4 except when they are made defendants to a suit by a residuary legatee for his share of the estate, 6 or when the rights of the legatees or next of kin between one another are in ques- tion, 6 or where they are sued ior collusion with a legatee who should then be made a party, 7 or, perhaps, when an executor or administrator is charged with a breach of trust and an ac- counting is required ; but the executors do not represent the heirs at law in a suit affecting the real estate, 8 and the devisees were held to be indispensable parties to a suit to foreclose a mortgage made by an executor. 9 It has been held that where a suit is brought to determine the ownership of a fund in the hands of the trustee of an intestate, an administrator of the decedent's estate must first be appointed, and it is error to de- cree that the fund be paid " to such person as may hereafter be appointed administrator." 10 So a bankrupt or insolvent debtor 11 and his creditors 12 are not usually necessary parties to a suit brought by or against his assignee. It has ^been held improper for a creditor of an estate to join with its receiver in a suit concerning it. 13 A corporation need not be, although it usually is, joined as a co-defendant to a suit against its receiver to foreclose a lien upon its property where no personal relief is sought against it." It has been held that the Comptroller of the Currency and the ♦ Brown v. Dowthwaite, 1 Madd. sWooslin v. Cooper (N. J.Ch.,1897), 448; Potter v. Gardner, 12 Wheat. 36 AtL R 281. But see Alger v. An- 499; Burton v. Smith, 4 Wash, a O. derson, 78 Fed. R. 729, 73a 522; Dandridge v. Washington's 9 Detweiler v. Holderbaum, 42 Fed. Ex'rs, 2 Pet 370, 377; Wainwright v. R 337. Waterman, 1 Ves. Jr. 313; Anon., 13 "Read v. Bennett (N. J. Errors Mod. 522; Glover v. Patten, 165 TJ. & & Appeals, 1897), 37 AtL R 75; infra, 394. § 58. 6 Atwood v. Hawkins, Rep. temp. n De Wolf v. Johnson, 10 Wheat. Finch, 113; Faithful v. Hunt, 3 Anst 867, 384; Van Reimsdyk v. Kane, 1 751; Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 206, GalL 371; Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 208. But see MoArthur v. Scott, 113 24. IT. S. 340, 345 ; Martin v. Fort, 83 Fed. 12 Spragg v. Binkes, 5 Ves. 587. R. 19. » Doggett v. Lailroad Co., 99 U. S. « Kendall v. Hardenbergh, 94 Fed. 73. R. 911. " Central Trust Co. v. Chicago, K. * Attorney-General v. Wynne, Mos. & T. Ry. Co., 54 Fed. R 59a 126. § 45.] OASES WHEEE LAW HAS FURNISHED REPRESENTATIVE. 157 Treasurer of the United States are not necessary parties to a suit to recover from the receiver of a national,bank, appointed by the comptroller, the amount of an assessment erroneously made by the comptroller, paid by the complainant to the re- ceiver, and paid by him into the Treasury. 15 It has been held that a receiver appointed upon a creditor's bill should not be made a defendant to an ancillary foreclosure suit; 16 that a re- ceiver of a corporation is a necessary party to a suit to enforce a corporate right of action ; " that a receiver of a bank is a proper, but not a necessary, party to a suit in equity instituted before his appointment to recover from the bank money ob- tained by it through fraud ; 18 that a receiver is an improper party to an action at law for a tort committed before his ap- pointment, 19 but that he is a necessary party to such an action when he holds a policy insuring the corporation from loss by the tort and the plaintiff has joined the insurer with the re- ceiver's corporation as a co-defendant; 20 and that he and the corporation may be joined as defendants to a bill to enjoin in- fringements of a patent and for an accounting of the profits made by infringements before and after his appointment; 21 that the creditors of an insolvent bank are necessary parties to a suit by a stockholder against the bank and its receiver to have his certificate canceled ; M and that after the discharge of a receiver and the transfer of the property to a corporation, which, as part consideration for the purchase, agreed to pay all valid claims against the receiver, the purchaser is the only proper party to a suit to collect such a claim. 23 In suits by or against strangers affecting the partnership property, surviving partners need not join with them the per- sonal representatives of their deceased associate. 24 The English w Brown v. Tillinghast, 84Fed. R 17. 2 » Moore v. Los Angeles I & S. Co., is Continental Tr. Co. v. Toledo, 89 Fed. R 73. But see Palestine W. St. L. & K C. R. Co., 82 Fed. R. 642. & P. Co. v. City of Palestine (Tex.), "Porter v. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473. 44 S. W. R. 814; s. C., 40 L. R. A. 203. But see Palestine W. & P. Co. v. « Union S. & S. Co. v. Philadelphia City of Palestine, 91 Tex. 540 ; s. a, 44 & R R Co., 69 Fed. R 833. & W. R. 814; s. a, 40 L. R. A. 203. ** Dunn v. State Board Minn., 61 N. is Denton v. Baker (C. C. A.), 79 W. R 27. Fed. R 189; Speckartv. German Nat. 23 Thompson v. Northern Pao. Ry. Bank, 85 Fed. R 12. Co., 93 Fed. R 384. "Northern Pac. R Co. v. Heflin u Pagan v. Sparks, 2 Wash. C. C (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. R 93. 325. 158 PAKTIES. [§ 45. rule was that " a court of equity in many cases considers the tenant in tail as having the whole estate vested in him, at least for the purposes of suit; and for these purposes does not look beyond the estate tail in a suit aiming by the decree to bind the right to the land." 25 " Those in remainder were considered as cyphers." 26 " It appears that this rale was originally founded upon analogy to common law. As a tenant in tail might bar subsequent remainder-men, — in fact, might at any moment make himself master of the entire estate, — it was considered by the court that he might be assumed to offer a satisfactory de- fense for all those subsequent interests. The court has, how- ever, gone one step farther, and has treated infants as sufficient representatives of the inheritance, although they are unable, by reason of infancy, to bar remainder-men. In truth the court has gone to the full extent which is requisite for conven- ience in practice." 27 It has been held that a tenant for life and the contingent remainder-man in fee may represent the inheritance" in a bill for specific performance, if the children of the remainder-man will inherit if he does not. 28 But the court refused to decide whether a will conveyed a fee or a life estate, when the parties were not in existence who would take the remainder if the estate were for life only. 29 Lord Eldon said that in most cases respecting trust property the benefi- ciaries of the trust were necessary parties. 50 The expression naturally suggests the inquiry, In what cases are they not to be made parties? There are some cases in which the existence or enjoyment of property is affected by the prayer of the suit. There are others in which the existence of the property is not affected, and the only object is to transfer it into the hands of the trustees. 31 In the latter cases the beneficiaries of the trust need not, 32 although it seems they may, be made parties. 83 In the former, when not too numerous, their presence was always 25 Lord Eldon in Lloyd v. Johnes, !2 Francov.Franco,3'Ves. 76; Carey Ves. 65. v. Brown, 92 U. S. 171; Calvert on 26 Lord Camden in Eeynoldson v. Parties (2d ed.), 277, 278. Perkins, Ambler, 564 33 Harrison v. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. 2' Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 56. 202; MoCampbell v. Brown, 48 Fed. 28 Sohier v. Williams, 1 Curt. 479. R. 795; Hayes v. Pratt, 147 U. S. 557. 29 Taylor v. Fisk, 94 Fed. R 242. Contra, Consolidated Water Co. v. so Adams v. St. Leger, 1 B. & B. 182. City of San Diego, 92 Fed. R. 759. si Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 277. § 45.] OASES WHERE LAW HAS FURNISHED EEPEESENTATIVE. 159 required 34 before the equity rules. The rules, however, follow- ing an English chancery order, 35 provide that : " In all suits concerning real estate which is vested in trustees by devise, and such trustees are competent to sell and give discharges for the proceeds of the sale, and for the%rents and profits of the estate, such trustees shall represent the persons beneficially in- terested in the estate, or the proceeds, or the rents and profits, in the same manner and to the same extent as the executors or administrators in suits concerning personal estate represent the persons beneficially interested in such personal estate; and in such cases it shall not be necessary to make the persons bene- ficially interested in such real estate, or rents and profits, par- ties to the suit. But the court may, upon consideration of the matter on the hearing, if it shall so think fit, order such per- sons to be made parties." 36 " It seems doubtful, however," says Daniell of the English order, " whether this order will apply to cases where a mortgagee seeks to foreclose the equity of redemption of estates which are subject to such trusts." 37 Trust- ees under a railroad mortgage, 88 or under any other trust-deed of a similar Dature securing the rights in real property of a large number of beneficiaries, 39 are held, in all proceedings af- fecting the property which they thus hold, adequately to rep- resent the latter, who will be bound, in the absence of fraud, by notice given, or a decree entered against them, although the court may in its discretion make any of such beneficiaries a party to the suit at his application. 40 A bondholder cannot sue to foreclose where there is a trustee under his mortgage in existence without making the trustee a defendant and alleg- ing his refusal to sue, or at least his unwillingness to sue, and such a state of facts as to make the request an idle ceremony „ 41 s* Whistler v. Webb, Bunb. 53; 134 U. S. 500; Leavenworth County- Greene v. Sisson, 2 Curt. 171; Oliver Com'rs v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., v. Piatt, 3 How. 333; s. C, 2 McLean, 134 TJ. S. 688. 268; Cross v. De Valle, 1 Wall 5. 39 Van Vechten v. Terry, 2 Johns. 3» 30th Order of August, 1841. Ch. (N. Y.) 197; Kerrison v. Stewart, 86 Rule 49. 93 U. S. 155; McKee v. Lamon, 159 » Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 304. U. S. 317. See also Wilton v. Jones, 2 Y. & C. 40 Williams v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684; 244; Cross v. De Valle, 1 Wall. 1. Thomas v. Brownville, F. K. & P. R. 38 Shaw v. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. Co., 109 U. S. 523; infra, § 201. 605, 611; Beals v. Illinois, Mo. & T. R. «Consol. Water Co. v. San Diego, Co., 133 U. S. 290; Elwell v. Fosdick, 89 Fed. R. 272. It was held that a 160 PARTIES. [§ 45. And even where the mortgage can only be foreclosed at the request of a majority of the bondholders, the trustee need not join with him in the suit any of those who have made the re- quest. 42 A provision requiring the request of the holder of one-fourth of the bonds before a- foreclosure was held not to prevent a foreclosure at the suit of holders of a smaller num- ber, when more than three-fourths were held by a party who had caused the default by misappropriating the earnings of the railroad. 4 ' In a foreclosure suit brought by holders of a minority of bonds, where there is a claim that the consent of the holders of a majority is required, it is proper to join the majority as defendants. 44 The fact that the same trust com- , pany represents two mortgages, the interest of the beneficiaries under which conflict, will make it proper to allow bondholders to be made parties to a foreclosure suit. 45 In certain cases com- mittees of bondholders have been made parties to railroad fore- closures. 46 Under a railroad lease by which the lessee cove- nanted to pay to a bank selected by the lessor a sum sufficient to pay the interest upon the lessor's mortgage bonds and taxes, it was held that the bondholders might present their claim directly against the receivers of the lessee without the joinder of either the trustee under their mortgage or the receiver of the lessor who had been appointed by a State court. 47 It has been held that to a bill against the heirs of a trustee to quiet the title to property conveyed by the trustee to the complainant, the beneficiary of the trust need not be joined as a party ; 48 and that the beneficiaries must be made parties to a bill by a stranger to set aside the deed of trust for fraud, 49 and to a suit by one of several stockholders to set aside an agreement to pool their stock by depositing the same with trustees, the bondholder cannot be joined as a K Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Northern co-plain tiff with the trustee. ConsoL Pac. R Co., 66 Fed. R 169. Water Co. v. San Diego, 92 Fed. R 46 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Cape 759. Fear & Y. V. Ry. Co., 71 Fed. R 38. "Grand Tr. Ry. Co. v. Central Vt « Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Baltimore Ry. Co., 88 Fed. R 622. See N. Y. S. & 0. R Co., 94 Fed. R 722. & Tr. Co. v. Lincoln St. Ry. Co., 74 "Gridley v. Wynant, 23 How. 500. Fed. R. 67. 49 Collin Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson & «Linderv.HartwellRCo.,73Fed. Hutter's Trustee, 54 Fed. R. 721. R. 320. Contra, Vetterlein v. Barnes, 124 « Toler v. East Tenn. & C. Ry. Co., U. S. 169. 67 Fed. R. 168. §46.] SUITS BY COMPLAINANT FOR HIMSELF AND OTHEKS. 161 other stockholders, as well as the trustees, are necessary parties. 50 It has been held that a corporation is so far a representative of its stockholders that none of them need be joined in a suit for an accounting, under a lease which provides for the payment of dividends directly to its stockholders. 61 It has been held that a S,tate statute authorizing one or more officers of an un- incorporated association to represent the others in the courts, when suing or being sued about a matter concerning their com- mon interest, will be followed by a Federal court of equity, and the members conclusively presumed to have the same citizenship as such officers. 52 § 46. Suits by a complainant -on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. — "When a number of persons have a common interest in a thing which is the subject of litigation, and, in some instances, when a number of persons have a com- mon interest in a question which is before the court for decis- ion, one or more may sue or be sued in behalf of the rest. Judge Story divides the first of these divisions into two: " (1) When the question is one of a common and general interest, and one or more sue or defend for the benefit of the whole; " and " (2) when the parties form a volutary association for pub- lic or private purposes, and those who sue or defend may fairly be presumed to represant the rights and interests of the whole." 1 But there seems to be no reason for treating these two classes separately. When one or more thus file a bill on behalf of themselves and others similarly interested, they must state in the title of their bill that they so sue, and show that the others are numerous or unknown. 2 Any others of the class have the right to join with them in the suit at any time upon pay- ment of their share of the costs, 3 and counsel fees 4 which have been then paid or incurred, provided they do not seek to so Ryan v. Seaboard E. Co., 89 Fed. » Hoe v. Wilson, 9 WalL 501. R 897. s Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 2 Black, »i Pacific R of Ma v. Atlantic & P. 539; s. c, 22 How. 380; Ex parte Jor- R. Co., 20 Fed. R. 277. dan, 94 U. S. 248; Hallett v. Halletfc, 52 Fargo v. Louisville, N. A. & C. 2 Paige (N. Y.), 15; Leigh v. Thomas, Ry. Co., 6 Fed. R 787; Whitman v. 2 Ves. Sen. 813; Ransom v. Davis, 18 Hubbell, 30 Fed. R. 81 ; Liverpool Ins. How. 295 ; Story's Eq. PL, § 99. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566. 4 Central R Co. v. Pettus, 113 U. S. But see Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 116; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 677, and supra, § 19. 527. §46, 1 Story's Eq. PL, § 97. 11 162 PABTIES. [§ 46. act in hostility to the original complainants, 5 in which case the court may in its discretion allow them to intervene. 6 If their joinder as plaintiffs would oust the court of jurisdiction, they may be brought in as defendants. 7 Such a bill may be filed even when a majority of those interested object to the suit. 8 For " where a matter is necessarily injurious to the common right, the majority of the persons interested can neither excuse the wrong nor deprive all other parties of their remedy by suit." 9 To such a bill it is not necessary to make defendants all who object to its being filed, provided that enough are brought before the court to sufficiently represent their inter- est. 10 It was originally held that no one could sue on behalf of others who claimed for himself an interest in the matter in controversy distinct from that of those whom he sought to rep- resent; for example, a mortgagee was not allowed to sue in be- half of general creditors while enforcing his mortgage ; u but recent authorities seem to have changed this doctrine. 12 All on whose behalf one sues must appear to have an interest in the relief prayed for by him. 13 In such a suit, the bill may be dismissed at any time before decree by the consent of those who are then joined as plaintiffs, 1 * but not afterwards, since by the decree a right becomes vested in the others. 15 The court will nearly always allow a bill filed by an individual in his own right to be amended, so as to allow him to sue on behalf of himself and other members of a class. 16 « Forbes v. Memphis, El Paso & 12 Galveston R Co. v. Cowdrey, 11 Pacific R Co., 3 Woods, 323. WalL 459; Mason v. Bogg, 2 MyL e Galveston R Co. v. Cowdrey, 11 & Cr. 443; Story's Eq. PL,§ 101, and Wall. 459, 478. cases there cited. 7 Brown v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 5 "Newton v. Earl of Egmont, 4 Blatchf. C. C. 525, 535. But see Stew- Simons, 574, 585; Jones y. Garcia art v. Dunham. 115 U. S. 61. del Rio, 1 T. & R 297. 8 Bromley v. Smith, 1 Simons, 8; "Handford v. Storie, 3 Sim. & S. Taylor v. Salmon, 4MyL&Cr. 134; 196; Hubbell v. Warren, 8 Allen Story's Eq. PI., § 114. But see Jones (Mass.), 173; Hirshfeld v. Fitzgerald, v. Garcia del Rio, 1 Turn. & Russ. 300. 157 N. Y. 166. 9 Bromley v. Smith, 1 Simons, 8, 11. 16 Handford v. Storie, 2 Sim. & S. 1° Clinch v. Financial Corporation, 196; York v. White, 10 Jurist, 168; L. R 4 Ch. App. 117, at p. 122; Story's Innes v. Lansing, 7 Paige (N. Y), 583. Eq. PL, § 135 b. 16 Johnson v. Compton, 4 Simons, iiBurneyv. Morgan, 1 Sim. & S. 47; Lloyd v. Loaring, 6 Ves. 773; 358, 362; Palmer v. Foote, 7 Paige Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 236, (N. Y.), 437; White v. Hillacre, 3 Y. note 6, and 345, and cases cited, &C.597. § 47.] ILLUSTRATION OF BILLS FILED BY REPRESENTATIVES. 163 § 47. Illustration of bills filed by representatives. — The ordinary cases of bills filed by one person of a class on behalf of others similarly situated are bills by stockholders of corpo- rations; 1 by members of unincorporated associations; 2 by rail- road bondholders, 3 of whom one holding bonds secured by successive mortgages may, after the death of all the trustees, sue for a foreclosure on behalf of himself and the holders of each class of the bonds which he owns ; * and bills by creditors. 5 In a case where a railroad mortgaged its property directly, without the intervention of a trustee, to fifteen bondholders, naming them, and the adequacy of the security was doubtful, it was held that one could not sue on behalf of the rest, but that all the bondholders must be joined as parties to the bill. 6 "Where there were one hundred and twenty bonds of $500 each, secured by a mortgage to a trustee, and all the bonds were held by three persons, it was held that all the bondholders were indis- pensable parties to a bondholder's foreclosure suit, although the plaintiff's bondholder filed his bill on behalf of the others as well as of himself. 7 It was held that such a suit cannot be brought by the holder of a certificate of stock which had not been trans- ferred on the books of the corporation to his name. 8 Such bills may also be filed by one or more legatees, 9 at least if not residu- ary legatees; 10 by one of several next of kin; u by one of many partners; 12 by one of a class for the benefit of which a charity was founded ; 1S and by one of the crew of a privateer seeking § 47. 1 Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. 8 Brown v. Duluth & N. Ry. Co., 53 480 ; Wallworth v. Holt, 4 MyL & Cr. Fed. R 889, 894 ■619; Taylor v. Salmon, 4 Myl. & Cr. 9 Bennett v. Hony wood, Ambler, 134; Hichens v. Congreve, 4 Russell, 708; Story's Eq. Pl.,§ 104, and cases 562; Gray v. Chaplin, 2 Sim. & S. 267; cited. Crease v. Babcock, 10 Met. (Mass.) 532. 10 Upon this point there is a con- 2 Bainbridge v. Burton, 2 Beav. 539. flict of authority. Compare Brown 3 Trustees of the Wabash & Erie v. Ricketts, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 555, and Canal Co. v. Beers, 2 Black, 448; Gal- Davoue v. Fanning, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) veston R. Co. v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 199, with Kettle v. Crary, 1 Paige 459; Central R. Co. v. Pettus, 113 (N. Y), 417, note. See also Story's U. S. 116. Eq. PL, § 89. * Galveston R.Co. v. Cowdrey, 11 "Story's Eq. PL, § 105. Wall. 459, 478. 12 Chancey v. May, Preo. Ch. 592; s Fink v. Patterson, 21 Fed. R. 602. Small v. Atwood, 1 Younge, 407. 6 Railroad Co. v. Orr, 18 Wall. 471. "Smith v. Swormstedt, 16 How. 'Mangels v. Donau Brewing Co., 388. 53 Fed. R 513, per Hanford, C. J. 164: PAKTIES. [§ 48. an account from a defendant who has collected their joint prize money ; w but not by one of several importers to enjoin the seizure of their different imports under an unconstitutional statute. 15 § 48. Suits against one or more of a class. — Similarly, where persons who are jointly liable are very numerous, some may be sued instead of all, provided that the manner in which they are sued, and the fact that they are numerous, are stated ' in the bilL 1 Ordinarily, the complainant selects such of the class as he chooses to represent the rest. The persons thus selected may be a committee chosen by the rest of the, class to act for them in the matters complained of, such as a reorgan- ization committee of stockholders and bondholders, 2 or the managing committee of a clearing-house association. 3 It is proper, however, to name all of the class in the title to the' bill, and then have the court select some of these to be served and to defend for the rest. 4 This rule has been applied to members of a club, 5 or of another unincorporated association when sued for the collection of its debts ; or to enjoin a vio- lation of the anti-trust act ; 6 to members of a trades union engaged in a strike ; 7 and to the stockholders 8 of a corporation in a suit brought by a creditor ,after its dissolution to recover the amount of its capital stock which has been divided among them. 9 The equity rule upon this subject is as follows: "When the parties on either side are very numerous, and cannot, without manifest inconvenience 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 sufficient parties before it to represent all the adverse interests of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit properly before it. Eut in such cases the decree shall be "Good v. Blewitt, 13 Ves. 397; Brown's Ch. 101; Cousins v. Smith, West v. Randall, 2 Mason, 181, 194. 13 Ves. 544; Story's Eq. PI., sec 116. • is Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107. 6 U. S. v. Coal Dealers' Ass'n of § 48. i Story's Eq. PI., sees. 116, 117; California, 85 Fed. R. 252. McArthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. 340, 395. 7 Am. Steel & "Wire Co. v. Wire 2 Railroad Co. v. Howard, 7 Wall. Drawers' & Die Makers' Unions, 90 S92. . Fed. R 598. a Yardley v. Philler, 58 Fed. R. 746. «Marideville v. Riggs, 2 Pet. 482; '* Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591. Railroad Co. v. Howard, 7 Wall. 892. s Cullen v. Duke of Queensberry, 1 9 Wood v. Dummer, 3 Mason, 315. § 4&.] SUITS BY OE AGAINST BEPEESENTATIVES OF CLASS. 165 without prejudice to the rights and claims of all the absent parties." 10 It has been said that " this rule has always been understood to modify somewhat the general doctrine in Eng- land, that parties, not formally served with process, may yet be bound on the principle of representation to the fullest ex- tent that those are bound who are their representatives in the suit. The language of the reservation is that in such cases the decree shall be without prejudice to the rights and claims of all absent parties. The rule especially is framed to allow a suit to proceed without having all the members of an associa* tion or of a class of defendants formal parties; but, while pre- serving the right of the absent ones to afterwards litigate for themselves the same question, it does not prohibit the whole class, when plaintiffs, from takingthe benefit of a decree in favor of those who represent them, nor preclude a plaintiff who has sued the whole class by their representatives, from binding the absent parties by supplemental proceedings to bring them in when known, if necessary, and subject them to the decree, when they have had that opportunity to defend against it." u § 49. Suits by or against one or more as representatives of a class claiming a common right. — In some instances when a number of persons have a common interest in the decision of a question of fact or law, though they have no common inter- est in any property which is the subject of litigation, yet, as they are said to claim under a common right, one or more of them have been allowed to represent the rest as plaintiffs or defendants in a suit to determine the disputed question. 1 Ordi- narily, the complainant selects such defendants as he considers proper and sufficient ; bnt he may name all of the class in the title of his bill and ask the court to select a few to defend on behalf of the rest. 2 Instances where a suit of this kind has been allowed by one or more as plaintiffs in behalf of others similarly situated have usually occurred when, though the plaintiff and those represented by him had no common inter- " Rule 48; Mo Arthur v. Scott, 113 §49. iWest v. Randall, 2 Mason, U. S. 340, 395. 181, 195. n Am. Steel & Wire Co. v. Wire 2 Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591. Drawers' & Die Makers' Unions, 90 Fed. R. 598, 605, per Hammond, J. 166 PAETIES. [§ 49. est in property, yet he sought a determination of a question affecting the enjoyment of estates which, though distinct, came to him and the rest from a common source. Thus, one or more tenants or parishioners may sue a lord of a manor or parson, to establish a right of common, 3 or of turbary. 4 A few defend- ants have been allowed to represent a large class, not only when all of that class had some privity of estate, but also in other cases. Thus, a parson was allowed to sue a few on be- half of all his parishioners to establish a disputed right to tithes. 5 A lord of a manor may sue some on behalf of all of his tenants to establish their duty to grind at his mill, or his right of enclosure, 6 or to enforce a rent-charge. 7 Bills were sustained when brought by those interested in contesting the legality of the issue of certain certificates of indebtedness, against some on behalf of all of the holders of such certifi- cates; 8 and when brought by the purchaser to set aside a sale to him by a decadent against the executor of the vendor and some of his heirs at law, the other heirs at law being unknown.* It seems that a bill can be sustained when filed by a claimant to the equitable title to a tract of land against some on behalf of all who have severally bought with notice parcels of it since his right accrued, praying that their conveyances be set aside as in fraud of his rights. 10 " And it has long been settled, that if a person has a common right against a great many of the king's subjects, inasmuch as he cannot contend with all the king's subjects, a court of equity will permit him to file a bill against some of them, taking care to bring so many persons be- fore the court that their interests shall be such as to lead to a fair and honest support of the public interest; and when a de- cree has been obtained, then, with respect to the individuals whose interest is so fully and honestly established, the court 3 Anon., 1 Chancery Cases, 269 ; Con- ' Attorney-General v. Wy burgh, 1 yers v. Lord Abergavenny, 1 Atk. P. Wms. 599; s. C, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 285"; Brown v. Vermuden, 1 Ch. Cas. 167; Attorney-General v. Jackson, 11 272; Smith v. Earl Brownlow, L. E. Ves. 365, 367; Attorney-General v. 9 Eq. 241. Shelly, 1 Salk. 162. < Baker v. Rogers, SeL Ch. Cas. 74. 8 Sheffield Water "Works v. Yeo- 5 Brown v. 'Vermuden, 1 Ch. Cas. mans, L. E. 2 Ch. App. 8. 272; Hardcastle v. SmitUson, 3 Atk. » Alger v. Anderson, 78 Fed. R, 729, 246. 733. 6 Brown v. Vermuden, 1 Ch. Cas. 10 Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591. 273. § 50.] DEFENDANTS WITHOUT THE JUKISDIOTION. 167 on the footing of the former decree will carry the benefit of it into execution against other individuals who were not par- ties." u Thus, a city may file such a bill to establish its right to levy a duty; 12 and it has been suggested that a suit may thus be brought by one of many persons jointly interested in a geographical trade-mark. 13 In these cases, as has been said, a decree against the defendants before the court has been held in England to bind others of the same class; 14 but, on account of the positive language of the equity rule previously quoted, it is doubtful whether these decisions -would be followed here. 15 § 50. Omission of defendants not within the jurisdiction of the court. — The second exception to the general rule is, that persons who cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of a court of equity need not be joined as parties to a bill, provided that their presence is not indispensable to a decree. " "When any are absent from the jurisdiction who, if within it, would be necessary parties defendant, their presence will ordinarily be dispensed with, provided an equitable and effectual decree can be made against those who have been served with process. The former English practice was to charge in the bill the fact of the absence from the realm of any who otherwise ought to have been joined as defendants, and to pray that they might be served with process if they came within the jurisdiction. "Under the modern English system this strictness is not re- quired, and it seems to be sufficient if the excuse for not mak- ing the absent parties defendant appears on the face of the bill." 1 This rule of equity practice has been confirmed by stat- ute in the United States. " "When there are several defend- ants in any suit at law or in equity, and one or more of them are neither inhabitants of nor found within the district in which the suit is brought, and do not voluntarily appear, the court may entertain jurisdiction, and proceed to the trial and "Lord Eldon in Weale v. West 273; Lord Eldon in Weale v. West Middlesex Water Works Co., 1 Jac. Middlesex Water Works Co., 1 Jac. & Walk. 358, 369. & Walk. 358, 369. 12 City of London v. Perkins, 3 Bra 15 See MoArthur v. Scott, 113 U. S. Pari. Cas. 602; Mayor of Tork v. Pilk- 340, 395; Am. Steel & Wire Co. v. ington, 1 Atk. 282. Wire Drawers' & Dye Makers' Unions, is City of Carlsbad v. Tibbetts, 51 95 Fed. R. 598, quoted supra, § 48. Fed. R. 852, 856, per Putnam, J. § 50. i Judge Dwight Foster in 14 Brown v. Vermuden, 1 Ch, Cas. Palmer v. Stevens, 100 Mass. 461, 466. 168 PABTIES. [§ 50. adjudication of the suit between the parties who are properly before it, but the judgment or decree rendered therein shall not conclude or prejudice other parties not regularly served with process nor voluntarily appearing to answer ; and non- joinder of parties who are not inhabitants of, nor found within the district as aforesaid, shall not constitute matter of abate- ment or objection to the suit." 2 This statute is, however, merely declaratory, and does not enlarge the power previously possessed by courts of equity. 3 The power has been extended by rule, and parties not indispensable to an equitable decree may be omitted if their joinder would oust the court of juris- diction by placing persons of the same citizenship upon differ- ent sides of a controversy. " In all cases where it shall appear to the court that persons who might otherwise be deemed nec- essary or proper parties to the suit cannot be made parties by reason of their being out of the jurisdiction of the court, or in- capable otherwise of being made parties, or because their join- der would oust the jurisdiction of the court as to the parties before the court, the court may in their discretion proceed in the cause without making such persons parties ; and in such cases the decree shall be without prejudice to the absent par- ties." * " If any persons, other than those named as defend- ants in the bill, shall appear to be necessary or proper parties thereto, the bill shall aver the reason why they are not made parties, by showing them to be without the jurisdiction of the court, or that they cannot be joined without ousting the juris- diction of the court as to other parties. And as to persons who are without the jurisdiction and may properly be made parties, the bill may pray that process may issue to make them parties to the bill if they should come within the jurisdiction." 5 Such being the general rule, it remains to be considered what par- ties are indispensable to an equitable decree. As has been said above, a court of equity will ordinarily seek to have before it as parties all persons in any manner interested in the subject- matter of the litigation, in order to make a decree that will prevent the necessity of a subsequent appeal to its aid. 6 This 2 U. a R. a, § 737. See Conolly v. * Rule 47. Wells, 33 Fed. R. 205 ; Wall v. Thomas, » Rule 22. 41 Fed. R 620. «§42. » Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 141. § 50.] DEFENDANTS WITHOUT THE JURISDICTION. 169 rule, however, having been established for the promotion of justice, will be modified, whenever its rigid enforcement would prevent the court from doing justice to a person invoking its protection. Accordingly it will proceed to a decree without the presence of such parties as cannot be subjected to its juris- diction, provided it can determine the respective rights of the parties before it without affecting those of the rest. There are three classes of parties: formal parties; parties necessary to a decree which completely disposes of the controversy, so that the aid of the court need not be invoked again, but whose in- terests are so far separable from those of the parties before the court, that it can dispose of the controversy between the latter without affecting the interests of the former; and parties with an interest in the. controversy "of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest, or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience." 7 Of these the first two classes can always be omitted, when they are beyond the reach of the process of the court or when their joinder would oust its jurisdiction. The rule upon the subject has been well stated by Mr. Justice Brad- ley : " The general rule as to parties in chancery is that all ought to be made parties who are interested in the controversy, in order that there may be an end of litigation. But there are qualifications of this rule arising out of public policy and the necessity of particular cases. The true distinction appears to be as follows : First, when a person will be directly affected by a decree he is an indispensable party, unless the parties are too numerous to be brought before the court, when the case is subject to a special rule. Secondly, when a person is inter- ested in the controversy, but will not be directly affected by a decree made in his absence, he is not an indispensable party, but he should be made a party if possible, and the court will not proceed to a decree without him if he can be reached. Thirdly, when he is not interested in the controversy between the immediate litigants, but has an interest in the subject- matter, which may be conveniently settled in the suit, and 'Mr. Justice Curtis in Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 139. See Chad- bourne v. Coe, 51 Fed. E. 479. 170 parties. [§§ 51, 52. thereby prevent further litigation, he may be a party or not at the option of the complainant." 8 § 51. Formal parties who may be omitted when without the jurisdiction. — Formal parties are those with a naked legal title, but no equitable interest in the subject-matter of the con- troversy. If the persons really interested are before the court, formal parties can always be omitted if without the jurisdic- tion ; l and their joinder, no matter whether as plaintiffs or de- fendants, cannot oust the court of jurisdiction, as they are in reality upon neither side of the controversy. 2 Such are : a hus- band against whom no relief is sought, in a suit by his wife to enforce the trusts of a marriage settlement; 3 trustees of prior railroad mortgages in a suit for the foreclosure of a subsequent mortgage and the sale of the mortgaged property subject to their liens ; 4 and parties with the naked legal title having no interest in the controversy. 5 A person against whom an in- junction is sought, unless he consents thereto, is never a nom- inal party. 6 When a suit is brought to recover the possession of real or personal property the person in possession is not a formal party. 7 §52. Parties whose interest is separable. — The second class is not so easy to define ; and it is difficult to mark the limits between this and the third class of parties who are al- ways indispensable. It includes all having an interest in the controversy so far separable from that of those before the court that a decree can be made and enforced which disposes of the matter in dispute between the latter without affecting their 8 Williams v. Brownhead, 19 Wall. 431; Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 563, 571. See Chadbourne v. Coe, 51 499. But see Watts v. Waddle, 1 Fed. E. 479. McLean, 200. § 51. 1 Simms v. Guthrie, 9 Cranch, 4 Pacific B. Co. v. Ketchum, 101 19, 25; Wormley v. Wormley, 8 U. S. 289, 29a Wheat. 421, 451; Boon's Heirs v. 5 Simms v. Guthrie, 9 Cranch, 19, Chiles, 8 Pet. 532; Union Bank of 25; Boon's Heirs v. Chiles, 8 Pet 532; Louisiana y. Stafford, 12' How. 327; Union Bank of Louisiana v. Stafford, New Orleans Canal & Banking Co. 12 How. 327; New Orleans Canal & v. Stafford, 12 How. 343. , Banking Co. v. Stafford, 12 How. 343; 2 Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 5; 7, 588; 421, 451; Removal Cases, 100 U. S. Bacon v. Eives, 106 U. S. 99. 457; Pacific R Co. v. Ketchum, 101 6 Ward v. Arredondo, 1 Paine, 410; U. S. 289; Walden v. Skinner, 101 Mills v. Hurd, 32 Fed. B, 127. U.S. 577; Harter v. Kernochan, 103 'Mass. & So. Const. Co. v. Cane U ft 562; supra, § 10. Creek Tp., 155 U. S. 283. i >, l/ormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat § 52.] PARTIES WHOSE INTEREST IS SEPARABLE. 171 rights. 1 Thus, a trustee or director or executor beyond the jurisdiction has been held properly omitted in a suit against his colleagues for a breach of trust, or for an accounting. 2 For a trustee's liability is joint and several. 3 One of the next of kin 4 may sue an administrator and his sureties ; and a legatee, 8 at least if not a residuary legatee, 6 may sue an executor to re- cover his share of a decedent's estate without joining the rest of the class to which he belongs. It seems that the executor of a dead debtor need not be a party to a bill brought by a creditor of the estate to obtain payment out of assets in the hands of a legatee. 7 Subsequent lienors are not indispensable parties to a foreclosure suit. 8 In a suit against a firm by strangers, a partner beyond the jurisdiction may perhaps be omitted if no injustice will be done him by a decree in his ab- sence. 9 It has been held that in a suit by one partner against another for an account of money received by the defendant in excess of his share of the firm assets, partners beyond the juris- diction may be omitted if it appears that each has received his full share of the joint property. 10 A subcontractor who has fraudulently collected money from the United States may be sued at law to recover this without the joinder of the con- tractor, although the latter at the former's instigation made § 52. i Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 6 See McArthur v. Scott, 113 IT. a Wheat. 591; Mallow v. Hinde, 12 840, 395; Braduin v. Harpur, Ambler, Wheat. 193; Gridley v. Wynant, 23 374; Hawly v. Harvey, 4 Beav. 215; How. 500; Horn v. Lookhart, 17 WalL s. G, 5 Beav. 134. 570; Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 Woodb. & TMilligan v. Milledge, 3 Cranoh, M. 34. 220. 2 Parsons v. Howard, 2 Woods, 1,5; 8 Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. C. C. 118, 129; Union Bank of Louisiana v. 345; Hazard v. Durant, 19 Fed. R 471, Stafford, 12 How. 327; New Orleans 476; Plume & A. Mfg. Co. v. Bald- C. & B. Co. v. Stafford, 12 How. 343; win, 87 Fed. R 785. But see Wall v. Howard v. Railway Co., 101 U. S. 837; Thomas, 41 Fed. R 620. Nalle v. Young, 160 TJ. S. 624. See 3 Parsons v. Howard, 2 Woods, 1, 5; supra, § 44, Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatch. 347. • » Cowslad v. Cely, Prec. Ch.83; Dar- * Payne v. Hook, 7 WalL 425. See, went v. Walton, 2 Atk. 510; Calvert however, West v. Randall, 2 Mason, on Parties, Book III, ch. xxiii; Vose 181; Wisnerv. Barnet, 4 Wash. C. C. v. Philbrook, 3 Story, C. C. 335. 631,642; Greene v. Sisson, 2 Curtis, Contra, Parsons v. Howard, 2 Woods, 171. 1; Bell v. Donohoe, 17 Fed. R 710. 8 Dandridge v. Washington's Ex'rs, 10 Towle v. Pierce, 12 Met. (Mass.) 2 Pet. 377. See West v. Randall, 2 339; Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 Mason, 181. U. S. 505. 172 PARTIES. [§ 52. the fraudulent representations. 11 "When one of two joint con- tractors has fraudulently released his interest in the contract, he is not indispensable to a bill filed by his associate against the other party. 12 To a bill to enjoin the infringement of a patent, one partner can be made a defendant without the other members of the infringing firm, unless an accounting is sought, in which case all must be joined. 13 " The owners of partial in- terests in contracts for land, acquired subsequently to their execution, are not necessary parties to bills for their enforce- ment. The original parties on one side are not to be mixed up in controversies between the parties on the other side, in which they have no concern." u An heir may file a bill for the specific performance of a contract entitling his ancestor to purchase land without bringing in the personal representative of his ancestor, provided that he offers himself to provide for the payment of the purchase-money. 15 Specific performance of a contract for the sale of land may be enforced against one of several joint tenants without joining the others with him as defendants. 10 It was held that to a bill to set aside a deed and power of attorney for the sale of land, a purchaser of part of the land from one of the defendants was not an indispensable party. 17 The assignor of a claim is not a necessary party to a suit upon it by his assignee, 18 unless the assignment be execu- tory, 19 or the assignor has an equitable interest in the claim. 20 A railway company is not an indispensable party to a bill against its receiver to enforce specific performance of a con- tract made by it. 21 The directors of a corporation are not in- dispensable parties to a suit by a stockholder to restrain it from acting in violation of his rights. 22 To a bill to restrain 11 U. S. v. Salisbury, 157 U. S. 121. "Batesville Inst. v. Kauffman, 18 12 Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall. 561; Wall. 151; Trecothick v. Austin, 4 U. S. v. Salisbury, 157 U. S. 121. Mason, 16. 13 American B. Macb, Co. v. Cros- 19 Land Co. v. Elkins, 20 Fed. E. 545. man, 57 Fed. E. 102. 20 Hubbard v. Manhattan Tr. Co. "Mr. Justice Field in Willard v. (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R 51, 57; Western Tayloe, 8 WalL 557, 571. But see Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 152 U. S. Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumner, 173. 346. sprout v. Eoby, 15 WalL 471. 21 Express Co. v. Eailroad Co., 99 I" Stephen v. Beall, 22 WalL 329. U. S. 191. " Billings v. Aspen M. & S. Co., 51 22 Heath v. Erie Ey. Co., 8 Blatoh, Fed. R 338, 350. See Hioklin v. Marco, C. C. 347. 56 Fed. R 549. § 52.] PAKTIES WHOSE INTEREST IS SEPAEABLE. 173 the directors of a corporation from negotiating a fraudulent sale of its property, the person to whom the sale is about to be made is not an indispensable party if no contract has been made with him. 23 In proceedings under section 16 of the Inter- state Commerce Act against a railroad company to enforce an order of the commission, it is not necessary that another car- rier making the forbidden rate jointly with the defendant be made a party when he is without the jurisdiction. 24 To a suit by one indorser of a bill of exchange to restrain the collection of a judgment for the amount of the bill against him, upon the ground that the bill had been paid by another indorser, the latter indorser is not a necessary party. 25 To a bill by a creditor to satisfy a judgment out of land in a debtor's posses- sion, but fraudulently conveyed by him to a person beyond the jurisdiction of the court, the person in whose name the land stood was held not to be an indispensable party J 88 To a bill to enjoin the execution of a judgment of ejectment and to de- cree a conveyance of lands, when the plaintiffs had an equi- table title only, the persons whose legal title the complainants asserted were held properly omitted, when no relief was prayed against them, and their joinder would have ousted the court of jurisdiction. 27 It has been held that a tenant in common of a water-right may sue to enjoin an injury to the property with- out making his co-tenant a party. 28 It has been said that, to a bill by a private individual to enjoin the maintenance of a public nuisance, neither persons jointly interested with him nor those jointly guilty with the defendant are indispensable parties. 29 It has been suggested that the absence of one person guilty of a joint fraud might not prevent the court from tak- ing jurisdiction over the others. 30 And in general to a suit for 23 Abbot v. American H. R. Co., 4 27 Simms v. Guthrie, 9 Cranch, 19, Blatchf. C. C. 489; Wallace v. Holmes, 25. See also Boon's Heirs v. Chiles, 9 Blatchf. C. C. 65. But see Elkins v. 8 Pet 532. But compare Mallow v. Camden & A. R. Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 241. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193. A border 24 Interstate Com. Com'n v. Texas caseisElmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. & P. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. R 187; s. a as 152. T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. 28 Union M. & M. Co. v. Dangberg, Com'n. 162 TJ. S. 197, 265. 81 Fed. R. 73, 87. as Atkins v. Dick, 14 Pet. 114 M Miss. & Mo. R. Co. v. Ward, ,3 26 McCoy v. Rhodes, 11 How. 131, Black, 485. 141. But see Billings v. Aspen M. & s0 Judge Dwight Foster in Palmer S. Co., 51 Fed. R. 338. v. Stevens, 100 Mass. 461, 466. See 174: PARTIES. [§ 53. an injunction against a tort, 31 or the infringement of a patent not committed under color of a contract right, 32 one or more of the joint wrong-doers may be omitted. Thus, the officers, agents and stockholders of a corporation may be enjoined from infringing a patent while acting for the company when the corporation itself is not a party and is beyond the jurisdiction. 33 In an action by a creditor of a corporation to enforce the indi- vidual liability of its directors or stockholders, or to collect unpaid assessments or subscriptions from them, he cannot usu- ally sue alone at law, but should file a bill in equity in behalf of himself and the other creditors, if any ; M and he may ordi- narily make one, some or all of the stockholders parties, ac- cording to his pleasure. 85 A State is not an indispensable party to a bill seeking to restrain its officers from levying for its ben- efit an illegal tax; 36 nor, it has been held, to a bill to prevent their illegal issue of land warrants for property which it had agreed to convey to the plaintiff; 37 nor to a bill to restrain their unlawful issue of bonds which would diminish the value of bonds held by the complainant. 38 To such bills the persons to whom the unlawful issue of bonds or land warrants is about to be made, are not indispensable parties. 39 § 53. Parties indispensable to a decree.-^- No suit, however, can proceed unless the court have before it as parties all per- sons who will be directly affected by the decree sought, or whose obedience is necessary to its enforcement, when it does not appear that they consent thereto. 1 A person is affected by also Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. derson v. Dole (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. C. C. 347. But see Bell v. Donohoe, 29; supra, § 5. 17 Fed. R. 710; Wall v. Thomas, 41 »» Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. Fed. R 620. 380; Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205; si Miss. & Mo. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Manufacturing Co. v. Bradley, 105 Black, 485. U. S. 175. 82 American B. Mach. Co. v. Cros- 36 Osborn v. Bank of U. &, 9 Wheat, man, 57 Fed. R. 1021. 738; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331. 33 Edison El. L. Co. v. Packard El. n Davis v. Gray, 16 WalL 203; Han- L. Co., 61 Fed. R. 1002. cock v. Walsh, 3 Woods, 351. But 3*Hornor v. Henning, 93 TJ. S. 228; see Cunningham v. Macon & B. R Terry v. Little, 101 U. S. 216; Terry Co., 109 U. S. 446, 453. v. Tubman, 92 U. S. 156; Pollard v. 88 Board of Liquidation v. McComb, Bailey, 20 WalL 526 ; Welles v. Graves, 92 U. S. 531 ; supra, § 37. 41 Fed. R 459; First Nat. Bank v. 39£> a vis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 233. Peavey, 75 Fed. R. 154. But see Al- § 53. i See § 55. But see Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Miller,. 41 Fed. R 351. §53.] PAETIES INDISPENSABLE TO A DEOEEE. 175 a decree when his rights against, or liability to, any of the par- ties to the suit is thereby determined. If a decree in favor of the complainant would cast a cloud upon another's title, that person, it seems, is thereby directly affected. 2 A State is an in- dispensable party to a bill against its officers to compel specific performance by them for it of its contract for the sale of land ; 8 or to establish a claim to property held by its officers claiming a title in the State thereto; 4 or a claim to corporate stock reg- istered in its name, the certificates of which are held by its officers; 5 or to enjoin its officers from commencing a suit in its name; 6 but not, it has been held, to a bill by the United States against a private individual to cancel a contract between him and the State for the purchase of land obtained by the State from the plaintiff through mistake or fraud. 7 The trustee of an active trust is a necessary party to a suit affecting the trust es- tate. 8 Every party to a contract, whether of sale or for another purpose, except one who has released his interest 9 or an agent through whom the title has passed, 10 is ordinarily a necessary party to a suit to enforce it; " or to set it aside; M or, unless its 2 Young v. Cushing, 4 Biss. 456; California v. Southern Pac. R Co., 157 U. S. 229. But see Hicklin v. Marco, 56 Fed. E. 549. It was held improper to compel defendant to make a deed confirming complain- ant's title to land conveyed by the latter's grantors when such grantors were not parties. Zenbrugg v. Reed (N. J. Ch., 1896), 35 AtL R 298. s Preston v. Walsh, 10 Fed. R. 315. See also Walsh v. Preston, 109 U. S. 297. 4 Cunningham v. Macon & B. Co., 109 U. S. 446. * Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. Co., 133 U. S. 233. 6 In re Ayers, 123 TJ. S. 443. But see supra, % 37. t Williams v. TJ. S., 138 U. a 514, 516. 8 McRea v. Branch Bank of Ala- bama, 19 How. 376; O'Hara v. Mac- Connell, 93 U. S. 150; Thayer v. Life Ass'n, 112 TJ. S. 717; American B. S. v. Price, 110 TJ. a 61; Billings v. R, R. Aspen M. & S. Co., 51 Fed. R 338, 350; S. a in C. C. A, 52 Fed. R 250. But see New Chester Water Co. v. Holly Mfg. Co. (C. C. A), 53 Fed. R. 19; supra, % 45. 9 Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall. 561. 10 Donovan v. Campion, 85 Fed. R. 71; Gross v. George W. Scott Mfg. Co., 48 Fed. R. 35; Hamilton v. Sa- vannah, F. & W. Ry. Co., 49 Fed. R 412. But see California v. So. Pac. Co., 157 U. S. 229. "Mallow v. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193; Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130; Greg- ory v. Stetson, 133 U. S. 579; Perin v. Megibben, 53 Fed. R. 86; Rollins Inv. Co. v. George, 48 Fed. R. 776. "Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130; Coiron v. Millaudon, 19 How. 113; Gaylords v. Kelshaw, 1 Wall. 81; Ribon v. Railroad Cos., 16 WalL 446; Lawrence v. Wirtz, 1 Wash. C. C. 417; Tobin v. Walkinshaw, 1 McAlL 26; Bell v. Donohoe, 17 Fed. R 710; Florence S. Mach. Co. v. Singer Mfg. Co., 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 329; s. c, 8 176 PARTIES. [§ 53. performance would amount to a nuisance, 13 to enjoin a person from carrying it into effect; 14 even, it has been held in a case at Circuit, when the other parties are co-trustees beyond the jurisdiction of the court. 15 Thus, a railway company is an in- dispensable party to a suit to enjoin another railway company from constructing a road under a lease by it. 16 The assignors and assignees of a patent are necessary parties to a bill against the Commissioner to expunge it from the records of the Patent Office. 17 To a bill against the administrator with the will annexed of Kosciuszko, claiming a legacy under an alleged codicil to the will, foreigners claiming the assets of the deceased as heirs at law were held necessary parties. 18 To a bill between parties for an accounting, all the surviving partners and the representa- tives of a deceased partner, even when alleged to be insolvent, are, it seems, indispensable parties, 19 unless it can be shown that each of those omitted has received his full share of the assets, and that no claim is made against him. 20 All the partners must be joined as plaintiffs and defendants in a suit to recover money due the firm. 21 To a partition suit all of the tenants in common are indispensable parties. 22 A person in possession under a claim of a title or interest in property is a necessary party to a suit affecting it. 23 The mortgagor is a necessary party to a suit by the mortgagee against a third person to re- Blatohf. C. C. 113; Chadbourne v. Coe, " Backus P. S. H. Co. v. Simonds, 2 45 Fed. E. 832; Empire C. & T. Co. v. App. D. C. 290. Empire C. & M. Co., 150 U. S. 159; 18 Armstrong v. Lear. 8 Pet. 52. New Orleans W. Co. v. New Orleans, 19 Bank v. Carrollton R. Co., 11 164 U. S. 471; s. C. in C. C. A, 51 WalL 624; Bartle v. Coleman, 3 Fed. R 479; Clark v. Great Northern Cranch, C. C. 283; Gray v. Larrimore, Ry. Co., 81 Fed. R 282. But see 2 Abb. C. C. 542. French v. Shoemaker, 14 Wall. 814; 2°Towle v. Pierce 12 Met. (Mass.) "West v. Duncan, 42 Fed. R 430; 329; Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 Smith v. Lee, 77 Fed. R. 779. U. S. 505. "Miss. & Mo. R Co. v. Ward, 2 2 »Edgell v. Felder, 84 Fed. R 69. Black, 485. 22 Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. " Northern Ind. R Co. v. Michigan 280. C. R Co., 15 How. 233. But see 23 Williams v. Bankhead, 19 Wall. Heriot v. Davis, 2 Woodb. & M 229; 563; Young v. Cushing, 4 Biss. 456. Boon's Heirs v. Chiles, 8 Pet. 532. But see Ringo v. Binns, 10 Pet. 269, is Wall v. Thomas, 41 Fed. R 620. 281 ; Metropolitan Bank v. St. Louis " Northern Ind. R Co. v. Mich. C. Dispatch Co., 149 U. S. 436, 450; Hick- R. Co., 15 How. 233. lin v. Marco (C. C. A), 56 Fed. R 549. § 53.] PARTIES INDISPENSABLE TO A DECREE. 177 move a cloud upon the title ; M or to prevent an injury to the property when the decree must necessarily adjudicate unset- tled rights of the mortgagor. 25 It is the safer practice to join the mortgagor as a party defendant to a bill by the mortgagee of a patent seeking an injunction against its infringement with damages or an account of profits. 26 The mortgagor is not an indispensable, although he is a proper, party to a bill to collect a mortgage from a purchaser who has assumed it, when before the bill is filed the mortgaged property was sold upon the fore- closure of a prior mortgage. 27 To a bill to enforce specific per- formance of a contract, providing for the sale of land the title to which was in one party, and its distribution between both parties to the contract, when filed, after the death of each, by the personal representatives of the one as complainants, against the heirs-at-law of the other as defendants, the executors of the defendants' ancestor are necessary if not indispensable parties defendant, and the heirs-at-law of the complainants' decedent are not. 28 All a man's heirs-at-law are indispensable parties to a bill by one of them to set aside a sale of his property under a decree ; and to such a bill the party to the former suit at whose instance the sale was made is also an indispensable party. 29 All a woman's heirs have been held necessary parties to a bill to set aside a marriage settlement. 30 To a bill by a stockholder to set aside the foreclosure of a railroad mortgage, the trustees of the mortgage foreclosed, the mortgagor, the purchaser, and enough of the stockholders and bondholders as consented to the foreclosure to represent the remainder, are indispensable par- ties. 81 A corporation or its receiver 32 must be a party to a suit to enforce a right against a third person which the corporation refuses to assert, 33 or to prevent the waste of corporate assets. 3 * 24 Bettes v. Dana, 2 Sumner, 383. But see Alger v. Anderson, 78 Fed. ^ConsoL Water Co. v. San Diego, R 729. 87 Fed. R 369. so McDonnell v. Eaton, 18 Fed. R. * Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U.S. 710. 252, 261; quoted supra, § 44. 31 Ribon v. Railroad Cos., 16 Wall "Kelly v. Ashford, 133 IT. S. 610, 446. 626. But see Skinner v. Harker, 23 » 2 Porter v. Sabin, 149 XJ. S. 473. Colo. 335; supra, § 44, ' 3S Davenport v. Dows, 18 Wall. 626; 28 Seymour v. Freer, 8 Wall. 202, New Jersey Central R Co. v. Mills, 218. See Prout v. Roby, 15 Wall 471. 113 U. S. 249, 256; Bell v. Donohue, 29 Hoe v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 501; Har- 17 Fed. R 710; Swan L. & C. Co. v. wood v. Railroad Co., 17 WalL 78. Frank, 148 U. S. 603. "Putnam v. Rich, 56 Fed. R 416. 12 1T8 PARTIES. [§ 53. If a receiver has been appointed he is an indispensable party to such a suit, even although the State court which appointed him refuses to authorize the suit against him. 35 The trustees and county treasurer of an Iowa township are necessary parties to a suit by a taxpayer to prevent payment to the holder of bonds claimed to be invalid. 36 It has been said that to a bill by the receiver of a water company to establish his right to fix the water rates, all consumers of the water- must be made parties. 37 It seems that the principal debtor, or his assignee in bankruptcy or insolvency, is a necessary party to a suit against a surety. 38 To a suit by a creditor to enforce a lien upon property through a trust-deed made for the benefit of a surety, both the trustee and his beneficiary are indispensable parties, although the property is in the possession of neither of them ; but if filed in a double aspect, either for the complain- ant's individual benefit, or on behalf of the other creditors of the principal debtor, a sale may be ordered without having the surety or his trustee before the court. 39 So, a debtor, or if a bankrupt or insolvent, his assignee, is a necessary party to a creditor's suit to enforce a lien 40 or to levy 41 upon property in which the debtor has an interest, or to collect 42 a debt due the debtor. A corporation must be joined as a defendant to a bill for a receiver; 43 to a bill filed by a creditor to apply to the 35 Porter v. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473; 3S McRea v. Branch Bank of Ala- supra, § 9; infra, § 250. bama, 19 How. 376. M Sully v. Drennan, 113 U. S. 287. *> Russell v. Clark, 7 Cranoh, 69; Compare Harter v. Kernoohan, 103 Robertson v. Carson, 19 Wall. 94 But U. S. 562. In a suit by citizens to see Heriot v. Davis, 2 W. & M. 229. restrain the erection of a school- It was held that in a suit against a house on land dedicated for a public bank for money deposited by corn- park, it was held error to ref use to plainant's agent, and applied by the allow an amendment to the bill bank to debts due from the agent, making the original donors of the the latter was a proper and neces- land parties complainant. Rowzee v. sary party; but on a decree for corn- Pierce, 75 Miss. 846; S. C, 23 S. R. 307; plainant, without there appearing S. C, 40 L. R. A 402. any right or liability for or against " Ward v. San Diego L. & W. Co., the agent, it is proper then to dismiss 79 Fed. R 656, 667; S. C. in C. C. A., him. Union Stock Yards Nat Bank 94 Fed. R 849. But see Clyde v. v. Moore (C. C. A), 79 Fed. R. 705. Richmond & D. R Co., 57 Fed. R 436. « Wilson v. City Bank, 3 Sumner, 38 Robertson v. Carson, 19 WalL 94. 422. See also Russell v. Clark, 7 Cranch, « U. S. v. Howland, 4 Wheat. 108. 69. But compare Rule 51. 43 Elkhart Nat. Bank v. Northwest- ern G. L. Co., 84 Fed. R 76. §. 53.] PARTIES INDISPENSABLE TO A DECREE. 179 payment of its indebtedness money due it from its stockhold- ers, 44 or to enforce the individual liability of its stockholders; 45 to a bill to compel a transfer upon its books of stock which stands in the name of another than the complainant, 46 and an unincorporated association to a bill to foreclose a mortgage upon a certificate of membership which cannot be transferred with- out its consent. 47 To a bill for the dissolution of a corporation and an accounting for the benefit of a single stockholder, not on behalf of the rest, the other stockholders or their represent- atives must be made defendants. 48 To a bill by a legatee against the husband of a residuary legatee or devisee to obtain payment of the complantant's legacy from assets in the de- fendant's possession, the residuary legatee herself, or, if she be dead, her personal representative, is a necessary party, 49 at' least when it does not appear that she or her personal representa- tive is without the jurisdiction of the court. To a bill to fore- close a mortgage by an executor, it was held that all devisees of any part of the property were indispensable parties. 50 It was held that in a suit to compel the execution and foreclosure of a mortgage, prior incumbrancers and others claiming an in- terest in the, mortgaged property were necessary parties, when it did not appear that their- joinder was impossible or would oust the jurisdiction. 81 In one case, where a bill was filed to stay proceedings in ejectment, the court required the nominal defendant at law to be joined as a co-plaintiff with the real per- "Brigham v. Luddington, 12 moneys with the treasurer of the Blatchf. C. C. 237; First Nat. Bank v. Commonwealth to indemnify those Smith, 6 Fed. E..215; Dormitzer v. who should sustain damage by the Illinois & St. L. Bridge Co., 6 Fed. construction of a canal, and the fund R. 217; Walsh v. Memphis, C. & N. was insufficient to pay all claims, it W. R. Co., 6 Fed. R, 797. was held that a bill to have certain *> Elkhart Nat. Bank v. Northwest- damages paid therefrom should make «rn E. L. Co., 84 Fed. R. 76. parties to the suit all interested in «Kendig v. Dean, 97 U. S. 423; the funds. Co well v. Cape Cod Ship Rogers v. Nortwick, 45 Fed. R, 513. Canal Co., 41 N. E. R. 290, 164 Mass. But see Gould v. Head, 41 Fed. R, 235. Similar is Childs v. N. B. Car- 240, 248 ; Williamson v. Krohn, 66 Fed, stein Co., 76 Fed. R. 86. But see Bick- R. 655.' ford v. McComb, 88 Fed. R. 428. 47 Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. St. 49 Levis v. Dart, 6 How. 1. Louis Dispatch Co., 149 U. S. 436. 60 Detweiler v. Holderbaum, 42 Fed. « Watson v. U. S. Sugar Refinery R. 337. Co., 68 Fed. R. 769. Where a corpo- 61 Caldwell v. Taggart, 4 Pet. 190. ration had been required to deposit 180 PARTIES. [§§ 54, 55 son interested, although it did not appear what citizenship he had. 52 § 54. When numerous interests have been created for the purpose of preventing the plaintiif from obtaining equitable relief. — When numerous interests had been created for the purpose of preventing a person from obtaining equitable relief, the English courts allowed the persons to whom these inter- ests were thus conveyed to be omitted from the bill, if the original owner of the property thus divided were made a de- fendant. 1 The rule and the reasons for it are thus stated by Calvert in his valuable work on Parties: "If a party has di- vided an interest amongst a number of persons for this pur- pose, the court, in order that the contrivance may be frustrated, and the equitable relief may be obtained, allows the suit to proceed in their absence. Such a division is in reality a fraud ; an attempt to defeat justice by converting the general rule of the court into an obstruction to the ordinary proceedings. The court defeats the fraud by refusing to enforce the general rule." 2 Lord Hardwicke said upon this subject: "Where a mortgagee who has a plain redeemable interest makes several conveyances upon trust, in order to entangle the affair, and to render it difficult for a mortgagor or his representatives to re- deem, there it is not necessary that the plaintiff should trace out all the persons who have an interest in such trust, to make them parties." 3 This rule might, perhaps, be extended to a case, where an attempt had been made to defeat the jurisdic- tion of the Federal court by a merely colorable conveyance to a person of the same citizenship as the complainant. 4 § 55. When a person consents to the relief sought. — A person who consents to the relief sought, when it is so stated in 52 Hyde v. Folger, 4 McLean, 255. How. 343: Leather Manufacturers' § 54. 1 Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), Bank v. Cooper, 120 U. S. 778, 781. Book I, ch. IV, p. 61; Yates v. Ham- §55. ! Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, bly, 2 Atk. 237. See also Union 1 Pet. 299, 306; Calvert on Parties Bank of Louisiana v. Stafford, 12 (2d ed.), Book I, ch. V, 69, 84. How. 327; New Orleans Canal & 2 Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), Book Banking Co. v. Stafford, 12 How. 343. I, ch. 69; Kirk v. Clarke, Prec. in 2 Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 61. Ch. 275; Harvey v. Corrie, 4 Russ. 'Yates v. Hambly, 2 Atk. 237, 238. 35, 55; Bawtree v. Watson, 3 M. & * See Union Bank of Louisiana v. K. 339, 340. Stafford, 12 How. 327; New Orleans 3 Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Pet 252, 258. Canal & Banking Co. v. Stafford, 12 * Rylands v. Latouche, 2 Bligh, 579. §§ 56-57a.J when absent persons are -unknown. 181 the bill, need not be joined as a defendant with the other parties interested, unless his presence is indispensable for their protec- tion. 1 Sometimes the plaintiff is required to execute a satis- factory undertaking that the party omitted will conform to the decree. 2 Similarly, a person who disclaims all interest in the subject-matter may also be omitted, unless his joinder is essential to the protection of the rights of the other defend- ants. 3 An agreement between two persons that one shall rep- resent the other as plaintiff, when the former would otherwise have no right to the relief sought, will not be sanctioned by the court. 4 § 56. When the plaintiff waives his right against a per- son. — "Where a plaintiff," says Lord Hardwicke, "is only concerned in interest, there he may waive his demand, and omit making the party a defendant to his bill." x In accord- ance with this practice, the equity rules provide that " in suits to execute the trusts of a will, it shall not be necessary to make the heir-at-law a party ; but the plaintiff shall be at lib- erty to make the heir-at-law a party when he desires to have the will established against him." 2 Such a waiver cannot, however, be made unless it can be without prejudice to those against whom the bill is filed. 8 § 57, When the interest of an absent person is evidently yery small. — In England it has been held, in accordance with the maxim de minimis non curat lex, that when the interest of an absent person is evidently very small the court will dispense with his presence in the suit. 1 This view seems to be sanc- tioned by two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. 2 § 57a. When the absent persons are unknown. — When ihe absent persons are unknown and it is so stated in the bill, their omission is no defect in the suit until they are discovered, § 56. 1 Williams v. Williams, 9 Mod. § 57. 1 Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 499. See also Wilson v. Todd, 1 M. Book I, oh. V, p. 70; Daws v. Benn, & C. 42, 46; Calvert on Parties (2d 1 J. & W. 513; Attorney-General v. ed.), 83, and cases cited. Goddard, 1 T. & R, 348, 350. See also 2 Rule 50, copied from the 31st Or- Faulkner v. Daniel, 3 Hare, 199, 21& der in Chancery of August, 1841. 2 Union Bank v. Stafford, 12 How. » Anon., 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 166, pL 6; 327; New Orleans C. & B. Co. v. Staf- Story's Eq. PL, § 139. ford, 12 How. 343. 182 parties. [§§ 58, 59. at least when parties with similar rights are parties who may defend in their interest. 1 § 58. When the right of administration is in dispute. — The English rule was, that when there was a contest in the Ecclesiastical Court over the right of administration upon a decedent's estate, the omission in a bill affecting that estate of an administrator might be excused if special circumstances were shown. 1 If, however, no proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court were pending, one must be instituted before the bill could be filed. 8 § 59. Relaxation of rule as to parties in special cases. — The rules upon the subject of parties are, however, very loose, and the questions arising under them are decided largely in the discretion of the court. 1 " The necessity for the relaxation of the rule is more especially apparent in the courts of the United States, where, oftentimes, the enforcement of the rule would oust them of their jurisdiction, and deprive parties en- titled to the interposition of a court of equity of any remedy whatever." 2 A court of equity adapts its decrees to the neces- sities of each case; and should a suit brought by a single complainant concerning a matter in which others as well as himself were interested terminate in a decree against the de- fendants, it is easy to do substantial justice to all the parties in interest, and prevent a multiplicity of suits, by allowing the other persons similarly situated with the plaintiff, "either through a reference to a master, or by some other proper pro- ceeding, to come in and share in the benefit of the litigation." 3 The discretion as to the joinder or omission of parties is, how- § 57a. ! Alger v. Anderson, 78 Fed. How. 1; Barney v. Baltimore, 6 WalL R 729, 734. 280; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425; § 58. i Plunket v. Penson, 2 Atk. Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205; 51; Penny v. Watts, 2 Phillips, 149, Greene v. Sisson, 2 Curtis, 171; West 154; Calvert on Parties (2ded.), Book v. Randall, 2 Mason, 181; Parsons v. I, ch. V, p. 70. Howard, 2 Woods, 1; Winter v. Lud- 2 Penny v. Watts, 2 Phillips, 149, low, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 464. 154; Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 2 Mr. Justice Davis in Payne v. Book 1, ch. V. See Reed v. Bennett Hook, 7 Wall. 425, 432. (N. J. Errors & Appeals, 1897), 37 Atl. 3 Mr. Justice Davis in Payne v. R. 75; supra, § 45. Hook, 7 WalL 425, 432. See s. c. as § 59. ! Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Hook v. Payne, 14 WalL 252; infra, Wheat. 591; Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 § 201. Wheat 152, 167; Lewis v. Darling, 16 4 § 60.] Restatement op the eules as to parties. 183 ever, one which, when properly raised, is subject to review upon appeal. 4 An act of Congress relaxing or extending the rules as to parties in a particular case is constitutional. 5 § 60. Restatement of the rules as to parties. — The rules upon the subject may be summarily though roughly stated thus: — I. All persons, not too numerous, whose joinder will not oust the jurisdiction of the court, and who have any direct in- terest in obtaining or resisting the relief prayed for in a bill, or granted in a decree which so disposes of the controversy as to prevent any future litigation concerning the same, must be parties to a suit in equity. 1 II. No person without an interest in the contest or its set- tlement can be joined as a party, except perhaps the officer or member of a corporation, who according to some authorities may be made a defendant to a bill praying relief against it, in order to compel from- him a discovery of facts of which he ac- quired knowledge in his official capacity. 2 III. If the persons having a common interest in the subject of the controversy or the question to be decided therein are nu- merous, they may in certain cases be represented, as plaintiffs or defendants, by others who hold the legal title in trust for them, or by one or more of their number suing, or more rarely being sued, in their behalf. 8 IV. Persons having a merely formal interest, or an interest so far separable from that of the principal parties that a decree disposing of the controversy as between the latter can be made and enforced without affecting their rights, may always be omitted when, by reason of their residence or citizenship, not within the jurisdiction of the court. 4 Y. All persons who have such an interest in the contro- versy that a decree cannot be enforced without directly affect- ing their rights, must be joined as parties; except possibly when they are unknown to the complainants, or when their interest is * Caldwell v. Taggart, 4 Pet 190; 8 60. > §§ 43, 43, 50. Robertson v. Carson, 19 Wall. 94; 2 §4& Hoe v. "Wilson, 9 Wall. 501 ; Railroad » §§ 46, 47, 48. Co. v. Orr, 18 Wall. 471. « §§ 45, 50, 51, 53. 6 U. S. v. Union Pacific R Co., 98 U. S. 569. 184 PAETIES. [§ 61. very small, or has been created for the purpose of depriving the court of jurisdiction. 5 VI. There is no need of joining as parties any against whom the plaintiffs waive their rights, or who are willing to allow the relief prayed for in the bill, unless their presence is neces- sary for the protection of those who have been made defendants. 6 VII. The necessity of the joinder of parties is always in the sound discretion of the court, which adapts itself to the facts of each particular case. 7 § 61. Objection for want of parties. — An objection that there is a defect of parties may be taken by demurrer, plea, or answer, 1 or at the hearing; and if the absent persons are in- dispensable parties, even for the first time upon appeal ; 2 al- though not if a decree has been made which cannot prejudice their interests. 3 " If a defendant shall, at the hearing of a cause, object that a suit is defective for want of parties, not having by plea or answer taken the objection, and therein specified by name or description the parties to whom the ob- jection applies, the court (if it shall think fit) shall be at liberty to make a decree saving the rights of absent parties." 4 The usual practice is for the court, if it considers the objection good, to allow the cause to stand over until the plaintiff shall amend his bill by bringing in the additional parties needed. 5 If the omitted parties on account of their citizenship cannot be brought in, the court may retain the bill, and perhaps continue an injunction in accordance with its prayer, until the com- plainants have had a reasonable time to litigate the matters in controversy between themselves and the omitted parties in a 5 §§ 53, 54, 57, 57a. parties, because a person holding an 6 t-§ 55, 56. equitable title to the patent was not 7 § 59. a party; and it appeared that no § 61. 1 For the rules regulating the such issue was made by the plead- manner of taking the objection, see ings, and that during the taking of the chapters on those pleadings. the testimony the defendant's coun- 2 Hoe v. Wilson, 9 WalL 501. sel admitted that the title to the ' §§ 52, 53. See Keller v. Ashf ord, patent was in the complainant, it 133 U. S. 610, 626. was held that the objection was made 4 Rule 53. "Where a defendant in a too late and it was overruled. Cali- suit in equity for the infringement fornia El. Works v. Finck, 47 Fed. R. of a patent made objection for the 583. See also Hills v. Putnam, 152 first time at the argument upon final Mass. 123. hearing, that there was a defect of 8 Hunt v. Wickliffe, 2 Pet 201, 215. § 62.] OBJECTION' FOE JOINDER OF .IMPROPER PARTIES. 185 court of competent jurisdiction ; and if it should then appear by the judgment of such a court that the complainants have in equity a superior title to the omitted parties, proceed to a de- termination of the rights between the parties to the bill. 6 If, however, the complainant does not within a reasonable time amend his bill, or, if so allowed by the court, proceed against the omitted parties, the court may dismiss his bill; but such dismissal must be without prejudice. 7 "Where the defendant shall, by his answer, suggest that the bill is defective for want of parties, the plaintiff shall be at liberty, within fourteen days after answer filed, to set down the cause for argument upon that objection only; and the purpose for which the same is so set down shall be notified by an entry, to be made in the clerk's order-book, in the form or to the effect following (that is to say): 'set down upon the defendant's objection for want of parties.' And where the plaintiff shall not so set down his cause, but shall proceed therewith to a hearing, notwithstand- ing an objection for want, of parties taken by the answer, he shall not, at the hearing of the cause, if the defendant's objec- tion shall then be allowed, be entitled as of course to an order for liberty to amend his bill by adding parties, but the court, if it thinks fit, shall be at liberty to dismiss the bill." 8 A lack of proper parties is not a jurisdictional defect ; and therefore, if, pending the decision of the court, upon an objection for the omission of a party whose presence would oust the Circuit Court of jurisdiction, he dies, or his interest ceases, and the defect is thereby cured, the court will retain the bill. 9 It was held, where a defendant had removed a case, that he could not object to the absence of a party whose joinder would deprive the Federal court of jurisdiction. 10 §62. Objection for joinder of improper parties. — If per- sons are improperly joined as plaintiffs, all the defendants may demur. 1 If a person is joined as a plaintiff without his con- 6 Mallow v. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 198, 202, 208; Hinchmaii v. Paterson H. 198, 199. R. Co., 17 N. J. Eq. 76. 'Mallow v. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193, « Fisher v. Shropshire, 147 TJ. S. 199; Hunt v. Wickliffe, 2 Pet. 201, 133,145. 215. § 62. i Cuff v. Platell, 4 Russ. 242; 8 Rule 52. King of Spain t. Machado, 4 Russ. 'Harrison v. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. 225; Story's Eq. PI., g 544, 186 PABTIES. [§ 62. sent, he may on motion, or petition, upon notice to all parties, have his name stricken out, with costs to be paid by the plaint- iff who has improperly brought him into the suit. 2 Such re- lief has been granted upon petition after a decree for costs against the petitioners and the other persons named as com- plainants. 3 Where several complainants with a similarity but not a community of interest had joined in a bill, and the pres- ence of some of them deprived the Federal Court of jurisdic- tion, the one which had the right to sue the defendants there was allowed to amend the bill so as to make the other complain- ants additional defendants. 4 Where one of several complain- ants, whose interest is opposed to the others, undertakes to delay, harass, or impede the orderly progress of the cause, the court may order that he be made a defendant. 8 If a person having no interest in the controversy be improperly joined as defendant, he alone can demur, 6 unless the bill is multifarious; 7 and no notice of his demurrer need be given to the other defendants, 8 except in special cases where it is clearly for the latter's interest to retain him in the suit. If a misjoinder is apparent on the face of the bill it is more prudent to demur. If such an objection is not made till the hearing, the court may dis- regard it. 9 It cannot be raised for the first time upon appeal. 10 When a demurrer is sustained in favor of defendants improp- * Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 430; (N. Y.) 106; Seymour v. Freer, 8 Keppell v. Bailey, 2 M. & K. 517; Tit- Wall. 202, 218; Buerk v. Imhaeuser, terton v. Osborne, 1 Biokens, 350; 8 Fed. R 457; Mitzhener v. Robins Wilson v. Wilson, 1J. & W. 459. It (Miss.), 19 S. R 103. was held that a motion to dismiss the 7 Cherry v. Meuro, 2 Barb. Ch. 610 ; bill upon that ground should be de- infra, § 73. nied. Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 8 Anon., 9 Ves. 512; Hodson v. Ball, 5 Fla. 110. 11 Simons, 459; Calvert on Parties 3 McGeorge v. Bigstone Gap Imp. (2d ed.), 430. Co., 86 Fed. R 599. 9 Story v. Livingston, 13 Pet 359; * Insurance Co. of N. A. v. Svend- Eades v. Harris, 1 Y. & C. N. R 235; sen, 74 Fed. R 346. See Aylwus v. Raffety v. King, 1 Keen. 601; Mosley Bray, 2 Y. & Jer. 518, note. v. Taylor, cited in 1 Keen. 601 ; s. c, 2 »Lalance & G. Mfg. Co. v. Haber- Y. & J. 520; Calvert on Parties (2d man Mfg. Co., 93 Fed. R 197, 199. ed.), 156; Story's Eq. PL, § 544. As to the change of a defendant to 10 Livingston v. Woodworth, 15 a plaintiff, see Guinn v. Lee, 6 Pa. How. 546; Hayes v. Pratt, 147 U. a Super. Ct. 646. 557, 570. « Whitbeck v. Edgar, 2 Barb. Ch. § 62.] OBJECTION FOB JOINDEB OP IMPBOPEB PAETIE8. 187 erly joined as having no interest in the controversy, the plaint- iff will always be allowed to amend by striking out their names. 11 If the bill is dismissed for a misjoinder of complain- ants and one of them appears to have a good cause for equi- table relief, the dismissal must be without prejudice. 12 The subject of misjoinder is discussed in the next chapter under the head of " Multifariousness." u 11 Tryon ▼. Westminster Improve- 12 House v. Mullen, 23 WalL 42. ment Comm'rs, 6 Jurist (N. &), 1324 » Infra, §§ 71-75. CHAPTER IV. BILLS. § 63. Informations. — The first proceeding in a suit in equity is the preparation and filing of the first pleading. This was either an information, a bill, or an information and bill. In England the attorney-general or solicitor-general could file an information on behalf of the crown, or of those who either as idiots and lunatics partook of its prerogative, or whose rights, as those in charities, were under its particular protection. The law officers of the royal consort had the same right. If the suit did not immediately concern the rights of the crown, a re- lator, who sustained and directed the litigation, who it seems might prevent the discontinuance of the suit by the Attorney- General without his consent, and who was responsible for the costs, was usually joined with the officer in whose name it was filed. The main distinction between an information and a bill was that, whereas the latter was in the form of a petition to the court, in the former the officer that filed it stated the case by way not of petition or complaint, but of information to the court of the rights which the crown claimed on behalf of itself or others, and of the invasion or detention of those rights for which the suit is instituted. If the relator had a personal in- terest in the relief sought, his personal complaint was joined to and incorporated with the information given to the court by the officer of the crown; and the pleading was termed an information and bill. 1 The proceedings upon an information could only abate by the death or determination of interest of the defendant. If, however, the information were filed at the instance of one or more relators and all died, the court would not allow the cause to proceed till an order had been obtained giving leave to insert the name of a new relator, and one had § 63. iMitford's PL, ch. 1; Story's Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 1; a c, 27 N. J. Eq. Eq. PL, § 8; People v. North San 631; Newark Aqueduct Board v. Par- Francisco Ass'n, 38 CaL 564; Attor- son, 45 N. J. Eq. 394. ney-General v. Delaware & H. R § 63.] INTOEMATIOHS. 189 been inserted accordingly. Otherwise, proceedings upon in- formations were substantially the same as upon bills, except that great laxity of practice was permitted when informations were filed on hehalf of charities. 2 In the courts of the United States it has been held to be the proper practice for the gov- ernment to sue in equity in its own name by a bill similar to one filed by a private citizen ; 3 but a pleading styled an infor- mation filed on behalf of the United States, being in substance a bill, was sustained as such, 4 and so was one filed on behalf of the United States in his own name by the district attorney for the northern district of JSTew York. 6 In the suit brought by the State of Florida against the State of Georgia to settle the bound- ary between them, the Attorney-General of the United States was permitted to file an information praying " that he be per- mitted to appear in said case, and be heard in behalf of the United States, in such time and form as the court shall order; " and although permission for him to take testimony in the name of Florida with its consent was refused, it was " ordered that the Attorney-General have leave to adduce evidence, whether written or parol, and to examine witnesses and file their depo- sitions in order to establish the boundary claimed by the United States." 8 Informations have, however, been filed in equity in the courts of some of the individual States. These have been usually to abate public nuisances, 7 but one case was allowed to protect a charity which had no person directly interested quali- fied to defend its rights. 8 A State chancellor refused to enter- tain an information filed in the name of the State Attorney- General on the relation of an alleged imbecile to set aside a conveyance; but he allowed the paper to be converted by ^Mitford's PL, ch. 1; Story's Eq. S. C. as Hughes v. U. S., 4 Wall 233. PI., § 8. See Benton v. Woolsey, 12 Pet. 27. 'Benton v. Woolsey, 12 Pet. 27; s Benton v. Woolsey, 12 Pet 27. U. S. v. Hughes, 11 How. 552, 568; "Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478, S. c. as Hughes v. U. S., 4 Wall. 232; 480, 523. Miss. & Mo. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 7 Attorney-General v. Jamaica P. 485,492; U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., Aq. Co., 133 Mass. 361; Attorney- 98 U. S. 569; Moffat v. U. S., 112 TJ. S. General v. Hare, 50 Mich. 447; At- 24; U. S. v. Minor, 114 U. S. 233; U. S. torney-General v. Delaware & R B. ▼. Am. Bell TeL Co., 128 IT. S. 316; E. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 1; s. C, 27 N. J. infra, § 76. Eq. 631. *TJ. S. v. Hughes, 11 How. 552, 568; 8 Attorney-General v. Butler, 123 Mass. 306. 190 BILLS. [§ 64. amendment into a bill filed by the next friend of the alleged imbecile. 9 A State sues in a court of the United States by a bill in equity in its own name. 10 " When the United States comes into a court of equity as a suitor it is subject to the de- fenses peculiar to that court." u Such an information or bill should be filed in the name of the United States, not in the name of one of its law officers. 12 § 64. Definition and classification of bills. — The usual course, and the only one open to a private citizen, is the filing of a bill. The word " bill " is derived from the Latin libellus; and such a pleading is sometimes called an English bill; be- cause at the time when pleadings at common law were in Law Latin or Law French, it was as now written in the English language. 1 A bill is a petition addressed to the judges of a court of equity, containing a statement of the facts which in the plaintiff's opinion give him a right to sue, and concluding with a prayer for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. Quis, quid, coram quo, quo jure petatur, et a quo, Eeote oompositus quisque libellus habet. 2 Bills are divided by the books into three classes: original bills, bills not original, and bills in the nature of original bills. A fourth class, which may be termed original bills in the nature of bills not original, is recognized by the Federal courts. Orig- inal bills are those which relate to some matter not before liti- gated in the court at equity by the same parties standing in the same interests. Bills not original are those which relate to some matter already litigated in the court at equity by the , same parties, or their representatives, and which are either an addition to or a continuance of an original bill, or both. 8 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. 4 Original bills in the nature of bills not original are those having all the 9 Thompson v. Thompson, 6 Hous- 2 Com, Dig., Chancery, E 2; Story's ton (Del.), 225. Eq. PI., § 25. 10 Supra, % 14. 8 Quoted with approval in Anglo- 11 U. S. v. White, 17 Fed. K. 561, 565. Florida Phosphate Co. v. McKibben 12 Benton v. Woolsey, 12 Pet. 27. (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R. 529, 530, 531. §64. i Story's Eq. PL, §7. *Mitford's PL, oh 1, §2; Story's Eq. PL, § 16. § 64.] CLASSIFICATION OF BILLS. 191 characteristics of original bills, except that the Federal courts will take, jurisdiction of them without regard to the citizen- ship of the parties, or the other limitations of the original Federal jurisdiction. 5 Original bills are of two kinds: those which pray relief, and those which do not pray relief. Orig- inal bills which pray relief are said to belong to three classes: bills which pray the decree of the court concerning some right claimed by the plaintiff in opposition to some right claimed by the defendant, bills of interpleader, and bills of certiorari. Original bills not praying relief are of two kinds : bills to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses, and bills of discovery. Bills not original are bills of revivor, supple- mental bills, and bills of revivor and supplement. Bills in the nature of origiual bills are bills in the nature of supplemental bills, bills in the nature of bills of .revivor, cross-bills, bills of review, bills impeaching decrees upon the ground of fraud, bills to suspend the operation of decrees on special circum- stances or to avoid them on the ground of matter subsequent, and bills partaking of the qualities of some one or more of these bills. 6 If the court has jurisdiction of an original bill, it will take jurisdiction of bills not original, and bills in the nature of original bills growing out of the first suit, without regard to the citizenship of the parties thereto. 7 And in cer- tain other cases it will take jurisdiction of bills otherwise original which are so intimately connected with matters before the Federal court that it is in the interest of convenience and justice to have them disposed of before the same tribunal. 8 These may be named original bills in the nature of bills not original. Such is a bill to obtain a judicial construction of previous decrees; 9 a bill to obtain a determination of the rights of a claimant to a fund in the hands of a Federal marshal; 10 a bill to stay proceedings at law; ll and a bill to, set s Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 333; "Wall. 609; Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 Pacific R Co. of Mo. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. TJ. S. 276; Pacific R Co. of Mo. v. Co., Ill U. S. 505. See § 21. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., Ill U. S. 505; Con- 8 Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 tinental Tr. Co. v. Toledo, St.- L. & Wall. 609. See § 21. KGB. Co., 82 Fed. R 642; supra, § 21. 9 Ibid. «Mitford's PL, ch. 1, § 2; Story's >» Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. Eq. PI., §§ 16-24. 276; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450. 7 Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164; " Logan v. Patrick, 5 Cranch, 288; 192 bills. [§§ 65, 66. aside a decree. 12 The peculiarities in the form and the pro- cedure upon original bills not praying relief, bills not original, and bills in the nature of original bills, will be discussed in 'the latter part of this work. In this chapter, the form of original bills praying relief and, in the chapters immediately succeeding, the proceedings upon them, will be explained, beginning with the ordinary kind, — bills which seek relief concerning some right claimed by the plaintiff in opposition to one claimed by the defendant. § 65. Frame of a bill in equity. — Formerly, bills usually consisted of nine parts : the direction or address, the introduc- tion, the premises or stating part, the common-confederacy clause, the charging part, the jurisdiction clause, the interro- gating part, the prayer of relief, and the prayer of process. 1 Of these, however, the common-confederacy clause, alleging that the defendant or defendants are combining and confed- erating with some persons to the plaintiff unknown, whose names when discovered he prays leave to insert as defendants, which owed its origin to an idea that otherwise the bill could not be amended so as to add new defendants, and its retention to the practice of taxing costs according to the length of the documents filed; the charging part, alleging the defense which it anticipated would be made by the defendant, and the reply which the plaintiff intended to make thereto; and the juris- diction clause, alleging that the acts ofthe defendant which were complained of were contrary to equity, and that the plaintiff was without any remedy at law: were not even then considered necessary by the best authorities, 2 and by the equity rules they have been expressly declared superfluous. 3 §66. The address and introduction. — In England, a bill in chancery was required to be addressed to the person having the custody of the great seal, usually either the sovereign, or the Lord Chancellor, except when the Lord Chancellor himself was the complainant, when it was addressed to the sovereign Dunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1; Jones v. 2 Mitford's PL, ch. 1, § 3; Langdell's Andrews, 10 Wall. 327, 333; Dunlap Eq. PL, § 55; Story's Eq. PL, §§ 29, v. Stetson, 4 Mason, 349. 32, 33, 34; Comstock v. Herron, 45 12 Pacific E. Co. of Mo. v. Mo. Pac. Fed. E. 660. Ry. Co., Ill U. S. 505. a Eule 21. § 65. i Mitford's PL, oh. 1, § 3; Story's Eq. PL, S§ 26-48. § 66.] THE ADDKESS AND INTBODUOTION. 193 "in his high court of chancery." 1 In the United States, as a great seal is not, as in England, essential to the validity of writs in equity, a bill is addressed to the judge or judges of the court where it is filed. 2 The introduction formerly contained the names, descriptions, and residences of the complainants, to- gether with the character in which they sued, if in a represent- ative capacity, and such other allegations as were necessary to found tho jurisdiction of the court. 3 Sometimes" the names and descriptions of the defendants were also here inserted, but it was more usual to name them in the next part of the bill. 4 The equity rules regulate the subject as follows: "Every bill in the introductory part thereof shall contain the names, places of abode, and citizenship of all the parties, plaintiffs and de- fendants, 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. P., of , and a citizen of the State of . And thereupon your orator complains and says that,' etc." 5 An allegation of residence without an allegation of citizen- ship is insufficient. 6 If one of the parties is a corporation, the bill must state by or under the laws of what State it was cre- ated, and its members will then be conclusively presumed to be citizens of that State. 7 An allegation that a corporation is a cit- izen of , 8 or that it is " duly established by a law, having its principal place of business " 9 in a specified State, is insufficient. The pleading must allege that it was created by or under the § 66. 1 Mitford's PL, oh. 1, § 3; Sto- 6 Tug River C. &,& Co. v. Brigel, 67 ry's Eq. PL, § 26. Fed. R 625; Robertson v. Cease, 97 2 Rule 20. U. S. 646; Paoiflo Postal Tel. Co. v. 'Mitford's PL, ch. 1, § 8; Story's Irvine, 49 Fed R 113. Eq. PL § 26. 7 Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 4 Story's Eq. PL, §26. Cowim.Xeav- How. 404; Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. enworth v. Pepper, 32 Fed. R 718. 444; Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 » Rule 20; U. S. v. Pratt C. & C. Co., U. S. 118. 18 Fed. R 708; § 69. Where there 8 Lonergan v. Illinois Cent. R Co., are two districts in a State the bill 55 Fed. R 550; American S. R Co. v. must show in which district a party Johnson, 60 Fed. R 503; infra, § 385. resides. Harvey v. Richmond & M. »N. Y. & N. E. R Co. v." Hyde (C. Ry. Co., 64 Fed. R. 1ft C. A.), 56 Fed. R 188, 191. 13 194 bills. [§ 66. laws of such State, 10 or at least that it was organized n under the laws thereof. If one of the parties is an alien, the bill should aver that he is " a citizen and subject of a foreign State," specifying that State's name. 12 "Where a bill or a common-law pleading is filed or served subsequent to the commencement of the suit, it should aver the citizenship of the parties at the time the suit was commenced as well as in the present tense. 13 An allegation, that the State of which a party is a citizen is un- known, is insufficient when the jurisdiction is claimed for dif- ference of citizenship. 14 How advantage could be taken of an omission in the introduction of the residence of the parties, whether by demurrer or simply by a motion for security for costs, was, under the old practice, a doubtful question. 15 It has been held that a bill founded on the patent laws is not demur- rable for a failure to state the defendant's residence. 16 The bill is certainly demurrable if enough does not appear upon its face to show the court's jurisdiction. 17 It has been suggested that a defect in this respect in the introductory part of a bill is, it seems, not cured by an allegation in its title or caption. 13 It has been said that no one can be made a defendant under a fictitious name; u but in an English case where the parents of an infant, who was a necessary defendant to a bill, refused to have her baptized in order to interpose difficulties in the plaint- iff's way, Sir John Leach ordered that she should be described as the youngest female child of A. B. (naming her father) and C. D. (naming her mother). 20 Although this part of the bill should contain the statement that the complainant sues on be- half of others as well as himself, if he intends so to do, it has 10 Lonergan v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., "Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Ball. 382; 55 Fed. R. 550. Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148; U. S. ii Ward v. Blake Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), v. Pratt C. & C. Co., 18 Fed. R 708; 66 Fed. R 437. Lackey v. Newton Min. Co., 50 Fed. 12 Wilson v. City Bank, 3 Sumner, R. 634. 422. is Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet 148. "Lackey v. Newton Min. Co., 56 See Sharon v. Hill, 23 Fed. R. 353; Fed. R. 628. Railway Co. v. Ramsey, 22 Wall. 322; "Tug River G & S. Co. v. Brigel, Berger v. Sperry, 95 U. S. 401; Rob- 67 Fed. R. 625. ertson v. Cease, 97 U. S. 646; Gordon 15 Rowley v. Eccles, 1 Sim. & S. t. Third Nat. Bank, 144 U. S. 97. 511; DanielPs Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) w Kentucky S. Mining Co. v. Day, 409. 2 Sawyer C. C. 468. is Vermont Mach. Co. v. Gibson, 20 Ely v. Broughton, 2 Sim. & & 18& 50 Fed. R. 233. § 67.] THE NARRATIVE PART OF A BILL. 195 been suggested that this might not be necessary when his case is founded upon a statute " which itself gives that force and direction to the bill." 21 § 67. The narrative part of a bill. — The most important portion of a bill in equity is the narrative or stating part. This contains the plaintiff's cause of action. " It should set forth the plaintiff's case in a clear and distinct narrative, with the facts relied upon as the basis of the suit. For convenience, each paragraph should be numbered, so that the successive allegations may be readily referred to. 1 The object of old common-law pleading was to bring the matter in controversy to certain distinct issues. In equity pleading no such attempt is made. The statement of the plaintiff's case in the bill differs little in language or form from any other statement of facts which might be drawn up for the information of third parties, say an application to a government board. The defendant's answer usually admits, or denies, or qualifies seriatim each statement in the bill; and occasionally, before proceeding to notice the statement in detail, the defendant gives a general history of the case from his own point of view. The issues, both of fact and of law, are thus often involved in large masses ■of statement, and have to be selected, so to speak, by the judge who tries the cause, with the assistance of the arguments of counsel. It would be difficult to imagine a less technical docu- ment than a bill in equity." 2 The bill must contain every fact essential to the plaintiff's cause of action. For no evidence will be admitted or considered to prove any fact not alleged in it. 3 It must plead every fact essential to the rights of the plaintiff, and necessarily within his knowledge, positively, not upon in- formation and belief, 4 and with certainty. 5 Otherwise, it is 21 Irons v. Manufacturers' Nat. son v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148; Henry v. Bank, 17 Fed. R 308. Suttle, 42 Fed. R 91. See ch. XII on § 67. 1 An omission to do this will Amendments, not be a defect in pleading. 4 Lord Uxbridge v. Staveland, 1 2 Lectures before the Law School Ves. Sen. 56; Egremont v. Cowell, 5 of Boston University on Equity Beav. 620; Mitford's PL 40; Story's Pleading by Judge Dwight Foster, Eq. PL, §§ 255, 256. MS. See Hayne Eq. 70. 6 Harrison v. Dixon, 9 Pet. 483, 503; 8 Gordon v. Gordon, 3 Swanst. 400, Wormald v. De Lisle, 3 Beav. 18; 472; Miller v. Cotten, 5 Ga. 341, 346; Brooks & Hardy v. O'Hara Brothers, Wilson v.Stolley, 4 McLean, 275; 8 Fed. R 529; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Crocket v. Lee, 7 Wheat 522; Jack- Am. ed.) 421-425; infra, § 69. 196 bills. [§ 68. demurrable. An allegation that an event occurred on or about a certain specified day is, however, sufficient. 6 Less certainty is required concerning facts of which a discovery is sought from the defendant. 7 And facts not necessarily in the com- plainant's knowledge he may allege " as your orator is informed and believes, and therefore avers." 8 § 68. Scandal and impertinence. — "Every bill shall be ex- pressed in as brief and succinct terms as it reasonably can be and shall contain no unnecessary recitals of deeds, documents, contracts, or other instruments, m Time verba, or any other im- pertinent matter, or any scandalous matter not relevant to the suit." 1 'Tacts not material to the decision are impertinent, and if reproachful they are scandalous; and, perhaps, the best test by which to ascertain whether the matter be impertinent is to try whether the subject of the allegation could be put in issue, and would be matter proper to be given in evidence between the parties." 2 It is customary in bills seeking the protection or enforcement of rights depending upon compli- cated provisions of Federal or State statutes, to set forth such statutes either at length or according to their legal effect ; and when the complainant depends upon historical facts, of which the court will take judicial notice, to state such facts also. Sometimes former decisions of the courts are similarly pleaded. Although this practice is not strictly correct, it is still con- venient for the court as well as counsel, inasmuch as the case made by the bill is thereby made more easy of comprehen- sion. It seems that exceptions to such allegations for imperti- nence cannot be sustained. 3 Needless repetitions are imperti- « Richards v. Evans, 1 Ves. Sen. 39; E. 718; Kelley v. Boettcher (C. C. A.), Roberts v. Williams, 12 East, 33, 37; 85 Fed. R 553; Curran v. Campion, Leigh v. Leigh, Daniell's Ch. Pr. 369. 85 Fed. R. 67. 7 Towle v. Pierce, 12 Met. (Mass.) § 68. 1 Rule 26. 329, 332; Lafayette Co. v. Neely, 21 2 Chancellor Kent in Woods v. Mor- Fed. R 738. rell, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 103, at p. 106. See 8 Coryell v. Klehn, 157 111. 462; a C, also Hood v. Inman, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 41 N. E. R 64; WyckofE v. Wagner 437. For an illustration of scandal, T. Co., 88 Fed. R 515. An allegation see the record in U. S. v. Schurz, 103 " as your orator is informed and be- T7. S. 378. lieves" is insufficient. Ibid. So is a Wells v. Oregon Ry. & N. Co., an allegation upon belief. Rubber 15 Fed. R 561; s. C, 8 Sawyer, 600; T. Co. v. Davie, 100 Fed. R 85. But Allen v. O'Donald, 23 Fed. R 573; see Leavenworth v. Pepper, 32 Fed. Steam Gauge & Lantern Co. v. Mc- §68.] SCANDAL AND IMPERTINENCE. 197 nent. 4 If a bill contains scandalous or impertinent matter, " it 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 plaintiff, and he shall pay to the defendant all his costs in the suit up to that time, unless the court or a judge thereof shall other- wise order. If the master shall report that the bill is not scandalous or impertinent, the plaintiff shall be entitled to all costs occasioned by the reference." 5 " No order shall be made by any judge for referring any bill, answer, or pleading, or other matter or proceeding depending before the court, for scandal or impertinence, unless exceptions are taken in writ- ing and signed by counsel, describing the particular passages which are considered to be scandalous or impertinent; nor un- less 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 obtaining the order shall, without any unnecessary delay, procure the Roberts, 26 Fed. E 765. In a bill to enjoin the enforcement of an order of a State railroad commission for the reduction of railroad charges, an allegation that the reduction was made at the instance of the governor who was not a member of the com- mission; and quotations from his message to the legislature, and aver- ments that he had in an address to the commission attacked a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in violent language, were all held to be impertinent; but a state- ment of the action of the defendant's predecessors upon the same subject, and of the defendant's inaction against other railroad companies, was held to be relevant and not im- pertinent. Wilmington & W. E. Co. v. Board of R Com'rs, 90 Fed. E. 33. See Einstein v. Schnebley, 89 Fed. R 540. Upon a bill to restrain the in- fringement of a patent, averments as to decrees obtained by consent against strangers to the suit, and as to interference proceedings in the Patent Office with which defendants were not connected, were held to be impertinent. Western El. Co. v. Williams, Abbott EL Co., 83 Fed. R 842. 4 Kelly v. Boettcher, 85 Fed. E 55, 60; Norton v. Woods, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 260; Camden & A. E Co. v. Stewart, 19 N. J. Eq. 343; Nevada Nickel Syn- dicate v. National N. Co., 86 Fed. E 486. Allegations that a trustee was actuated by corrupt and improper motives are not scandalous or im- pertinent in a suit by the beneficia- ries to remove him. Portsmouth v. Fellows, 5 Mass. 450. In a bill to re- move the directors of a bank for pay- ing a loss resulting from an illegal loan made by the officers, it was held proper to allege the previous unlaw- ful management of the bank. Wilk- inson v. Dodd, 42 N. J. Eq. 234; s. C. as Dodd v. Wilkinson, 42 N. J. Eq. 647. 6 Rule 26. 198 BILLS. [§69. master to examine and report for the same on or before the next succeeding rule-day, or the master shall certify that fur- ther time is necessary for him to complete the examination." fr It has been held in England that a person not a party to the suit may, by leave of the court, file exceptions to a bill for scandalous matter reflecting upon himself. 7 The court may of its own motion expunge scandalous matter at any time. 8 Exceptions to a bill for impertinence cannot, however, be taken after answer. 9 It has been intimated in England that an ex- aminer might be made to pay the costs incurred by his taking down an impertinent answer by a witness. 10 Neither scandal nor impertinence, however gross, is a ground for demurrer, it being a maxim of pleading that utile per inutile non vitiatur. n It has been said that an exception for impertinence must be allowed in whole or not at all. 12 § 69. Certainty. — A bill must state the plaintiff's case with sufficient certainty. 1 The bill must state facts, not conclusions 6 Rule 27. See Camden & A. R Co. v. Stewart, 19 N. J. Eq. 343. 1 Williams v. Douglas, 5 Beav. 82; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 402. « Kelly v. Boettcher, 85 Fed. R 55; Ex parte Simpson, 15 Ves. 476; Dan- iell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 402, 403; Story's Eq. PL, § 270. See also Lang- don v. Goddard, 3 Story, 13. 9 Story's Eq. PI., §270. 10 Camden & A. R. Co. v. Stewart, 19 N. J. Eq. 343, 346. But see infra, §284 « Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 401. See also Pacific R. of Ma v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., Ill U.S. 505, 516, 522. i 2 Chapman v. School District, Deady, 108, 117, per Deady, J. For scandal and impertinence in answers, see infra, § 147. § 69. ! Thus a bill by a receiver of a national bank to recover for the loss caused to it by the negligence of its directors, which prays relief against the persons who acted as directors during various periods of time, together with the representa- tives of such as are dead, must " state the dates of the losses sustained by the corporation and the dates of the acts or omissions contributing to those losses, with sufficient certainty to inform each of the defendants with which and how many of the losses it is sought to charge him." Price v. Coleman, 21 Fed. R 357. For an insufficient allegation that plaint- iff was a bona fide purchaser of a note ' before its maturity, see Caesar v. Capell, 83 Fed. R 409. For a lack of certainty in allegations concerning the assignment of a patent, see Jaros H. U. Co. v. Fleece H. U. Co., 60 Fed. R 622. A bill to enjoin the enforce- ment as a lien upon land of a judg- ment entered a few days after com- plainant had begun to erect a build- ing upon such land under a contract which he claimed gave him priority under a mechanic's lien, was held de- murrable for lack of certainty be- cause it failed to set forth "the actual dates at which he commenced, carried on, and finished work and labor, and the actual dates on which he furnished materials," in order that the court might determine the valid- ity and extent and right to priority §69.] CERTAINTY. 199 of law, which will be disregarded by the court. 8 Thus, a gen- eral charge of fraud is not sufficient, but it must allege the specific acts or language which constitute the fraud. 3 All the evidence of the fraud need not be pleaded. 4 It is sufficient if the main facts or incidents which constitute the fraud against which relief is desired are fairly stated so as to put the defend- ant upon his guard and apprise him of what answer may be required of him. 5 An allegation of a fraudulent intent was held to be an allegation of a fact. 6 A bill for relief from an of the lien he claimed. McKee v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 41 Fed. E. 117, 119. An allegation that a song formed a material part of a dramatic compo- sition was held fatally indefinite be- cause it failed to say whether the pleader intended merely the words of the song, which were set out in the bill, or also the music to which they were sung. Henderson v. Tompkins, 60 Fed. R 758, 765. 2 Harper v. Hill, 35 Miss. 63. 'Gilbert v. Lewis, 1 De G. J. & Sm. 38, 49; Bryan v. Spruill, 4 Jones Eq. (N. C), 27; U. S. v. Atherton, 102 U. S. 372; U. S. v. Norsch, 42 Fed. E. 417. But see Field v. Hastings & Bradley Co., 65 Fed. R. 279; Kittel v. Augusta, T. & G. R Co., 65 Fed. R. 859; Patton> v. Glatz, 56 Fed. R. 367. See infra, § 106. A bill to set aside a decree for fraud must specifically state the manner in which the im- position was practiced upon the court. U. S. v. Norsch, 42 Fed. R. 417. A bill to set aside a land patent on account of fraud or mistake must state the particulars of the fraud, the names of those engaged therein, the officers who were deceived and the manner in which the mistake occurred. XJ. S. v. Atherton, 102 U. S. 372. But see U. S. v. .Am. Bell Tel. Co., 128 U. S. 315. A bill to enjoin the erection of a county vault, which avers that the commissioners who let the contract "were imposed upon by false and fraudulent representation made to them by . . . the contractor and carpenter, as to the character, quality, and cost of the material, of said vault," does not show with sufficient definiteness what repre- sentations were made; and an aver- ment "that said contract or agree- ment was made by collusion or agree- ment between said A and co-respond- ents, or some of them, in order to give said A an undue advantage in the erection of the vault over any other persons, to the great dam- age and injury of the county," is insufficient as failing to set out the facts constituting collusion. Hays v. Alrichs, 115 Ala. 239; s. C, 22 S. R. 465. See Moore v. Hawkins, 19 How. 69. *U. S. v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 128 U. S. 315, 316. It has been held that, a creditor's bill for an injunction and a receiver, because of the fraudulent disposition of assets, need not de- scribe the assets, Shainwaldv. Lewis, 6 Fed. R. 766, 775. »U. S. v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 128 U. S. 315, 316. 8 Piatt v. Mead, 9 Fed. R 91. In a suit for a conveyance of land, it was held to be sufficient to allege that the defendant, while plaintiff's agent, proposed that she convey the prop- erty to him for the purposes of its management, and promised that he would reconvey it upon demand, which promise he then had no inten- tion of performing, but made in order to fraudulently procure the land; and that she was induced by his 200 BILLS. [§69. old fraud must state the time of the discovery of the fraud, the reason why it was not discovered earlier, the means used by the defendant to conceal it, the manner in which it was learned, and the diligence with which the transaction was in- vestigated. 7 A general allegation of concealment and igno- promise and representations to make the transfer. Alaniz v. Casenave, 91 CaL 41. See also Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79; Peck v. Vinson, 124 Ind. 12; Lawrence v. Cfayetty, 78 Cal. 126. An averment that one B. was from infancy of unsound mind, and that his mother and her legal adviser pro- cured a deed from him for a grossly inadequate consideration, which was never paid, is a sufficient averment of fraud. Rhino v. Emery (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R. 382. The allegation that a decedent, when very feeble both in mind and body, was persuaded and induced through some undue and improper influence, unknown to complainants, to execute a deed, was held to be in- sufficient. Jackson v. Rowell, 87 Ala. 685. But see Mott v. Mott,68 N. Y. 246; S. C, 22 AtL R 797, cited infra, § 70. A bill alleged " that the bank was insolvent on the 5th day of May; that this was well known to its offi- cers; that it wrongfully neglected to disclose its insolvency to com- plainant, and, by continuing busi- ness and otherwise, represented to complainant and all other persons dealing with it, that it was solvent; that complainant, on the faith of these representations, believed such to be the fact, without suspicion that the bank was, or was in danger of becoming, insolvent; that, acting upon the representations, and rely- ing on the bank's solvency, com- plainant delivered the draft; that next morning the bank closed its doors, and the draft was colleoted thereafter; and that, by reason of the premises, the draft or its pro- ceeds did not become the property ' of the bank." These allegations were held sufficient to charge fraud. " The omission to state in the pleading the degree of insolvency which rendered the bank's conduct fraudulent was not fatal, as the conclusion asserted showed the intention of the pleader." St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 133 U. S. 566, 577, 578. On a bill 'against the officers of a bank for damages caused by the bad management of its affairs, it was held that specific allegations, which in themselves might not be suffi- cient, when supported by general allegations of misconduct and negli- gence, made out a case for relief. Ackerman v. Halsey, 37 N. J. Eq. 336; s. C, 38 N. J. Eq. 501. A bill by a stockholder seeking dis- solution of a corporation and ac- counting, alleged that business had been suspended, "among other things," because of the worthlessness of a patent under which it had been carried on, but without stating that that was the controlling reason; that the officers were misapplying the funds, but without stating that any effort had been made to have the corporation bring suit; that" the officers had tampered with the books, but without stating in what manner; that certain assets had not been entered in the books, but with- out charging concealment or inten- tional wrong. It was held that the allegations were too general and in- definite to justify granting relief. Watson v. U. S. Sugar Refinery (O. C. A.), 68 Fed. R 769. 'Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall 95; § 69.] OEETAINTT. 201 ranee is insufficient. 8 It is insufficient to allege that the de- fendant is a trustee, -without stating the facts that show how the trust arose. 9 An allegation that a defendant corporation is about to exceed its powers is insufficient. The bill must show what acts are threatened, and why they exceed the pow- ers of the corporation. 10 It has been said that as much cer- tainty is required in a bill by a stockholder to enforce a corpo- rate right as in a bill by the corporation for the same purpose. 11 " The pleader should state the facts, and not formulate mere epithetic 'charges.' . . . If the facts are not to be ascer- tained by diligence, or because of some obstruction, or if the evidence of them is in possession of the other side, this should be made to appear, with technical averments showing the necessity of discovery, when -that is wanted ; but a court cannot sustain a bill upon mere denunciatory statements of the plaintiff's suspicions or belief. The best pleadings are those which state the inculpatory facts that carry with them . their own conviction of the fraud, and by which the wrong- doing appears, without much necessity for characterizing it as such." 13 The bill should usually state facts and not evidence. 13 The English rule was that no admissions, whether written or oral, could be given in evidence unless they had been specifically charged in the bill. 14 In this country, however, though the point has never been decided by the Supreme Court, we have the authority of Judge Story, holding that such a practice is unnecessary. 15 So, according to Professor Langdell, " when a bill charges a defendant with having had notice, or with hav- ing committed a fraud, or with insanity, or drunkenness, or Hubbard v. Manhattan Trust Co. (C. u Whitney v. Fairbanks, 54 Fed. R. C. A.), 87 Fed. E. 51. See Bangs v. 985. Loveridge, 60 Fed. R 963. 12 Lafayette Co. v. Neely, 21 Fed. 8 Ibid. Where, as an excuse for R 738. laches, it is alleged that negotiations M Note 4, supra, were pending from which plaintiff ^Hall v. Maltby, 6 Price, S40; hoped to obtain a settlement, the Evans v. Bicknell, 6 Ves. 183; Austin bill should allege that his adversary v. Chambers, 6 CL & Fin. 38; Story's encouraged such hope. Mackall v. Eg. PL 265. Casilear, 137 U. S. 556, 567. 15 Smith v. Burnham, 2 Sumn. C. 9 Evan v. Avon, 29 Beav. 144 C. 613; Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story io Leo v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 19 C. C. 181, 283, 284; Story's Eq. PL, Fed. R. 283. § 2 ^- 202 bills. [§ 70. lewdness, or misconduct in office, if the plaintiff intends to prove specific acts of notice, or of fraud, insanity, drunkenness, lewdness, or misconduct in office, it seems that such acts should be specifically charged in the bill. But this view is not fully supported by authority. It may also be stated generally, that whenever the plaintiff has evidence which is likely to take the defendant by surprise, it is the safer course to indicate its nat- ure in the bill, rather than to run the risk of having it objected to at the hearing." IS But as the cases upon the authority of which he made these statements were decided when each party's evidence was unknown to the other until the hear- ing, — a method of taking testimony long since disused, 17 — it is not likely that the courts would be as strict now as formerly in requiring such evidence to be pleaded. 18 Objections to a bill for lack of certainty should be raised by demurrer, or else they will usually be held to have been waived. 19 § 70. Inconsistency and bills with a double aspect A bill must not state two inconsistent states of fact and ask relief in the alternative. But it may state the facts and ask relief in the alternative according to the conclusion of law that the court may draw from them, so that if one kind of relief sought be denied, another may be granted; and it may state facts of a different nature not inconsistent with each other, and equally supporting the prayer for relief. In both of these cases a bill is said to have " a double aspect." ' Thus, a bil' may state facts constituting an attempt to form a new corporation by the con- solidation of two already existing, and pray that, if the new corporation have a legal existence, the plaintiff may be de- clared entitled to a certain number of shares therein, otherwise to a corresponding interest in the stock of one of the old com- panies. 2 The complainant may seek to quiet the title to lands, w Langdell's Eq. PI., § 60. See "Wes- 130, 144; Halsey v. Goddard, 86 Fed. ton v. Empire Assurance Corpora- R.25; Story'sEq. PL, §426, note, §254, tion, L. R. 6 Eq. 28; Clark v. Periam, 2 Kilgour v. New Orleans Gas-Light 2 Atk. 337; Shepherd v. Morris, 4 Co., 2 Woods, 144, 148. A bill to en- Beav. 252. join the infringement of a copy- 17 See Amendments to Rule 67, and right may set forth an agreement infra, chapter XIX, on Evidence. between the author and the plaint- is See Smith v. Burnham, 2 Sumn. iff, and then allege that if such agree- C. C. 612, 622; Story's Eq. PL, § 265a. ment does not constitute an assign- M Infra, § 110. ment of the copyright, it is an ex- § 70. ! Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. elusive license. Black v. Henry G. §70.] INCONSISTENCY — BILLS WITH DOUBLE ASPECT. 203 claiming either as devisee or as heir-at-law. 8 A bill may con- tain a prayer that an agreement be either set aside as obtained by fraud, or else specifically enforced, 4 or that the defendant either restore property obtained by fraud, or else pay the value of the same. 5 "When the complainant alleged that a decree which he wishes to set aside was obtained either by mistake of all the parties, or by deception practiced upon himself, or by collusion of the defendant with third parties, the bill was held to be demurrable for indefiniteness. 6 " To allege that a sale is simulated, and if not simulated is fraudulent, meaning thereby it is a sham sale, and if not a sham then a real sale, but fraudulent, may be consistent, but it is not certain; and certainty is a requisite in equity pleading as well as consist- ency. It seems to me that, if there is doubt as to the nature of the transaction, the creditor, who has ' to strike in the dark,' Allen Co., 42 Fed. R 618, 623. See Chaffin v. Hull, 39 Fed. R 877. The averment " that if said intention is true, which is denied, then the said State law, to wit, the Act of No. 85 of 1888, is null and void, because it operates as a discrimination against the shareholders of national banks, in violation of the express terms of section 5219 of the Revised Statutes of the United States,'' is sufficient to raise the issue whether there is in the act any discrimination prohib- ited by the act of Congress. Whitney Nat. Bank v. Parker, 41 Fed. R. 402, 406. s Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619, 643. * Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 756. But see Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 143; St. Louis, V. & T. H. R Co. v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co., 33 Fed. R 440, 448. A bill was sustained when filed by one partner against another praying for specific perform- ance of a contract for the sale of land, or else for an account of the partnership debts, and a .charge of their amount upon the land as be- longing to the assets of the firm. Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. 173. It was held that a bill was not demurrable for multifariousness, or as based on antagonistic rights, which alleged that a mortgage debt was paid be- fore the mortgage was foreclosed under a power of sale, and asked that the mortgage and deed be canceled, and, at the same time, asked that the sale be set aside because the mort- gagee became the purchaser at his own sale. Dickerson v. Winslow, 97 Ala. 491 ; s. C, 11 S. R 918. But see Cut ler v. Iowa Water Co., 96 Fed. R 777. If the plaintiff wish to set aside a deed on account of fraud, imposition, and undue influence, he may allege both that the maker was insane and that he had a great imbecility of mind. Story's Eq. PI., § 254; 'Ben- net v. Vade, 2 Atk. 325; Colton v. Ross, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 396; Lloyd v. Brewster, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 537; Mott v. Mott, 49 N. J. Eq. 177; S. C, 22 AtL R. 997. But see Jackson v. Rowell, 87 Ala. 685; supra, § 69. s Hubbard v. Urton, 67 Fed. R 419. But see Alger v. Anderson, 92 Fed. R 696. e Brooks v. O'Hara, 8 Fed. R 529; S. c, 2 McCrary, 644. But see Will- iams v. U. &, 138 17. S. 514, 517. 204: BILLS. [§70. should charge a fraudulent simulation, and on discovery amend if necessary." 7 It was held in England that a bill may not pray relief primarily against one of two defendants, and, in case the court should hold him free from liability, then against the other. 8 A bill is bad when it contains two alternative claims each belonging to several persons, of whom one has no inter- est in one claim, and others have no interest in the other. 9 A bill should not pray in the alternative legal and equitable re- 7 Pardee, J., in Socola v. Grant, 15 Fed. R 487, 489. A bill by a judgment creditor of a railroad company, against that and another railroad company, to redeem property in the possession of the lat- ter company as mortgagee, on the ground that such possession was fraudulently acquired, and also to subject to the payment of the judg- ment certain bonds about to be issued by the latter, to the officers of the former company, in order to confirm the title to such property, was held to be bad as multifarious. Merri- man v. Chicago & E. L R Co. (G. C. A.), 64 Fed. R 535, 550, 551, per , Baker, D. J. The court said: " If the appellant's case was solely that the Eastern Illinois Company has no title to the property of the Danville Com- pany, they might pray for various forms of alternative relief consistent with that case; but they cannot in the same bill make a case that it has no title, and also a case that it has a title, and then ask for inconsistent relief according to the different cases thus made. -Such course of proced- ure we do not understand is war- ranted by the doctrine of alternative relief. Such are alternative cases, and not cases of alternative relief. They are inconsistent, for a decree of one of those forms of relief would proceed upon a theory fatal to the other form of relief." Where a bank filed a bill to fore- close a mortgage and to restrain a sale of the mortgaged property to satisfy a judgment obtained against it by another, and the holder of the judgment thereupon filed an answer and cross-bill alleging that the mort- gage had been withheld from record in fraud of creditors, and praying that the property be sold to satisfy the judgment, and the complainants filed an amendment alleging that, previous to the recovery of the said judgment, they themselves had re- covered a judgment upon an indebt- edness separate and distinct from the mortgage indebtedness, and that if their mortgage was invalid they had a prior lien under this judgment; it was held that the bill was demurrable for multifariousness. Mobile Savings Bank v. Burke (Ala.), 10 S. R 328. Where a bill prayed specific per- formance of a contract in relation to certain patents, and also contained expressions looking for relief by an injunction against an infringement of a patent, it was, held that it could not be maintained for the latter re- lief as a bill with a double aspect, since the necessary parties must be different in each case. Am. Box Mach. Co. v. Crosman, 57 Fed. R 1021. See Magic R Co. v. Elm City Co., 13 Blatch. 151; Halsey v. Goddard, 86 Fed. R 25. 8 Clark v. Lord Rivers, L. R 5 Eq. 91, 97. But see Kilgour v. New Or- leans G. L. Co., 2 Woods, 144, 148. 8 Stebbins v. St. Anne, 116 U. S. 386. § 71.] MULTIFARIOUSNESS IN GENERAL. 205 lief. 10 " When the pleadings are so framed as to rest the claim for relief solely on the ground of fraud, it is not open to the plaintiff, if he fails in establishing the fraud, to pick out from the allegations of the bill facts which might, if not put for- ward as proofs of fraud, have yet warranted the plaintiff in asking for relief. A defendant in answering a case not founded on fraud is not bound to do more than answer the case in the mode in which it is put forward. If, indeed, relief is asked alternatively, either on the ground of fraud, or, failing on that ground, on some other equity, a plaintiff failing on the first may succeed on the latter alternative. But then the attention of the defendant has been distinctly called to it, and he has been called upon to answer the case according to both alter- natives. If is the duty of the judge to determine whether the two are so interwoven with each other that, on the failure of proof of fraud, it is impossible to treat the facts as separate allegations, justifying a separate mode of dealing with them." " This objection cannot be raised for the first time upon an ap- peal. 12 When a bill alleges both fraud and mistake, if the latter alone is proved the bill will be sustained. 18 § 71. Multifariousness in general. — A bill must not be multifarious. Multifariousness consists in the joinder of two or more distinct and unconnected grounds for equitable relief, each of which might be the foundation for a separate bill. This may occur in three ways, — by a misjoinder of plaintiffs, by a misjoinder of defendants, and by a misjoinder of grounds for equitable relief held by and against the same parties. 1 " To lay down any rule applicable universally, or to say what constitutes multifariousness as an abstract proposition, is, upon the authorities, utterly impossible. The cases upon the sub- io Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kan- wood, L. R. 2 App. Cases, 215; Price sas Ry. Co., 135 U. S. 641, 651; Alger v. Berrington, 2 Macn. & G. 486, 498; v. Anderson, 92 Fed. N R. 696. Dashiell v. Grosvenor (C. C. A), 66 11 Dwight Foster's Lectures on Fed. R. 334; Grosvenor v. Dashiell, 62 Equity Pleading, MS.; Eyre v. Pot- Fed. R. 584; Brown v. Davis (C. C. A), ter, 15 How. 42, 56; Britton v. Brews- 62 Fed. R. 519. ter, 2 Fed. R. 160; French v. Shoe- 12 Wasatch Min. Co. v. Creston Min. maker, 14 Wall. 314, 335; Fisher v. Co., 148 U. S. 283. Boody, 1 Curt. 206; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 27 "Williams v. U. S., 138 U. S. 514, N. J. Eq. 399; Wilde v. Gibson, 1 H. 517. of L. Cases, 605; Hickson v. Lombard, § 71. l Calvert on Parties, Book L L. R. 1 H. of L. 326; Thomson v. East- ch. vii. 206 BILLS. [§ 71. ject are extremely various, and the court in deciding them seems to have considered what was convenient in particular circumstances, rather than to have attempted to lay down any absolute rule." 2 " The only way of reconciling the authorities upon the subject is by adverting to the fact that, although the books speak generally of demurrers for multifariousness, yet in truth such demurrers may be divided into two distinct kinds. Frequently the objection raised, though termed multi- fariousness, is in fact more properly misjoinder; that is to say, the cases or claims united in the bill are of so different a char- acter that the court will not permit them to be litigated in one record. It may be that the plaintiffs and defendants are par- ties to the whole of the transactions which form the subject of the suit, and nevertheless these transactions may be so dissimi- lar that the court will not allow them to be joined together, but will require distinct records. But what is more familiarly understood by the term ' multifariousness,' as applied to a bill, is where a party is able to say he is brought as a defendant upon a record, with a large portion of which, and of the case made by which, he has no connection whatever." s There is, however, little practicable good to be obtained from a main- tenance of this distinction except as a means of elucidating some of the expressions in the earlier authorities. 4 " The de- cisions on this subject are contradictory and unsatisfactory. The common-sense rule in such cases is that an individual shall not be called to maintain his title or shall not assert it in con- nection with others to which it has no analogy, and in the investigation of which the costs and complexity of the case will be increased." 5 2 Lord Cottenham in Campbell v. section 292, was quoted with ap- Mackay, 1 M. & Cr. 603, 618. proval by Judge Jenkins in Von 8 Lord Cottenham in Campbell v. Auw v. Chicago T. & F. G. Co., 69 Mackay, 1 M. & Cr. 603, 618. Ap- Fed. R. 448: " To make a bill demur- proved in Shields v. Thomas, 18 How. rable for multifariousness it must 253, 259. contain all of the following char- 4 See Calvert on Parties, Book I, acteristics. First, two or more causes ch. vii. of action must be joined against two 5 McLean, J., in Turner v. Am. Bap- or more defendants; second, these tist Missionary Union, 6 McLean, 344, causes of action must have no con- 349. nection or common origin, but must The following rule laid down by be separate and independent; third, Mr. Gibson in his Suits in Chancery, the evidence pertinent to one or § 72.] MULTIFAKIOUSNESS BY MISJOINDEB OF PLAINTIFFS. 207 § 72. Multifariousness by misjoinder of plaintiffs.— No- persons can unite as complainants in a bill in equity unless they have a joint or common interest in obtaining the same re- lief. 1 Thus, if one of them has no interest in the relief claimed, the bill is demurrable. 2 Those who claim the return of money paid by them severally on distinct promissory notes cannot join their claims in the same bill; 3 nor can several creditors claiming under several obligations unite in a suit to attach the debts of an absent debtor. 4 Persons T,*ho were defrauded of stock in a corporation by the same parties who promised it to them before the organization of the corporation cannot join in a bill to compel the issue of the stock to each of them. 6 Per- sons who have been separately indicted for similar acts com- mitted while acting as agents for the same principal cannot join in a bill' to enjoin the further prosecution of the indict- ments. 6 But in a bill to compel specific performance of a de- cree in a former suit, all the complainants in the first suit may join as plaintiffs, though the decree sought to be enforced orders the payment of specific sums severally to each of them ; 7 more of the causes must be wholly impertinent as to the other or oth- ers; fourth, one or more of the causes of action must be capable of being fully determined without bringing in other cause or causes to adjust any of the legal or equitable rights of the parties; fifth, the decree as to one or more of the separate or independent causes must be conclusive against one or more of the defendants, and the decree proper, as to the other cause or causes, must be conclusive against the other defendants or defendant; sixth, the relief proper against one or more of the defendants in one or more of the separate and independ- ent causes of action must be distinct from the relief proper against the other defendant or defendants of the other cause of action; seventh, the satisfaction of the proper decree by any of the defendants to the ex- tent of his alleged liability on any one or more of the distinct causes of action must not be a satisfaction of a proper decree against the other de- fendant or defendants, or the other cause or causes of action; and eighth, the multifariousness must be ap- parent, and the misjoinder of dis- tinct causes of action manifest." §72. 1 Story's Eq. PL, § 279; Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 105, 110. 2 Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245, 249; Doggett v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 72. 8 Yeaton v. Lenox, 8 Pet. 123. 4 Ibid. But see Norris v. Hassler, ,22 Fed. R. 401; Langdon v. Branch, 37 Fed. R. 449. 6 Summerlin v. Fronterizac S. M. & M. Co., 41 Fed. R. 249. 6 Woolstein v.Welch, 42 Fed. R 566. 'Shields v. Thomas, 18 How. 253. It has been held that this rule does not extend to a bill for specific per- formance of a contract to convey real estate in which the complain- ants hold distinct rights to separate lots. Marselis v. Morris & L. Co., 1 N. J. Eq.31, 39. 208 bills. [§ 72. and several fire insurance companies were allowed to unite in a bill to set aside one award against them upon an arbitration of claims by the same person under several policies. 8 Plaint- iffs with conflicting interests cannot so join. 9 Such are, in a suit for the construction of a will, persons, each of whom is interested in having a' different construction put upon it. 10 Nor can two join in a bill to set aside a fraudulent convey- ance of land, of whom one claims the land as a creditor of the person who has made the conveyance, and the other as the pur- chaser of the land upon a sheriff's sale to satisfy a judgment held by him. 11 So, a bill was held to be multifarious which sought to enforce a trust in that land and also to give the title of one of the complainants to the same land. 12 But the inter- ests of the complainants need not be co-extensive. Thus, a tenant for life and the remaindermen of an estate, either legal or equitable, may join in a suit to protect the estate. 13 Al- though usually there must be some privity between the com- plainants in a bill, yet in certain cases those between whom there is no privity are allowed to sue together when they seek to avert an injury which will affect them all alike. Thus, sev- eral tenants or parishioners may unite in a bill of peace seek- ing to dispose of a disputed right claimed against them by the lord of the manor 14 or the parson of the parish. 15 And the owners of several lots of land claiming under a common source of title may unite in a bill of peace against several other claim- ants to the same lots, who also rely upon a common source of 8 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Bonner, the sale on the ground of inadequacy 44 Fed. R 151. of price. Peabody v. Westerly Wa- »Walker v. Powers, 104 U. a 245; terworks (R I., 1897), 37 Atl. R 807. Saumarez v. Saumarez, 4 Mylne & 10 Parsons v. Lyman, 4 Blatchf. C. Cr. 331, 336; Parsons v. Lyman, 4 C. 432; Saumarez v. Saumarez, 4 M. Blatchf. C. C. 432; Bell v. Cureton, 2 & Cr. 331, 336. M. & K 503;' Stebbins v. St. Anne, " Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245. 116 U. S. 386; Brown v. Bedford City 12 Leslie v. Leslie, 84 Fed. R. 70. L. & L Co. (Va.), 20 S. E. R 968. A « Story's Eq. PI., § 279a; Bucke- bill was held multifarious where all ridge v. Glasse, 1 Cr. & Phill. 126; the complainants sought as taxpay- Calvert on Parties (2d ed.),99; Rainey ers to enjoin a defendant town from v. Herbert (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 443. purchasing the plant of a defendant 14 Anon., 1 Chan. Cas. 269; Smith waterworks company, and one com- v. Earl Brownlow, L. R. 9 Eq. 241. plainant further sought, as a stock- 15 Rudge v. Hopkins, 2 Eq. Cas. bolder in that company, to enjoin Abr. 70. § 72.] MULTIFARIOUSNESS BY MISJOINDER OF PLAINTIFFS. 209 title adverse to that of the complainant. 16 Several owners of different lots of land who have a common interest in an ease- ment derived from the same source may unite in a suit to en- join the obstruction of the easement. 17 Several claimants in possession of several parcels of land whose rights depend upon the same question of fact or law may unite in a bill of peace against the same defendant who claims title to all the land by reason of the same disputed facts or legal proposition. 18 The owners of adjacent property may join in a bill in equity to enjoin a defendant from erecting a livery-stable, 19 an unauthor- ized street railroad 20 or other nuisance in their vicinity. But another case holds that different persons, each of whom will suffer a distinct injury from the levy of a tax, cannot unite in a bill to enjoin its levy on account of its alleged unconstitution- ality. 21 Several stockholders who had been compelled to pay corporate debts were allowed to join in a bill against another stockholder to compel him to contribute his proportion, 22 and several persons who had been induced by identical fraudulent misrepresentations to subscribe to stock in a corporation were allowed in Yirginia to join in a suit to cancel their subscrip- tions. 23 It was held in New York, where the plaintiff prayed the same relief both individually and as executor upon the same cause of action, which appeared upon the face of his com- plaint to be for the benefit of the testator's estate, that there was no misjoinder of parties or of causes of action. 24 It has 16 Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352 ; 461 ; S. a, 21 Atl. R. 41. See Union Mill Pi entice v. Duluth S. & F. Co. (C. C. & M. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. R. 73. A.), 58 Fed. R. 437. It has been held 18 Osborne v. Wisconsin Cent. R. that the pastor and some of the Co., 43 Fed. R 824 See Central Pac. members of a religious association R. Co. v. Dyer, 1 Saw. 641; infra, § 73. may unite in a suit to recover posses- 19 Flint v. Russell, 5 Dill. 151. See sion of the church and parsonage, to also Parker v. Nightingale, 6 Allen enjoin the trustees and the remain- (Mass.), 341. Contra, Hudson v. Mad- der of the congregation from inter- ison, 12 Simons, 416. fering with each in his ecclesiastical 20 Rafferty v. Central Tr. Co. (Pa. rights; and also to compel an ao S. C), 23 Atl. R 884. counting for collections taken up, 21 Cutting v. Gilbert, 5 Blatchf. C. which are payable to the elder and C. 259. See, however, Central Pac. pastor as ualary. Fuchs v. Meisel, R. Co. v. Dyer, 1 Saw. 641; Union 113 Mich. 559; S. C, 60 N. W. R. 773. Pac. R. Co. v. McShane, 3 Dill. 303. But see Douglass v. Boardman, 113 22 Allen v. Fairbanks, 45 Fed. R 445, Mich. 618; s, c, 7,1 N. W. R. 1100. 2 3Rader v. Bristol Land Co. (Va.), « Springer r. Lawrence, 47 N. J. Eq. 27 S. E. R. 590. 14 24 Moss v. Cohen, 158 N. Y. 240. 210 BILLS. [§ 73. been said that the fact that separate decrees may be requisite in order to afford complete relief does not necessarily make the bill multifarious. 25 § 73. Multifariousness by misjoinder of defendants.— No persons can be joined as defendants to a bill in equity who have not a jojnt or common interest in opposing the relief prayed. l - Different relief may, however, be obtained against different de- fendants when the bill seeks to prevent or annul the effect of acts in pursuance of a common scheme, or so connected with each other as to form part of the same transaction. 2 The rule was thus stated by Sir John Leach: "In order to determine Whether a suit is multifarious, or, in other words, contains dis- tinct matters, the inquiry is not, as this defendant supposes, 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 per- sons have separate interests in distinct questions which arise out of that single object, it necessarily follows that such dif- ferent persons must be brought before the court, in order that the suit may conclude the whole object." 3 "The entirety of the case against one defendant constitutes the connecting link." 4 But a bill is multifarious, when the charge against one defends ant is in no way connected with those against other defend- ants. 5 A bill is multifarious which seeks both to foreclose a ' mortgage and to restrain another defendant from asserting a 25 Neal v. Rathell, 70 Md. 592; S. C, 843; Criokard v. Crouch's Adm'rs, 41 17 Atl. R. 566. W. Va. 503; s. G, 23 S. E. R. 727; Mid- § 73. 1 Calvert on Parties, Book I, dletown Sav. Bank v. Bacharach, 46 ch. vii; U. S. v. Alexander, 4 Cranch, Conn. 513. But see Washington City, C. C. 311. Sav. Bank v. Thornton, 83 Va. 157; 2 Calvert on Parties, Book L ch. vii; Buffalo v. Town of Pocahontas, 85 Manners v. Rowley, 10 Simons, 470. Va. 222; Sylvester v. Boyd, 166 Mass. 3 Salvidge v. Hyde, 5 Maddock, 138, .445; S. c, 44 N. E. R. 343; Staude v. 146. Keck, 92 Va. 544; s. c, 24 S. E. R. 227. * Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 98, 6 Wood v. Dummer, 3 Mason, 308; quoting Sir John Leach in Turner v. West v. Randall, 2 Mason, 181, 200; Robinson, 1 Sim. & S. 313; and Lord Lewarne v. Mexican Int. I. Co., 38 Cottenham in Attorney-General v. Fed. R 620; Seales v. Pheiffer, 77 Corporation of Poole, 4 M. & Cr. 17, Ala. 278; Sumter County v. Mitch- 31; Halsey v. Goddard, 86 Fed. R. 25; ell, 85 Ala.' 313; Van Houten v. Van Porter v. Robinson (Va.), 22 S. E R Winkle, 46 N. J. Eq. 380. § 73.] MULl IFARIOUSNESS BY MISJOINDER OF DEFENDANTS. 211 claim of titlo adverse to both mortgagee and mortgagor, 6 at least when such adverse title occurred prior to the mortgage ; 7 or to foreclose two mortgages by the same mortgagor upon separate lots owned by different persons; 8 or to foreclose a mortgage and recover damages from a third person for fraud in inducing the loan thereby secured. 9 But a party claiming a lien upon the property by a judgment against the mortgagor prior to the mortgage, the validity of which lien is contested by the mortgagee, may be joined as a party defendant to a fore- closure suit. 10 A bill is multifarious which seeks to obtain a transfer of land from one defendant, and to restrain another from asserting a conflicting claim to the same. 11 6 Dial v. Eeynolds, 96 IT. S. 340. But see California S. D. & L Co. v. Cheney El. L. T. & P. Co., 56 Fed. R 257; Men- denhall v. Hall, 134 U. S. 559, 568. 7 Ibid. 8 Eastern B. L. Ass'n v. Denton, 65 Fed. R 569. 9 Security S. & L. Ass'n v. Bu- chanan, 66 Fed. R 799. So was held to be a bill to foreclose a mortgage on a gas plant, covering all moneys " furnished and hereafter paid " by a city for gas-light, which joined the city as a co-defendant with the mort- gagor, and prayed for a judgment against the city for what it owed the mortgagor for light. Interna- tional Tr. Co. v. Cartersville L Q-. & W. Co., 63 Fed. R. 341, 346. 10 Converse v. Michigan Dairy Co., 45 Fed. R. 18; Copen v. Flesher, 1 Bond, 440. 11 "A bill by an executor to settle theconflicting controversies between himself, the heirs of his testatrix, the heirs of her husband, both of whom dispute bequests under her will, and one claiming to be a creditor of her estate. Haines v. Carpenter, 1 Woods, 262. An English case holds that dif- ferent violators of the same copy- right cannot be enjoined by the same bill when their acts of piracy were not performed in confederacy with -each other. Dilly v. Doig, 2 Ves. Jr. 486. See Thomas H. El. Co. v. Sperry El. Co., 46 Fed. R 75. But this case has been doubted by Judge Story (Story's Eq. PL, §§ 277, 278), and dis- tinguished by Chancellor Kent. Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 139, 155. The Federal courts might refuse to follow it. See Fox well v. "Webster, 10 Jur. (N. S.) 137. The following bills have also been held to be multifarious: A bill by a creditor of an estate to enjoin the sale, to pay debts, of firm lands pur- chased by him from the heirs, and to recover from the administrator and his sureties the amount of his debt. Banks v. Speers, 103 Ala. 436. A petition against the executors of the petitioners' deceased father and against three successive guardians ©f the petitioners themselves, pray- ing an account by the defendants of . their respective trusts and waiving discovery. Cornwell Mfg. Co. v. Swift, 89 Mich. 503; s. C, 50 N. W. R. 1001. A bill to enforce a claim for devas- tavit against the personal represent- atives of some of the sureties upon an administrator's bond, and for a settlement of the estate, which also sought to enforce against the repre- sentatives of the other sureties, in their individual capacities, the per- sonal penalty for failure to give the notice to creditors required by law. 212 BILLS. [§73. Persons who are acting in concert as employees or directors of the same corporation in the infringement of a patent or trade- mark, 12 or who are charged with using a corporation as the means of such an infringement, 13 may be joined with the corpo- ration as defendants to the same bill. A bill filed by an assignee in bankruptcy against all the incumbrancers of his assignor's estate, some but not all of whom had liens upon the same prop- erty, to set aside their liens as fraudulent, and to have the property sold for the common benefit of the creditors, was held not multifarious. 14 A bill filed by the beneficiary under several deeds of trust, some upon different parts of the same property, and one covering the entire property, against the trustees, the trustor, and the different persons claiming liens upon it, was held not multifarious. 15 A bill was sustained when filed by one of the next of kin against both an administrator and his sureties, to obtain the plaintiff's share of the estate. 16 A cred- itor's bill may be filed against the members of two different firms, and the personal representatives of those who are dead, when some are members of both. 17 A bill to enforce an Page v. Bartlett, 101 Ala. 768. See also Cocks v. Varney, 42 N. J. Eq. 514; Eenninger v. Heald, 51 N. J. Eq. 74; Bullock v. Knox, 96 Ala. 195; Dickerson v. Winslow, 97 Ala. 491; Smith v. Smith, 102 Ala. 516; Bolles v. Bolles, 44 N.J. Eq. 385, 14 Atl. E. 593; Wells v. S. & P. Guano Co., 89 Va. 708; Torrent v.Hamilton, 95 Mich. 159; Ash ley v. City of Little Rock, 56 Ark. 391. But bills were held not multifari- ous which were filed by next of kin against an administrator de bonis non, the administrator of his prede- cessor and the holder of the only claim against the estate, for the pur- pose of completing the administra- tion and disallowing the claim (Deans v. Wilcoxon, 25 Fla. 980); by heirs against executors under a will, the probate of which had been re- voked, and those who had bought property of the estate from them with notice of the invalidity of the will (Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619); and by a surety upon an official bond against the principal, the other sure- ties and purchasers with notice of property upon which the bond gave a lien. Schuessler v. Dudley, 80 Ala. 547. 12 Popperhusen v. Falke, 4 Blatchf. C. C. 493. 13 Nerve Food Co. v. Baumbach, 32 Fed. R 205; California F. S. Co. v. Improved F. S. Co., 51 Fed. R 296. M McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 Mc- Lean, 415. See also Jones v. Slaus- son, 33 Fed. R 632; Potts v. Hahn, 33 Fed. R. 660; Pullman v. Stebbins, 51 Fed. R 10. Contra, Metcalf v. Cady, 8 Allen (Mass.), 587. 18 Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 121 U. S. 105. See Pullman v. Steb- bins, 51 Fed. R. 10; Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis & N. C. Transp. Co., 10 Fed. R 596; s. a, 120 U. S. 166. w Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425. "Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 127. See also Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333. But see Griffin v. Merrill, 10 Md. 364. Bills have been sustained which were § 73.] MULTIFARIOUSNESS BY MISJOINDER OF DEFENDANTS. 213 equitable title, such as a trust, 18 or to remove a cloud upon a complainant's title, 19 may also seek partition after the primary- relief has been established, provided that no defendants need be joined who are not proper parties to a suit for the principal relief. A bill was sustained which sought partition and also the cancellation of tax deeds upon the common property held by strangers to the partition. 20 A bill may be filed by the holder of a bond secured by a lien upon the property of a cor- poration against both the corporation and its stockholders, at the same time to foreclose his lien and to compel the stock- holders to pay so much of the balance of their subscriptions to the stock of the corporation as will suffice for the payment of the deficiency after the foreclosure sale. 21 A bill of peace may filed to dissolve a partnership and to partition the estate, real and per- sonal (Briges v. Sperry, 95 U. S. 401), and to set aside an assignment of one partner's interest in the firm and then to divide the assets. Hayes v. Heyer, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 485. 18 Hopkins v. Grimshaw, 165 TJ. S. 342, 358; Briges v. Sperry, 95 U. S. 461; Hayes' Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 110; Hayes v. Heyer, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 517. But see Belt v. Bowie, 65 Md. 350. 19 Vreeland v. Vreeland, 48 N. J. L. 56; s. c, 24 AtL R 551. But see Rob- inson v. Springfield Co., 21 Fla. 203. M Ulman v. Jaeger, 67 Fed. R 980. 21 Marine & R. P. M. & Mfg. Co. v. Bradley, 105 U. S. 175. So may a bill by the receiver of a national bank to recover dividends unlawfully paid to stockholders, although some of the defendants did not participate in all the dividends which he attacked. Hayden v. Thompson (C. C. A), 71 Fed. R. 60; reversing s. C., 67 Fed. R 273. In New Jersey it was held that a stockholder's bill might be brought to recover damages for the negli- gence of the officers and directors of a bank for a period of time during part of which some of the defend- ants were not in office. Ackerman v. Halsey, 37 N. J. Eq. 356. In Massachusetts a stockholder was allowed to file a bill against a corporation and an officer thereof to recover corporate funds misappropri- ated by the officer and to apply the same to a dividend due the complain- ant. Dunphy v. Traveller Newspaper Ass'n, 146 Mass. 495. In Mississippi a stockholder's bill was sustained which sought to set aside two separate deeds of trust executed by the corporation where one of the defendants owned a num- ber of the bonds secured by each deed. Hardie v. Bulger, 66 Miss. 577. But bills were held to be multifari- ous which were filed by a stockholder which complained of other stockhold- ers and officers for false representa- tions which induced him to buy his stock, and against the corporation for a dissolution and an accounting because of the suspension of its busi- ness and waste of the corporate funds. Watson v. U. S. Sugar Ref. Co. (C. C. A), 68 Fed. R 769. It has been held that claims against direct- ors and stockholders to enforce dif- ferent liabilities cannot 'oe combined. Cambridge Waterworks v. Somer- ville D. & B. Co., 14 Gray (Mass. ), 193; 214 BILLS. [§73. be filed to dispose of the claims of a number of defendants, which all depend on the determination of a single question of fact or law. 22 A bill is not multifarious when brought to enjoin several members of a trade union or other persons from acts of vio- Pope v. Leonard, 115 Mass. 286; Von Auw v. Chicago T. & T. G. Co., 70 Fed. R 939. In Massachusetts, by a stockholder against a corporation and its trust- ees praying for a return of money advanced by him to the corporation through the fraud of the individual defendants, which also alleged mis- appropriation of the corporate funds and prayed the appointment of a re- ceiver, where there was no allega- tion that the' corporation had no funds to repay the plaintiff, and the receivership was not sought merely as an incident to the principal relief. Davis v. Peabody, 170 Mass. 897; S. C, 49 N. E. R 750. A bill by a stockholder to enforce the liability to the corporation of one defendant for unpaid stock, his joint liability with five others to de- fraud the creditors of the corpora- tion, and the liability of these five for the fraudulent sale of corporate property with which the first de- fendant was not connected. Holton v. Wallace, 66 Fed. R 409. In Missouri a bill by a creditor of an insolvent corporation to collect unpaid stock subscriptions and also to recover from one of the sub- scribers for his conduct as presi- dent in defrauding the corporation and also in injuring the individual property of complainant. Montser- ratt Coal Co. v. Johnson County C. M. Co., 141 Mo. 149; s. a, 42 S. W. R 822. 22 Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619; U. S. v. Castner. 26 Fed. R 296, 298; Hy- man v. Wheeler, 33 Fed. R 329. Such are a bill by a parson or lord of a manor to establish a claim against all of his parishioners. Brown v. Ver- muden, 1 Chan. Cas. 272. Or tenants. Conyers v. Lord Abergavenny, 1 Atk. 285; a bill by the owner of a fishery, Mayor of York v. Pilkington, 1 Atk. 284; a water-right. Union Mill S. M. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. R 73; to es- tablish his claim against a number of riparian owners, and to prevent in- jury to the stream, Woodruff v. North Bloomfield G. M. Co., 16 Fed. R 25; Pacific L. S. Co. v. Handley, 98 Fed. R 327. But a bill to enjoin the own- ers of a mill from floating logs over complainants' dam, and to recover damages for previous floatage, which, joined as defendants former owners of the mill, was held to be multifari- ous. Allison v. Davidson (Tenn. Ch. App.), 39 S. W. R 905. See Car- michael v. Texarkana, 94 Fed. R 561. It has been held that such bills may be filed by a railroad company against several ticket-scalpers to en- join their sale of tickets which by their terms could not be transferred, and the use of which could only be accomplished by a fraud. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. McConnelL 82 Fed. E. 65; by a city to establish its claim to a tax against several of the class liable to it, London v. Perkins. 3 Bro. Pari. Cas. 602; by a railroad company to restrain the tax collect- ors of different counties from levying taxes separately assessed, but part of each of which is to be paid to the State, and the validity of all of which depends upon the construction of a single statute, Union Pac. R Co. v. McShane, 3 DilL 303; to quiet a title § 74.] MULTIFARIOUSNESS WITHOUT MISJOINDER OF PAETIES. 21 5 lence or other trespasses in furtherance of a strike. 23 Where the evidence did not justify a charge of combination made in the bill, it was dismissed for multifariousness upon the hearing. 24 § 74. Multifariousness without misjoinder of parties. — Multifariousness may also exist without a misjoinder of par- ties when two or more distinct and unconnected grounds of equitable relief are joined in the same bill. To create this de- fect the grounds of relief must be different, and each ground must be sufficient as stated to sustain a separate bill. 1 It has been said that a bill is multifarious which joins two mat- ters where the necessary parties to the suit are the same, but their interests and attitude are decidedly at variance. 2 It has been held that a bill is multifarious when filed by the receiver asainst the directors of a national bank to recover claims for losses suffered by the corporation by reason of the directors' negligence, and also claims for losses suffered by the stock- holders by reason of having been induced to subscribe for new shares by misrepresentations of the directors ; 3 that so is against a number of claimants to land in severalty, the validity of the separate title of each of whom de- pends upon the construction of one special statute, IT. S. v. Flournoy L. a & R E. Co., 69 Fed. R 886; Cen- tral Pacific R Co. v. Dyer, 1 Saw. 641; see Osborne v. Wisconsin Cent R Co., 43 Fed. R 824; supra, § 72; or the validity or construction of the same document, Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352; Hyman v. Wheeler, 33 Fed. R 329; U. S. v. Curtner, 26 Fed. R 296, 298; or proceeding, Ul- man v. Jaeger, 67 Fed. R 980. But not a bill against thirty-four defend- ants to enforce thirty-four separate, although similar, contracts, Cheney v. Goodwin, 88 Me. 563; s. c., 34 AtL R 420; nor a bill against fifteen de- fendants to cancel separate notes severally held by them, some of which were- alleged to be forgeries and the others obtained by fraud the forger and defrauder being a stranger to the suit, Scott v. McFar- land, 70 Fed. R 280. 23 Oxjey Stave Co. v. Coopers' Int. Union, 72 Fed. R 695; Casey v. Cin- cinnati Typ. Union, 45 Fed. R 135; Arthur v. Oakes (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R 310; supra, § 48; infra, ch. XVX "Coe v. Turner, 5 Conn. 86. But see infra, § 75. § 74. 1 Brown v. Guarantee S. D. & Tr. Co., 128 U. & 403; Central Nat. Bank v. Fitzgerald, 94 Fed. R 16. See Ziegler v. Lake St. EL R Co., 76 Fed. R 662. 2 So said of a bill by one heir-at- law of a deceased married woman against her husband and the other heirs to set aside both her marriage settlement and her will. McDonnell v. Eaton, 18 Fed. R. 710. » Price v. Coleman, 21 Fed. R 357. See also Lewarne v. Mexican Int. Imp. Co., 38 Fed. R 629. It has been held that a bill is multifarious when filed to collect an unpaid stock sub- scription, together with damages for 216 BILLS. [§74. a bill which seeks an account of a trust held by all of the de- fendants, and also to set aside the effects of a distinct and in- dependent fraud upon the trustor committed by only one of them; 4 a bill asking for a discovery by the defendant of an application for a policy of insurance, and for the specific per- formance of an agreement to issue the policy sought in the application ; 5 and a bill praying the cancellation of a policy together with the perpetuation of testimony concerning the circumstances of its issue. 6 It is not multifarious to seek in injury to the corporation by fraud, Holton v. Wallace, 66 Fed. R 409; or with a claim for property conveyed to the defendant stockholder by the corporation in fraud of its creditors, First Nat. Bank v. Peavey, 75 Fed. R 154; or with a claim for damages for false representations as to the company's financial condition. First Nat. Bank v. Peavey, 75 Fed. R. 154; and a bill against a corporation and its officers for a restoration to plaint- iff of stock exchanged by him for trust certificates, on the false rep- resentation of the officers, and also to enjoin them from executing a mortgage on the corporate property, Schubart v. Chicago Gaslight & Coke Co., 41 I1L App. 181. But not, it has been said, a bill combining claimsfor liability against the same person for his acts and omissions as a director and as a stock- holder. First Nat. Bank v. Peavy, 75 Fed. R 154 But see Von Auw v. Chicago T. & F. G. Co., 70 Fed. R 939; Cambridge Water- works v. Somerville D. & B. Co., 14 Gray (Mass.), 193; Pope v. Leonard, 115 Mass. 286; supra, § 73, note. Nor, it has been held, a bill by depositors against the directors and officers of a bank for negligence in the dis- charge of their official duties, and for fraudulent representations which induced plaintiff's deposits. Foster v. Bank of Abingdon, 88 Fed. R. 604; Solomon v. Bates (N; C), 24 S. E. R. 478. Nor a bill to dissolve a partner- ship, which alleges that complainant was induced by fraud to enter into the agreement of partnership, that the defendant partner wilfully neg- lects to comply with the agreement, and that the business is being con- ducted at a loss. Rosenstein v. Burns, 41 Fed. R 841. But see Behlow v. Fischer, 102 Cal. 208. Nor a bill filed by one railway company against an- other to compel an accounting as to the disposition and proceeds of bonds issued by the former to the latter, and the payment of the damages resultin g from the foreclosure of the mortgage given to secure those bonds, and to re- cover the rents due under a lease of the plaintiff's road, when the execu- tion of this lease and the issue of these bonds were parts of the same trans- action. Pacific R Co. of Missouri v. Atlantic & Pac. R Co.. 20 Fed. R. 277. It has been said that a bill is multifarious which prays an injunc- tion against the building of a rail- road, or in the alternative an award of damages or compensation for land proposed to be taken by the railroad company. Cherokee Nation v. South- ern Kan. By. Co., 135 U. S. 641, 651. But see S. c, 135 U. S. 651, 652,' cited infra, § 123; Townsend v. Vander- necker. 160 U. S. 171. * West v. Randall, 2 Mason, 181. But see Mills v. Hurd, 32 Fed. R. 127. 5 Markey v. Mutual Be*n. L. Ins. Co., 6 Ins. L. J. 537. e^Etna L. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 73 Fed. R. 318. But bills were held not to be § 74:.] MULTIFARIOUSNESS WITHOUT MISJOINDER OF PARTIES. 217 the same bill to reform a written agreement on account of a mistake, and to enforce its performance as reformed. 7 Nor is a bill multifarious when brought against a single defendant to collect assessments on account of the same improvement made against several different lots owned by him which do not join each other; 8 nor a bill which seeks an injunction against the infringement in a single publication of four sep- arate copyrights and a right to the title of a fifth book. 9 Multifariousness in bills to enjoin the infringement of patents is discussed in a subsequent section. 10 A bill is not multifari- ous when filed by the United States to set aside a land-patent for fraud, obtain an accounting of the rents and profits of the land, and recover damage for waste; 11 or to set aside two pat- ents for inventions used jointly by the same defendant. 12 It has been held that a bill will not be dismissed as multifarious because the complaint, in addition to praying for the relief appropriate to the only cause of action supported by the facts pleaded in the bill, has also asked for other relief to which he is not entitled ; 13 nor because the plaintiff seeks relief, which multifarious when filed to set aside and cancel an insurance policy and ■enjoin the further prosecution of an action to recover premiums paid upon it, Eq. Life Ass. Soc. v. Patter- son, 1 Fed. R 126; and to compel the issue of such a policy, and at the same time to collect the same, He- bert v. Mutual L. Ina Co., 12 Fed. R. 807; Brugger v. State In v. Ins. Co., 5 Sawyer, 304. ' Gillespie v. Moon, 2 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 585. * Fitch v. Creighton, 24 How. 159. But a bill was held to be multifarious which alleged that complainant's title to certain property had been so thoroughly established by adjudica- tion that further litigation would be vexatious, prayed that defendant might be enjoined from any further litigation affecting the same, and also claimed the enforcement of a statutory right to require the de- fendant's claim of title to be now set up, tried and determined. Lehigh Zinc Stove Co. v. N. J. Z. & L Co., 43 Fed. R. 545. A bill to determine con- flicting legal claims to land, and also asking for a partition of the land after the title should be determined, has been held multifarious. Chapin v. Sears, 18 Fed. R. 814. But see supra, § 73. 9 Harper v. Holman, 84 Fed. R. 222. Nor a bill to enjoin the infringement of thirty separate copyrights which covered different parts of the same publication. Amberg F. & I. Co. v. Shea, 82 Fed. R. 314 (C. C. A.). ™ Infra, §77. « U. S. v. Pratt C. & C. Co., 18 Fed. R708. "U. S. v. Am. Bell- Tel. Co., 128 TJ. S. 315. » De Neuf ville v. N. Y. & N. Ry. Co., 81 Fed. R. 10; Brown v. Guaran- tee T. & S. D. Co., 128 U. S. 403, 412; Lehigh Zinc & I. Co. v. N. Y. Z. & L Co., 43 Fed. R 545. But see Car- michael v. Texarkana, 94 Fed. R 561. 218 BILLS. [§ 75. is not inconsistent, both for himself alone and for himself and others of the same class, 14 or for himself both individually and as trustee. 15 § 75. Objections for multifariousness. — An objection to a bill as multifarious should be raised by demurrer. 1 If not ap- parent upon the face of the bill, it is doubtful whether it can be raised by plea or answer. 2 If it is shown by the bill, it can never be taken for the first time at the hearing 3 or upon ap- peal ; 4 but the court may, of its own motion, dismiss a bill for multifariousness at any time ; 5 and perhaps the objection that the rights of the complainants are inconsistent can be raised at the hearing. 8 The objection cannot be taken by a defendant who is not injured by it. 7 The misjoinder of a de- fendant against whom the bill states no ground for relief is not a cause for a demurrer by the other defendants. 8 Multifari- ousness as to subjects or parties does not render a decree void, so that it can be treated as a nullity in a collateral action. 9 It has been held that a bill is not multifarious which joins an 14 Foster v. Bank of Abingdon, 88 Fed. E. 604 Contra, as to a bill by a stockholder both to enforce an indi- vidual right and for relief for the common benefit of himself and the other stockholders. Church v. Citi- zens' St. R Co., 78 Fed. R 526. 18 Metropolitan Tr. Co. v. Columbus S. & H. R Co., 93 Fed. R 689. § 75. 1 Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 127. 2 Benson v. Hadfield, 4 Hare, 32; Greenwood v. Churchill, 1 M. & K. 559 ; Gibbs v. Clagett, 2 Gill & J. (Md.) 14; Putnam v. Hollander, 6 Fed. R. 882. See §§ 77, 110; Story's Eq. PI., § 747; Beames on Pleas, 157, 158. But see Coe v. Turner, 5 Conn. 86. 3 Greenwood v. Churchill, 1 M. & K. 559; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333, 412; Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 127; Bow- man's Devisees v. Wathen, 2 McLean, 876. But see Coe v. Turner, 5 Conn. 37. * Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333, 412; Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 305, 215; Converse v. Michigan Dairy Co., 45 Fed. R la (Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333, 412; Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 127, 132; Green- wood v. Churchill, 1 M. & K. 559; Ohio v. Ellis, 10 Ohio, 456. 6 Da vies v. Quarterman, 4 Y. & ColL 257. 7 Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 8 Fed. R 457. Where a contractor had agreed to pay ari employee a percentage of the profits of contracts with different municipalities, it was held that a bill by the employee, joining the munici- palities as co-defendants with the contractor, for an accounting, though said to be subject to dismissal for multifariousness at the instance of one of the municipalities, was not so at that of the contractor. Olds v. Regan (N. J. Ch.), 32 Atl. R. 827. See also Couse v. Columbia Power Mfg. Co. (N. J. Ch.), 33 Atl. R 331. 8 Warthen v. Brantley, 5 Ga. 571; Whitbeck v. Edgar, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 106; Miller v. Jamison, 9 C. E. Green (N. J.), 41; Story's Eq. PI., § 544. 9 Hefner v. Northwestern Life Ins. Co., 123 U. S. 747. § 76.] FEDERAL EQUITY RULES AND PRACTICE. 219 insufficient with a good case for equitable relief, when there is no misjoinder of parties, and that the proper course of the de- fendant is to demur to so much of the bill as is insufficient ; 10 but a bill is multifarious which joins two inconsistent com- plaints by different plaintiffs, 11 although the case shown by the principal plaintiff is insufficient. It is within the constitutional power of Congress to pass a law allowing, in a single specified suit against a corporation chartered by it, matters and defend- ants to be joined in a manner that would otherwise constitute multifariousness. 12 The question in each instance where it arises calls for the exercise of the discretion of the court, re- gard being had to considerations of convenience and the sub- stantial rights of the parties. 13 Multifariousness depends so much upon the discretion of the courts of first instance, that a decision overruling an objection upon that ground would not be reviewed upon appeal, 14 except under very extraordinary cir- cumstances. When an objection for multifariousness is sus- tained, the complainant will always be allowed, if he asks leave to do so, to amend upon payment of costs. 15 In general, it may be remarked that multifariousness is an objection much more often taken than sustained. § 76. Special provisions of the Federal equity rules and practice. — " The plaintiff may in the stating or narrative part of his bill state, and avoid, by counter-averments at his option, any matter or thing which he supposes will be insisted upon by the defendant by way of defense or excuse to the case made by the plaintiff for relief." J Such matter was formerly in- cluded in a separate part called the charging part of the bill, which, however, was never indispensable. 2 It is often impor- tant for the plaintiff to thus meet a defense which he antici- 10 McCabe v. Bellows, 1 Allen M See Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. '619; (Mass.), 269; Snavely v. Harkrader, Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333; Barney 29 Gratt. (Va.) 112; Story's Eq. PL, v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205; Sheldon v. § 283. See Brown v. Guarantee Trust Keokuk N. L. Packet Co., 8 Fed. E. Co., 128 U. S. 403. 769 j Daniell's Ch. Pr. S35, note 2. n Walker, v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245, "Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245, 249. 249; Price v. Coleman, 21 Fed. R 357. 12 U. S. v. Union Pao. R Co., 98 §76. i Equity Rule 21. U. a 569. 2 Story's Eq. PL, § 33; Langdell's is Weir v. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Eq. PL, § 55. Fed. R 940, per Dallas, J. 220 bills. [§ 76. pates. For as special replications are not allowed, he may thus save the delay of an enforced amendment of -his bill, in order to plead new matter as a reply to a defense in the an- swer. " If any persons, other than those named as defendants in the bill, shall appear to be necessary or proper parties thereto, the bill shall aver the reason why they are not made parties, by showing them to be without the jurisdiction of the court, or that they cannot be joined without ousting the juris- diction of the court as to other parties." 3 " Every bill brought by one or more stockholders in a cor- poration against the corporation and other parties, founded on rights which may properly be asserted by the corporation, must be verified by oath, and must contain an allegation that the plaintiff was a shareholder at the time of the transaction of which he complains ; 4 or that his share had devolved on him since by operation of law; and that the suit is not a collusive one to confer on the court of the United States jurisdiction of a case of which it would not otherwise have cognizance. 5 It must also set forth with particularity the efforts of the plaintiff to secure such action as he desires on the part of the managing directors or trustees, and, if necessary, of the share- holders, and the causes of his failure to obtain such action." 6 This rule does not apply to suits brought by the stockholders of a corporation after its dissolution. 7 But it applies after the 'Equity Eule 23; supra, § 52. Fed. R 213; Towl v. Am. BL & I Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39; 20 Colombian Government v. Roths- Farmer v. Calvert Lithog. Co., 1 Flip- child, 1 Simons, 94, 103; Wells v. pin, 228, 233; infra, § 109. Strange, 5 Ga. 22. 28 U. S. v. Pratt C. & C. Co., 18 Fed. 21 U. S. v. Minor, 1 14 U. S. 233 ; TJ. S. R 708. v. Trinidad Coal & Coke Co., 137 27 Chicago, B. & Z. R Co. v. Repub- U. S. 160. See also Moffat v. V. S., lie County (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R 413; 112 U. S. 24; U. S. v. White, 17 Fed. R Chicago, B. & Q. R Co. v. B. of C. of 561, 565; TJ. S. v. Pratt C. & C. Co., 18 Norton County (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R. Fed. R 708. 458. 22 Farmer v. Calvert Lithog. Co., 1 28 State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 IT. S. Flippin, 228. But see Snow v. Mast, 75, 617. 63 Fed. R. 623. 29 Gordon v. Smith (a a A.), 67 23 Stewart v. Drasha, 4 McLean, Fed. R 503. § 85.} THE PRAYEB OF PEOOES8. 239 §85. The prayer of process. — The prayer of process usu- ally requests the issue of a subpoena to compel the defendant. to appear and answer and abide the judgment of the courts " The prayer for process of subpoena 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 under 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 injunction 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." l " The plaint- iff may complain and tell stories of whom he pleases, but they only are defendants against whom process is prayed." 2 It was, however, held that the omission in the prayer of process of the name of a defendant otherwise sufficiently described in the bill was waived by his general appearance, and that no other de- fendant could take advantage of the defect. 8 But the weight of authority holds that a bill is demurrable, which omits the prayer for process, 4 or which prays process against some but not all of the defendants named in its body. 5 If a party is sought to be sued in both his individual and a representative ca- pacity, process should be asked against him in both capacities. 6 Otherwise, it seems, that he would be held to be a party only in that capacity in which he was therein referred to, even though in the subpoena and in the introduction to the bill he were named as a defendant in both capacities. 7 If process be prayed against a defendant in a representative capacity and the subpoena be. issued against him generally, the bill is not demurrable. 8 The proper remedy is a motion to set aside the §85. 1 Equity Rule 23; Segee v. Fed. R 825; Elmendorf v. Delancey, Thomas, 3 Blatohf. C. C. 11; Buerk v. 1 Hopkins (N. Y), 555. Contra, Jen- Imhaeuser, 8 Fed. R 457. nes v. Landes, 84 Fed. R 73. 2 Lord Chancellor Parker in Fawkes 6 Ibid. v. Pratt, 1 P. Wma 593. 6 Carter v. Ingraham, 43 Ala. 78. 3 Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 8 Fed. R 457; But see Brasher v. Van Cortlandt, 2 J. K. Orr Shoe Co. v. Kiimbrough, 98 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 247. Ga. 537; S. a, 25 S. E. R 204. Ubid. * Carlsbad v. Tibbetts, 51 Fed. R 'Walton v. Herbert, 3 Green, Ch. 852, 855; Goebel v. Am. Ry. S. Co., 55 (N. J.) 73. 240 bills. [§§ 86, 87. subpoena. 9 The omission of the prayer for process does not render void an injunction granted upon the bill. 10 §86. The signature to a bill. — "Every bill shall contain the signature of counsel- annexed to it, which shall be consid- ered as an affirmation on his part that, upon the instructions given to him and the case laid before him, there is good ground for the suit in the manner in which it is framed." 1 This prac- tice began, it is said, in the time of Sir Thomas More. 2 Eefore that time it was the practice for a master in chancery to ex- amine the bill and determine whether it was better to dismiss it originally or retain it by subpoena. 8 A signature upon the back of the bill has been held to be sufficient. 4 The remedy for a defect in this respect is by a motion to take the bill off the file,' or by demurrer. 6 The court may of its own motion order the bill taken off the file. 7 Leave to amend by adding the signature is always granted. 8 If the defendant should answer without taking the objection, such a defect would prob- ably be waived. 9 If the complainant sued in person, the sig- nature of counsel would probably be dispensed with. 10 A bill is also usually signed by the solicitor, who may be the same person as the counsel, but need not be signed by the plaintiff unless he sue in person. § 87. Affidavits to bills. — An affidavit must be annexed to the bill in the following cases and no others, although a super- fluous affidavit will not make the bill bad : A bill to obtain the benefit of an instrument upon which an action at law would lie, were it not either lost or out of the possession of the complain- ant and believed to be in that of the defendant, must be sup- ported by an affidavit of those facts which are necessary to give the court jurisdiction. 1 A bill to perpetuate the testimony of 9 ibid. T French v. Dear, 5 Ves. 547. 10 U. S. v. Agler, 62 Fed. R 824, SKirkley v. Burton, 5 Madd. 378; § 86. l Equity Rule 24. Dwight v. Humphreys, 3 McLean, 21 Hargrave's Law Tracts, 302; 104 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 357. 9 See TJ. S. R S., § 954. a 1 Hargrave's Law Tracts, 802; 10 See U. S. R S., § 747; 1 Hoffman's Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 357. Ch. Pr. 97. * Dwight v. Humphreys, 3 McLean, § 87. 1 Walmsley v. Child, 1 Ves. 104 Sen. 343; Whitfield v. Fausset, 1 Ves. » Dillon v. Francis, 1 Dickens, 68. Sen. 392; Stoiy's Eq. PL, §§ 313, 477; « Kirkley v. Burton, 5 Madd. 378; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 449, 450. Dwight v. Humphreys, 3 McLean, 104 § 88.] BILLS OF INTERPLEADER. 241 witnesses, or to take testimony de bene esse, must be supported by an affidavit stating the reasons which render such a pro- ceeding necessary. 2 A bill of interpleader, and perhaps also a bill in the nature of an interpleader, should be supported by an affidavit by the plaintiff that he does not collude with either of the defendants; 3 or if the plaintiff be a corporation, by one of its officers, that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the plaintiff does not so collude. 4 " 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." 5 Every bill which it is desired to use in support of a motion for a stay order, special injunction, substituted service, or other interloc- utory application, other than one for a common injunction, must be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the bill itself or the substanpe of its allegations; 6 but the affidavit need not be filed with the bill, nor before the notice of a motion for the interlocutory relief, and its omission does not make the bill demurrable. 7 In the first three instances, where an affidavit is required, the defendant can only take advantage of the de- fect by demurrer. 8 By plea or answer the omission will be waived. 9 It is doubtful whether, when an affidavit is required, one is sufficient which merely alleges that the bill is true to the best of the affiant's knowledge, information and belief. 10 § 88. Bills of interpleader. — A bill of interpleader is a pe- tition filed by a disinterested person holding a fund or thing to which two or more who are made defendants set up con- flicting claims, between whom he cannot decide without in- curring the risk, if he delivers the property to one, of being finally obliged to pay the other damages for having done so. 1 It can only be filed by one who claims no interest in the prop- 2 Philips v. Carew, 1 P. Wms. 117; Crosse v. Bedingfield, 12 Simons, 35; DanielPs Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 452. Darnell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 453. a Metoalf v. Hervey, 1 Ves. Sen. 248. 9 Findlay v. Hinde, 1 Pet 241, 244; * Bignold v. Audland, 11 Simons, 23. Crosse v. Bedingfield, 12 Simons, 35. & Rule 94. See §§ 12, 76, 87, 207. "> Burgess v. Martin, 111 Ala. 636, 6 See ch. XV. 20 S. R 506; Pollard v. So. Fertilizer 7 Hughes v. Northern Pao. Ry. Co., Co. (Ala., 1899), 25 S. R. 169. 18 Fed. R 106, 110; Black v. Henry §88. iMitford's Eq. PL, ch. 1; E. Allen Co., 42 Fed. R 618, 622; Cobb Story's Eq. PL, §§ 291-297; Daniells v. Clough, 83 Fed. R. 604. Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) ch. xxxii. 8 Findlay v. Hinde, 1 Pet. 241, 244; . 16 242 bills. [§ 88. erty in question, and who seeks no other relief than leave to deposit it in the care of the court, and be relieved from all danger of further vexation concerning the same. 2 The con- flicting claims must be doubtful. 3 The claimants must seek the same thing, not merely the same amounts under different contracts. 4 A tenant or agent may not, by filing such a billj dispute the title of his lessor or principal when a demand is made upon him by a stranger claiming under title paramount; 5 nor can he thus compel an interpleader of two adverse claim- ants from whom he has taken independent leases of the same property. 6 He may, however, thus obtain relief when differ- ent persons claim under assignments from the person to whom he first owed the debt. 7 A licensee, in an action by his licensor for royalties, cannot interplead a third person who claims an interest in the patent. 8 A bill of interpleader may be .filed before or after proceedings at law have been begun against the complainant; 9 but no injunction can be granted to restrain a proceeding already begun in a State court; 10 nor, according to . the English rule, to stay proceedings in ejectment in any court. 11 If a suit in equity have been already begun against the stakeholder, he may perhaps obtain relief by a petition therein ; n but the more prudent course is for him to file a new bill. 13 The fact that one of the conflicting claims is actionable at law and the other is purely equitable, will not deprive him of relief. 14 The enactment of a State statute giving similar relief upon motion by the defendant to an action at law, does not deprive equity of its original jurisdiction. 1 * The most SKillian v. Ebbinhaus, 110 U. S. 'Cowtan v. Williams, 9 Ves. 107; 668; Langston v. Boylston, 2 Ves. Jr. Clarke v. Byne, 13 Ves. 386; Hoggart 101; Mohawk & Hudson E. R. Co. v. v. Cutts, 1 Cr. & Ph. 197, 205. Clute, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 384; Jackson 8 Pusey & Jones Co.* v. Miller, 61 & Sharp Co. v. Pearson, 60 Fed. E. Fed. R. 401. 113, 123. 9 Richards v. Salter, 6 J. Ch. (N. Y.) s Shaw v. Coster, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 445. 339; Cochrane v. O'Brien, 2 Jones & " U. S. R. S., § 720. La T. 380; Story's Eq. PI., § 292. "Metcalf v. Hervey, 1 Ves. Sen. < Hoggart v. Cutts, 1 Cr. & Ph. 197 ; 248. Story's Eq. PL, § 293. 12 Badeau v. Rogers, 2 Paige (N. Y.\ * Dungey v. Angove, 2 Ves. Jr. 304, 209. 310; Lowe v. Richardson, 3 Madd. I3 Birch v. Corbin, 1 Cox Eq. 144 277; Story's Eq. PL, § 295. " Richards v. Salter, 6 J. Ch. (N. Y.) estandley v. Roberts, 59 Fed. R. 445. 836. 15 Barry v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 53 § 88.] BILLS OF INTEBPLEADEE. 24:3 common kind of interpleader suits at the present time are those brought by insurance companies against conflicting claimants to the proceeds of policies issued by them. 16 A bill of inter- pleader should state the manner in which the plaintiff obtained possession of the property in question, and admit that he has no interest therein. It should set forth the claims of the de- fendants, showing that they conflict, and that he is ignorant of their respective rights, and cannot determine between them without hazard to himself. It should offer to deposit the fund or other property in the custody of the court; and conclude with a prayer that upon such deposit the defendants may be enjoined from further molesting him about the matter in ques- tion ; that they be required to interplead and settle their re- spective rights among themselves ; and that he may have his costs out of the fund, if there be one, otherwise from the de- fendants." The bill must be accompanied by an affidavit; which, when filed by a natural person, should be sworn to by him, and state that " this bill is not filed in collusion with either of the defendants named, but merely of his own accord for relief in this Honorable Court." 18 If a corporation be the complainant, one of its officers should make the affidavit, swear- ing that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the corpora- tion does not collude with either of- the defendants. 19 The omission of the affidavit is a ground for a demurrer. 20 The bill should also conform to the provisions of the rules regulat- ing original bills. No other step can be taken in the cause until after deposit in court of the fund or other property in dispute. 21 It has, however, been held in England that a bill is not demurrable for the omission of an offer so to do. 22 It is better practice to obtain an order ex parte permitting such pay- ment. 23 When that is done, an injunction will be granted re- N. Y. 536; Wood' v. Swift, 81 N. T. "Bignold v. Augland.ll Simons,23. 31, 35; Board of Education v. Soo- 2°Metcalf v. Harvey, 1 Ves. Sen. ville, 13 Kan. 17, 30; Prudential As- 248; Tobin v. Wilson, 3 J. J. Marsh, suranoe Co. v. Thomas, L. R. 3 Ch. (Ky.) 67; Mitford's Eq. PI., ch. 1. App. 74, 77. 21 Meux v. Bell, 6 Simons, 175; 16 Spring v. South Carolina Ins. Co., Williams v. Walker, 2 Rich. Eq. 8 Wheat. 268. (S. C.) 291. "Mitford's Eq. PL, ch. 1; Story's "Meux v. Bell, 6 Simons, 175. Eq. Pl.„§§ 291-297. 23 Williams v. Walker, 2 Rich. Eq. "Metcalf v. Hervey, 1 Ves. Sen. (S. C.) 291. 248. 244 bills. [§ 88 straining the defendants from suing the plaintiff, and from continuing any action already begun touching the matter in dispute. 24 The injunction is usually granted to take effect upon payment of the fund into court. 25 Under special circumstances, however, a stay order might be granted until the complainant had an opportunity to do so. 26 Upon an argument to dissolve this injunction before hearing, it seems that the defendants- cannot contradict the affidavit that there is no collusion ; 21 but a reference may be directed when such a charge is made, and at the hearing collusion may be shown. 28 In England, a bill of interpleader can be successfully maintained though all the defendants are beyond the jurisdiction of the court. 29 Such suits are usually heard on bill and answers; although there is. no reason why testimony should not be taken. If at the hear- ing the cause is ripe for a decision, the court will then decide the controversy between the defendants. 30 If not, it will enter a decree dismissing the plaintiff with his costs, enjoining the defendants in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and di- recting them to interplead. 31 If the claims on both sides are purely legal, an action or an issue at law will usually be di- rected. If one of them is- of an equitable nature, and some- times when both are legal, a reference to a master is usually ordered. 32 At the hearing, each defendant may read the other's answer against him. 33 If one of them has allowed the bill to be taken as confessed against him, this is considered as an admis- sion that the bill was properly filed, and that he made an im- 2* Sieveking v. Behrens, 2 MyL & 30 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) Cr. 581. . 1765; Angell v. Hadden, 16 Ves. 202; 25 Sieveking v. Behrens, 2 MyL & City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Paige (N. Y.), Cr. 581. 570. » Sieveking v. Behrens, 2 MyL & 31 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) Cr. 581; U. S. R. S., § 718. 1765; Angell v. Hadden, 16 Ves. 202; 27 Stevenson v. Anderson, 2 Ves. & City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Paige (N. Y.), R 407; Manby v. Robinson, L. R 4 570. Ch. App. 347; Fahie v. Lindsay, 8 32 Daniell's Ch. Pr. 1765; Story's Eq. Oreg, 474. Jur., § 822; Angell v. Hadden, 16 Ves.. 28 Manby v. Robinson, L. R. 4 Ch. 202; City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Paige App. 347; Langston v. Boylston, 2 (N. Y.), 570. Ves. Jr. 101;'Dungey v. Angove, 2 S3 Bowyer v. Pritchard, 11 Price, Ves. Jr. 304. 103; Daniell's Ch. Pr. 1765. See Penn 29 Martinius v. Helmuth, G. Cooper, Mut. L. L Co. v. Union Tr. Co., 83 248; Stevenson v. Anderson, 2 Ves. & Fed. R 891. B. 412. Contra, Herndon v. Kidge- way, 17 How. 424; and see § 96. §§ 89, 90.] BILLS OF CERTIORARI. 245 proper claim against the fund. 34 If, after answer, one of them defaults at the hearing, the court will enter a decree after hear- ing the other. 35 The plaintiff, if successful, is entitled to his costs out of the fund, if there be one. 36 Otherwise, from the de- fendant whose claim is finally held bad. 87 These costs, as well as the costs of the successful defendant, must eventually be paid by him whose claim is finally dismissed. 38 It has been said that when the bill is dismissed, there can be no further proceedings in the cause as between the defendants; not even by consent ; inasmuch as the court has thereby lost jurisdic- tion. 39 After a decree in the plaintiff's favor, the cause is ter- minated as to him ; and in case of his subsequent death the cause will proceed without a revivor. 40 §89. Bills in the nature of interpleader. — Where the plaintiff claims for himself some interest in the fund or matter in question, or does not admit the whole of a defendant's claim, or the defendants claim different amounts, although a bill of interpleader may not, a bill in the nature of an inter- pleader may, perhaps, be sustained. 1 The frame of such a bill and the proceedings thereunder should conform, mutatis mu- tandis, to those of a strict bill of interpleader. After payment of what he admits to be due, a decree may be entered dis- charging the plaintiff as to that, and directing the suit, or, if an action at law had previously been begun, the latter, to pro- ceed till his disputed rights are determined. 2 § 90. Bills of certiorari. — A bill of certiorari was a bill filed in a superior court of equity for the purpose of removing thither a suit in equity pending in an inferior court, on account m Badeau v. Rogers, 2 Paige (N. Y.), M Anon., 1 Vern. 351; Jennings v. 209; Fail-brother v. Prattent, 1 Dan- Nugent, 1 Molloy, 134; Daniell's Ch. iel, 64. But see Standley v. Roberts, Pr* 1765. 59 Fed. R 836. § 89. 'Dorn v. Fox, 61 N. Y. 264; '5 Hodges v. Smith, 1 Cox Eq. 357. Mohawk & Hudson R R Co. v. Clute, 3&Dunlop v. Hubbard, 19 Ves. 205; 4 Paige (N. Y.), 385; Story's Eq. PL Dowson v. Hardeastle, 2 Cox Eq. 279. § 2976; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.), "Aldridge v. Mesner, 6 Ves. 418; 1768. Contra, New England Mutual Mason v. Hamilton, 5 Simons, 19; Life Ins. Co. v. Odell, 50 Hun (57 Daniell's Ch. Pr. 1767. N. Y. S. C. R), 279. ss Mason v. Hamilton, 5 Simons, 19; 2 City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Paige Cowtan v. Williams, 9 Ves. 107; Dan- (N. Y.), 570. See Groves v. Senteel, iell's Ch. Pr. (2 Am. ed.) 1766, 1767. 153 U. S. 465; s. a, 66 Fed. R 179. 39 Jennings v. Nugent, 1 Molloy, 134. 246 bills. [§ 90. of some alleged incompetency in the latter or some defect in its proceedings. 1 Such a bill first stated the proceedings in the inferior court; then the cause of its incompetency, as, for ex- ample, that the subject of the action or the parties were not within its jurisdiction, or that, for some other cause, equal jus- tice could not be done there; and finally prayed a writ of cer- tiorari, to certify and remove the record and the cause to the superior court. 2 It did not pray that the defendant should an- swer, or even that he should appear to the bill, and, conse- quently, prayed for no writ of subpoena, although a subpoena had to be sued out and served. 3 It was considered as an orig- inal bill, and filed as such in the superior court. Thereupon, the plaintiff was required to execute a bond in the penalty of £100, with one surety conditioned to prove the suggestions of the bill in fourteen days. A subpoena was next sued out and served; and a writ of certiorari issued directed to the judge of the inferior court, requiring him to certify or send to the court issuing the writ the tenor of the bill or plaint below, with the process or proceedings thereon. The writ having been served and returned, together with the required statement and papers, an order directing them to be filed "was then obtained. Testi- mony to prove or disprove the suggestions of the bill was immediately taken, and the cause referred to a master to re- port whether they were proven or no. This was required to be done within fourteen days, unless the court specially en- larged the time. If the allegations were proved and showed a sufficient reason for retaining the suit, an order to retain the bill was granted ; and the defendant below was obliged to an- swer, and the cause removed proceeded in the same manner as if it had been originally instituted in the superior court. 4 In no reported case has such a bill been filed in a court of the United States, although petitions for writs of certiorari in pro- ceedings at common law are not uncommon. 5 §90. iMitford's PL, ch. 1; Story's » Story's Eq. PL, § 298; Mitford's Eq. PL, § 398. PL, ch. 1. s Story's Eq. PL, § 298. 4 Hinde's Pr. 28-32 and 581, 582. 5Seem/r-o,§365. CHAPTER Y. SUBPCENAS TO APPEAR AND ANSWER. § 91. Definition and form of subpoena The first process in a court of equity is the subpoena, which is a writ requiring the defendant to appear and answer the bill under a penalty therein expressed. A similar writ, called quibusdam certis de causis, in the form of a subpoena without any penalty, is also found in some of the early English chancery cases. 1 The pro- cess of subpoena constitutes the proper mesne process in all suits in equity, in the first instance, to require the defendant to ap- pear and answer the exigency of the bill. 2 These writs, like all writs and processes issuing from the courts of the United States, must be under the seal of the court from which they issue, and signed by the clerk thereof. Those issuing from the Supreme Court or a Circuit Court must bear teste of the Chief Justice of the United States, or, when that office is vacant, of the associate justice next in precedence ; and those issuing from a District Court must bear teste of the judge, or, when that office is vacant, of the clerk thereof. 3 When issued from the Supreme Court the writ must be in the name of the President of the United States. 4 It must be returnable into the clerk's office the next rule-day, or, at the election of the plaintiff, the rule-day but one, occurring twenty days from the time of the issue thereof, 5 except in the Supreme Court, when the return day must be at least sixty days after service of the writ. 6 "At the bottom of the subpoena shall be placed a memorandum that the defendant is to enter his appearance in the suit in the clerk's office on or before the day at which the writ is return- able, otherwise the bill may be taken pro cmfesso." ' The pen- alty named in the writ is now usually two hundred and fifty § 91. 1 0. W. Holmes, Jr., now C. J. 2 Equity Rule 7. of Mass., in an article on Early Eng- «U. S. R S., § 911. lish Equity, 1 Law Quar. Rev. 162, 4 U. S. S. Q Rule 5. note 2, citing Palgrave, King's Coun- 6 Equity Rule 12. oil, 131, 132, note x; Scaldewell v. 6 U. S. S. C. Rule 5. Stormesworth, 1 CaL Cn. 5. 'Equity Rule 12. 248 SUBPCENAS TO APPEAR AND ANSWER. [§ 91. dollars; in earlier times it might be life or limb;, 8 but it is never enforced, since the taking of the bill as confessed affords a far more substantial remedy. The subpoena should be addressed to the defendant against whom it is issued. 9 " When there are more than ■ one defendant, a writ of subpoena may, at the op- tion of the plaintiff, be sued out separately for each defendant, except in the case of husband and wife defendants, or a joint subpoena against all the defendants." 10 If a defendant is sued in a representative capacity, or in both an individual and a representative capacity, he should be so described in the sub- poena; which should in this respect follow the prayer of process in the bill.' 1 A subpoena addressed to John Monroe, guardian of John Stiles, is sufficient to give jurisdiction over him indi- vidually although it might not be to give jurisdiction over him as guardian. 12 Otherwise the service of the subpoena may be set aside upon motion, as issued without authority." Such a defect will, however, be waived, if the defendant enter his gen- eral appearance in his representative capacity. 14 The usual form of a subpoena in a Circuit Court of the United States is substantially as follows: — The President of the United States of America, to John Aber: Greeting, — Tou are hereby commanded that you personally appear before the Judges of the Circuit Court of the United States of America, for the Southern District of New York, in the Second Circuit in Equity,on the first Monday of December, A.D. 1889, wherever the said Court shall then be, to answer a bill of complaint exhibited against you in the said court by Archi- bald Brown, and do further and receive what the said Court shall have considered in that behalf. And this you are not to omit under the penalty on you of two hundred and fifty dol- lars. 8 Judge O. W. Holmes, Jr., in an ar- (N. V.) 247; see Cornell v. Green, 88 tide on Early English Equity, 1 Law Fed. R. 821. Quar. Rev., 162, note 2, citing 1 Pro- 12 Cornell v. Green, 88 Fed. R 821; ceedings Privy Council (21 R. 2, 1397). s. C. in C. C. A., 95 Fed. R 334 SDaniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 495. 13 Walton v. Herbert, 3 Green Ch. w Equity Rule 12. (N. J.) 73; Brasher v. Van Cortlandt, "Carter v. Ingraham, 43 Ala. 78; 2 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 242, 247. Walton v. Herbert, 3 Green Ch. (N. J.) 14 Ibid. ; Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 8 Fed. 73 ; Brasher v. Van Cortlandt, 2 J. Ch. R 457. § 92.] ISSUE. OF THE SUBPCENA. 249 Witness, Honorable Melville W. Fuller, Justice of the United States at the City of New York, on the first day of November in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty- nine, and of the independence of the United States, the one hundred and thirteenth. Eobeet Jones, Complainant's Sol'r. John A. Shields, Clerk. The Defendant is required to enter appearance in the above cause in the Clerk's office of this Court on or before the first Monday of December, 1889, or the bill will be taken pro coiv- fesso against him. John A. Shields, Clerk. It must contain the christian as well as the surnames of the parties. 15 § 92. Issue of the subpoena. — No process of subpoena can issue from the clerk's office in any suit in equity until the bill is filed in the office. 1 Whenever a bill is filed the clerk must issue the process of subpoena thereon, as of course, upon the application of the plaintiff. 2 The signature of counsel is a suffi- cient warrant for his so doing. A praecipe, or written order for the subpoena, signed by the attorney is usually first given him. In the early times, the bill was first examined by one of the masters in chancery, whose duty it was to determine whether to dismiss the bill by original or to retain it by subpoena. 3 The present practice, it is said, originated when Sir Thomas More was Keeper. 4 In the Supreme Court of the United States a motion for leave to file a bill must first be made. This is usually heard ex parte; 5 but when leave was asked to file a bill against the President of the United States, under the peculiar circumstances of that case it was thought proper that argument should be heard against the motion for leave. 6 The court re- fused to extend this exception so as to include a suit by a State against General Grant when in command of the army, but then required ten printed copies of the bill to be filed with the clerk before the hearing, which it determined should be the regular practice in all cases of original jurisdiction brought before it. 7 15 Equity Rule 12, as amended Deo. eerie, 1 Harg. Law Tracts, 302; Dan- 17, 1900, 180 U. S. 641. iell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 357. § 92. i Equity Rule 11. For the rule 5. ever, encroach upon that principle of natural justice which re- quires notice of a suit to a party before he can be bound by it. It must be reasonable, and the service provided for should be only upon such agents as may be properly deemed representa- tives of the foreign corporation. Service upon an agent who stood in no representative character to the company, whose duties were limited to those of a subordinate employee, or to a particular transaction, or whose agency had ceased when the matter in disputa arose, would, probably, be held insufficient. 13 Where the State statute permitted such a practice, it was held that service upon an agent of a foreign corporation who had been sent into the State to negotiate with the plaintiff for a settlement of the controversy was sufficient." In order thus to subject itself to the service of process the foreign corporation" must actually transact business in the district where the suit is brought. 15 An insurance company does not cease to do busi- ness in a State when it receives premiums upon policies ' pre- viously issued there; although such premiums are sent by the insured to an agent in another State, and the company issues no new policies in the former State. 16 A single act of business, such as the making of a contract there for the sale of an arti- cle to be manufactured elsewhere and there delivered, would not be sufficient, "when there was no purpose to do any other business or to have a place of business " within the district. 17 So, it has been held that the presence of the principal officers of a corporation in a foreign State, when they have with them is St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350, 449; Riddle v. N. Y., L. E. & "W. R. 359, 360; Mexican C. Ry. Co. v. Pink- Co., 39 Fed. R. 290; Maxwell v. Atchi- ney, 149 U. S. 194; Maxwell v. Atchi- son, T. & S. F. R Co., 37 Fed. R. 286; son, T. & S. F. R Co., 34 Fed. R. 286; Filli v. D., L. & W. R. Co., 37 Fed. R. Carron Iron Co. v. McClaren, 5 H. L. 65; Denton v. International Co. of C. 416. In Evansville Courier Co. v. Mexico, 36 Fed. R 1; Block v. Atchi- United Press, 74 Fed. R. 918, service son, T. & S. F. R Co., 21 Fed. R 529. upon the agent of a news association 16 Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. ■who was paid by the item for fur- Spratley, 172 U. S. 602. nishing news from the State capital n Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 was held insufficient to acquire juris- U. S. 727, 735; Good Hope Co. v. Rail- diction over the foreign corporation, way B. F. Co., 22 Fed. R. 635; Max- w Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. well v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 34 Spratley, 172 U. S. 602. Fed. R 286. Of. Doe v. Springfield B. is Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 Co. (C. C. A.), 104 Fed. R. 684; Eirich U. S. 727; Hayden v. Androscoggin v. Donnelly C. Co. (C. C. A.}, 105 Fed. Mills, 1 Fed. R. 93; Zambrino v. Gal- R 1. veston. H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R § 95.] SERVICE UPON CORPORATIONS. 257 property of the corporation merely for the purpose of exhibi- tion, does not make the corporation liable to the service of process upon them there. 18 The lease by a foreign to a do- mestic corporation of personal property, and the payment by the latter to the former of a part of the profits derived from the use of such property within the jurisdiction of the court, does not give the court jurisdiction over the foreign corpora- tion, upon service of a subpoena upon the latter as its agent. 19 The negotiation of loans upon a mortgage, and a successful ap- plication to have the bonds thereby secured listed on the stock exchange, are not sufficient acts of business to authorize service of process upon its president for the corporation while he is temporarily within the State for those purposes. 20 A surety company may be served in any district where it is found in a suit upon a bond or undertaking given in such district under the statutes of the United States. 21 Service upon a surety company is made upon its agent in the district appointed by it for that purpose or in his absence, or, in case there is no such appointment, by service upon the clerk of the court where the suit is brought. 22 Service of process in the manner prescribed by the State practice may subject a foreign corporation to the jurisdiction of the Federal court, in a case over which the State statutes deprive her courts of jurisdiction because the cause of action arose without the State. 2 ' It has been said, however, " that in the absence of a voluntary appearance, three condi- tions must concur or co-exist in order to give the Federal courts jurisdiction in personam over a corporation created- without the territorial limits of the State in which the court is held, viz: (1) It must appear as a matter of fact that the corporation is 18 Carpenter v. Westinghouse Air- Co. v. Great N. Ey. Co. (C. C. A.), 88 Brake Co., 32 Fed. R 434 See Reif- Fed. R. 258. snider v. American Imp. Pub. Co., 45 21 28 St. at L., p. 279, Fed. R. 433. 22 Ibid. 19 U. S. v. Am. B. TeL Co., 29 Fed. 23 Carstairs v. Mechanics' & Trad- It. 17. ers' Ins. Co. of N. Y., 13 Fed. R. 823. 20 Clews v. Woodstock Iron Co., 44 It seems that by the common law a Fed. R 31. Where the books for the court has jurisdiction over a foreign transfer of the stock of a Minnesota corporation to enforce a cause of railway company were kept in the action arising in the jurisdiction, city of New York, it was held that Newby v. Von Opper, etc. Co., L. R the corporation might be served with 7 Q. B. 293. process there. Westinghouse A. B. 17 258 SUBPOENAS TO APPEAR AND ANSWEE. [§ 96. carrying on its business in such foreign State or district; (2) that such business is transacted or managed by some agent or officer appointed by and representing the corporation in such State ; and (3) the existence of some local law making such corporation, or foreign corporations generally, amenable to suit there, as a condition, express or implied, of doing busi- ness in the State. 24 It has been held that the Superintendent of the Insurance Department of the State of New York can- not be served by mail; and that he has no power to waive a defect in the service of process upon him so as to bind a foreign insurance company. 25 It has been held that upon a motion to set aside service upon a foreign corporation because the writ was not served upon the proper person, the defendant need not show upon whom the service should be made or that it has no agent in the district. 26 § 96. Substituted service of a subpoena. — Independently of any express statutory authority, there is no power in a court of equity to order actual personal service to be effected upon a de- fendant beyond its territorial jurisdiction; x but, in a few cases, such courts have for more than a century assumed the power of ordering service to be made within their jurisdiction upon some person for the absent defendant, and have treated such service as valid. 2 In suits to stay proceedings at law in the same court, the service of a subpoena upon the attorney of the plaintiff at law may be allowed, and it will then bind the latter if he be beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. 3 It has been held that this cannot be done after the judgment at law has been enforced, since the attorney's authority to represent «U. S. v. Am. B. TeL Co., 29 Fed. 1 Dickens, 39; Hyde v. Forster, 1 R 17, 35, per Jackson, J. See Max- Dickens, 102; Lady Carrington v. well v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R Co., 31 Cantillon, Bunb. 107; Hobhouse v. Fed. R 286, 289. Courtney, 12 Simons, 140, and cases 25 Farmer v. National Life Ass'n, 50 there cited; DanielFs Ch. Pr. (2d Fed. R. 829. Am. ed.) 502-508. 26 Wall v. Chesapeake, eta Ry. Co. 3 Dunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1; Hitner (C. C. A), 95 Fed. R. 398, Ward, J., v. Suckley, 2 Wash. 465; Eckert v. dissenting. Bauert, 4 Wash. 370; Ward v. Sea- § 96. 1 This passage was quoted and bry, 4 Wash. 426 ; Read v. Consequa, approved by Maxey, J., in Batt v. 4 Wash. 174; Bartlett v. Sultan of Proctor, 45 Fed. R. 515, 516. Turkey, 19 Fed. R. 346. See also Lo- 2 Hales v. Sutton, 1 Dickens, 26; gan v. Patrick, 5 Cranch, 288; Dun- S. a sub nom. Hallett v. Sutton, 12 lap v. Stetson, 4 Mason, 349. Simons, 145, note; Carter v. De Brune, § 96.] SUBSTITUTED SEBVICE OF A SUBPCENA. 259 his client is then terminated. 4 A similar practice would in all probability be allowed in serving process under bills not origi- nal; namely, bills of revivor, supplemental bills, and bills of revivor and supplement, which are nothing more than continu- ations ■ of the suits upon which they operate. 5 So, it has been held that, under a bill to reform an insurance policy pending an action at law upon the policy, a subpoena may be thus served upon the attorney for the party to the action at law; 6 and that under a bill to collect out of equitable assets a decree of the same court of equity for costs, such service of a notice without a subpoena is sufficient. 7 The Federal courts have refused to extend this class of cases so as to include a bill of interpleader, two of the defendants to which were engaged in an action be- tween themselves in the same court concerning the same matter, 8 although in England such a mode of service might have been allowed. 9 Nor, it seems, can a subpoena thus be served under a bill to set aside a sale made under a decree of the same court to which persons are joined as defendants who were not par- ties to the former suit. 10 Substituted service of a subpoena to appear and answer to a cross-bill has been allowed, 11 but not when the cross-bill sought to introduce new and distinct mat- ters into the original suit. 13 The safer practice when a defend- ant to a cross-bill cannot be served personally seems to be to procure an order staying his proceedings in the original cause until he answers the cross-bill. 13 Substituted service of process 4 Kamms v. Stark, 1 Sawyer, 547. Ey. Co., 3 Fed. R 772; S. C. on ap- is Norton v. Hepworth, 1 H. & T. peal, 111 U. S. 505, 522. 158; Dunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1. But "Johnson R R S. Co. v. Union S. see Henderson v. Meggs, 2 Brown Ch. & S. Co., 43 Fed. R. 331 ; § 173 ; Kings- C. 127; Anderson v. Lewis, 3 Brown bury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650, 676; Ch. C. 429; Gardiner v. Mason, 4 Lowenstein v. Glidewell, 5 Dill. 325; Brown Ch. C. 478. This passage was Sawyer v. Gill, 3 Woodb. & M. 97; quoted with approval by Morrow, J., Segee v. Thomas,3 Blatchf. 11; Hitner in Shainwald v. Davids, 69 Fed. R v. Suokley, 2 Wash. 465; Anderson v. 701, 703. Lewis, 3 Brown Ch. C. 429; Gardiner 6 Abraham v. North German Fire v. Mason, 4 Brown Ch, C. 478; Water- Ins. Co., 37 Fed. R 731. ton v. Croft, 5 Simons, 502; infra, ' Maitland v. Gibson, 79 Fed. R 136. § 173. 8 Herndon v. Ridgway, 17 How. 12 Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 424. See §88. 307; Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 9 Blatohf. 9 Martinius v. Helmuth, G Cooper, 316. But see Kingsbury v. Buckner, 248; Stevenson v. Anderson, 2 Ves. 134 U. S. 650, 676. See infra, § 173. &B. 407. See §88. "Sawyer v. Gill, 3 W. & M. 97; "Pacific R Co. of Mo. v. Mo. Pac. Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11; Hit- 260 SUBPCENAS TO APPEAR AND ANSWER. [§ 97. or notice upon a petition of intervention is allowed in the same cases in which it would be allowed upon a cross-bill." Sub- stituted service has also been allowed in England upon the agent of a defendant beyond the jurisdiction, who had author- ity to represent the latter with respect to the property which was the subject of the suit. 15 "When substituted service is wished, an order must be obtained that service upon the at- torney employed in the former suit or action shall be deemed good service. 16 If service be made upon the attorney without such an order having been obtained, it may be set aside," and all subsequent proceedings will be void. 18 The motion for such an order ordinarily may be ex parte} 9 It must be supported by an affidavit, made by the plaintiff or by some person having personal knowledge of the facts therein stated, setting forth the reasons why such service is necessary and verifying the allegations of the bill. 20 "Written admissions of the defendant may, however, be sufficient to support the motion without such affidavit. 21 A previous request of the attorney and his refusal to accept service of the subpoena are not a necessary prelim- inary to such a motion. 22 Where the bill is demurrable for want of equity, the motion for substituted service may be de- nied. 23 "Where the order has been improvidently made, it may be set aside on motion at the same term. 24 § 97. Statutory service of a subpoena. — The statutes of the United States, which in this respect are analogous to those of ner v. Suckley, 2 Wash. 465; Ander- " Gregory v. Pike, 79 Fed. R. 520. son v. Lewis, 3 Brown Ch. C. 429; 19 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 502. Gardiner v. Mason, 4 Brown Ch. 0. But see Crew v. Martin, 1 Fowler 478 ; Waterton v. Croft, 5 Simons, 502. Ex. Pr. 225. " Fidelity T. & S. D. Co. v. Mobile 20 Pacific Ey. Co. of Mo. v. Mo. Pac. St. Ey. Co., 53 Fed. E. 850; infra, Ey. Co., 3 Fed. R 772; s. C, 1 Mc- §§ 201, 202. Crary, 647; Delancy v. Wallis, 3 isHobhouse v. Courtney, 12 Sim. Brown's C. C. 12; Stephen v. Cini, 4 140; Fidelity T. & S. D. Co. v. Mo- Ves. 359; Ken worthy v. Accunor, 3 bile St. Ry. Co., 53 Fed. R 850; Gas- Madd. 550. quet v. Fidelity T. & S. V. Co. (C. a 21 Eoyal Exch. Ins. Co. v. Ward, A.), 57 Fed. R 80; Gregory v. Pike, 1 Fowler Ex. Pr. 225. 79 Fed. R 520. 22 French v. Eoe, 13 Ves. 593. w Pacific Ey. Co. of Mo. v. Mo. Pac. 23 Muhlenburg County v. Citizens' Ey. Co., 3 Fed. E. 772; s. C, 1 Mo Nat. Bank, 65 Fed. R 537. Crary, 647; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. 24 Fidelity T. & S. D. Co. v. Mobile ed.) 502. St Ey. Co., 53 Fed. R 85a "Ibid. § 97.] STATUTORY SERVICE OF A STJBPCENA. 261 England, 1 provide, " That when in any suit, commenced in any court of the United States; to enforce any leg^l or equi- table lien upon, or claim to, or to remove any incumbrance or lien or cloud upon, the title to real or personal property within the district where such suit is brought, one or more of the de- fendants therein shall not be an inhabitant of, or found within, the said district, or shall not voluntarily appear thereto, it shall be lawful for the court to make an order directing such absent defendant or defendants to appear, plead, answer, or demur by a day certain to be designated, which order shall be served on such absent defendant or defendants, if practi- cable, wherever found, and also upon the person or persons in possession or charge of said property, if any there be ; or where such personal service upon such absent defendant or defend- ants is not practicable, such order shall be published in such manner as the court may direct not less than once a week for six consecutive weeks; and in case such absent defendant shall not appear, plead, answer, or demur within the time so lim- ited, or within some further time to be allowed by the court, in its discretion, and upon proof of the service or publication of said order, and of the performance of the directions con- tained in the same, it shall be lawful for the court to enter- tain jurisdiction and proceed to the hearing and adjudication of such suit in the same manner as if such absent defendant had been served with process within the said district; but said adjudication shall, as regards said absent defendant or defend- ants without appearance, affect only the property which shall , have been the subject of the suit, and under the jurisdiction of the court therein, within such district; and when a part of the said real or personal property against which such proceed- ing shall be taken shall be within another district, but within the same State, said suit may be brought in either district in said State: Provided, however, That any defendant or defend- ants not actually personally notified as above provided may, at any time within one year after final judgment in any suit mentioned in this section, enter his appearance in said suit in said Circuit Court, and thereupon the said court shall make an order setting aside the judgment therein, and permitting said de- fendant or defendants to plead therein on payment by him § 97. 12 Wm. IV, ch. 33; 4 & 5 Wm. IV, ch. 82. 262 SDBPCENAS TO APPEAR AND ANSWER. [§97. or them of such costs as the courts shall deem just; and there- upon said suit shall be proceeded with to final judgment ac- cording to law." * 2 U. S. R S., § 788; as amended by act of March 3, 1875, ch. 137, § 8 (18 St. at L. 472). All statutes which au- thorize proceedings against absent defendants and unknown heirs upon service by publication must be strictly followed. Hunt v. Wickliffe, 2 Pet. 201; Bos well v. Otis, 9 How. 336. In Karr v. Karr, 19 N. J. Eq. 427, the court said: "Two substantial parts of the notice are that it shall not be entitled in the cause and shall be di- rected to the defendant. The notice published is entitled in the cause and is not directed to the defendant, al- though he was named in the title." It was held in Corrigan v. Schmidt, 126 Mo. 304, 28 S. W. R. 874, that serv- ice by publication against "Owen Corrigan" and "Elisha Corrigan" did not bind John Owen Corrigan and Elizabeth Alicia Corrigan. In Colton v. Rupert, 60 Mich. 318, 27 N. W. R. 520, that a publication against "Grant B. Hunt" did not bind Gar- rett B. Hunt; in Entrekin v. Cham- bers, 11 Kan. 368, that service by publication against "Robert Brim- ford" did not bind Robert Binford; in Chamberlain v. Blodgett, 96 Mo. 482, 10 S. W. R. 44, that a publication against " M B. Miller " did not bind M. B. Millen, although the tract books of the county gave the name of the landowner as Miller; in Marx v. Hanthorn, 148 U. S. 172, that no- tice of the sale for taxes of the prop- erty of " Ida J. Hawthorn " gave no jurisdiction over the property of Ida J. Hanthorn. In Meyer v. Kuhn, 65 Fed. R. 705 (C. C. A., per Fuller, C. J.), it was held that publication of a summons against " Sarah E. Mey- ers, and the unknown heirs of Henry Meyers, deceased," was insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over Elizabeth Meyer, who was the executrix and devisee of Henry Meyer, deceased, and was so described in the bill; in Gonzalia v. Barelsman, 143 111. 634, 32 N. E. R. 532, that an affidavit re- ferring to " Fred Meyers " could not be construed as applicable to Fred Meyer. But see Smurr v. State, 88 Ind. 504; in Hardesterv. Sharretts,84 Md. 146, 34 Atl^R. 1122, that where a bill was filed " against the unknown heirs of the children of Benjamin Hardester, deceased," a publication summoning the children of Abra- ham Hardester was insufficient, al- though they were the persons re- ferred to in the bill and came within that description, Abraham being the son of Benjamin. In Purdy v. Hens- lee, 97 HI. 389, it was held that a pub- lication addressed to " the unknown heirs and legal representatives of Thomas Osborn, deceased," was in- sufficient to bring the heirs at law of Susanna Osburn before the court, although her heirs at law were the same as those of Thomas. In Ferriss v. Louis, 2 Tenn. Ch. 291, it was held that a publication against the un- known heirs of Doolin did not bring before the court Doolin's devisees in remainder. But in Steinmann v. Strimple, 29 Mo. App. 478, it was held that an order intended for Benjamin F. S. was sufficient when directed to Frank S., that being the name by which Benjamin was usually known. In Lane v. Innes, 43 Minn. 137, 45 N. W. R 4, that a change of the name of " Berlah M. Plimpton " to " Beulah M. Plimpton" was not fatal ; in White v. McClellan, 62 Md. 347, that the omission of a middle initial of a party's name did not invalidate the notice; and in Fanning v. Krapfl, 61 Iowa, 417; S. a, 68 Iowa, 544, 14 N. W. R. 727, 16 N. W. R 293, 26 N. W. § 97.]. STATUTOKY SERVICE OF A STJBPCENA. 263 The statute applies, although there is but one defendant. 3 It is no defense to such a suit that neither of the defendants thus served, nor the plaintiff, is a resident of the district. 4 Nor, it has been held, that the property in question has been at- tached by a State sheriff. 5 Process can thus be served in an action of ejectment, 6 in a suit to foreclose a railway 7 or other mortgage; 8 but not so as to justify a decree for the defi- ciency against a mortgagor who does not appear; 9 in a suit to quiet title ; 10 for example, a suit by the United States to cancel land patents, 11 or by an individual to cancel a deed, ob- tained from him by duress and fraud, 13 or by the creditors of a corporation to set aside a conveyance of its land and a mort- gage of its personalty, and also to obtain a dissolution of the corporation and a receiver; 13 but not in a suit to set aside a R 133, and Buchanan v. Roy's Lessee, 2 Ohio St. 257, that the publication was sufficient -where the names were incorrectly spelled but they were ac- companied by another description which made the identification clear. In Fanning v. Krapfl, 61 Iowa, 417, 420, the court said: "A published no- tice is not necessarily sufficient if it is such that the defendant, upon actually seeing it, would probably conclude that it was intended for him. The office of the notice is in part to give the pendency of the action notoriety. It should be such that others than the defendant, see- ing it and knowing the defendant, or knowing of him, would not prob- ably be misled by it as to the person for whom it was intended." In De- troit v. Detroit City Ey. Co., 54 Fed. E. 1, it was held that where the ad- vertisement named the defendant as " The Washington Trust Co.," a Mich- igan court did not acquire jurisdic-' tion over "The Washington Trust Co." of the City of New York. In Pana v. Bowler, 107 IT. S. 529, it was held that the publication by an Illi- nois court of a notice to the " un- known holders and owners of bonds issued by the town of Pana " was in- sufficient to acquire jurisdiction over non-resident bondholders. 3 Ames v. Eolderbaum, 42 Fed. B. 341; Wheelwright v. St. L., N. O. & 0. C. Tr. Co., 50 Fed. E. 709; supra, §22. ♦Ibid. * Wheelwright v. St. L., N. O. & O. C. & Tr. Co., 50 Fed. E. 709; supra, §9. 6 Spencer v. Kansas City S. F. Co., 66 Fed. B. 741. 'Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R 115. So in a bondholder's suit to enjoin waste of the mortgaged property. Pollitz v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 39 Fed. B. 707. «Du Pont v. Abel, 81 Fed. E. 534. 9 Ibid. 1( >U. a v. Southern Pao. By. Co., 63 Fed. R 481; U. S. v. American Lumber Co., 80 Fed. R 309; Evans v. Charles Scribner's Sons, 58 Fed. R 303; Duff v. First Nat. Bank, 13 Fed. R.65. " U. S. v. Southern Pao. Ey. Co., 63 Fed. R 481; U. S. v. American Lumber Co., 80 Fed. R 309. " Evans v. Charles Scribner's Sons, 58 Fed. R 303. 1 3 Mellen v. Moline Iron Works, 131 264: SUBPCENAS TO, APPEAR AND ANSWEB. [§ 97. transfer of insurance policies, issued by a foreign insurance company and not within the district although secured by bonds within the district." So in a suit to compel specific performance of a contract to sell real estate in a State whose laws make a decree, where the defendant does not appear, as effectual as a conveyance by him; 15 but where there was no such statute it was held that process could not thus be served; 16 but not.in a suit to establish and enforce a right of membership in the Associated Press in a district where the latter corporation is not domiciled, although the right is to be exercised in that district. 17 It has been held that a subpoena cannot thus be served when the main object of the bill is for an accounting by an absent and non-resident defendant, although there is' also a prayer for the appointment of a receiver of property within the district; 18 but it seems that service can thus be made in a suit to establish a trust in real estate although the bill also prays an accounting. 19 Process cannot thus be served in a suit to remove a cloud upon the title to a patent- right although the official letters-patent evidencing the patent- right are within the jurisdiction. 20 It has been said that juris- diction may be thus obtained of a bill to enforce a lien upon shares of the stock of a corporation within the district al- though the certificates are not there. 21 An absent judgment debtor may thus be served in a suit by the creditor to appro- priate his assets. 22 It has been held at Circuit : that an order in pursuance of this statute may be obtained immediately on filing the bill, upon proof by affidavit that the defendant does not dwell within the district, and cannot be served or found TT. S. 352; Single v. Scott Paper Mfg. 1 9 Porter Land & Water Co. v. Bas- Co., 55 Fed. R. 553, 557. kin, 43 Fed. R 323. 14 Evans v.Charles Scribner's Sons, 30 Non-Magnetic Watch Co. v. As- 58 Fed. R 303. sociation H. S. of Geneva, 44 Fed. 15 Morrison v. Marker, 93 Fed. R R 6. 693. 2'Jellenik v . Huron Copper Min. is Municipal Inv. Co. v. Gardiner, Co., 177 U. S. 1; Merrittv. Am. Steel 62 Fel R. 954. Barge Co., 79 Fed. R. 228; Ryan v. « Lawrence v. Times Pr. Co., 90 Seaboard R Co., 83 Fed. R 889. Core- Fed. R 24. tra, Kilgour v. N. 0. G. L. Co., 3 is Ellis v. Reynolds, 35 Fed. R 394. Woods, 144. But see Porter Land & Water Co. v. 22 Brigham v. Luddington, 13 Baskin, 43 Fed. R 323. Blatchf. 237. Compare Picquet v. Swan, 5 Mason, 35; S.O., 5 Mason, 561. § 97.] STATUTORY SEEVICE OF A SUBPCENA. 265 therein; where the bill shows that the defendant is a non- resident; 23 that there is need in such a case of a previous attempt to serve a subpoena; 24 that the day named for his appearance need not be one of the rule-days of the court; 25 that personal service of the order must be made in all cases where the residence of the absent defendant is known or can be ascertained, or service upon him can be made within a rea- sonable time and by the exercise of reasonable diligence ; and that its service by publication can only be authorized upon proof by affidavit of the facts showing that personal service without the jurisdiction is impracticable. 26 The affidavit should state the known places of residence, of the absent de- fendants, and show that diligence has been used to ascertain the places of residence which are unknown. 27 The fact that it would be very expensive to make personal service upon the absent defendant whose residence was known was held ground for allowing service by publication. 28 If the absent defendant reside in another district of the United States, the safer prac- tice is to obtain an order directing the marshal of that district to serve him. 29 A misnomer of a defendant, thus served, who does not appear, will invalidate the whole proceedings. 30 A defect in personal service, or the fact that personal service was obtained by fraud, will not prejudice proceedings regularly taken under this statute. 31 This statute does not change the law as to the difference of citizenship essential to jurisdiction. 32 It has been doubted whether it can be applied to a suit removed from a State court. 33 Compliance with State statutes provid- ing for service by publication will not give a Federal court jurisdiction either in law or in equity. 34 An order of a Fed- s' Forsyth v. Pierson, 9 Fed. R 801; 28 Batt v. Procter, 45 Fed. E. 515. TJ. S. v.American Lumber Co., 80 29 Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 498; Fed. R 309. But see Bronson v. Keo- Forsyth v. Pierson, 9 Fed. R 801. kuk, 2 DilL 498. so Meyer v. Kuhn, 65 Fed. R 705. 2* Ibid. 81 Fitzgerald & M. C. Co. v. Fifcz- » Forsyth v. Pierson, 9 Fed. R. 801. gerald, 137 U. & 98. 26 Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 498; 32 Tug River Coal & Salt Co. v. Batt v. Procter, 45 Fed. R 515. Of. Brigel, 67 Fed. R 625. ' Marx v. Egner, 180 U. S. 314 33 Adams v. Heckscher, 80 Fed. R "Batt v. Procter, 45 Fed. R 515. 742, 744. An affidavit sworn -to four months si Bracken v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. previously was held to be insufficient. (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R 347; S. C, 56 Fed. Spreen v. Delsignore, 94 Fed. R 71. R 447. 266 SUBPOENAS TO APPEAR AND ANSWER. [§ 98. eral court for such service is, when attacked collaterally, at least prima facie evidence of the existence of the jurisdic- ional fac^s. 35 § 98. Exemptions from service of subpoena or other pro- cess, legal or equitable, other than arrest. — Chief Justice Marshall, in the course of the trial of Aaron Burr, ordered that a subpoena duces tecum should issue against President Jefferson. Jefferson, however, refused to obey the subpoena, while express- ing his perfect willingness to furnish the. paper desired, if re- quested in what he considered a proper way. The dispute went no farther. 1 Subsequently, a motion was made for leave to file a bill in the Supreme Court, praying for an injunction against President Johnson to restrain him from executing the reconstruction laws. The Attorney-General then took the posi- tion that the President was not amenable to process; but that point was not then and has not since been decided. 2 On the trial of Guiteau for the murder of President Garfield, a written statement signed by President Arthur was admitted in evi- dence by consent without his personal attendance. . No other officer or person has been claimed to be above the law. The Federal Constitution provides that senators and representatives " shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and re- turning from the same." ' This has been construed at Circuit to exempt them from service of process, unaccompanied by arrest of the person, when on their way to attend a session of Congress ; 4 and it has been further held that such exemption is not lost by a slight deviation from the most direct road to the capital. 5 In a State court the privilege has been extended to members of a Constitutional Convention. 6 In certain cases individuals are temporarily exempt from the service of process. A person temporarily within the district for the purpose of as Woods v. Woodson (C. C. A.), 100 » Const, art. I, § 6. Fed. E. 515. * Miner v. Markham, 28 Fed. E. 387. § 98. 1 Burr's Trial. * Miner v. Markham, 28 Fed. R. 387. 2 Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 WalL 475. * Bolton v. Martin, 1 Dallas, 29. See Jefferson's Works, voL v, p. 102; supra, § 35. § 9$.]' EXEMPTIONS FEOM SEEVIOE OF SUBPCENA, ETC. 267 attending, either as witness, 7 party, 8 attorney, or counsel, 9 a trial or other proceeding, 10 civil or criminal, 11 in a State 12 or Federal 13 court, is, while there, exempt from the service of pro- cess eundo, morando, et redeundo. A similar exemption would probably be applied to any person while temporarily within the district in the discharge of a public duty." The privilege of a witness does not exempt him from liability to service in a suit arising out of his acts upon that same visit to the jurisdic- tion. 15 , A Federal court will not punish as a contempt the arrest or service of process by a State court upon a foreign witness in attendance before it; 18 though it might perhaps upon habeas corpus discharge the witness from such arrest, 17 or punish the party who molested the witness, by a stay of pro- ceedings in a case pending between him and the witness in the Federal court. 18 If a person be fraudulently enticed within the district and then served with process by those who thus 'Person v. Grier, 66 N. Y. 124, and cases there cited; Kauffman v. Ken- nedy, 25 Fed. R. 785. Service on a foreign corporation by serving its secretary while attending court as witness in the corporation's litiga- tion was held invalid. American Wooden-Ware Co. v. Stein, 63 Fed. R676. s Parker v. Hotchkiss, 1 Wall. Jr. 269; Juneau Bank v. McSpedan, 5 Biss. 64; Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 568; Brooks v. Far well, 2 McCrary, 220; s. a, 4 Fed. R. 167; Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R 17; Matthews v. Puffer, 10 Fed. R. 606; Larned v. Grif- fin, 12 Fed. R 590. A suitor attend- ing a hearing on a demurrer in a foreign jurisdiction, to consult with his counsel, is privileged from serv- ice of process. Kims v. Lant, 68 Fed. R. 436. A service of process, made upon a party attending espe- cially the trial of a case in another State, was set aside by a Federal court, although the suit was begun in a court of the State whose courts hold such service good. Holt v. Wharton (C. C. A), 73 Fed. R 392. 'Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 568. W U. S. v. Bridgman, 8 Am. Law Record, 541; Newton v. Askew, 6 Hare, 319 ; Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 568; Parker v. Marow, 136 N. Y. 585. 11 U. S. v. Bridgman, 8 Am. L. Rec. 541. But see Jenkins v. Smith, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 171. 12 Juneau Bank v. McSpedan, 5 Biss. 64; Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 568. "Parker v. Hotchkiss, 1 Wall. Jr. 269; U. S. v. Bridgman, 8 Am. L. Rec. 641; Brooks v. Far well, 2 McCrary, 220; s. a, 4 Fed. R. 167; Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R 17; Matthews v. Puffer, 10 Fed. R. 606; Larned v. Grif- fiu, 12 Fed. R 590. 14 Lyell v. Goodwin, 4 McLean, 29. is Nichols'v. Horton, 14 Fed. R. 827. w Ex parte Schulenburg, 25 Fed. R 211. 17 Ex parte Hurst, 1 Wash. C. C. 186. See Ex parte Schulenburg, 25 Fed. R 211, 212. is Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R 17, 42; Ex parte Schulenburg, 25 Fed. R 211, 212. 268 SUBPCENAS TO APPEAR AND ANSWEB. [§ 98. ■ induced him to come, the service may be set aside. 19 In one case, when a man was induced by a forged telegram to enter the jurisdiction of the court, the party who served him there was held to be presumptively connected with the fraud. 20 It has been held that a party to a suit in a State court is not on his journey there exempt from service of process in another State. 21 A judgment is not void so that it can be attacked col- laterally, where process was served upon a party while attend- ing a trial. 22 is Union Sugar Refinery v. Mathies- Fitzgerald & M. C. Co. v. Fitzgerald, son, 2 Cliff. 304; Steiger v. Boon, 4 137 U. S. 98, 105. Fed. R. 17; Blair v. Turtle, 5 Fed. R. » Steiger v. Bonn, 4 Fed. R. 17. 394; s. C, 23 Alb. L. J. 435; Baker v. HHolyoke & & H. F. 1 Co. v. Wales, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 331; Ambden, 55 Fed. R. 593. » Walker v. Collins. 59 Fed. R. 470. CHAPTER VL APPEARANCE. § 99. Definition of an appearance. — An appearance is the process by which a defendant, submits himself to the jurisdic- tion of the court. An appearance is either general or special. By a general appearance a defendant appears for all purposes in the suit. By a special appearance he appears solely for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction on account of a defect, omission, or irregularity in the service of the subpoena upon him, or perhaps for some other jurisdictional defect. 1 An ap- pearance gratis is an appearance by a defendant who has not been served with process. 2 § 100. What constitutes an appearance. — The proper method of entering an appearance is to deliver to the clerk a praecipe, that is, a written direction, ordering him to enter the appearance of the defendant who subscribes it. 1 A defendant may appear in person 2 or by his attorney. No attorney-at-law can appear in a court of the United States unless authorized by a power of attorney, if he is not a member of the bar of such court. The rules as to admission to the bar of the District and Circuit Courts vary with the different courts. It is the usual practice to recognize in each District and Circuit Court a mem- ber of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States as a member of the bar of such inferior court without requiring any formal order or motion for his admission.' The Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of .New York * and the district of New Jersey have, it is understood, in one or more, cases refused to recognize members of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States who had not been § 99. i National F. Co. v. Moline Mai- § 100. i Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) leable L "Works, 18 Fed. R 863 ; Elliott 590, 591. v. Lawhead, 43 Ohio St. 171; Dorr v. 2 U. S. R &, § 747. Gibboney, 3 Hughes, 382 ; U. S. v. Am. 8 See Goodyear D. V. Co. v. Osgood, B. T. Co., 29 Fed. R 17. 13 Off. Gaz. 325. 2 Daniell's Cb, Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 590- 4 See Matter of Joseph Wood, infra, 595. § 367. 2Y0 APPEARANCE. [§ 100. admitted to practice there; but this practice is not usually adopted. The taking of any proceeding, 8 other than a spe- cial appearance and a motion or plea founded thereupon, is equivalent to a general appearance and a submission of the de- fendant's person to the jurisdiction of the court. 6 Such are the obtaining of an order extending the time " to plead, answer, or take such action as he may be advised ; " 7 a petition of in- tervention, even where the petitioner disclaims any intention to be made a party; 8 a special appearance, accompanied by an answer to the merits; 9 and, it .has been held, a special ap- pearance accompanied by a motion to set aside an order re- viewing a judgment upon the ground of an irregularity in the proceedings. 10 Where the defendant, appearing specially for that purpose, moved to quash a return of service of a summons and prayed judgment whether it should be compelled to plead on the ground that it was a . non-resident corporation, it was held that the appearance was not thereby made general. 11 A removal of a cause from a State to a Federal court is not a general appearance whether or not the petitioner states that he appears specially for the purpose of the removal only. 12 A stipulation by tbe defendant's solicitor to answer waives the 5 Jones v. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327; U. S. 105; Hankinson v. Page, 31 Fed. Thornburgh v. Savage M. Co., 1 Pao. R. 184 Law Mag. 267 ; Livingston v. Gibbons, 10 Crawford v. Foster, 84 Fed. R. 939. 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 94, 99. " N. K Fairbanks & Co. v. Cincin- « New Jersey v. New York, 6 Pet. nati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 323; Van Antwerp v. Hulburd, 7 54 Fed. Ri 420; Am. Cereal Co. v. Eli Blatohf. 426, '440; Livingston v. Gib- Petti John C. Co., 70 Fed. R. 276. It is bons, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 94; Blackburn said in the Encyclopedia of Pleading v. Selma, M. .& M R Co., 2 Flippin, and Practice, article II, section 626, 525; Fitzgerald & M. Const. Co. v. that "where a party appears in court Fitzgerald, 137 U. 98; infra, § 101. and objects to the jurisdiction of the ' Hupfeld v. Automaton Piano Co., court over his person, he must state 66 Fed. R. 788. See Briggs v. Stroud, specifically the grounds of objection; 58 Fed. R 717. So held of a stay of by not so stating them his appearance proceedings pending a motion to va- will be construed a general one, al- cate a judgment. Crane v. Penny, though he moves to dismiss on that 2 Fed. R 187. ground." Citing Bell Bros. v. White SBowdoin College v. Merritt, 59 Lake Lumber Co., 21 Neb. 525; Ault- Fed. R 6; Jack v. D. M. & Ft. D. R man v. Steinman, 8 Neb. 109; Buck- Co., 49 Iowa, 627; Frank v. Wed derin lin v. Strickler, 32 Neb. 602; Layne ro confesso, by him. 1 "Where the bill when the sub- § 103. 1 Equity Rule 13. "By the early practice of the civil law, fail- ure to appear at the day to which the cause was adjourned was deemed a confession of the action, but in later times this rule was changed, so that the plaintiff, notwithstanding the contumacy of the defendant, only obtained judgment in accord- ance with the truth of the case as established by an ex parte examina- tion. Keller, Proceed. Rom., § 69. The original practice of the English Court of Chancery was in accord- ance with the Roman law. Hawk- ins v. Crook, 2 P. Wms. 556. But for at least two centuries past bills have been taken pro confesso for contu- macy. Ibid. Chief Baron Gilbert says: 'Where a man appears by his clerk in court, and after lies in prison, and is brought up three times in court by habeas corpus, and has the bill read to him, and refuses to answer, such public refusal in court does not amount to a confession of the whole bill. Secondly, when a person appears and departs without answering, and the whole process of the court has been awarded against him after his appearance and de- parture, 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 answer- ing.' Forum Romanum, 36. Lord Eardwicke likened a decree pro con- fesso to a judgment by nil dicit at common law, and to judgment for plaintiff on demurrer to the defend- ant's plea. Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 21. It was said in Hawkins v. Crook, qua supra, and quoted in 2 Eq. Cas. Ab. 179, that ' the method in equity of taking a bill pro confesso is con- sonant to the rule and practice of the courts at law, where, if the de- fendant makes default by nil dicit, judgment is immediately given in debt, or in all cases where the thing demanded is certain ; 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 of law to a general decree pro con- fesso in equity in favor of the com- plainant, with a reference to a mas- ter to take a necessary account, or to assess unliquidated damages, is obvious and striking. A carefully prepared history of the practice and effect of taking bills pro confesso is given in Williams v. Corwin, Hop- kins Ch. 471, by Hoffman, Master, in a report made to Chancellor Sanf ord, of New York." Bradley, J., in Thom- son v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, 119, 120. § 103.] WHEN A BILL MAT BE TAKEN PEO OONFESSO. 275 poena was served did not show jurisdiction against a defendant, a subsequent amendment stating facts sufficient to show juris- diction against it will not warrant the entry of an order taking the bill as confessed without a second service of the subpoena, or an appearance by such defendant. 2 The same practice should probably be observed when the bill is amended so as to state a new case or to bring in new parties. 3 As to the rule when trivial amendments are added to the bill, the prac- tice in the United States is unsettled. 4 Where an amended bill filed without leave after a default in defendant's appear- ance was withdrawn without the payment of costs or furnish- ing a copy to him, it was held that the right to have the original bill taken as confessed had not been waived. 5 If a defendant fails to file a plea, answer, or demurrer, to the bill on or before the rule-day next succeeding that of entering his appearance, the plaintiff may have the bill taken pro oonfesso, unless the defendant has had his time enlarged for cause shown by a judge of * the court. 6 A bill may be also taken as confessed upon the failure of a defendant to answer within the time allowed him after a demurrer or plea has been overruled. 7 In a proper case, part of a bill may be taken as confessed. 8 Thus, where the defendant had repeatedly failed to answer an . interrogatory, the parts of the bill which the same affected were ordered taken as confessed. 9 So where exceptions to an answer for insufficiency have been sustained, the complainant may, if he chooses, enter an order taking as confessed the parts of the bill to which the exceptions relate. 10 * It seems that, in the absence of a rule upon the subject, the complain- ant in such a case might, at his election, have either the whole 2 Non-Magnetic Watch Co. v. Asso. also Blythe v. Hinckley,. 84 Fed. R. H. of Geneva, 45 Fed. R. 210. But 228; Harris v. Deitrich, 29 Mich. 366. see Brown v. Lake Sup. Iron Co., 134 Contra, Bond v. Howell, 11 Paige U. S. 530; Nelson v. Eaton, 66 Fed. (N. Y.), 233. R, 376. 6 Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Withe- a Nelson v. Eaton, 66 Fed. R. 378; row, 149 U. S. 574, 576. Bank of Utica v. Finch, 1 Barb. Ch. "Equity Rule 18. 15. The latter practice seems to be 367. favored in Trust & Fire Ins. Co. v. g 104. i Equity Rule 18. See Read Jenkins, 8 Paige (N. Y), 589, 593, 594; v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 174; O'Hara v. Hawkins v. Crook, 2 P. Wms. 559; MacConnell, 93 U. S. 150, 152. Doubts Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 23. have been expressed as to the pro- § 104.] PRACTICE IN TAKING A«BILL PEO CONFESSO. 277 of the order taking the bill^wo confesso? ""When the bill ia taken pro confesso the court may proceed to a decree at any time after the expiration of thirty days from and after the entry of the order to take the bill pro confesso; and such de- cree rendered shall be deemed absolute, unless the court shall, at the same term, set aside the same, or enlarge the time for filing the answer, upon cause shown, upon motion and affidavit of the defendant; and no such motion shall be granted unless upon payment of the costs of the plaintiff in the suit up to that time, or such part thereof as the court shall deem reason- able, and unless the defendant shall undertake to file his an- swer within such time as 'the court shall direct, and submit to such other terms as the court shall direct, for the purpose of speeding the cause." 3 The application in the Federal courts should be made by motion * supported by an affidavit showing the excuse for his default, and also, unless a verified answer accompanies the application, which is the better practice, show- ing the nature of the defense. 5 If the defense seems to the court to be unconscientious, the application may be denied. 8 In the State courts, applications to open defaults have been denied where the defendants wished to plead a discharge in bankruptcy, 7 and in one case where the complainant's pro- priety of entering such an order Cruger, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 164; Winship pending a motion upon a special ap- v. Jewett, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 173; pearance to quash a subpoena or in Goodhue v. Churchman, 1 Barb. Ch. the case of a cross-bill to dismiss the (N. Y.) 596; Keil v. "West, 21, Fla. 508; original bill as against the cross-corn- Emery v. Downing, 13 N. J. Eq. 59. plainants. Blythe v. Hinckley, 84 But see Metcalf v. Landers, 3 Baxt. Fed. R 228. " (Term.) 35. 2 Bank of U. S. v. White, 8 Pet. 268. « Parker v. Grant, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) See Oakley v. O'Neill, 2 N. J. Eq. 287. 434; Quincy v. Foot, 1 Barb. Ch. 8 Equity Rule 19. See Maynard v. (N. Y.) 496; Freeman v. Warren, 3 Pomfret, 3 Atk. 468; Heyn v. Heyn, Barb. Cb, (N. Y.) 635; Baxter v. Lan- Jacob,49. Great liberality should be sing, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 350; National shown to non-residents served by Fire Ins. Co. v. Sackett, 11 Paige publication. American F. L. M. Co. (N. Y), 660. It has been said that in v. Thomas (C. C. A.), 71 Fed. R. 782. the Federal courts, where there is A default caused by an error of a color of claim that due service was clerk should not prejudice a defend- made, a default will not be opened ant. Blythe v. Hinckley, 84 Fed. R unless a defense on the merits is 228, shown. Massachusetts B. L. Ass'n v. * French v. Stewart, 22 Wall. 238. Lohmiller (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. 23. ^Schofleld v. Horse S. C. Co., 65 7 Freeman v. Warren, 3 Barb. Ch. Fed. R. 433; Massachusetts B. L. Ass'n (N. Y.) 635. v. Lohmiller, 74 Fed. R. 23; Wells v. 278 TAKING BILLS PEO CONFESSO. [§ 104. cipal witness had died between the default and the motion. 8 "Where defendants wished to plead usury, relief has been con- ditioned upon payment of the principal, 9 and upon a waiver of defense to the claim for the principal and legal interest. 10 An assignee of the subject-matter of the suit, by an assignment made after the default, has no more right to come in and de- fend than was possessed by the original defendant; 11 but spe- cial favor is shown to assignees for the benefit of creditors. 12 It has been held that after the term, a decree taking a bill as confessed cannot be set aside- on motion, 13 unless the motion was made or noticed at the term when the decree was en- tered, 14 even where there is a rule of the State court permit- ting such a practice. 15 Thus, the entry of a final decree by default upon notice to the defendants, without the entry of a formal order or interlocutory decree taking the bill as con- fessed, was held to be an irregularity for which the decree would not be set aside upon motion at a subsequent terra. 16 But a decree taking a bill as confessed was set aside upon motion at a later term when it had been entered after appear- ance and before the time to plead had expired." And in a proper case such a decree can be set aside by an original bill. 18 A decree pro oonfesso is not as of course according to the prayer of the bill, nor such as the complainant chooses to take; but it is made by the court according to what is proper to be de- creed upon the assumption that the statements in the bill are true. 19 " The matter of the bill ought at least to be opened and explained to the court whenever the decree is applied for, so that the court may see that the decree is a proper one." 20 'Wooster v. Woodhull, 1 J. Ch. 14 Stuart v. St. Paul, 63 Fed. R 664. (N. Y.) 539. 15 Austin v. Riley, 55 Fed. R 833. 9 Bard v. Fort, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. T.) "Lander v. Lewis, 1 Fed. R. 378. 633< See Stuart v. St. Paul, 63 Fed. R 68a 1" Quincy v. Foot, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) " Fellows v. Hall, 4 McLean, 281. 496; "Watt v. Watt, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 18 Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. a 371; National Fire Ins. Co. v. Sack- 104, 112; infra, §§ 358, 359. ett, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 660. u Bradley, J., in Thomson v. Woos- ii Watt v. Watt, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) ter, 114 U. S. 104, 113; Andrews v. 871> Cole, 20 Fed. R. 410; Rose v. Wood- 12 Blanchard v. Cooke, 144 Mass. 207. ruff, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 547, 548. 13 Allen v. Wilson, 21 Fed. R. 881 ; 20 Bradley, J., in Thomson v. Woos- Linder v. Lewis, 1 Fed. R 378; Stuart ter, 114 U. S. 104, 113, 114. v. St. Paul, 63 Fed. R 644. §,104.] PKAOTTOE IN TAKING A BILL PEO OONFESSO. 2Y9 It has been said : " The bill, when confessed by the default of the defendant, is taken to be true in all matters alleged with sufficient certainty; but in. respect to matters not alleged with due certainty, or subjects which from their nature and the course of the court require an examination of details, the obli- gation to furnish proofs rests on the complainant." 21 In the State courts a decree pro confesso is usually not taken against an infant without proof of the facts. 22 The Federal practice in this respect is not settled. When the bill relates to an un- settled account, a reference to a master is always necessary. 23 The equity rules provide that, after an order taking the bill pro confesso for a default in pleading, " thereupon the same shall be proceeded in ex parte." M "Whether this deprives the de- fendant of the right to notice of subsequent proceedings and to appear before the master is doubtful. 25 By the English practice, the defendant, after a decree pro confesso and a refer- ence for an account, was entitled to have notice of the proceed- ings and to a hearing: before the master. 26 "Where a bill for the infringement of a> patent alleges infringement of " the in- 21 Master Hoffman in Williams v. Corwin, Hopkins' Ch. 471 ; quoted by- Bradley, J., in Thomson v. Wooster 114 U. S. 104, 110, 111. See Ohio Cen- tral R Co. v. Central Tr. Co., 133 U. S. 83, 91. 22Chaffin v. Kimball, 23 111. 36, 38; Ingersoll v. Ingersoll, 43 Miss. 155; Massie v. Donaldson, 8 Ohio, 377, 381. Of. O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 IT. S. 151. 23 Pendleton v. Evans, 4 Wash. 104, 112. 24 Equity Rule 18. This phrase was not used in the Rules of 1822. 7 Wheat, vii. 25 Bradley, J., in Thomson v. Woos- ter,- 114 U. S. 104, 119, 120. It has been held in the Second Circuit that " Equity Rule 18 provides that, after the order pro confesso. the cause shall proceed ex parte; but this does not mean without notice to a party who has appeared in the cause. Such party is entitled to notice, and has the right to be heard as to the form of the decree, and upon such other questions as can be presented upon the complainant's pleadings and proofs. This is the uniform con- struction given to the rule through- out this circuit." Wallace, J., in Bennett v. Hoefner, 17 Blatchf. 341, 342. The same rule prevails in the Ninth Circuit. Southern Pac. Co. v. Temple, 59 Fed. R 17. It has been held in the Eighth Circuit that after an order that the bill be taken as confessed, no notice of the motion for a decree need be given to the de- fendant, although he has entered an appearance, provided that the motion be made in open court. Austin v. Riley, 55 Fed. R 833. 26 Heyn v. Heyn, Jacob, 49. So in the New York Chancery. 1 Hoffman Ch. Pr. 520; 1 Barb. Ch. Pr. 479. In New Jersey the rule was discretion- ary. Bruhdagev. Goodfellow,4Halst. Ch. 513; Thomson v. Wooster, 114 •U. S. 104, 119, 120. 280 TAKING BILLS PEO CONFESSO. [§ 104. Vention " of the plaintiffs, and is taken as confessed, it seems that it cannot be claimed in subsequent proceedings in the same suit that the patent is void upon its face. 27 "When there are more than one defendant who are charged with a joint liabil- ity, after the bill has been taken as confessed against one, no final decree can be made against him, unless and until a decree is entered against those who appear and defend the suit; 28 and if the bill is finally dismissed upon the merits as to them, it will be dismissed as to the defaulter also. 29 But the rule seems to be otherwise where his liability is distinct and several. 80 It seems that a decree taking a bill as confessed is of no effect unless followed by, or included in, a final decree. 31 An appeal can be taken from the final decree after a bill has been taken as confessed. Upon such an appeal the decree may be reversed for a defect in the service of the subpoena; 32 for failure to ap- point a guardian ad litem, when required ; M it seems for a want of indispensable parties, 34 and for a failure to set aside the de- cree upon a proper application. 35 The only question for the con- sideration of the court is whether the allegations in the bill are sufficient to support the decree. 36 It seems that the objec- tion that the complainant had an adequate remedy at law rests in the discretion of the court of first instance, and that it can- not be waived in the appellate court by a defendant who is in default. 37 "Where the defendant had not moved until nine months after the appointment of a receiver, and meanwhile the bill had been taken as confessed, it was held to be too late to take this objection. 38 27 Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 32 O'Hara v. MaoConnell, 93 IT. S. 114 U. S. 439, 446, 447; Reedy v. 150; Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U. S. Western El. Co. (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. R. 128. 709. 33 O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U. 8. 28Frowv. De La Vega, 15 Wall. 552. 150. 29 Terry v. Fontaine's Adm'r, 83 3 Waite, C. J., in Ambler v. Cho- teau, 107 TJ. S. 586, 591. For allega- tions held sufficient, see Pac. R of Mo. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., Ill U. S. 505. "Magniac v. Thompson, 2 WaU. Jr. 209; supra, §§ 87, 69. 284 DEMTJBEEES. [§ 106. was " colorable," " a fraud," " a breach of trust," and " a scheme by which Blair and Taylor were to get " certain stock or shares of stock in a corporation " without paying for them," are allega- tions of conclusions of law, which a demurrer does not admit. 18 An averment that a thing was done with the intent to defraud is an allegation of fact. 13 An allegation as to the future effect of an act threatened by the defendant was held to be ad- mitted by a demurrer. 14 A demurrer does not admit a false allegation concerning a fact of which the court will take judi- cial notice. 15 Thus, a demurrer does not admit the allegation that a town is in a certain county, when in fact it is in an- other county of which the court can take judicial notice. 16 Upon a demurrer to an infringement bill the court may take judicial notice of facts within the common knowledge of per- sons ordinarily well informed ; and it may refresh its recollec- tion upon the subject by a reference to books published before the application, which show that the patent is void for lack of novelty, utility or patentability." But it will not apply any special knowledge which the judge may possess, 18 nor investi- gate the prior state of the art, 19 nor even, it has been said, examine other patents mentioned in the bill, 20 nor recitals as to the prior state of the art in the specifications of the letters- patent of which profert is made ; 21 and in such case every doubt is resolved against the demurrer. 22 A demurrer is deemed to be an admission of the allegations of the bill upon a motion on the bill and demurrer. 23 I 2 Fogg v. Blair, 139 U. S. 118, 127. 508. See an essay by Mr. Samuel H. w Piatt v. Mead, 9 Fed. R 91. Fisher in 5 Yale Law J. 213. "St Louis v. KnappCo., 104 U. S. i8 Cleveland F. Co. v. Vulcan B. 658. In Hutton v. Joseph Bancroft Co., 72 Fed. R 505. & Sons, 83 Fed. R 17, it was held « Eowe v. Blodgett & C. Co., 87 that a bare allegation that certain Fed. R. 868. matters " will be " done was insuffi- 20 Cleveland F. Co. v. Vulcan B. cient Co., 72 Fed. R 505. is Taylor v. Barclay, 2 Simons, 213. 2l Indurated F. L Co. v. Grace, 52 Compare Louisville & N. R Co. v. Fed. R 124. Palmes, 109 U. S. 244, 252. 22 Drainage Constr. Co. v. Engle- i" Ross v. Fort Wayne, 63 Fed. R wood, 67 Fed. R 141. 466. 23 Bayerque v. Cohen, McAllister, 1 7 Am. Fibre Ch. Co. v. Williamson, 113. As to the effect of the admis- 69 Fed. R 247; Am. Fibre Ch. Co. v. sion in another suit, see Kankakee, Buckskin F. Co. (a C. A.), 72 Fed. R L. & M. R Co. v. Horan, 131 I1L 288. § 107.] DEMURRERS TO PARTS OF BILLS. 285 § 107. Demurrers to parts of bills. — A demurrer may be to the whole, or to a part of a bill, 1 or to both the whole and separate parts of a bill. 2 Separate demurrers may be filed for different causes to separate parts of a bill. 3 If only a part of the bill be demurred to, the demurrer must be accompanied by a plea or answer to what remains. 4 The defendant may demur to part, plead to part, and answer as to the residue. 5 Such a mode of pleading is now, however, very rare; for the same defenses can usually be embraced with more convenience and safety in an answer. 6 " If a demurrer is too general, that is, if it covers, or is applied to the whole bill, when it is good to a part only ; or if it is a demurrer to a part of a bill only, but yet is not good to the full extent which it covers, but is so to a part only, it will be overruled ; for it is a general rule that a demurrer (it is otherwise as to a plea) cannot be good as to a part which it covers, and bad as to the rest, and therefore it must stand or fall altogether." 7 The court may, however, allow the defendant to amend his demurrer upon narrowing its terms. 8 It has been held at Circuit that an objection to an immaterial allegation in a bill should be taken by exception and not by demurrer. 9 The equity rules, changing the former practice, now provide that " no demurrer or plea shall be over- ruled upon argument, only because such demurrer or plea shall not cover so much of the bill as it might by law have extended to." 10 Fornierly, when a defendant filed a plea or answer to § 107. ! Equity Rule 32. Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. 347; 2 Int. T. C. Lumber Co. v. Marner, Eq. Life Ass. Soo. v. Patterson, 1 Fed. 44 Fed. R 621. R. 126. 'North v. Earl of Strafford, 3 P. «Bakerv.Mellish,ll Ves. 70; Gregg Wins. 148; Roberdeau v. Rous, 1 Atk. v. Legh, 4 Madd. 192, 207; Atwill v. 544; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.), Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39, 49; N. P. R. Co. 684. v. Roberts, 42 Fed. R. 734. 4 See Story's Eq. PI., § 442; Daniell's 9 Stonemetz P. M. Co. v. Brown F. • Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 583. M. Co., 46 Fed. R 72; Stirrat v. Ex- 6 Equity Rule 32. celsior Mfg. Co., 44 Fed. R. 142 ; supra, «EquityRule89. §68. 1 Story's Eq. PI., § 443; Metoalf v. "Equity Rule 36, which follows Hervey, 1 Ves. Sen. 248; Verplank v. the 36th Order in Chancery of Au- Caines, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 57; Higin- gust, 1841. See, however, Dell v. botham v. Burnet, 5 J. Ch. (N. Y.) Hale, 2 Y. & C. N. R. 1; Atwill' v. 184; Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39; Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39; Heath v. Erie Brandon Mfg. Co. v. Prime, 14 Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. 347; Brandon Mfg. Blatchf. 371; s. C., 6 Bann. & A.' 191; Co. v. Prime, 14 Blatchf. 371; s. a, 3 286 DEMUEEEES. [§ 107. the same part of a bill as that to which he demurred, it was held that he thereby waived his demurrer, which was then overruled by the court. 11 But a demurrer by one defendant was not overruled by a plea or answer filed by another. 12 Now, however, the rules declare that " no demurrer or plea shall be held bad, and overruled upon argument, only because the an- swer of the defendant may extend to some part of the same matter as may be covered by the demurrer or plea." ls It has been held, under this rule, that a demurrer to the whole bill is not overruled by a plea or answer; 14 but the defendant may be compelled upon motion to elect between such a demurrer and the answer or plea ; 15 and if he elect to stand by his de- murrer, it seems that he will thereby waive his right to answer should his demurrer be overruled. 16 By proceeding to an argu- ment of the demurrer, an objection of this nature will be waived." The English courts have held, that a defendant can- not answer to the relief of a bill and demur to the discovery, unless he can rest his demurrer upon one of the recognized grounds on account of which a witness is always excused from answering. 18 A demurrer which is good as to the relief will also bar the discovery ; although if the bill be good for discov- ery but not for relief, the defendant does not prejudice a de- murrer filed by him to the relief by answering as to the dis- covery. 19 A demurrer which is good as to the discovery need not be good as to the relief. 40 Bann. & A. 191; Eq. I* A. Soc. v. Pat- 264; s. C., 9 Fed. E. 847; Orendorf v. terson, 1 Fed. R 126. Budlong, 12 Fed. R 24 "Story's Eq. PI., § 443; Dawson v. "Hayes v. Dayton, 8 Fed. R 702, Sadler, 1 Sim. & S. 537, 542; Lang- 706. dell's Eq. PI., g 103. 18 Dell v. Hale, 2 Y. & C. N. R 1; 12 Dakin v. Union Pac. Ey. Co., 5 Brownsword v. Edwards, 2 Ves. Sen. Fed. R 665. 243; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) is Equity Rule 37. 605-607. w Hayes v. Dayton, 8 Fed. R 702, " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 604. 706. But see Crescent City L. S. 605; Langdell's Eq. PL, § 103; Story's Co. v. Butchers' U. L. S. Co., 12 Fed. Eq. PL, § 312; Rules 36, 37; Jeffreys R. 225; Adams v. Howard, 21 Off. v. Baldwin, Amb. 164; Hodgkin v. Gaz. 264; s. C, 9 Fed. R. 347; Hunt- Longden, 8 Ves. 2; Todd v. Gee, 17 ington v. Laidley, 79 Fed. R 865; Ves. 273; French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250. infra, § 140, note 17. 20 Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39, is Adams v. Howard, 21 Off: Gaz. 43; Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. 264; S. a, 9 Fed. R 847. See U. S. v. 348; Farmer v. Calvert Lith. Co., 1 Am. Bell Tel. Co., 30 Fed. R 523. Flippin, 22a i« Adams v. Howard, 21 Off. Gaz. § 108.] CLASSIFICATION OF DEMUEEEES TO THE BELIEF. 287 § 108. Classification of demurrers to the relief. — Demur- rers to the relief claim that for some reason apparent upon the face of the bill the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for in it. They are classified by Mitford, afterwards Lord Redesdale, substantially as follows : 1 Demurrers to the relief are founded on objections to the jurisdiction; to the person; or to the matter of the bill, either in substance or in form. De- murrers to the jurisdiction are allowed either (1) because the subject of the suit is not within the jurisdiction of a court of equity ; or (2) because some other court of equity has the proper jurisdiction. A demurrer of this last class is much more fre- quent now than formerly. For the rule, that in a superior court of general jurisdiction the presumption is that nothing shall be intended out of its jurisdiction that is not shown or intended to be so, 2 does not apply to the courts of the United States, whose jurisdiction is confined to what is expressly given them by the Constitution and statutes; and must always appear upon the record.' It has been held that the objection that one of two plaintiffs suing to enforce a common, not a joint right, is a citizen of the same State as a defendant, cannot be raised by a demurrer to the whole bill. 4 Causes of demurrer to the person are : that it appears upon the face of the bill that the plaintiff has not the legal capacity to sue, either at all, as an alien enemy, or an unincorporated association suing as a cor- poration; or alone, as an infant, idiot, lunatic, and in some States a married woman. 5 Demurrers to the substance of a bill are that it appears upon the face of the bill: (1) That the plaintiff has no interest in the subject-matter of the bill. It has been held that the objection that one of two plaintiffs has no interest in the subject-matter can be raised by a general demurrer for want of equity. 6 (2) That the defendant is not § 108. 1 Mitford's PL, ch. 11, § 3. a next friend was held demurrable 2 DanielFs Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 615 ; when it did not show that the plaint- Earl of Derby v. Duke of Athol, 1 iff was disabled to sue alone. West Ves. Sen. 203. v. Reynolds, 35 Fla. 317, 17 S. R. 740. 'Turner v. Bank of N. A., 4 DalL See also Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. 8; Godfrey v. Terry, 97 U. S. 171. v., Filer, 52 N. J. Eq. 164; Paige v. * Nebraska City Nat. Bank v. Ne- Broadfoot, 100 Ala. 610. braska City H. G. L. Co., 14 Fed. R. 6 Hodge v. North Mo. R. Co., 1 Dill 763. But see Hodge v. North Mo. R. 104. But see Nebraska C. Nat. Bank Co., 1 Dill. 104 v. Nebraska C. H. G. L. Co., 14 Fed. \8upra, §§ 31-3a A bill filed by R. 763. 288 DEMURRERS. [§ 108. answerable to him, but to some other person. (3) That the de- fendant has no interest in the subject-matter of the suit. (4) That the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he prays ; but if the bill show a case for some relief, and yet ask for too much or the wrong relief, it is not demurrable, provided it contain the prayer for general relief. 7 (5) That the value of the subject-matter is beneath the dignity of the court. In England the Court of Chancery declined to interfere when the value of the matter in dispute was less than ten pounds, except in suits brought by or on behalf of charities, and under bills to obtain relief on account of fraud, or to establish a right. 8 In the Circuit Courts of the United States the bill should show affirmatively that the matter in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds two thousand dollars, 9 except in certain cases for which the statutes specially provide. 10 (6) That the bill does not embrace the whole matter concerning which the suit is brought, and which is capable of being immediately disposed of, so that there is danger of the defendant's being harassed with other suits about the same. 11 (7) That there is a want of proper parties, plaintiff or defendant. 12 (8) That there is a misjoinder 13 of parties plaintiff. A superfluity of defendants, not accompanied by multifariousness, is the subject of objec- tion by those only who were improperly joined. 14 (9) That the plaintiff's remedy is barred by length of time or laches. 15 "When 7 Patrick v. Isenhart, 29 Fed. R Markey v. Mutual Ben. L. J. Co., 6 339; Whitbeck v. Edgar, 2 Barb. Ch. Ins. L. J. 537; Wollensak v. Reiher, (N. Y.) 106. 115 U. S. 96. SDaniell'sCh. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 378, "Cherrey v. Monro, 2 Barb. Ch. 379; Brace v. Taylor, 2 Atk. 253; (N. Y.) 618; Toulmin v. Hamilton, 7 Moore v. Lyttle, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 183. Ala. 362. But see Bank v. Carroll- 9U. S. v. Pratt C. & C. Co., 18 Fed. ton R Co., 11 Wall. 624 R. 708; 24 St. at L., ch. 373. But see ls Maxwell v. Kennedy, 8 How. Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. R. 337. 210; Badger v. Badger, % Wall. 87, 1° See g§ 15, 16. 94; Marsh v. Whitmore, 21 Wall. 185; " Anon., 2 Ch. Cas. 164; Purefoy v. Sullivan v. P. & K. R. Co., 94 U. S. Purefoy, 1 Vern. 29; Shuttleworth v. 806; Brown v. Buena Vista, 95 U. S. Laycock, 1 Vern. 245; Margrave v. 161; Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. Le Hooke, 2 Vern. 207. 201 ; National Bank v. Carpenter, 101 12 D wight v. Central Vt. R Co., 9 U.S. 567. For a definition of equi- Fed. R. 785. table laches see De Gendre v. Byrnes, M Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245 Lansdale v. Smith, 106 U. S. 391 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R 498 44 N. J. Eq. 372. But see Beekman v. Hudson R W. S. Ry. Co., 35 Fed. R. 3. § 108.] CLASSIFICATION OF DEMUEEEBS TO THE BELIEF. 289 a bill praying an injunction to restrain the infringement of a reissued patent sets out or exhibits both the original and the reissued patent, and it appears from inspection that the sole object of the reissue was to enlarge and expand the claims of the original, and that a delay of two or three years has taken place in applying for the reissue, not explained by special cir- cumstances giving sufficient ground for the delay; the question of laches is a question of law arising on the face of the bill, which avails as a defense, upon a general demurrer for want of equity. 16 If it appears by the face of the bill that the case of the complainant is barred by the statute of limitations, it is de- murrable." The facts which show that the delay is excusable must be set up in the bill. 18 A demurrer will also be sustained where the bill shows that the plaintiff's case is repugnant to the statute of frauds. 19 (10) That the bill is multifarious. 20 It has been held that only such defendants as would suffer by the multifari- ousness can raise this objection. 21 Or (11) that there'is another suit pending between the parties for the same cause of action. Demurrers for insufficiency as to form, are either: (1) That the plaintiff's place of abode is not stated ; or that a compliance has not been made with any of the other requirements of Eule 20. 22 (2) That the facts essential to the plaintiff's right and within his own knowledge are not alleged positively. 23 (3) That the bill is deficient in certainty. 24 (4) That the plaintiff does not in his bill offer to do equity, when it is the custom of the 16 Wollensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S. Life Assur. Soo. of U. S., 55 Fed. R 96, 101. 478; supra, § 69. But see Brush EL » Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U". S. 201; Co. v. Ball EL L. Co., 43 Fed. E. 899. National Bank v. Carpenter, 101 19 Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585, U. S. 567; "Wisner v. Barnet, 4 Wash. 589. But see Chapman v. School 631. But see Sullivan v. P. & K. R Dist, 1 Deady, 108. Co., 94 IT. S. 806, 811; Doe v. Hyde, 2 ° See §§ 71-75. 114 IT. S. 247; Philippi v. Philippe, 21 Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39, 115 U. S. 151. A defendant to a fore- 44; Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 8 Fed. R closure suit, who claimed an inter- 457; Hill v. Bonaffon, 2 W. N. C. (Pa.) est in the property, but who was not 356; supra, §§ 71-75. alleged to be in possession nor alleged 22 Mitford's PL, oh. 2, §2; Rowley to owe the amount of the debt, was v. Ecoles, 1 Sim. & S. 511. ^ not allowed by a demurrer to avail 23 Mitford's PL, ch. 2, § 2; Darnell's himself of the statute of limitations. Ch. Pr. 412, 625. Blair v. Silver Peak Mines, 84 Fed. 24 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R 498; R 737. ' Goldsmith v. Gilliland, 22 Fed. R is Edison EL L. Co. v. Equitable 865. 19 290 DEMURRERS. [§ 109. court to require him to do so. 25 (5) That the bill is not signed by counsel. 26 (6) That the bill is not supported by an affidavit when one is necessary. 27 A demurrer to the relief will not lie upon the ground that the bill contains irrelevant matter. The proper remedy for this is an exception for impertinence. 28 Nei- ther is a bill demurrable because indispensable parties, whom it names and against whom it prays process, have not been served with subpoenas to appear and answer. 29 If any part of the relief prayed is proper the demurrer will be overruled. 80 § 109. Demurrers to the discovery. — A demurrer to the discovery claims that, for some reason apparent upon the face of the bill, the defendant should not be obliged to answer so much thereof as his demurrer covers. Professor Langdell says : " A demurrer to discovery indeed is not in its nature a de- murrer at all, but a mere statement in writing that the defend- ant refuses to answer certain, allegations in the bill, for reasons which appear upon the face of the bill, and which the demurrer points out." * A defendant may thus demur because (1) his answer may subject him to a pain, penalty, or forfeiture; 2 (2) that it is immaterial to the purposes of the suit; 8 (3) that it would involve a breach of .some confidence which it is the policy of the law to preserve inviolate, 4 as a professional con- fidence, 6 or one obtained in the course of a public office; 6 (4) that the matters of which a discovery is sought pertain ex- 25 U. S. v. Pratt C. & 0. Co., 18 Fed. §§ 575-599. Perhaps, also, if it might R 708. See § 82. disgrace him. Franco v. Bolton, S 26 Rule 24; Dwight v. Humphreys, Ves. 368; Finch v. Finch, 2 Ves. Jr. 8 M'Lean, 104, 491, 493; Brownsword v. Edwards, 2 2'Fmdlay v. Hinde, 1 Pet 241, 244 Ves. Jr. 243, 245; Northrop v. Hatch, 28 Pac. R Co. of Mo. v. Mo. Pac. By. 6 Conn. 361, 363. Co., Ill U.S. 505, 522; Eule 26; supra, 3 Harvey v. Morris, Rep. temp. § 68. Finch, 214; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. 29 Kilgour v. N. O. G. Light Co., 2 ed.) 636, 637. But see Pac. R of Mo. Woods, 145. v. Mo. Pac. By. Co., Ill TJ. S. 505, 522. s» Chicago, M. & St P. Ry. Co. v. * Story's Eq. PI., § 547; Gormully Hartshorn, 30 Fed. R 541; Straw- & JefferyMfg. Co. v. Bretz, 64 Fed. berry Hill v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. R 612. Co., 41 Fed. R 568. 6 Greenough v. Gaskell, 1 Myl. & K. § 109. ! Langdell's Eq. PI., § 97. 100; Story's Eq. PL, § 547, and cases 2 Stewart v. Drasha, 4 M'Lean, 563; cited. Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39 ; U. S. 6 Smith v. East India Co., 1 Phillips, v. White, 17 Fed. R 561, 565; Snow 50; Atty.-Gen. v. London, 12 Beav. 8; ▼. Mast, 63 Fed. R 623; Paxto'n v. Worthington v. Scribner, 109 Mass. Douglas, 19 Ves. 225; Story's Eq. PI., 487, 493. § 110.] OF "WHAT DEFECTS ADVANTAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN. 291 clusively to the defendant's case ; 7 (5) according to the old rule, because the defendant has, " in conscience, a right equal to that claimed by a person filing a bill against him, though not clothed with a perfect legal title," 8 as, if he be a purchaser in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, without any notice of the plaintiff's claim. 9 Where the complainant is the only per- son who can insist upon the penalty or forfeiture, and he waives it in his bill, he may compel a discovery. 10 In certain cases, a defendant may be obliged to answer to a charge of a fraud which might subject him to a criminal prosecution. 11 An Eng- lish case holds that a discovery can be compelled although a defendant might thereby admit his guilt of an offense against the criminal laws of a foreign country. 12 Demurrers to the discovery are now rarely filed. For the objections to the dis- covery do not usually appear upon the face of a bill; and- when they do, it seems that, since the equity rules, they can now in all cases be taken by answer. 13 A demurrer to an interrogatory that has been already answered cannot raise the question whether the answer to it is sufficient. 14 The subject of discovery is of much less importance now than formerly ; and the curious reader is therefore referred to the works of Wigram and Hare for a full discussion of it. 15 § 110. Of what defects advantage should be taken by de- murrer. — Advantage can be taken of most defects in a bill by answer, as well as by demurrer. But objections to defects in the form of a bill, except possibly those which are required by the equity rules, 1 can only be raised by demurrer. 2 Such are an omis- * Bolton v. Liverpool, 1 Myl. & K. 1 Simons (N. S.), 301. See also IT. & €8; DanielPs Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) v. MoRae, L. R. 4 Eq. 327; S. a, L. R. 645-648. 3 Ch. App. 79. s Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 635, ls See Rules 39, 44 636. 14 Chicago, St I* & N. O. R Co. v. » Jerrard v. Saunders, 2 Ves. Jr. Macomb, 2 Fed. R. 18. 454; Glegg v. Legh, 4 Madd. 193; " See infra, §§ 148, 281. Langdell's Eq. PI., § 188. § 110. 1 See National Bank v. In- io Mason v. Lake, 2 Brown, P. C. surance Co., 104 U. S. 54 76. 495; Lord Uxbridge v. Staveland, 1 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.)453; Ves. Sea 56; Atwill v. Ferrett, 3 Story's Eq. PI., §§ 453, 528: Hook v. Blatchf. 39. Dorman, 1 Sim. & S. 227; Crosse v. H Dummer y. Chippenham, 14 Ves. Bedingfield, 12 Sim. 35; Findlay v. 245, 251; Story's Eq. PL, § 578; Dan- Hinde, 1 Pet. 244; Fischer v. iell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 631, 632. O'Shaughnessey, 6 Fed. R 92. 12 King of Two Sicilies v. Wilcox, 292 DEMUEEEES. [§§ 111, 112. sion to allege that two defendants infringed a patent jointly, 3 and a lack of certainty in the bill, 4 especially as regards alle- gations of fraud. 5 If the want of equity of the plaintiff's case be clearly apparent upon the face of the bill, an omission to demur may be a ground for refusing the defendant costs at the hearing. 6 The objection that the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law should be specifically raised in a demurrer, plea, or answer, 7 although the court may for its own protection dismiss a bill for this at any stage of the proceedings. 8 § 111. When a demurrer should he filed.— "It shall be the duty of the defendant, unless his time shall be otherwise en- larged, for cause shown 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 office 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 without an answer and is proper to be decreed." 1 The demurrer may be filed, even after the rule-day, at any- time before an order has been entered directing that the bill be taken pro confesso? or after such an order by leave of the court. 3 § 112. Title of demurrer. — A demurrer is usually entitled substantially thus: "The demurrer of John Stiles to the bill of complaint of Richard Eoe." 1 If accompanied by a plea or answer, or both, it should be called in the title " the demurrer and plea," or " the demurrer and answer," or " the demurrer, 8 Fischer v. O'Shaughnessey, 6 Fed. Kilburn v. Sunderland, 130 XJ. S. 505 ; R 92; Putnam v. Hollander, 6 Fed. Brown v. Lake Sup. L Co., 134 U. S. E. 882. 530. * Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Pull- 8 Lewis v. Cocks, 23 WalL 466; man P. C. Co., 50 Fed. R 24; Green Oelrichs v. Spain, 15 WalL 211; Rey- v. Terwilliger, 56 Fed. R. 384; Thomas nes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354, 395. v. Nantahala M. & T. Co. (C. C. A), § 111. i Equity Rule 18. 58 Fed. R. 485. 2 Equity Rule 32 ; Oliver v. Decatur, 5 Rorback v. Dorsheimer, 25 N. J. 4 Cranch, C. C. 458. Eq. 516, 518; Mason v. Daly, 117 Mass. 8 Equity Rule 32; Harvey v. Rich- 403; supra, % 69. mond O. & M. Ry. Co., 64 Fed. R 19. e Harland v. Bankers'* M TeL Co., § 112. * Daniell's Ch. Pt (2d Am. 32 Fed. R 305. ed.) 652. ' Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354; §§ 113-115.] STATEMENT OF CAUSES OE DEMUBREK. 293 plea, and answer." 2 "When it is to an amended bill, it need not be expressed in the title to be a demurrer to both the orig- inal and the amended bill; but if designated as a demurrer to the amended bill, that will be sufficient. 3 § 113. Protestation. — After the title formerly followed the clause, " This defendant, by protestation, not confessing all or any of the matters and things in the said complainant's bill contained to be true in such manner and form as the same are therein set forth and alleged." x This was a practice borrowed from the common law, and was probably intended to avoid conclusion in another suit ; 2 but it is a needless form, 3 and may well be omitted. § 114. Statement of the extent of the demurrer. — If a demurrer be not to the whole bill, it must clearly express those parts which it is designed to cover. 1 "And this must be done not by way of' exception, as by demurring to all except certain parts of the bill, but by a positive definition of the parts to which the defendant seeks to avoid making any an- swer." 2 A special demurrer should point out specifically by paragraph, page, or folio, or in some other distinct form of reference, the parts of the bill to which it is intended to apply. 3 When the bill was long, a special demurrer " to so much of the bill as seeks " certain relief, without further specifying the part demurred to, has been held bad. 4 A demurrer may, how- ever, be expressed as to the whole bill except to a specified part. 5 § 115. Statement of causes of demnrrer. — By the English practice a demurrer was required to contain a statement of its causes, otherwise it would be overruled. 1 It is the safer prac- 2Danjell'sCh.Pr. (2d Am. ed.)653, Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 653, 653. 654; Story's Eq. PL, §§ 457, 458. s Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 653; 2 Story's Eq. PL, § 457; Robinson v. Smith v. Bryon, 3 Madd. 428. Thompson, 2 Ves. & B. 118; Devon- § 113. i Story's Eq., § 455, n. 3. sher v. Newenham, 2 Sch. & Lef. 205. *Mitford's PL, ch. 2,§ 2; Taylor v. » At will v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39; Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 498. Chicago, St. L. & N. O. B. Co. v. Ma- 3 Story's Eq. PL, § 452. comb, 2 Fed. R. 18. § 114. 1 Devonsher v. Newenham, 4 Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatch. 39. 2 Sch. & Lef. 199; Chetwynd v. Lin- "Hicks v. Raincock, 1 Cox, 40; don, 2 Ves. Sen. 450; Salkeld v. Sci- Howe v. Duppa, 1 Ves. & B. 511; ence, 2 Ves. Sen. 107; Atwill v. Fer- Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 654 rett, 2 Blatchf. 39; Chipago, St. L. & § 115. •Langdell's Eq. PL, § 96; N. O. R. Co. v. Macomb, 2 Fed. R. 18; Sanders' Orders, 180, 223; Duffield v. 294: DEMUEEEES. [§ 11.5. tice for the pleader to comply with this. It was, however, said by a District Judge: "The formal statement of causes of a demurrer, though usual, is not necessary. The assertion of a general demurrer is that the plaintiff has not, on his own showing, made out a case. If the causes of demurrer are not formally set forth the plaintiff may object, and require them to be thus stated." 2 Demurrers are either general or special. They are general when no particular cause is assigned except the usual formulary, to comply with the rules of the court, that there is no equity in the bill. 3 Such a one is called a de- murrer for want of equity. They are special when the partic- ular defects or objections are pointed out. The former will be sufficient, although special causes are usually stated, when the bill is defective in substance. The latter is indispensable when the objection is to the defects of the bill in point of form. 4 But under a general demurrer a defendant may take advantage of a few objections which appear to be as to mat- ters of form. Thus, under a demurrer for want of equity, the objection that a necessary affidavit is wanting, or that the plaintiff has not offered to do equity when that is required, may be raised. 6 So, may a lack of sufficient positiveness in the statement of facts in the bill, 8 and a misjoinder of plaint- iffs by the addition of one with no interest in the subject of the bill. 7 But it has been held that a general demurrer for want of equity will not cover an objection to the discovery only. That, it was said, must be made the subject of a special demurrer. 8 A failure to aver that the invention covered by a patent had not been previously patented or described in any printed publication is a defect which can be raised by a spe- cial, 9 but not by a general, demurrer. 10 A defendant may, Greaves, Cary, 125; Offeley v. Mor- see Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 498, gan, Cary, 153; Peaohie v. Twye- 499. crosse, Cary, 113; Dahiell's Ch. Pr. 'Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 655. (2d Am. ed.) 655. 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 655. 2 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 498, 'Hodge v. North Mo. R Co., 1 Dill. 499, per Dick, D. J. 104; Hubbard v. Manhattan Tr. Co., 3 Story's Eq. PL, § 455; Langdell's 87 Fed. R. 51. Eq. PL, § 95. 8 Whittingham v.Burgoyne,3 Anst. 4 Supra, § 111; Story's Eq. PL, §455. 900; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) See also Beames' Orders in Ch. 77, 656. 173; Mitford's PL, oh. 2, § 2; Dan- » Overman Wheel Co. v. Elliot H. fell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 655. But C. Co., 49 Fed. R. 859; Hanlon v. w McCoy v. Nelson, 121 U. S. 484. § 116.] DEMURRERS ORE TENUS. 295 however, in cases where he demurs to the substance of the bill, in which term is included an apparent defect of jurisdiction, state specially the different grounds upon which he founds his objection; 11 and, indeed, some of these grounds of demurrer seem to require a more particular statement. Thus, a demur- rer for want of parties should show who are the necessary par- ties that have been omitted, not necessarily by name, but in such a manner as to point out to the plaintiff the objections to his bill, so that he may amend by adding the proper parties. 12 But it has been said that this rule does not apply where it ap- pears from the face of the bill that the plaintiff has sufficient information as to the names, interests, and residences of the proper parties. 13 It is said by Mr. Daniell that " in the case of a demurrer for multifariousness, a mere allegation ' that the bill is multifarious ' will be mformal; it should state, as the ground of demurrer, that the bill unites distinct matters upon one record, and show the inconvenience of so doing." u But the case cited by him does not seem to hold that the more gen- eral form is bad. 15 A defendant is not limited to show one cause of demurrer only; he may .assign as many causes of de- murrer as he pleases, either to the whole bill or to each part demurred to, and if any one of the causes of demurrer assigned hold good the demurrer will be allowed. 16 When, however, two or more causes of demurrer are shown to the whole bill the court will treat it as one demurrer; and if one of the causes be considered sufficient the order will be drawn up as upon a complete allowance of the demurrer. 17 § 116. Demurrers ore tenus. — At the hearing other causes of demurrer may be assigned orally; when the defendant is Primrose, 56 Fed. R. 600; Hutton v. Fed R 498, 499; Glens Falls Nat. Star & S. Co., 60 Fed. R 747; Coop Bank v. Cramton, 72 Fed. R 734. v. Dr. Savage R D. Institute, 47 Fed. ls Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R 498, R 899; ConsoL B. S. Co. v. Detroit & 499. & S. Co., 47 Fed. R 894. » Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 655. "See, for example, the statement w Rayner v. Julian, 2 Dickens, 677; of causes for the demurrer in Pacifio s. C. more fully reported, 5 Madd. 144, R Co. of Mo. v. Ma Pao. Ry. Co., Ill note. U. S. 505, 514. 16 Harrison v. Hogg, 2 Ves. Jr. 823; w Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 333, Jones v. Frost, 3 Madd. 9; s. C. on ap- 655; Tourton v. Flower, 3 P. Wms. peal, 1 Jacobs, 466. 369; Att'y-Gen. v. Jackson, 11 Ves. « Wellesley v. Wellesley, 4 Myl. & 369; Dwight v. Central Vt. R Co., 9 Cr. 554; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. Fed. R 785; Taylor v. Holmes, 14 ed.) 657. 296 DEMUEKEBS. [§ 117. said to demur ore tenus. 1 When such a demurrer only is sus- tained and the previously assigned causes are held bad, the de- fendant usually recovers no costs, 2 and often is obliged to pay costs. 3 But a demurrer ore tenus will, it has been said, never be allowed, unless there is a demurrer on record. 4 Thus, when there was a plea on record, and that was disallowed, a demurrer ore tenus was also disallowed. 5 A demurrer filed to a part can- not at the hearing ore tenus be extended to the whole of the bill ; and such a demurrer is, it seems, only permitted for some cause which covers the whole extent of the demurrer filed. 6 It is doubtful whether by a demurrer ore tenus advantage can be taken of defects in form. 7 § 117. Prayer of judgment. — A demurrer, having assigned the cause or causes of its interposition, 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 the subject of demurrer; and concludes with a prayer that the defendant be dismissed, or, if to a part only, that he be excused from answering that part, with his reasonable costs in that behalf sustained. 1 When the demurrer is to a part only of the bill, the answer or plea to what remains usually follows the statement 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. 2 § 116. 1 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 8 Story's Eq. PL, § 464; Durdant v. 498; Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 J. Ch. Redman, 1 Vern. 78; Atty. Gen. v. (N. Y.) 149; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. Brown, 1 Swanst. 288; Hook v. Dor- ed.) 657; Langdell's Eq. Pl„ § 95; man, 1 Sim. & S. 227. Story's Eq. PL, § 464; Tourton v. 6 Equitable L. A Soo. v. Patterson, Flower, 3 P. Wms. 371. 1 Fed. R. 126; Baker v. Mellish, 11 2 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 498, Ves. 70, 76; Story's Eq. PL, § 464. 499; Wright v. Dame, 1 Met. (Mass.) But see Crouch v. Hiokin, 1 Keen, 337; Story's Eq. PL, § 464; Daniell's 385; Board, etc. German Reformed Ch. Pr. 672. But see Rule 34. Church v. Von Pueohelstein, 27 N. J. 3 Langdell's Eq. PL, § 95; Story's Eq. 30. But see Garlick v. Strong, 3 Eq. PL, § 464; Atty. Gen. v. Brown, Paige (N. Y.), 440. 1 Swanst. 265, 268; Mortimer v. 7 Story's Eq. PL, § 443. Fraser, 2 MyL & Cr. 173. § U7. 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. * Durdant v. Redman, 1 Vern. 78; ed.) 659. Hook v. Dorman, 1 Sim. & S. 227; 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.)659. Story's Eq. PL, § 464; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 668. §§ 118, 119.] MOTldNS TO TAKE DEMUEEEES OFF THE FILE. 297 § 118. Certificate of counsel. — Every demurrer must be ac- companied by a 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 delay. 1 Other- wise it may be disregarded. 2 The former remedy for this, as for any irregularity in form or in filing, was a motion to take the demurrer off the file. 8 It seems that the demurrer may be overruled for such an omission ; 4 but the objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal ; 5 and the statement of the causes of the demurrer must be considered as grounds of objection to an interlocutory injunction. 6 Whether a certifi- cate of counsel is required when the defendant appears in per- son, has not yet been decided in the Federal courts. 7 § 119. Motions to take demurrers off the file. — The rem- edy for an irregularity in the form or the manner of filing a demurrer, for example, if there be an error in its title, or it be filed too late, is by a motion to take it off the file. 1 When an order to that effect is granted, the cause stands in the same position as if no demurrer had been filed ; and the defendant is at liberty to demur anew, or to plead or answer, as he may be advised. 2 The order that a demurrer be taken off the file may allow the defendant to file the same paper with the proper ad- ditions and corrections. 3 The application should be for an order " to take a certain paper purporting to be a demurrer " off the file. 4 A demurrer is not taken off the file by the mere entry of an order to that effect. The order should be taken to the clerk, who will withdraw the demurrer by annexing the order to it. 5 By setting the demurrer down for argument or § 118. 1 Rule 31. TSeoor v. Singleton, 9 Fed. E. 809; 2 National Bank v. Insurance Co., S. C., 3 McCrary, 230. 104 U. S. 54, 76; Sheffield Furnace § 119. lEwing v. Blight, 3 Wall. Co. v. Witherow, 149 IT. S. 574; Bra- Jr. 134; Curzon v. De la Zouch, 1 zoria County v. Youngstown Br. Co., Swanst. 193; DanielPs Ch. Pr. (2d 80 Fed. R. 10. Am. ed.) 661-663. » See infra, § 119 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. 2 Cust v. Boode, 1 Sim. & S. 21 ; Dan- (2d Am. ed.)'661-663 ; Ewing v. Blight, iell's Ch. Pr. 663. 3 WalL Jr. 134. 3 Bailey W. M. Co. v. Toung, 13 *See U. S. R. S., § 747; 1 Hoffman's Blatchf. 199. Ch. Pr. 97. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 733. "Brazoria County v. Youngstown 5 Cust v. Boode, 1 Sim. & S. 21; Br. Co., 80 Fed. R 10. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (3d Am. ed.) 66a • Preston v. Finley, 72 Fed. R. 850. 298 DEMUKBEBS. [§§ 120, 121. taking any other proceeding in the cause, all defects of form except the omission of the affidavit and certificate of counsel, 8 and any irregularity in filing it would probably be waived. § 120. Setting demurrer down for argument. — If the plaintiff fail to set down any plea or demurrer for argument on the rule-day when the same is filed, or on the next succeed- ing rule-day, he is deemed to admit the sufficiency thereof, and his bill is dismissed as of course, unless a judge of the court allows him further time for the purpose. 1 The defendant filing the demurrer is the only party that can have the bill dismissed upon this account. 8 The former English practice in setting a demurrer down for argument was for the plaintiff to obtain an order ex parte, upon petition for that purpose; and to serve the same upon the defendant's solicitor at least two days before the hearing. 3 In the different circuits of the United States the matter is usually regulated by local rule or custom. 4 The de- murrer is not " ready for argument " until the rule-day after it is filed. 5 By the argument of a demurrer any informality or delay in setting it down for a hearing is waived. 6 It has been held, that a demurrer to a bill seeking an injunction must be decided, before a motion for an injunction noticed after the filing of the demurrer can be heard, 7 and before action is taken upon a plea subsequently or contemporaneously filed; s and that while a demurrer is pending undecided, the allegations of the bill must for the purposes of a motion be deemed admitted. 9 § 121. Argument of demurrer. — When a demurrer was called on for hearing and the defendant failed to appear, in the English practice the demurrer was struck out of the paper, unless the plaintiff had set down the demurrer, and could pro- duce an affidavit of service upon the defendant or his solicitor of the order to set it down. If the plaintiff could produce « National Bank v. Insurance Co., Fed. R. 147; Electrolibration Ca v. 104 U. S. 54, 76; Secor v. Singleton, 9 Jackson, 52 Fed. B. 773. Fed. R. 809. B Gillette v. Doheny, 65 Fed. R 715. § 120. 1 Equity Rule 38. 6 Electrolibration Ca v. Jackson, 2 Chicago & A. R Co. v. Union 52 Fed. R 773. Rolling Mill Co., 109 U. S. 702, 717. ' Ketchum v. Driggs, 6 McLean, 13. a Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 665, e Campbell v. Mayor, 33 Fed. R. 795. 666. 9 Bayerque v. Cohen, M'Allister,113. * See Gordon v. St P. H. Works, 23 § 122.] OVEEEULING A DEMUEEEE. 299 such an affidavit, the demurrer was not necessarily overruled ; but he had to be heard in support of the bill, the affidavit of service not authorizing the court, in the absence of the defend- ant, to overrule the demurrer, but to hear the plaintiff. 1 "When the defendant appeared and the plaintiff did not, the demurrer was also struck out of the paper, unless the defendant could produce an affidavit of service upon himself of the order set- ting down the demurrer; or unless, in the event of the de- fendant having himself set down the demurrer, he could pro- duce an affidavit of service upon the plaintiff or his solicitor. On the production of such an affidavit in either case, the defendant might have the demurrer allowed with costs. 2 "Where a demurrer had been struck out of the paper, a fresh order had to be obtained for setting it down, which might be had either upon petition or motion. 3 The usual course of proceed- ing, when the demurrer came on for hearing, and all parties appeared, was generally for the junior counsel for the party setting the demurrer down for argument to open the plead- ings, after which the counsel in support of the demurrer were heard, and next the plaintiff's counsel, and then the leading counsel for the demurring party replied. 4 The practice in these respects in the courts of the United States is very loose; it is sometimes regulated by the local rule, and often by a local custom, after the analogy of the State practice. § 122. Overruling a demurrer. — If upon the hearing any demurrer 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. 1 Upon the overruling of any demurrer, the defendant is assigned to answer the bill, or so much thereof as is covered by the de- murrer, the next succeeding rule-day, or at such other period as, consistently with the rights of the defendant, the same can, in the judgment of the court, be reasonably done ; in default whereof, the bill is to be taken against him jpro confesso, and § 121. l Penfold v. Ramsbottom, 1 8 Tolson v. Lord Fitzwilliam, 4 Swanst 552; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Madd. 403. Am. ed.) 666, 667. 4 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 666, * Jennings v. Pearce, 1 Ves. Jr. 447. > 667. § 122. 1 Equity Rule 34 300 DEMUEEEES. [§ 122. the matter thereof proceeded in and decreed accordingly. 2 If the plaintiff does not desire an answer, terms may be imposed as a condition upon the filing of an answer by the defendant. 3 A demurrer is presumed abandoned when the parties proceed to a hearing after an answer without argument of the demur- rer. 4 "When a demurrer both to the whole bill and to part thereof is sustained only as to a part, the proper decree is to dismiss so much of the bill as seeks relief in reference to the matters adjudged to be bad, overrule the demurrer to the resi- due, and direct the defendant to answer thereto. 6 "When sev- eral defendants have joined in the demurrer, it may be sustained as to one of them, and overruled as to the rest. 6 " The court cannot let a demurrer stand for an answer, because it is a mute thing." ' It must be either sustained or overruled. If, there- fore, it is doubtful whether a demurrer should be sustained or not, the court will overrule it, and allow the same defense to be taken by answer ; 8 or, even if it be not taken in the answer, may sustain it at the hearing. 9 By special leave, such a de- fense may also be made by a plea. 10 "When the answer by sup- plying omissions in the bill establishes the complainant's case, a decree for him will not be reversed upon appeal, for an error in overruling a demurrer." After a demurrer to the whole bill has been overruled, a second demurrer to the same extent can- not be allowed ; for that would be in effect to rehear the case on the first demurrer; as, on argument of a demurrer, any cause of demurrer, though not shown in the demurrer as filed, may be alleged at the bar, and if good will support the demurrer. 12 A demurrer, however, of a less extensive nature may by special 2 Ibid. McLean, 336; Standard Oil Co. v. So. sHalderman v. Halderman, Pac. Ry. Co., 42 Fed. R. 295. See Hempst. 407. Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 « Basey v. Gallagher, 20 Wall. 670. Wash. 484. * Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 9 Johnasson v. Bonhote, L. R. 2 Ch. U. S. 126. D. 298. s Mayor of London v. Levy, 8 Ves. w Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 675; 403, 404; Story's Eq. PL, § 445. Rowley v. Eccles, 1 S. & S. 512. ' Ch. Hardwicke, in Anon., 3 Atk. ll Cavender v. Cavender, 114 U. S. 530. 464, See also West v. Randall, 2 s Storms v. Kansas P. Ry. Co., 5 Mason, 181. DilL 486; Bromley v. Jeffersonville, 3 12 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 674 § 123.] SUSTAINING A DEMUBBEE. 301 leave of the court be subsequently put in ; 1S and an amendment of a demurrer confining it to a part of the bill may also be al- lowed. 14 § 123. Sustaining a demurrer, — If upon the hearing any demurrer be allowed, the defendant is entitled to his costs. 1 But the court may, in its discretion, upon motion of the plaint- iff, allow him to amend his bill upon such terms as it shall deem reasonable. 2 "When a demurrer ore tenus is sustained,* the defendant receives no costs, and perhaps may be ordered to pay costs. 4 If the defect in the bill be clearly one that goes to the whole equity of the plaintiff's case, leave to amend will not be granted.* According to Lord Cottenham, " it is not usual, upon allowing a general demurrer, to give leave to amend ; but it may be done. It is in the discretion of the court so to do." 6 And although courts are now very liberal in allowing amendments, leave to amend may be refused when the case of the defendant is a hard one, and he is free from wrong-doing, while the plaintiff has had an opportunity to plead the new matter when his bill was first drawn. 7 Leave to amend is now usually granted upon payment of costs, and almost invariably when the defect in the bill consists in the misjoinder of parties, 8 or the omission of those who can be served without ousting the court of jurisdiction. 9 It has been held that a paper defective as a bill in equity may be sus- tained as a petition on an appeal from condemnation proceed- ings under a special statute. 10 "Where the court erroneously "Thorpe v. Maoauley, 5 Madd. 218, Bell, 2 Myl. & Cr. 89; Lowe v. Far- 231. lie, 2 Madd. 101; Walker v. Powers, " Glegg v. Legh, 4 Madd. 193, 207; 104 U. a 245. Baker v. Mellish, 11 Ves. 70; Atwill « Wellesley v. Wellesley, 4 Myl. & v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39, 49. Cr. 554, 558. § 123. 1 Rule 34, 7 Dowell v. Applegate, 8 Fed. R 2 Rule 34; infra, § 161. 698; S. a, 7 Saw. 232. 3 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R 498; 8 Aylwin v. Bray, 3 T. & J. 518, Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 J. Ch. (N. Y.) note; Tryon v. Westminster Imp. 149; Langdell's Eq. PL, § 95; Story's Com'rs, 6 Jurist fN. S.), 1324, Eq. PI., §464; Darnell's Ch. Pr. (2d 9M'Elwainv. Willis, 3 Paige (N. T.), Am. ed.) 673. 505. See Walker v. Powers, 104 TJ. S. 4 Langdell's Eq. PL, § 95; Lord 245,253. Clarendon's Orders, May 22,1661; 1 "Cherokee Nation v. S. K. Ry. Sanders' Orders, 298. Co., 135 U. S. 641, 651. s Langdell's Eq. PL, § 96; Tyler v. 302 DBMUEEEES. [§ 123. ordered a demurrer and at the final hearing dismissed the bill, although the evidence showed equities in favor of the com- plainants, the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decree and directed that the bill be dismissed without prejudice. 11 "Where a bill is dismissed because there is an adequate remedy at law, the decree of dismissal should be without prejudice to a suit at law. 12 "Wood v. Collins, 60 Fed. R. 139. "Sanders v. Devereux, 60 Fed. R. See infra, § 300. 311; infra, § 300. CHAPTER IX PLEAS. § 124. Definition and classification of pleas. — A plea is a pleading which sets up some reason not apparent upon the face of the bill, why the defendant should not be obliged to answer the whole or a part thereof. Lord Kedesdale defines a plea as " a special answer to a bill, differing in this from an answer in the common form, as it demanded the judgment of the court, in the first instance, whether the special matter urged by it did not debar the plaintiff from his title to that answer which the bill required." ' A plea may be to the whole or to a part of the bill. 3 Usually but a single ground of defense can be pre- sented by a plea, which, though it may state more than one fact, must bring the matters in issue to a single point. 3 Other- wise, it is open to the charge of duplicity and multifariousness, and will be overruled. 4 If a bill contain different prayers for § 124 » Roche v. Morgell, 3 Sen. & Lef. 721, 725 * Rule 32. 3 Whitbreadv.Brookhurst,l Brown, Ch. a 404, 416, note 9; s. a, 2 Ves. & Bea. 154, note; Watkins v. Stone, 2 Sim. 49; Rhode Island v. Massachu- setts, 14 Pet 210, 259; Story's Eq. PL, § 654. See Rhino v. Emery, 79 Fed. R. 483. 4 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 210, 259; Gaines v. Mausseaux, 1 Woods, 118; Whitbread v. Brock- hurst, 1 Brown, Ch C. 404, 416, note 9; s. C., 2 Ves. & Bea. 154, note; London v. Liverpool, 3 Anst 738; Watkins v. Stone, 2 Simons, 49; Saltus v. Tobias, 7 J. Ch (N. Y.) 214; Giant Powder Co. v. Safety N. P. Co., 19 Fed. R. 509; M'Closkey v. Barr, 38 Fed. R 165; Story's Eq. PL, §§ 653-655. But see Reissner v. Anness, 12 Off. Gaz. 842; s. a, 3 Bann. & A. Pat. Cas. 148; MacVeagh v. Denver C. W. W. Co., 85 Fed. R 74; Societe Fabriques v. Lueders, 105 Fed. R 632; Hazard v. Durant, 25 Fed. R. 26; Fayer weather v. Hamilton College, 103 Fed. R 546. A plea to the jurisdiction which set up matters affecting the validity of the service, matters showing want of the requisite difference of citizen- ship, and pendency of a prior suit was overruled for duplicity. Briggs v. Stroud, 58 Fed. R. 717. So was a plea to a suit upon a bond of indem- nity against loss by embezzlement, which set up, as a defense, misrepre- sentations as to the previous condi- tion of the embezzler's accounts, and averred that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that he was a defaulter. Supreme Council v. Fi- delity & C. Co., 63 Fed. R. 48. And a plea to a bill for the infringement of a patent which alleged that, dur- 304 PLEAS. [§ 124. relief based upon different grounds, the defendant may file a plea to each part of the relief. 5 And in other oases, where great inconvenience can thus be saved, the court may upon mo- tion, after notice to the complainant's solicitor, give special leave to file a double plea, 6 or rather, according to Professor Lang- dell,' two separate pleas, each containing a single defense. It has been held that the question whether a patent has been in- fringed cannot be raised by a plea, 8 except under extraordinary circumstances. 9 A plea must not contain inconsistent allega- tions, as " a plea of the Statute of Limitations and of liability never incurred." 10 Nor, it has been said, can a plea properly raise by averment an issue " not raised by the bill." u But, if the plea be otherwise good, immaterial allegations will not vitiate it. 12 Matters that have occurred since the filing of the bill may be set up by plea provided the time for filing the plea has not elapsed. 13 Otherwise, such matters can only be pleaded by a supplemental answer or cross-bill. 14 A plea should state facts, not arguments and conclusions of law, which will be dis- regarded. 15 Thus, it has been held that pleas which state that ing part of the time described in the bill, the defendant made the pat- ented device with the consent of the complainant, and that on other occa- sions he did not infringe. Knox R Co. v. Rairdon Stone Co., 87 Fed. R 969. But a plea was held to make a single issue where it averred that the defendant never made, used or sold any article embodying the in- vention which he was charged with infringing, and that the alleged in- fringement was committed, if at all, by a foreign corporation of which he was an officer. Leatherbee v. Brown, 69 Fed. R 590. SEmmott v. Mitchell, 14 Sim. 433. 6 Gibson v. Whitehead, 4 Madd. 241 ; Kay v. Marshall, 1 Keen, 190. ' Langdell's Eq. PL, § 98. Thus, in England, a defendant to a bill for an injunction against the infringe- ment of a patent and for an account was allowed to file a double plea, "namely, first, that the invention was not useful, and secondly, that it was not new." Kay v. Marshall, 1 Keen, 190, 192. But see Reissner v. Anness, 12 Off. Gaz. 842; s. C., 3 Bann. & A. Pat Cas. 148. »Korn v. Wiebusch, 33 Fed. R 50; Hubbell v. De Land, 14 Fed. R 471, 474. 9 Union S. & S, Co. v. Phila. S. R Co., 69 Fed. R. 833; Knox R B. Co. v. Rairdon Stone Co., 87 Fed. R. 969; Germain v. Wilgus (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R 597; Leatherbee v. Brown, 69 Fed. R590. WEmmott v. Mitchell, 14 Sim. 432; Story's Eq. PI., §§ 656, 657. . HEmmott v. Mitchell, 14 Sim. 432, 436. 12 Ibid. But see Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 210, 270. 1 3 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 210, 270; Claridge v. Hoare, 14 Ves. 59. "Earl of Leicester v. Perry, 1 Brown Ch. C. 305; Turner v. Robin- son, 1 Sim. & S. 3. is Miller v. Fenton, 11 Paige (N. Y.), § 125.] PLEAS IN ABATEMENT IN GENERAL. 305 defendant "is the sole owner in fee simple of tlie entire title of " the land which is the subject of the i suit ; " that, at the time of the bringing of this suit and long prior thereto, this defendant was and still is in the open, notorious, continuous, and exclusive possession of the said premises as the sole owner thereof, and claiming and holding adversely to the complain- ants and all the world ; " and " that the said complainants were,' at the time of bringing this suit and long prior thereto, ousted and disseized and out of possession of said premises," are bad. 16 Pleas are either pure, negative, or anomalous. A pure plea sets up new matter as a defense which is not apparent upon the face of the bill." A negative plea, which is sometimes also termed an anomalous plea, merely denies certain allegations contained in the bill. 18 An anomalous plea sets up a fact in avoidance of the bill, but one which the bill has anticipated and without confessing replied to. 19 Now that the benefits of discovery can be obtained at common law, negative and anom- alous pleas are rarely used; 20 and the learning and subtlety which have been displayed in discussing their characteristics are of little service, except as a means of mental discipline or for the gratification of an antiquarian taste. Those interested in studying their history and refinements are referred to the works of Beames on Pleas, "Wigram on Discovery, and Lang- dell on Equity Pleading, where they will find the subject dis- cussed at length, with full references to the cases. Pleas are either to the relief or to the discovery ; and pleas to the relief are either pleas in abatement or pleas in bar. § 125. Pleas in abatement in general. — The books which recognize pleas in abatement include among them pleas to the 18; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) " McCloskey v. Barr, 38 Fed. R 165. 607; Westinghouse El. & Mfg. Co. « Story's Eq. PL, § 651; Ehino v: v. Stanley, 65 Fed. E. 321. Emery, 79 Fed. E. 483. w Beames on Pleas, 22, 23; Jerrard 19 Langdell's Eq. PL, § 102; Story's v. Saunders, 2 Ves. Jr. 187; National Eq. PL, § 651; McDonald v. Salem C. Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 TJ. S. 54; F. M. Co., 31 Fed. B. 577: McCloskey Wood v. Mann, 1 Sumn. 506; Mo- v. Barr, 38 Fed. R 165; Hilton v. Closkey v. Barr, 38 Fed. E. 165; Emma Guyott, 42 Fed. R 249. But see Mil- S. M Co. v. Emma S. M Co. of N. Y., ligan v. Milledge, 3 Cr. 220. 1 Fed. E. 39; Hudson v. Randolph, 20 See, however, Ehino v. Emery, 66 Fed. R. 216. 79 Fed. E. 483. 20 306 pleas. . [§ 125. jurisdiction, pleas to the person, and pleas to the bill. 1 Matters in abatement can, in general, only be set up by plea or demur- rer; and a defendant, by answering or pleading in bar, waives any such objection. 2 But the act of March 3, 1875, provides "that 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 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 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." ' It has been held that a denial of the allegations in the bill as to the differ- ence of citizenship, 4 or of the value of the matter in dispute,* should be made by a plea in abatement, and if set up by an- swer may be disregarded. The objection that there is no juris- diction in equity because the complainant has an adequate remedy at law may be taken by demurrer, plea, or answer. 6 Otherwise, the defendant waives the right to make it, 7 although the court may for its own protection dismiss a bill for this rea- son at the final hearing when the pleadings are silent upon the subject. 8 The reference of the matter in dispute to an arbi- §125. ! See Beames on Pleas, ch. 2; enacted March 8, 1887,24 St. at L., Story's Eq. PL, §§ 705-708; Rule 39; ch. 873; infra, § 293. See Nashua & Memphis City v. Dean, 8 Wall. 64. L. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co., 136 2 Beames on Pleas (1st Am. ed.), 63, U. S. 356, 474 64; Story's Eq. PL, g 708; Rule 39; * Wickliffe v. Owings, 17 How. 47. Livingston v. Story, 11 Pet. 351, 393; 6 Butchers' & Drovers' Stock Yards Wickliffe v. Owings, 27 How. 47, 52; v. Louisville & N. J. Co., 67 Fed. R. 35. Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 788, 6 Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354, 792; Wood v. Mann, 1 Sumn. 506; 395; Wylie v. Coxe, 15 How. 415; Dodge v. Perkins, 4 Mason, 435; Cit- Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 U. S. 505. tredge v. Claremont Bank, 3 Story, ' Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354; 590; Doggett v. Emerson, 1 Woodb. Wylie v. Coxe, 15 How. 415. & M. 196; Blackburn v. Selma, M. & 8 Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake C. M. R Co., 2 Flip. 525; Emerson Co. v. & W. Co., 2 Black, 545, 550; Lewis v. Nimocks, 88 Fed. R 280. Cocks, 23 WalL 466; Oelrichs v. Spain, 3 Act of March 3, 1875, §. 5; U. S. 15 WalL 211. R S. 1 Supp. 175; 18 St. at L. 470; re- §§ 126, 127.] PLEAS TO THE PEKSON. 307 trator, under an agreement that his award shall be made the basis of a decree, is a waiver of such an objection. 9 § 126. Pleas to the jurisdiction. — Pleas to the jurisdiction are: (1) That the subject of the suit is not within the jurisdic- tion of a court of equity; 1 (2) that some other court of equity- has the proper jurisdiction ; 2 (3) that the defendant has not been properly served with process. 3 § 127. Pleas to the person. — Pleas to the person are: (1) That the plaintiff has not the legal capacity to sue either at all if an alien enemy, 1 or alone if an infant, 2 or without leave from the court as a receiver. 3 (2) That the plaintiff is not the person whom he pretends to be, or does not sustain the char- acter which he assumes; as, for example, that he is not execu- tor, 4 or not assignee, 8 or not a corporation, 6 when suing as such ; or that the suit is brought in the name of a fictitious person; 7 or that it is brought in the name of a person who sues for the benefit of another, through collusion or champerty; 3 or, it seems, in a stockholder's suit founded upon a right which may properly be asserted by the corporation, that the corpo- ration has not refused to sue. 9 It has been held that the ob- jection that the plaintiff is a lunatic and cannot sue without a next friend cannot be taken by plea, and that the proper course for the defendant is to move either to strike the bill off the file on account of the complainant's mental incapacity, or for a stay of the proceedings until a committee or next friend is appointed. 10 (3) That the defendant cannot be sued except upon the happening of some event which has not occurred, as 9 Strong v. Wiley, 104 U. S. 512. 6 Nicholas v. Murray, 5 Saw. 320. §126. 1 Story's Eq. PL, §§710-713. 'Dental V. Go. v. Wetherbee, 2 2 Story's Eq. PL, §§ 714-716. Cliff. 555; Blackburn v. Selma, M. & 'Larned v. Griffin. 12 Fed. R 590; M. R Co., 2 Flip. 525; Emerson Co. Williams v. Empire Tr. Co., 1 N. J. v. Nimocks, 88 Fed. R. 280. L. J. 315. 7 Chapman v. School Dist. No. 1, §127. lAlbrech v. Sussman, 2 V. Deady, 108, 116. •&B. 323; Story's Eq. PL, §724; Mum- 8 Dinsmore v. Central R. Co., 19 ford v. Mumford. 1 GalL 366. Fed. R 153. But see Sperry v. Erie 2 Story's Eq. PL, § 725. But see Ry. Co., 6 Blatchf. 425. Dudgeon v. Watson, 23 Fed. R 161. 9 New by v. Oregon Cent Ry. Co., 1 » See Newman v. Moody, 19 Fed. R. Saw. 63, 67. $58. 10 Dudgeon v. Watson, 23 Fed. R. 4 See Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 161. WalL 788, 792; Ord v. Huddleston, 2 Dick. 510; Story's Eq. PL, § 727. 308 PLEAS . [§ 128. under the former practice, that he is a receiver, and no leave to sue him has been obtained from the court by which he was appointed. 11 (4) That the defendant is not the person he is alleged to be, or does not sustain the character which he is alleged to bear; 13 or that the person named as a defendant is not a corporation when sued as such, — in which case the person served with process on its behalf may file the plea in his own name, 13 or was not incorporated under the laws of the State which is named in the bill as its creator; 14 or that the defendant has become a bankrupt or insolvent, and his interest in the subject-matter has passed to his assignee. 15 § 128. Pleas to the bill.— Pleas to the bill are: (1) That there is another suit depending in a domestic court of equity for the same matter. (2) That there is a want of proper par- ties. (3) That the bill will cause an improper multiplicity of suits. (4) Multifariousness. 1 Of these the first two are the only ones of much practical importance. It is doubtful whether either of the last two has ever been successfully maintained. 2 Judge Story thus speaks of them : " Thirdly, the plea of multi- plicity of suits. This objection also may be taken by way of plea, for it is against the whole policy of courts of equity to encourage multiplicity of suits. Indeed, this constitutes on© main ground of the objection of the want of sufficient parties, since its tendency is to multiply litigation. Fourthly, the plea of multifariousness, or of joining and confounding distinct mat- ters in one bill. Generally this objection is apparent on the face of the bill, and then it could be taken by way of demurrer. But, in case the bill is so artfully framed that from that or from some other cause the objection does not appear on the face of the bill,, the defendant may take advantage thereof by setting forth the special matter by a plea." 3 Where the bill was filed "Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126; 15 Kittredge v. Claremont Bank, a Jerome v. McCarter. 94 U. S. 734, 737 ; Story, 590; Story's Eq. PI., § 732. See In re Young, 7 Fed. R. 855. But see also Doggett v. Emerson, 1 Woodb. 24 St. at L., oh. 373, § 3; infra, § 251. & M. 196. "Story's Eq. PL, §§ 732-734. § 128. Story's Eq. PL, §§ 735-748. " Kelly v. Mississippi C. B. Co., 1 2 Benson v. Hadfield, 4 Hare, 32, 39; Fed. R. 564; S. a, 2 Flip. 581. See M'Closkey v. Barr, 38 Fed. R. 165. also Williams v. Empire Tr. Co., 1 'Story's Eq. PL, §§ 746, 749. See N. J. L. J. 315. also Benson y. Hadfield, 4 Hare, 32. w Blackburn v. Selma, M. & M. R. Co., 2 Flip. 525. § 129.] PLEAS OP PENDENCY OF ANOTHER SUIT. 309 to restrain the infringement of five patents, and stated that the defendant made and sold for use " soda-water fountains, each made according to, and employing and containing, the inven- tions described and claimed in each of the above-named letters- patent and reissued letters-patent; " a plea was overruled, which set up as a defense, that all of the letters-patent described in the bill were, as the bill showed, for separate and distinct in- ventions, " which several alleged inventions are not, in point of fact, connected together in use or operation, and are not, in point of fact, conjointly embodied in any of the soda-water and other fountains manufactured, used, or sold, by this de- fendant; so that the said plaintiff, by his single bill of com- plaint aforesaid, seeks to compel this defendant to unite five separate and distinct defenses depending upon distinct and dif- ferent proofs, so as to complicate the defense and embarrass " this defendant in his answer to the said complaint; and that it is not true, as alleged in said bill, that the said defendant has made, constructed, used, and vended to others to be used, soda-water and other fountains, each made according to, and employing and containing, the inventions described and claimed in each of the above-named letters-patent and reissued letters^ patent." * § 129. Pleas of pendency of another suit. — A plea that another suit in equity is pending for the same cause in the same court is, if true, a sufficient defense to a bill. 1 The pend- ency of an action at law for the same matter is not, however, in itself a defense. 2 For the very fact that relief cannot be> had at law is the usual ground for resorting to equity. So the pendency of an action at law upon a contract was held to be no bar to a subsequent bill in equity by the same plaintiff to reform it so as to obviate a cross-action on the contract by the defendant. 8 If, however, there appears to be no sufficient rea- son for the maintenance of both, the court at equity may, after 4 Matthews v. Lalanoe & G. Mfg. Brune, 96 U. S. 588. 592, 593. See also Co., 2 Fed. R. 232. Memphis v. Dean, 8 Wall. 64. § 129. ! Mitford's PL, ch. 2, § 2, part 2 Graham v. Meyer, 4 Blatchf. 129; 2; Story's Eq. -PI., § 736; Urlin v. Thome v. Towanda T. Co., 15 Fed. R. Hudson, 1 Vern. 332; Foster v. Vas- 289, 292. sail, 3 Atk. 587, 590; Crofts v. Wort- s Providence S. E. Co. v. Hathaway ley, 1 Ch. Ca. 241; Tarleton v. Barnes, Mfg. Co., 79 Fed. R. 512. 2 Keen, 632, 635; Insurance Co. v. 310 PLBAS . [§ 129. the defendant has answered, put the plaintiff to his election, whether he will proceed at law or in equity; and if he elects the latter, then his proceeding at law will be enjoined; if the former, his bill will be dismissed. 4 The pendency of another suit in a court of another of the United States, or of a foreign country, is not a bar to a suit for the same relief in a Circuit Court of the United States, 5 at least when the object is not to obtain the possession of property in the custody of the former court. 6 Nor, it seems, although there the authorities are con- flicting, 7 is the pendency of a similar suit in a court held within the same State where the Federal court is held, 8 but it is usu- ally a ground for a stay of its own proceedings by the Federal court. 9 The effect of the pendency of another suit for the same cause in another court of -the United States has never been expressly decided. 10 A plea that another suit is pending, in which the complainant might Obtain by cross-bill the relief now sought by him, is bad. 11 A plea of Us pendens should set forth the commencement of the former suit, its general nature, character, and objects, whether it is at law or in equity, the relief prayed, and how far it has progressed ; 12 it should then « Story's Eq. PL, § 742; Beames' 62 Fed. R. 694; Marshall v. Otto, 59 Orders in Ch., 11, 12; Mitford's PL, Fed. R 249; Rejall v. Greenhood, 60 ch. 2, § 2, part 2; Royle v. Wynne, 1 Fed. R 884; Short v. Hepburn, 75 C. & Ph. 252; Thorne v. Towanda T. Fed. R 113; Shaw v. Lyman, 79 Fed. Co., 15 Fed. R 289, 392; infra, § 295. R 2. But see Gamble v. San Diego, 5 Insurance Go. v. Brune, 96 U. S. 79 Fed. R. 487, and supra, § 9. 588, 592^ 593; Stanton v. Embrey, 93 9 Foley v. Hartley, 72 Fed. R 570; U. S. 548; Lord Dillon v. Alvares, 4 Zimmerman v. So Relle (C. O. A.), 80 Ves. 357. See Story's Eq. PL, § 747. Fed. R 417; Hughes v. Green (C. C. « Briggs v. Stroud, 58 Fed. R 717, A.), 84 Fed. R. 833; Green v. Under- 720; supra, § 9. wood, 86 Fed. R 427. See Hughes v. 7 See Radford v. Folsom, 14 Fed. Green, 75 Fed. R 693. R 97; Brooks v. Mills County, 4 DilL 10 See Wheeler v. MoCormiok, 8 524; Lawrence v. Remington, 6 Biss. Blatchf. 267; Sljeiger v. Heidelberger, 44; Marks v. Marks, 75 Fed. R 321. 4 Fed. R 455; s. C, 18 Blatchf. 426; 8 Latham v. Chafee, 7 Fed. R 520; Brooks v. Mills County, 4 DilL 524, White v. Whitman, 1 Curt. 494; 527. Sharon v. Hill, 22 Fed. R 28; Wash- " Washburn & M. Mfg. Co. v. Scutt, burn & M. Mfg. Co. v. Scutt, 22 Fed. 22 Fed. R 710. R. 710; Loring v. Marsh, 2 Cliff. 322; 12 Crescent City L. S. Co. v. Butch- Gordon v. Gilfoil,99 U. S. 168,178; ers' U. L S.Co.,12 Fed. R. 225; Green Dwight v. Cent. Vt. R. Co., 9 Fed. R v. Underwood (C. C. A.), 86 Fed. R 785; Crescent City L S. Co. v. Butch- 427; Foster v. Vassal, 3 Atk. 589, 590; ers' U. L. S, Co., 12 Fed. R 225; Story's Eq. PL, § 737. North Muskegon v. Clark (C. C. A), § 129.] PLEAS OF PENDENCY OP ANOTHER STTIT^ 311 aver specifically that the second suit is for the same subject- matter 13 as the first, and seeks the same or similar relief; 14 and further, that the former suit is still depending. 15 It must show that the defendant was served or has appeared in the former suit. 16 " For it is no suit depending till the parties have appeared or been served to appear, but only a piece of parch- ment thrown into the office, which may lie there forever, and never come to a suit." " "It is not necessary to the sufficiency of the plea that the former suit should be precisely between the same parties as the latter." For if a man institutes a suit, and afterwards sells part of the property in question to an- other, 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. 18 So where one part-owner of a ship filed a bill against the husband for an account, and afterwards the same part-owner and the rest of the owners filed a bill for the same purpose, the pendency of the first suit was held a good plea to the last; 19 for though the first bill was insufficient for want of parties, yet by the second bill the defendant was doubly vexed for the same cause. The course which the court has taken in such case has been to dismiss the first bill, and to direct the defendant in the second cause to answer upon being paid the costs of the plea allowed." 20 Where a fprmer suit had been brought for a part, but not the whole, of the relief sought in the case at bar, the court held its pendency no de- fense, but said that proceedings in it might be stayed until the determination of the second suit. 21 " "Where a second bill is brought by the same person for the same purpose, but in a dif- ferent right, as where the executor of an administrator brought a bill conceiving himself to be the personal representative of the intestate, and afterwards procured administration de bonis i 3 Devie v. Lord Brownlow, 2 Dick. 16 Moor v. "Welsh C. Co., 1 Eq. Cas. 611; Mitford's PL, ch 2, § 2, part 2; Abr. 39, pL 14 Story's Eq. PL, § 737. ' "Ibid. " Behrens v. Sieveking, 2 Myl. & 18 Ibid. Cr. 602; Wheeler v. MoCormick, 8 19 Durand v. Hutchinson, Mich. Blatchf. 267; Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 1771, in Chan. Story, 183; Story's Eq. PL, § 737. 20 Mitford's PL, ch. 2, § 2, part 2, is The Haytian Republic, 57 Fed. citing Crofts v. Wortley, 1 Ch Cas. E. 508. 512; Story's Eq. PL, § 737. See 241. Urlin v. Hudson, 1 Vern. 333; Mit- *'Mass. Mut. L. I. Co. v. Chicago & ford's PL, ch 2, § 2, part 2. A. R Co., 13 Fed. R 857. 312 PLEAS. [§ 130. non, and brought another bill, the pendency of the former bill is not a good plea. 32 The reason of this determination seems to have been, that, the first bill being wholly irregular, the plaintiff could have no benefit from it, and it might have been dismissed upon demurrer. Where a decree is made upon a bill , brought by a creditor on behalf of himself and all other cred- itors of the same person, and another creditor comes in before the master to take the benefit of the decree, and proves his debt, and then files a bill on behalf of himself and the other creditors, the defendants may plead the pendency of the former suit ; for a man coming in under a decree is quasi a party." 23 The pendency of a taxpayer's bill in the same court was held to be a defense to a bill by other taxpayers for the same relief. 24 When, after a bill has been filed to restrain the infringement of a patent and to obtain an account of profits, the defendant continues his infringements, the pendency of the first is no ob- jection to a second bill seeking an injunction, and an account founded upon the subsequent infringements. 25 And notwith- standing a decree for an injunction in the former suit, a de- cree for an injunction and account was granted in that for the subsequent infringements, the second injunction being use- less except to support the equitable jurisdiction. 26 According to Lord Eedesdale, " as the pendency of the former suit, unless admitted by the plaintiff, is made the immediate subject of inquiry by one of the masters, a plea of this kind is not put in upon oath." 21 An oath is, however, required in all cases by the Federal equity rules. 28 § 130. Plea of want of parties. — The plea of want of parties is sometimes included among pleas in bar. 1 The same defense may be made by answer; 2 and the court has refused to allow 22 Huggins v. York B. Co., 2 Atk. 44. 26 Horton v. N. Y. C. & H. E E Co., 23Mitford's PL, ch. 2, § 2, part 2, 63 Fed. E. 897. citing upon last point, Neve v. Wes- 2 7 Mitford's PL, ch. 2, § 2, part 2, ton, 3 Atk. 557.' citing Urlin v. Hudson, 1 Vern. 332. 2i Gamble v. San Diego, 79 Fed. E. But see Zimmerman v. So Eelle, 80 487. Fed. E. 417; infra, § 141. 25 Wheeler v. McCormick, 8 Blatchf. 28 Equity Eule 31 ; infra, § 136. 267; Eoemer v. Newwan, 19 Fed. E § 130. iMitford's PL, ch. 2, § 2, part 98; Higby v. Columbia E. Co., 18 Fed. 2. See, however, Story's Eq. PL, § 744, E 601. Contra, Gold & Stock TeL and citations. Co. v. Pearce, 19 Fed. E 419. 2 U. S. v. Gillespie, 6 Fed. E. 803. See Eule 52. § 131.] PLEAS OF STATUTES. 313 it to be set up by plea upon the ground that the same defense can be considered with more convenience and expedition when pleaded in an answer. 8 Such a plea must state the names, if known, of all the persons for whose omission the defendant claims that the bill is defective ; 4 and the reasons why their presence is required in the suit. 5 It should also state that they are living, and, unless they are in every aspect of the bill in- dispensable parties to it, that they are within the jurisdiction of the court. 6 After a plea for want of parties has been sus- tained, and the bill amended by adding thereto the parties named in the plea, a second plea further objecting to the bill for the omission of other parties not named in the first plea cannot be filed. 7 A plea to the whole bill for want of parties will be overruled if, in any aspect of the bill, the parties therein named would not be necessary. 8 § 131. Pleas of statutes. — Pleas in bar set up some reason founded on the substance of the case, why the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. They rest upon some matter created either by statute, matter of record, or matter in pais, which last term signifies a matter of fact which is not of record, and is not given by statute special effect. Pleas founded upon matter that is made a bar by statute rest upon the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, or less frequently some other statute. Fed- eral courts of equity are not bound by State statutes of limita- tion, 1 except in cases where their jurisdiction is concurrent with the jurisdiction at common law; 2 but they will usually follow them,' unless injustice would otherwise be done, 4 thus enforcing the doctrine of equitable laches; and they will do so especially when suits are brought against executors, 5 or to foreclose mort- gages. 6 Moreover, the lapse of time for a shorter period than 3 Ibid. 673. But see Pratt v. Northam, 5 4 Atty. Gen. v. Jackson, 11 Ves. 367, Mason, 95; supra, § 8. 369; Cook v. Mancius, 3 Johns. Ch. * Wagner "v. Baird, 7 How. 234,258; (N.Y.) 427; D wight v. Central Vt.R Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201; Co., 9 Fed. R 785; Campbell v. James, Wilson v. Koontz, 7 Cranch, 202. 2 Fed. R 338, 348. 8 Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201; s Sheffield v. Newman, 77 Fed. R Meath v. Phillips Co., 108 U. S. 55a 789. 4 Fogg v. St Louis, H. & K. R Co., « Goodyear v. Toby, 6 Blatohf. 138. 17 Fed. R. 871, 873. i Eawlins v. Dalton, 3 Y. & Coll. 447. 5 Pulliam v. Pulliam, 10 Fed. R 53; » Homan v. Shiel, 2 Jones (Irish), 164. Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503. § 131. i Johnson v. Eoe, 1 Fed. R 8 Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Eeed, 1 Biss. 692; Etting v. Marx's Ex'r, 4 Fed. R 180. 314 PLEAS. [§ 131. the statute of limitations, and in cases to which that statute does not apply, will often be held such laches as to bar the com plainant. 7 It is not laches for a complainant to delay asserting his rights until the determination in another suit, brought by himself or another in a similar position, of a doubtful question of law materially affecting their validity. 8 The United States are not bound by laches ; 9 and the State statutes of limitations do not affect them, 10 even, it has been said, if specially named therein. 11 The United States may plead a State statute of lim- itations which does not name them ; 12 and so may officers of the United States in possession of property claimed by the govern- ment. 13 Laches may be set up by plea. 14 Laches or the statute of limitations may be pleaded to a bill to remove a cloud on title filed by one oat of possession. 15 An individual seeking to enforce by subrogation the rights of a State may be estopped by laches of the State which would not have affected the State itself. 16 Municipal corporations and counties may be estopped by laches. 17 The plea of the statute of limitations is in sub- stantially the same form as a similar plea in an action at law, but no special form is essential. 18 If the bill charge fraud or other matters, which, if true, would prevent the statute from depriving the complainant of relief, the plea must deny them. 19 It is not sufficient to deny them in an answer in support of the ■ plea. 20 The statute of frauds will be followed by the Federal courts. 21 If the bill shows that the complainant's case is re- ? Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 13 Stanley v. Schmally, 147 U. S. 95 U. S. 157, 161. 508, 518. 8 Buxton v. James, 5 De Gex & Sm. " Edison EL Light Co. v. Equitable 80, .84; Rumford Chem. Works v. Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 55 Fed. 478. Vice, 14 Blatchf. 179, 180; Green v. 4 > s Sage v. Winona & St. P. R Co., Barney, 19 Fed. R 420; People v. 58 Fed. R 297. Cooper, 22 Hun (29 N. Y. S. C. R), 515, 16 Cressy v. Meyer, 138 U. S. 525. 517. See Illinois G. T. Ry. Co. v. 17 Boone County v. Burlington & Wade, 140 U. S. 65. M. R R Co., 139 U. S. 684, 9U. S. v. Beebe, 127 IT. S. 338; U.S. "Harpending v. Reformed Prot v. Insley,130 U. S. 263; U. S. v. Dalles Ch., 16 Pet. 455; West Portland H. M. L. Co., 140 IT. S. 599. Ass'n v. Lownsdale, 17 Fed. R 205; w Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92; Story's Eq. PI., § 752. U. S. v. Thompson, 98 U. S. 486. 19 Stearns v. Page, 1 Story, 204. 11 U. S. v. Thompson, 98 U. a 486, 20 Ibid. 490; supra, § 8. 21 Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585, 12 Stanley v. Schmally, 147 U. S. 589. 508, 517 § 132.] PLEAS OF MATTER OF EECOBD. 315 pugnant to the statute of frauds, it is demurrable. 23 This, how- ever, is rarely the case, and the statute is usually referred to by plea or answer. 23 The rule is thus stated by Lord Chancellor Cranworth : " It was argued that the statute of frauds was not open to the defendant, by reason of his not having insisted upon the statute as a defense ; but this is a mistake. Where a defendant admits the agreement, if he intends to rely on the fact of its not being in writing and signed, and so being in- valid by reason of the statute, he must say so; otherwise he is taken to mean that the admitted agreement was a written agreement good under the statute, or else that on some other ground it is binding on him; but where he denies or does not admit the agreement, the burden of proof is altogether upon the plaintiff, who must then prove a valid agreement capable of being enforced." 24 The facts which show that the statute applies must be stated specifically. 25 Otherwise the plea is bad. 26 An act of Congress ratifying the construction of an otherwise illegal structure will, if constitutional, abate a suit for an in- junction against the further maintenance of the structure, although not set up by plea, answer, or demurrer. 27 § 132. Pleas of matter of record. — A plea founded upon matter of record sets up the judgment or decree of a court of record upon the same matter and between the same parties, or those in privity with them, in a cause of which it had juris- diction. Pleas of matter of record are in some of the boots distinguished from pleas of matter as of record. This distinc- tion was due to the fact that, in England, the Court of Chan- cery in its equitable jurisdiction, the Court of Admiralty and ecclesiastical courts were deemed courts not of record, al- though their decrees had the same effect 1 as the judgments of courts of record. It has' been held that the judgment of a court of an Indian nation in the Indian Territory has the same force as the judgment of a State court. 2 A judgment of an KIbid. 26 Ibid. 2 » For an illustration of the plea, 27 The Clinton Bridge, 10 Wall 454. see Jackson v. Oglander, 2 H. & M. But see Griffing v. Gibb, 2 Black, 519; 465. ' Liverpool, N. T. & P. S. S. Co. v. 24 Eidgway v. "Wharton, 3 De G„ M. Com'rs of Emigration, 113 U. S. 33, 38. & G. 677, 689. But see Heys v. Ast- § 132. i Story's Eq. PL, § 778. ley, 9 Law Times (N. S.), 356. 2 Stoudley v. Roberts, 59 Fed. R. » Bailey v. Wright, 2 Bond, 181; 836. McCloskey v. Barr, 38 Fed. R. 165, 169. 316 pleas. [§ 132. alien court, with jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties, in which the defendant was duly served or voluntarily- appeared in a country, such as England and Canada, the laws of which give like effect to a judgment of a court in the United States, is, in the absence of fraud, conclusive, between the par- ties and their privies, as to all matter pleaded and which might have been tried in the case. 3 A foreign judgment in rem ad- judicating the title to land or to a ship or to other movable property within the custody of the court, is, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, 4 conclusive, and will not be re- examined. 5 A foreign judgment determining the status of persons subject to the jurisdiction, such as a decree confirming a marriage or granting a divorce, is followed unless contrary to the policy of the law of this country. 6 A foreign judgment under which a person has been compelled to pay money is said to be so far conclusive that the justice of the payment cannot be impeached in another country, and that the defend- ant cannot be compelled to pay it again. 7 So, it has been held, are foreign judgments discharging obligations between citizens or residents of the foreign country and therein contracted. 8 But it was held by a majority of the Supreme Court that, otherwise, the judgment in personam of a court in a foreign country where a similar judgment of a court of this country would be considered as only prima facie evidence of the facts therein adjudicated, when one of the parties is an American citizen and the other a citizen of that foreign country, is only prima facie evidence and not conclusive. 9 A decree or judg- ment of a State court between the same parties in a suit duly commenced before that in a Federal court is res adjudicata in the latter, 10 although the question was one of general commer- » Ritchie v. MoMullen, 159 TJ. S. 235. 316; Tarleton v. Tarleton, 4 M. & S. * See Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 20; Konitzky v. Meyer, 49 N. Y. 571. 274. 8 Burrows v. Jamereaux or Jami- * Williams v. Armroyd, 7 Cranch, neau, Mosely, 1; S. C, 2 Stra. 733; 423, 432; Hudson v. Guestier, 4 s. C, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 525, pi. 7; S. C, Cranch, 434; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 12 Vin. Abr. 87, pi. 9; s. C, Sel. Cas. U. S. 113, 167. in Ch. 69; S. C, 1 Dick. 45; May v. "Cheely v. Clayton. 110 U. S. 701; Breed, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 15; Hilton v. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 167. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 168. ~< Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 168, ' Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113. per Gray, J., citing Gold v. Canham, 10 Clay v. Deskins (C. C. A), 63 Fed. 2 Swanst. 335; S. C., 1 Cases in Ch. R. 330. § 132.] PLEAS OF MATTER OF RECORD. 317 cial law and jurisprudence and the case was decided upon a demurrer; 11 but not, it has been held, an order, judgment or decree of a State court in a suit instituted subsequent to the beginning of that in a court of the United States. 12 Where the suit was first instituted the decree therein is conclusive al- though not entered until after the pendency of that in which it is pleaded or offered in evidence. 13 A decree of a court of equity will not be a bar if it resulted in the dismissal of a bill without prejudice; 14 or for want of prosecution; 15 or for a slip in practice ; 16 or by consent before a hearing," at least when it does not provide that each party shall pay his own costs; or, by the former English practice, if it had not been signed and enrolled, although it could then be insisted on by answer as a good defense. 18 A nonsuit, whether involuntary, 19 or even when taken after the highest court of the State had decided that the plaintiff had no cause of action, is not con- clusive in a subsequent action upon the same facts. 20 Nor does a judgment against, the plaintiff upon his default have that effect. 21 But a decree upon a bill taken as confessed concludes the defendant in another suit. 22 A decree sustaining a demur- rer to a bill is a bar to a subsequent bill between the same parties involving the same subject-matter unless the bill is dis- " Fuller v. Hamilton County, 53 Walden v. Bodley, 14 Pet 158; Gist Fed. R. 411. v. Davis, 2 Hill Ch. (S. C.) 335; Grubb 12 Blydenstein v. N. Y. S.&Tr. Co.-, v. Clayton, 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 378; 59 Fed. R. 12; Sharon v. Terry, 36 Hughes v. U. S., 4 Wall 252. See, Fed. R, 337; supra, §§ 9, 10. But see however, Starr v. Stark, 1 Saw. 270; Insurance Co. v. Harris, 97 U. S. 331. Anon., 3 Atk. 809; Story's Eq. PL, "David Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Eagle § 790. Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 57 Fed. R. 980; 17 Marshall v. Otto, 59 Fed. R. 249. « S. a, 58 Fed. R. 721. "Anon., 3 Atk. 809; Story's Eq. « Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall 107; PL, § 790. House v. Mullen, 22 Wall. 42, 46; "Homer v. Brown, 16 How. 354. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul, M. 2 " Gardner v. Michigan Cent. R. & M. Ry. Co., 47 Fed. R. 536; infra, Co., 150 U. S. 349. § 600. 21 Gabrielson v. Waydell, 67 Fed. R. i* American D. R. B. Co. v. Sheldon, 342. 17 Blatchf. 208; s. a, 4 Bann. & A. 22 Last Chance Min. Co. v. Tyler 551; Keller v.Stolzenbach, 20 Fed. R Min. Co., 157 U., S. 683; Reedy v. 47; Conn v. Penn, 5 Wheat. 424, 427; Western EL Co. (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. R. Badger v. Badger, 1 Cliff. 241. 709; Thompson v. Wooster, 114 TJ. a i« Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107, 104, 111, 112; Ogilvie v. Heme, 13 109; House v. Mullen, 22 Wall, 42, 46; Ves. 563. 318 pleas. [§ 132. missed without prejudice; 23 and a decree overruling a demur- rer operates as an estoppel upon the defendant. 24 In the ab- sence of statutory authority, a decree of a court of equity is void which declares to be invalid a conveyance of land beyond its jurisdiction, but does not direct a reconveyance; and such a decree does not bind a court within the jurisdiction of which such land is situated. 25 So, it has been held, is a decree fore- closing a mortgage upon and selling property beyond the ter- ritorial jurisdiction, unless it compels the mortgagor or the trustee of the mortgage to execute a conveyance to the pur- chaser. 26 No judgment or decree rendered after a proceeding not in rem, in which the defendant therein was not served with process within the jurisdiction; 27 or in which the unsuc- cessful party was denied a hearing; 28 or some such other gross injustice was perpetrated as to render the so-called judicial proceeding not due process of law, — is of any effect. Judg- ments or decrees obtained by fraud are not conclusive when properly impeached, 29 but it has been held that they cannot be attacked collaterally. 30 A judgment of a court of the United States cannot be attacked collaterally because the record does not show the necessary difference of citizenship of the parties or that a Federal question was involved. 31 In general, a decree which is interlocutory is not a bar, for, until the final decree in the cause, it is subject to revision by w Messinger v. Nev Eng. M. L. L 812; Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 IT. S. Co., 59 Fed. R 416. 274; Bradstreet v. Neptune Ins. Co., 24 Fuller v. Hamilton Co., 53 Fed. 3 Sum. 601. See Hilton v. Guyot, R 411. 159 U. S. 113, 204, 205. m Carpenter v. Strange, 141 TJ. S. 87. 29 Pae. R. Co. of Ma v. Mo. Pao. Ry. 26 Lynde v. Columbus, C. & K Ry. Co., Ill TJ. S. 505. Co., 57 Fed. R. 993; Farmers' L. & Tr. 8 « Peninsular Iron Co. v.Eels,68 Fed. Co. v. Postal Tel. Co., 55 Conn. 334; R 24, 35, 36; Christmas v. Russell, 5 S. C, 11 Am. R. 184; Mercantile Tr. Wall. 290, 305; Maxwell v. Stewart, Co. v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co., 39 Fed. 22 Wall. 77, 81. R 337. But see Muller v. Dows, 94 31 Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy, 5 U. S. 444. Cranch, 173, 185; Skillern's Ex'rs v. "Pennoyer v. Neffl, 95 U. S. 714; May's Ex'rs, 6 Cranch, 267; Cameron Life Ins. Col v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 780; v. MoRoberts, 3 Wheat 591; Des St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350. As to Moines Nav. Co. v. Iowa H Co., 123 decrees in rem, see The James G. U. S. 552, 557, 559; Dowell v. Apple- Swan, 106 Fed. R 94 gate, 152 U. S. 327, 337-341 ; Pullman's « Bischoff v. Wethered, 9 Wall. P. C. Co. v. Washburn, 66 Fed. R. 79a § 132.] PLEAS OF MATTER OF KEOOED. 319 the court which entered it ; 32 but in certain cases, orders which finally determine the right of parties, such as an order of inter- pleader, are conclusive in subsequent suits. 33 "Where several suits ancillary to each other were brought in different districts, it was said that the validity of a decree in one district could not be questioned by the same parties in the ancillary suit in another district. 34 A judgment of acquittal upon an indictment is a bar to a suit by the United States to recover a penalty for the same offense, 35 but not to a civil suit to recover damages upon a charge of the same facts. 36 Where the parties and the property in dispute are the same and the plaintiff claims the same right as in the former suit, the prior adjudication is con- clusive both as to all questions which were actually decided and as to all which might- have been considered. 37 But where there is a different matter in dispute, the former judgment is only conclusive of the matters which were actually decided. 38 33 David Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 58 Fed. R 731; infra, § 318. 38 Insurance Co. v. Harris, 97 U. S. 331. 3 «Compton v. Jesups, 68 Fed. R 263, 282, per Taft, J. But see s. c, 167 U. S. 1. 85 Coffey v. U. S., 116 U. S. 442. Cf. V. S. v. Oregon C. Co., 103 Fed. R. 549. 86 Stone v. U. S., 167 U. S. 178. "M'Aleer v. Lewis, 75 Fed. R 734; Nesbitt v. Riverside Ind. Dist., 144 V. S. 610; Wilmington & W. R. Co. v. Alsbrook, 146 U. S. 279; Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U. S. 327; Cromwell v. County of Sao, 94 U. S. 351; Jaros H.' U. W. Co. v. Fleece H. U. W. Co., 65 Fed. R 424; Bissell v. Spring Valley Tp., 124 U. S. 225. 88 Last Chance Min. Co. v. Tyler Min. Co., 157 U. S. 683; Cromwell v. County of Sao, 94 U. S. 351. Thus, where a controversy has arisen be- tween the lessor and the lessee of certain cars, as to the right of owner- ship and possession thereof upon the termination of a sublease, and a suit to which the lessor, lessee and sub- lessee were parties has been brought to determine their rights, in which it was adjudged that the lessor owned and had the right of posses- sion of the cars, and compensation for storage of them after the end of his lease was awarded to the sublessee; it was held that the decree was res adjudicata as to the lessee's right to recover damages from the sublessee for the detention of the cars after the end of the sublease. O'Hara v. Mobile & O. R Co., 75 Fed. R 130. But see Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. St. Joseph Depot Co., 92 Fed. R 22. Where, in a suit upon coupons, they and the bonds from which they were cut were adjudged to be invalid, the adjudication bound the plaintiff in a subsequent suit upon coupons from the same bonds which fell due later. Bissell v. Spring Valley Tp., 124 U. S. 225. A decision, that a tax for one year was void because the property taxed was exempt, was held to be conclusive as to the exemption of the property when taxed for another year. New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 U. S. 371 ; Goodenow v. Litchfield, 59 Iowa, 226. But see Keokuk & W. R Co. v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 301, 315; Davenport v. Chicago, R L & P. R 320 PLEAS. [§ 132. The fact that the first judgment or decree in the matter in dis- pute was too small to permit its review by an appellate court does not prevent it from being a bar to a subsequent suit which Co., 38 Iowa, 633 ; Memphis City Bank v. Tennessee, 1 61 U. S. .186. Of. Bald- win v. Maryland, 179 U. S. 220. For a case where a prior decree was held to conclusively establish the suffi- ciency of maps filed by a railway company, see So. Pac. E Co. v. TJ. S., 168 U. S. 1. For a case where a decree declaring stock to be invalid was said to substantially establish the in- validity of the claim to pay which the stock was issued, see Townsend v. St. L. & S. C. & Min. Co., 159 U. S. 21. Questions decided upon the issue of a mandamus to compel the pay- ment of judgments were held to be res adjudicata upon an application to enforce a later judgment so far as concerned the balances of the former judgments therein included, but not as to the other claims on the same. Police Jury of Jefferson County v. U. S. ex rel. Fisk, 60 Fed. B. 249. As to the effect of a decree or order dismissing a petition of in- tervention, see Manhattan Tr. Co. v. Sioux City & N. E Co., 102 Fed. E 710; infra, § 201. A decree of a court of equity dis- missing a bill to remove a cloud on title is not so far res adjudicata as to prevent the plaintiff from succeed- ing in a subsequent action of eject- ment against the same defendant, although the court of equity in its opinion stated that the title of plaint- iff was bad. Phelps v. Harris, 101 U. S. 370. But see State v. Buller, 47 Fed. E 415. Where, on the re- versal of a foreclosure decree, after a sale thereunder, the court below, in its action upon the mandate, al- though it reversed the decree in part, confirmed the sale; it was held that the failure of the mortgagor to appeal from said confirmation ren- dered it res adjudicata so that an- other suit to set it aside could not be maintained. Grape Creek C. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. E 200. A decree in a suit to enjoin the infringement of a patent which declared that the same was valid was held to bind upon this ques- tion the same defendant in a second suit to enjoin similar infringements, although the only issue raised by the pleadings in the former suit related to the title. Empire S. N. Co. v. American S. L. B. Co. (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. E 864. But where apparently there was no such finding in the first decree, and the only question then litigated had been the defend- ants' claim of a license, it was held that it was not estopped from con- testing the validity of the patent in a second suit. Lublin v. Stewart H. & M. Co., 75 Fed. E 294. A judg- ment in an action for royalties is an estoppel against the same defendant in a suit for royalties accruing sub- sequently, when he pleads a defense different from that set up in the first suit. Johnson Co. v. Wharton, 152 U. S. 252. A decree for a perpetual injunction and for damages and profits in a patent case is an estoppel against a second suit for damages and profits on account of infringements committed during the period covered by the first suit of which no evidence was given nor recovery prayed. Hor- ton v. N. Y. C. & H. E E Co., 63 Fed. E 897. But it does not prevent a second perpetualin junction against the same acts to support a decree for an accounting of profits caused by infringements subsequent to the first suit. Ibid. In the courts of the United States a judgment for the damages caused by a nuisance such as the excessive use of a street by a railroad company does not bar § 132.] PLEAS OF MATTEE OF BECOED. 321 can be brought up by appeal or error. 39 If, upon the face of the record, anything is left to conjecture as to what was neces- sarily involved and decided, there is no estoppel in it when pleaded, and nothing conclusive in it when offered as evidence. 40 A judgment or decree is binding upon both parties and those in privity with them. Privies are all who have acquired the property in dispute after the judgment or decree, 41 or pending the suit, 42 provided, in the latter case at least, that compliance was made with the necessary statutory requirements. 43 In a subsequent action for a continu- ance of the same nuisance. Balti- more & P. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 137 TJ. S. 568. But where a street has been permanently occu- pied by a railroad company without compensation to the owner, all the damage thereby caused must be re- covered in a single action. Shep- herd v. Baltimore & O. R Co., 130 U. S. 426. 3 9 Johnson Co. v. Wharton, 152 U. S. 252. As to the effect of an appeal, see Eastern B. & L. Ass'n v. Welling, 103 Fed. R. 352. « Russell v. Place, 94 U. S. 606, 610; McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 160 U. S. 110, 120. 41 Moor v. Welsh Copper Co., 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 39. «Ibid. « Jones v. Smith, 40 Fed. R. 314; wi/ra,§375. Thus, a grantee of a mort- gage is bound by judgments against the mortgagor entered before the mortgage or in suits pending when the mortgage was made. Keokuk & Western R. Co. v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 301, 314; But not by judgments subse- quently entered to which he was not a party. Dull v. Blackman, 169 U. S. 243; Keokuk & Western R Co. v. Mis- souri, 152 U. S. 301, 314; Campbell v. Hall, 16 N. Y. 575; Southern B. & Tr. Co. v. Folsom (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R. 929. So the beneficiary of a trust is bound by a judgment against his trustee. Kent v. Lake Superior S. C. Co., 144 U. S. 75; Re jail v. Green- 21 hood, 92 Fed. R 945. For the excep- tions, see Goff v. Kelly, 74 Fed. R 327; supra, § 45. A Federal court followed a California statute and the construction of the same by the State courts, so far as to hold that a foreclosure decree of a State court against an administrator of the mortgagor was binding upon the latter's heirs, without determining whether, if the foreclosure had been instituted in the Federal court, the heirs would have been necessary parties. Cf. Norton v. House of Mercy (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R 382; Hearfield v. Bridges (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R 47: But a decree against the trustee of a mortgage does not affect the same person when claiming as trustee of another mortgage without proof that the bondholders are the sama Compton v. Jesup (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R. 47. Cf. Carey v. Roose- velt (C. C. A), 102 Fed. R 569. It has been held that stockholders who are not parties to statutory pro- ceedings for the dissolution of a cor- poration are bound by a decree therein making assessments upon the stock, so that they cannot dispute the insolvency of the company and the necessity of the assessment (Haw- kins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319; S. C, 135 U. S. 533), but that they may defend upon the ground that their shares were fully paid, or as to any other question peculiarly affecting their individual liability. Rood v. Whor- ton, 67 Fed. R 434 That stockhold- 322 PLEAS. [§132. certain cases, persons not parties nor their privies have been held to be bound by 44 and to have the benefit of decrees as es- toppels when they defended the suit openly to the knowledge of the adverse party and for the protection of their own inter- ests. 45 The secret payment of the expenses of the defense, 46 or the public filing of a brief upon an appeal 47 in the first suit, is insufficient. It has been said that a decree in a suit brought by one on behalf of a class binds the rest of the class, even those who do not come in or contribute to the suit. 48 In pleading a judg- ment or decree, it is not necessary to set it forth, or the pro- ceedings upon which it was founded, at length; m but so much of the decree and pleadings should be set forth as will show that the same point was then in issue. 50 And the court may re- ers are not bound by a judgment against their corporation in a suit •which, was brought after the proceed- ings to liquidate its assets had begun. Schrader v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 133 U. S. 67. Cf. Ward v. Jos- lin (C. C. A.), 105 Fed. R 224 And that a judgment establishing the exemption of a bank from taxation of its property and from liability to pay a tax upon its stockholders is not an estoppel against the enforce- ment of a tax directly against the latter. New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 U. S. 371, 380, 402. A judg- ment against the husband concern- ing the title to property claimed to be community property was held to estop him and his wife in a sub- sequent suit. Lichty v. Lewis, 63 Fed. R 535. A State is not bound by a judgment against one of its offi- cers for the possession of land which he claims to hold in its behalf. Tin- dal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204. See supra, § 37. A judgment against a municipal officer binds his successors in office, the municipality and the other officers so far as their official obligations are concerned. New Or- leans v. Citizens' Bank, 167 U. S. 371, 389; Scotland County v. Hill, 112 TJ. S. 183; Harshman v. Knox Co., 122 U. S. 306; State v. Rainey, 74 Mo. 229; Harmon v. Auditor, 123 111. 122. The same effect is given to an order for a mandamus, Police Jury v. U. S., 60 Fed. R. 249; Ransom v. Pierre (C. C. A.), 101 Fed. R. 665; McEvoy v. New York, 56 App. Div. 222; or for a writ of prohibition. Bank of Ky. v. Stone (C. C. A), 88 Fed. R 383, 395, 398. "Plumb v. Crane, 123 TJ. S. 560; Bank of Ky. v. Stone, 88 Fed. R. 383, 396. 45 Cramer v. Singer Mfg. Co., ,93 Fed. R. 636. 4e Cramer v. Singer Mfg. Co., 93 Fed. R 636; Litchfield v. Goodnow, 123 U. S. 549. « Stryker v. Goodnow, 123 TJ. S. 527. 48 Gamble v. San Diego, 79 Fed. R. 487, 500. But see Compton v. Jesup, 167 U. S. 1, 20, 36; s. c. in C. C. A., 68 Fed. R 263; supra, §§ 48, 49. 4 9Ricardo v. Garcias, 12 CL & F. 368; Story's Eq. PI., § 783. 60 Garcias v. Ricardo, 14 Sim. 265; Story's Eq. PI., § 791: Emma S. M. Co. v. Emma S. M. Co. of N. Y., 1 Fed. R 39. See Jonathan M. M. Co. v. Whitehurst, 65 Fed. R 996. § 133.] PLEAS OF MATTEK IN PAIS* 323 quire that the decree be pleaded at length, 51 or, if the plea sets up matter of record in the same court, that the record be shown before the plaintiff is required to take action upon the plea. 53 Where a decree in a former suit is introduced in evidence on stipulation without the objection that it has not been properly pleaded, it will be given full effect as a bar although not prop- erly pleaded. 53 It has been said that by pleading a defense against a former decree a party waives his right to claim an estoppel under the same ; M and that the opinion cannot be intro- duced as evidence to show what issues were tried when the decree was rendered. 65 But offering evidence of such facts while the former decree was merely interlocutory does not waive the right to claim that it is a bar after it has ripened into a final decree. 56 A prior decree can usually be put in evidence without having been pleaded where the pleading of the party sets up the facts which were adjudicated by the decree; and the decree is then conclusive evidence of such facts. 57 § 133. Pleas of matter in pais.— Pleas founded upon mat- ter in pais state some other reason, for example, a release, or an account stated, or a purchase without notice for a valuable consideration, why the plaintiff should not have relief. 1 A plea of purchase without notice for a valuable consideration should deny notice positively, and should state the amount of the con- sideration. 2 It is insufficient to plead that the defendant paid a " good and valuable consideration, to-wit, a certain sum of money." s A plea to a bill for an injunction to restrain the in- fringement of a reissued patent, which set up that the claim had been unlawfully expanded so as to embrace subsequent im- provements covered by later patents, was held good. 4 A plea to a bill filed under section 4918 of the Eevised Statutes against the owner of a patent interfering with that of the complainant, which set up that the invention described in the complainant's si Emma S. M. Co. v. Emma S. M. 6 ? Southern Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 168 Co. of N. Y., 1 Fed. R 39. U. S. 1, 57. 5 * Ibid. § 133. 1 Story's Eq. PL, §S 795-815. 63 David Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Eagle 2 Wood v. Mann. 1 Sumn. 506. Mfg. Co., 58 Fed. R. 721. 3 Secombe v. Campbell, 18 Blatchf. s^ Mack v. Levy, 60 Fed. R. 751. 108. 55 Ibid. «Hubbell v. Be Land, 14 Fed. R. 56 David Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Eagle 471. Mfg. Co., 57 Fed. R. 980. 324 pleas. [§§ 134-136. patent was described in a previous English patent published in the United States, and filed in the Patent Office here before the issue of the complainant's patent, was held bad and over- ruled. 5 § 134. Pleas to the discovery. — Pleas to the discovery set up new matter, showing (1) that the plaintiff's case is not such as entitles a court of equity to assume jurisdiction to compel a discovery in his favor; (2) that the plaintiff has no such interest in the subject-matter of the action as entitles him to call upon the defendant for a discovery; (3) that the defendant has no such interest in the subject-matter of the action as will entitle the plaintiff to call upon him for a discovery; (4) that the sit- uation of the defendant renders it improper for a court of equity to compel him to make a discovery. 1 Of them, Profes- sor Langdell says : " But it should be added that, while de- murrers to discovery are common, there are few instances of pleas of that kind ; and the cases are few in which it would be advisable to resort to such a plea, since the question can be raised equally well by answer, and then the defendant's own statement of the facts will be equally conclusive." 2 § 135. When a plea must be filed. — Unless the defendant's time has been enlarged,, for cause shown, by a judge of the court, upon motion for that purpose, the plea should be filed on the rule-day next succeeding that of entering the defend- ant's appearance. 1 § 136. Frame of a plea. — A plea is entitled in the cause, 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 plaint- iffs)." "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) ; " x but if filed by husband and wife in the wife's interest only, the words " and several " should be omit- ted ; though their use, being mere surplusage, will not vitiate the plea. 2 The title of the plea should agree with that of the s Pentlarge v. Pentlarge, 19 Fed. R § 135. 1 Rule 18. 817: s. a, 22 Fed. E. 412. But see § 136. ^Darnell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. Foster v. Lindsay, 3 Dill. 126, 131. ed.) 681. § 134. i Mitf ord's PI., ch. 2, § 2, part 2. 2 Fitch v. Chapman, 2 Sim. & S. 31. 2 Langdell's Eq. PL, § 148. § 136.] FBAME OF A PLEA. 325 cause as stated in the bill. Any corrections which are desired to be made must be put in the heading, thus : " The plea of the above-named defendant, John Aber (in the bill, by mistake called Henry Aber) ; " or, " The plea of Henry Curtis and Mary his wife, lately, and in the bill called Mary Robinson, spinster " (or widow, as the case may be). 3 When accompanied by an answer or demurrer, it should be headed : " The plea and answer ; " or " The joint," or " joint and several plea and answer; " or "The joint and several plea, answer, and demur- rer," etc., according to the circumstances. 4 Like a demurrer, it is usually, but not necessarily, introduced by a useless pro- testation against the confession of the truth of any matter contained in the bill. 5 After the protestation, the defendant should state in the plea the extent to which it goes ; as whether it is to the whole bill, or to part only, and in the latter case the part to which it is intended to apply. 8 Next should come the substance of the plea together with such averments as are necessary to support it. 7 If these matters are within the de- fendant's knowledge he should state them positively. 8 Other- wise upon information and belief. 9 The allegations must be made with certainty and not by way of argument, inference, or conclusion. 10 The plea cannot properly allege and rely upon matters all of which are apparent upon, the face of the bill. 11 " The conclusion of the plea is usually a repetition that the 'Darnell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 681, Eq. PL, § 662. A plea was held bad 682. which merely alleged that the com- 4 DanielPs Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 682. plainants, before procuring the pat- 6 DanielFs Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 682; ent which they sued to protect, " be- Story's Eq. PL, S 694 came and were fully advised " that "Mitford's PL, ch. 3, § 2, part 2; the alleged inventor "could not Story's Eq. PL, § 694 carry the date of his invention 7 Mitford's PL, ch 2, § 2, part 2; further back than the month of Story's Eq. PL, § 694 June, 1886," and that an examiner 8 Foster v.Vassall, 3 Atk. 587; Boone in the patent office had found, "as v. Chiles, 10 Pet. 176, 210-213; Story's was the fact," that the invention had Eq. PL, § 662. been described in previous publica- 9 Bolton v. Gardner, 3 Paige (N. T.), tions; since a traverse would only 273; Story's Eq. PL, § 662. deny that complainants were ad- io Emma S. M. Co. v. Emma S. M. vised, and that the examiner found, Co. of N. Y., 1 Fed. R. 39; Nabob of etc. Westinghouse EL S. Mfg. Co. Arcot v. East India Co., 3 Brown, Ch. v. Stanley, 65 Fed. R. 321. C. 292; Hudson v. Randolph (C. C. " Billing v. Flight, 1 Madd. 230; A.), 66 Fed. R. 216; Caesar v. Capell, Story's Eq. PL, § 660. 83 Fed. R. 403; supra, § 24; Story's 326 pleas. [§ 137. matters so offered are relied upon as an objection to the juris- diction, or to the person of the plaintiff or defendant, or to the frame of the bill and suit, or in bar of the suit ; praying the judgment of the court, whether the defendant ought to be compelled to make any further or other answer to the bill, or so much thereof as the plea extends. 12 Jt does not appear that any particular form of conclusion is necessary to a plea in equity. 13 Every plea must be supported by a certificate of counsel, that in his opinion it is well founded in point of law, and by the affidavit of the defendant, that it is not interposed for delay, and that it is true in point of fact. 14 When the facts alleged in the plea are within the defendant's knowledge, he must swear to them positively. Otherwise, upon information and belief. 15 Whether the certificate of counsel is required when the defendant defends in person has never been decided. 18 If the affidavit or certificate are omitted, the former remedy was a motion to take the paper purporting to be a plea off the file ; 1T but, according to the language of an opinion of the Su- preme Court, the plea might then be disregarded. 18 By set- ting down the plea for argument, such a defect is waived. 19 Like all other proceedings in equity, a plea must contain no scandalous or impertinent matter. If it does, the same pro- ceedings may be taken upon it as when scandal or imperti- nence is contained in an answer. 20 Only one plea can be filed unless by special leave of the court. 21 § 137. Answers with pleas. — Although the purpose of a plea is usually to avoid discovery, yet in certain cases it must be accompanied by an answer. If the plea be to a part only i 2 Story's Eq. PL, § 694; Mitford's 19 Goodyear v. Toby, 6 Blatohf. 130 ; PL, ch. 2, § 2, part 2. Griswold v. Bacheller, 77 Fed. R 857. is Daniel's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 688. » DanieU's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 686. "Equity Rule 31. The seal of a See Dixon v. Olmius, 1 Cox, Eq. 412; corporate defendant is not required, infra, § 141. Fayerweather v. Hamilton College, 21 Wheelerv.MoCormick,8Blatchf. 103 Fed. E. 546. 267 ; Lamb v. Starr, Deady, 351 ; Noyes "Ewing v. Blight, 3 WalL Jr. 134. v. Willard, 1 Woods, 187; Eeissner v. « See U. S. R S., § 747; 1 Hoffman's Anness, 12 Off. Gaz. 842; s. C, 3 Bann Ch. Pr. 97; DanieU's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. & A. 148. See Elgin W. P. & W. P. ed.) 311, note 7. Co. v. Nichols, 65 Fed. R 215, 216; "Ewing v. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 134. supra, § 124. 18 National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54; supra, § 111. § 137.] ANSWERS WITH PLEAS. 327 of the bill, it must ordinarily be accompanied by an answer or demurrer to the residue. 1 The equity rules provide that " In every case where the bill specially charges fraud or combina- tion, a -plea to such part must be accompanied with an answer fortifying the plea and explicitly denying the fraud and com- bination, and the facts on which the charge is founded." 2 It seems that this only applies when discovery concerning the fraud or combination is prayed for. 3 Negative and anomalous pleas must usually be accompanied by an answer giving the discovery required by the bill. 4 This subject is now of com- paratively little importance, as the objections raised by such pleas can now be taken by answer 5 with more safety and con- venience. The clearest statement and explanation of the rule with which the writer is acquainted, is that by Professor Lang- dell. " If the defense which is set up by a plea has been an- ticipated by the bill, and evidence has been charged in dis- proof of the defense, the defendant must answer such 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 his plea; and then the answer is said to support the plea. Such an an- swer, 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." 6 " If a bill anticipates a defense, and, without admitting its truth, replies to it affirmatively, and the defendant wishes to set up the defense by plea, it is obvious that he must traverse the anticipatory replication ; for otherwise, § 137. * Equity Rules 18, 32; Lang- cerning the amounts which he had dell's Eq. PI., § 99; Ferguson v. collected. Playford v. Lockard, 65 O'Harra, Pet. C. C. 493. Fed. R. 870. But ordinarily an an- 2 Equity Rule 32; Piatt v. Oliver, 1 swer accompanying a plea is not sub- McLean, 295; Lewis v. Baird, 3 Mc- ject to exceptions for insufficiency Lean, 56; Bailey v. Wright, 2 Bond, because it fails to answer interroga- 181. tories annexed to the bill. Hatch v. » Hilton v. Guyott, 42 Fed. R 249. Bancroft-Thompson Co., 67 Fed. R. Where to a bill for an accounting 802; infra, § 134. the defendant filed a plea in abate- 4 Dwight v. Central Vt. R. Co., 9 ment which averred that the amount Fed. R. 785 ; Langdell's Eq. PI., §§ 101- in dispute was less than $2,000, he 114. was required to answer the inter- 6 Equity Rule 39. rogatories attached to the bill con- 6 Langdell's Eq. PL, § 100. 328 pjjsas. [§ 138. in the event of issue being taken upon the truth of the plea, the affirmative replication will be admitted to be true. A negative rejoinder, therefore, must be incorporated with the affirmative plea. Such pleas have become common in modern times ; and being partly affirmative and partly negative, they are dis- tinguished by the name of anomalous pleas. If the defendant should not be prepared to deny the truth of the affirmative replication, and should wish to set up an affirmative answer to it, of course both branches of his plea should be affirmative ; but no instance of such a plea has been found in the reported cases. If an anomalous plea be put in issue, it will be seen that each party has something to prove; namely, the defend- ant his affirmative defense, and the plaintiff his affirmative replication ; and the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to discovery as to the latter. Consequently, an anomalous plea must always be supported by an answer as to the allegations which consti- tute the replication, and as to all charges of evidence, if any, in support of such allegations." 7 Such an answer is usually prefaced by an averment that the defendant does not thereby waive his plea, but wholly relies thereon. 8 An answer to the whole bill, which extends to the whole of the matter covered by the plea, will overrule a plea in bar filed by the answering de- fendant. 9 " The rule that no plea is to be held bad only be- cause the answer may extend to some part of the same matter as may be covered by the plea is not applicable where the an- swer extends to the whole of the matter covered by the plea." 10 § 138. Proceedings of the plaintiff when a plea is filed. — If the allegations in a plea are sufficient and true, but the plaintiff can produce new matter which will avoid its effect, he must amend his bill, introducing by way of pretense or otherwise a statement of the matters contained in the plea, and also a substantive allegation of the new matter by which 7 Langdell's Eq. PL, § 101. See also R 225 ; Hudson v. Randolph (O. C. A.), Langdell's Eq. PL, §§ 102-114; Story's 66 Fed. R 216. But see Hayes v. Day- Eq. PL, §§ 668-674; Foley v. Hill, 3 ton, 8 Fed. R 702,706; Mercantile Tr. MyL & Cr! 476. Co. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 84 Fed. R. » Story's Eq. PL, § 695. 379, 383. 9 Grant v. Phoenix It. Ins. Co., 121 10 Grant v. Phoenix L. Ins. Co., 121 U. S. 105, 115; Dakin v. Union Pac. TJ. S. 105, 115; Huntington v. Laidley, Ry. Co., 5 Fed. R 665; Crescent C. L. 79 Fed. R 865. a Co. v. Butohers' 17. L. S. Co., 12 Fed. § 138.] PKOOEEDINQS OF PLAINTIFF WHEN PLEA IS FILED. 329 he avoids it. 1 In such a case, at common law or by the earlier chancery practice, he would reply by confession and avoidance ; but special replications are no longer used in equity, their pur- pose being sufficiently answered by the practice of amendment. 8 Otherwise, the plaintiff may either move to take the plea off the file for irregularity, 3 or set down the plea to be argued, 4 or move for a reference to a master, 5 or take issue upon the plea. 6 If he neither amends nor takes any of these proceedings before the rule-day next after that on which the same was filed, he is deemed to admit the truth and sufficiency of the plea, and his bill will be dismissed as of course unless a judge of the court shall allow him further time for tne purpose. 7 More indulgence in this respect will be allowed to States than to individuals, 8 and the plaintiff is not obliged to take notice of a plea until it has been entered in the order book or served upon him. 9 In case of a motion to take the plea off the file, it will be more prudent to obtain an extension of time wherein to reply or set down the plea, in case it should be allowed to remain. 10 ]STo one, except the defendant who files a plea, can take advantage of the failure of the plaintiff to act upon it. 11 Where the plaintiff had taken no action upon the plea for eight months, it was held that the defendant might withdraw it and file an answer. 12 Otherwise, neither party is, in general, at liberty to take any step in a cause after the filing of a plea, until the plea is dis- posed of. 13 If the defendant pleads to the relief only, and pro- poses to answer the whole discovery required, the plaintiff may file exceptions to the answer. 14 This, it was formerly held, he could not do unless by special leave of the court, without thereby admitting the truth of a plea which extended to any § 138. iSee supra, § 80; Southern ^Newby v. Oregon Ey. Co., 1 Saw. Pacific R. Co. v. U. S., 168 U. S. 1, 55. 63, 65. 2 Mason v. Hartford, P. & F. R. Co., 10 See Rule 38. 10 Fed. R 334; Equity Rules 29, 66; » Chicago & Alton R Co. v. Union Story's Eq. PL, chs. xix, xx. R M. Co., 109 U. S. 70S, 717. s Ewing v. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 134. 12 Oliver v. Decatur, 4 Cranch C. C. * Rule 33. 458. 5 Tarleton v.Barnes, 2 Keen, 633. 1'DanielI's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 6 Rule 33. 691; Buchanan v. Hodgson, 11 Beav. 7 Rule 38. 368. 8 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 14 Pigot v. Stace, 2 Dick. 496; Sid- Pet 210. ney v. Perry, 2 Dick. 602; Playford v. Lockard, 65 Fed. R 870. 330 pleas. [§§ 139, 140. part of the discovery. 15 It has been held that in such a case the answer is not subject to exceptions for insufficiency because it does not answer specific interrogatories as to matters an- swered by the plea. 16 By filing exceptions to the sufficiency of an answer the plaintiff waives all objections to the plea. 17 In an extraordinary case, a motion for an injunction might be made while a plea was pending; but the more usual course is to pray the court to expedite the hearing of the plea. 18 When a plea and a demurrer were filed at the same time, it was held that action on the plea should be postponed till the hearing on the demurrer. 19 § 139. Motion to take a plea off the file. — A motion to take a plea off the file is, it seems, the proper remedy, when the plea was filed too late, 1 or has such an irregularity in form as the omission of the requisite affidavit and and certificate. 2 In a patent case, a plea which simply denied infringement was stricken from the files as improper in form. 8 But this is an improper method to test the sufficiency of a plea, 4 although when the sufficiency of the plea had been fully argued with- out raising this objection the court determined it upon such a motion. 5 When two pleas are filed without special leave, the defendant will be obliged to elect between them within ten days. Otherwise, both will be ordered to stand for an answer, 6 or possibly be stricken out. 7 Unless, however, an objection to such a defect is specifically made, it will be considered waived. 8 § 140. Argument of a plea. — " If the plaintiff conceives a plea to be defective in point of form or substance, he may take l 5 Darnell v. Eeyny, 1 Vera. 344; But see National Bank v. Insurance Brownell v. Curtis, 10 Paige (N. Y.), Co., 104 U. S. 54, 76; Seoor v. Single- 210. ton, 9 Fed. E. 809; S. C., 8 McCrary, w Hatch v. Bancroft-Thompson Co., 230. 67 Fed. R 802. 'Sharp v. Eeissner, 20 Blatohf. 10, "Ibid. 13; supra, § 124. is Ewing v. Blight, 3 WalL Jr. 139; * Hatch v. Bancroft-Thompson Co., Humphreys v. Humphreys, 3 P. Wms. 67 Fed. R 802, 804, 395. 'Union S. S. Co. v. Phila. & E. E. is Cambell v. Mayer, 33 Fed. R 795. Co., 69 Fed. R 833. § 139. 1 McKewan v. Sanderson, L. 6 Eeissner v. Anness, 12 Off. Gaz. E. 16 Eq. 316; Ewing v. Blight, 3 842; s. C, 3 Bann. & A. 148; Noyea Wall. Jr. 134. v. Willard, 1 "Woods, 187. 2 Ewing v. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 134; ' Newby v. Oregon Central Ey. Co., Sharp v. Eeissner, 20 Blatchf. 10, 13; ' 1 Saw. 63, 67. Griswold v. Bacheller, 77 Fed. R 857. 8 Sharon v. Hill, 22 Fed. R. 28. § 140.] AKGUMENT OF A PLEA. 331 the judgment of the court upon its sufficiency. And if the de- fendant is anxious to have the point determined, he may also take the same proceeding.!' 1 A plea is set down for argument in the same manner as is a demurrer, and the proceedings at the argument are also substantially the same. J$. plaintiff has been allowed, although the practice is irregular, to file a de- murrer to a plea; in which case the demurrer presents the question of the sufficiency of the bill as well as the plea. 2 The sufficiency of the bill as to substance is also tested when the plea is set down for argument ; but it has been said that the alle- gations therein are not taken so strictly against the complain- ant as in case of a demurrer. 8 It has been said that when a plea is set down for argument, the complainant cannot take any exception to its regularity or form. 1 For the purpose of the argument, all allegations in the plea which are not incon- sistent with each other are presumed to be true. 9 If a docu- ment is referred to in the plea and annexed thereto, its language will control the description of it set forth in the body of the plea ; 6 but it has been held that this rule does not apply to a case where a judgment is annexed to an answer filed in ad- dition to the plea. 7 Upon argument, a plea may be allowed, or the benefit thereof may be reserved to the hearing, or it may be ordered to stand for an answer, or it may be overruled. 8 " In the first case the plea is determined to be a full bar to so much of the bill as it covers, if the matter pleaded, with the §140. 1 Mitford's PL, oh. 2, § 2, files or filing a replication; held, that part 2. he had waived the question whether 2 Beard v. Bowler, 2 Bond, 13; Good- the defendant had not by his pre- year v. Toby, 8 Blatchf. 130; Gris- vious action in the suit waived the wold v. Bacheller, 77 Fed. R 857. In defense set up by the plea and de- that case an order overruling the de- murrer. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Chi- murrer is equivalent to an order sus- cago & N. P. R. Co., 61 Fed. R. 543. taming the plea. Zimmerman v. So 'Melius v. Thompson, 1 Cliff. 125; Relle, 80 Fed. R. 417. See MoVeagh Ex'rs of Gallagher v. Roberts, 1 v. Denver C. V. Co. (C. C. A.), 85 Wash. 320; Farley v. Kitson, 120 U.S. Fed. R 74; Stead's Ex'rs v. Course, 4 303; Kellner v. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 43 Cranch, 403, 410. Fed. R. 623, 626. a Rumbold v. Forteath, 2 Jur. (N. S.) « Wheeler v. McCormick, 8 Blatchf. 686. 267. * Green, J., in Kellner v. Mut. I* 7 Merritt v. American S. B. Co., 79 Ins. Co., 43 Fed. R. 623, 626. Where Fed. R. 228. a complainant had a demurrer and 8 Mitford's PI., ch.2, §2, part 2. See plea set down for argument, instead Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 of moving to strike them from the Pet. 210, 257-259. 332 pleas. [§ 140. averments necessary to support it, are true." 9 If, therefore, a plea is allowed upon argument the plaintiff may take issue upon it, and have a trial of the truth of the facts upon which it is sought to be supported. 10 " If a plea accompanied by an answer is allowed, the answer may be read at the hearing of the cause to counterprove the plea." u If upon the hearing any demurrer or plea be allowed, the defendant is entitled to his costs. But the court may, in its discretion, upon motion of the plaintiff, allow him to amend his bill upon such terms as it shall deem reasonable. 12 " If, upon argument, the benefit of a plea is saved to the hearing, it is considered that so far as ap- pears to the court it is a full defense, but that there may be matter disclosed in evidence which would avoid it, supposing the matter pleaded to be strictly true ; and the court therefore will not preclude the question." " In such a case, the truth of the plea must be established, and at the hearing the plaintiff may avoid it by other matter, which he is at liberty to prove. 14 ""When a plea is ordered to stand for an answer, it is merely determined that it contains matter which may be a defense, or part of a defense ; but that it is not a full defense, or it has been informally offered by way of plea, or it has not been properly supported by answer, so that the truth of it is doubt- ful. For if a plea requires an answer to support it, upon argu- ment of the plea the answer may be read to counterprove the plea ; and if the defendant appears not to have sufficiently sup- ported his plea by his answer, the plea must be overruled, or ordered to stand for an answer only. A plea is usually ordered to stand for an answer where it states matter which may be a defense to the bill, though perhaps not proper for a plea, or informally pleaded. But if a plea states nothing which can be a defense, it is merely overruled. If a plea is ordered to stand for an answer, it is allowed to be a sufficient answer to so much of the bill as it covers, unless by the bill liberty is given to except. But that liberty may be qualified, so as to protect the defendant from any particular discovery which he SMitford's PI., oh. 2, § 2, part 2; "Mitford's PI., oh. 2, § 2, part 2; U. S. v. Dalles Military Eoad Co., 140 Dobson v. Peck Bros. & Co., 103 Fed. U. S. 599, 616. E. 904. 10 ibid. "Story's Eq. PI., § 698; Rhode Isl- n ibid. and v. Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 210, 12 Equity Rule 35. 257-259. . § 140.] ARGUMENT OF A PLEA. 333 ought not to be compelled to make ; and if a plea is accompa- nied by an answer, and is ordered to stand for an answer with- out liberty to except, the plaintiff may yet except to the answer as insufficient to the parts of the bill not covered by the plea." 15 "Where one defense is made by the plea and another by an answer filed with it, the plea may be ordered to stand for an answer. 16 A plea formerly might have been overruled for three rea- sons: because it was bad, as defective in form, or insufficient in point of law ; because, though good as to a part of the bill, it was filed to more than it could cover; and because the de- fendant answered some or all of the matters covered by it. 17 Now, however, a pure plea, though filed to the whole bill, may be sustained as to a part only. 18 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 defend- ant had good ground, in point of law or fact, to interpose the same, and it was not interposed vexatiously or for delay. And upon the overruling of any plea, the defendant is assigned to answer the bill, or so much thereof as is covered by the plea, the next succeeding rule-day, or at such other period as, con- sistently with justice and the rights of the defendant, the same can in the judgment of the court be reasonably done ; in de- fault whereof, the bill is taken against him pro oonfesso, and the matter thereof proceeded in and decreed accordingly. 19 Under this rule it has been held that permission to answer can- not be denied the defendant. 20 Upon the overruling of a plea, permission to amend it may be given, 21 or a second plea upon a different ground may be interposed, but only by leave of the court. 22 If put in without leave, such a new plea will, on mo- isMitford's PL, oh. 2, § 2, part 2; 79 Fed. R 483. But see Milligan v. Chisholm v. Johnson, 84 Fed. R 384. Milledge, 3 Cranch, 220. w Lewis v. Baird, 3 McLean, 56, 62. 19 Equity Rule 36. i; Wigram on Discovery (1st ed.), 20 Wooster v. Blake, 7 Fed. R. 816. 172-181; Story's Eq. PI., §§ 688, 693; 21 Sanders v. King, 6Madd.61; Lov- Thring v. Edgar, 2 Sim. & S. 274; rag v. Fairchild,l McLean, 333; U. S. Salkeld v. Science, 2 Ves. Sen. 107; R S., § 954. Chamberlain v. Agar, 2 V. & B. 259; 22 McKewan v. Sanderson, L R. 16 Stearns v. Page, 1' Story, 204; Fergu- Eq. 316; Chadwick v. Boardwood, 3 son v. O'Harra, Pet. C. C. 493. Beav. 316; Lamb v. Starr, Deady, 350; is Equity Rules 36, 37; Wythe v. Wheeler t. McCormick, 8 Blatchf. Palmer, 3 Saw. 412; Kirkpatrick v. 267. White, 4 Wash. 595; Rhino v. Emery, 334: PLEAS. [§§ 141, 142. tion, t}j taken off the file. 23 It seems that after his plea is overruled, the defendant may demur, at least to a part of the bill, by leave of the court. 24 By the English practice, if the plaintiff set down a plea for argument, he admitted its truth; and if good in form it was sustained. 25 § 141. Motion for a reference of a plea. — There are some pleas upon which no issue is taken. Such were pleas of out- lawry and excommunication, which were always pleaded sub ■sigitto, that is, under the seal of the court which had pro- nounced the sentence. The truth of the fact pleaded in them could, therefore, be ascertained from the form of pleading. The plaintiff was, however, at liberty to show that the plea was defective in form, or that it did not apply to the particu- lar case ; and for these purposes he might have the plea argued. 1 " Pleas of a former decree, or of another suit depending in the same court, but not in another court," 2 are generally in the same predicament, being referred to a master to inquire into the fact. If in any of these cases, the master reports the fact true, the bill stands instantly dismissed, unless the court other-, wise orders. But the plaintiff may except to the master's re- port, and bring on the matter to be argued before the court ; and if he conceives the plea to be defective, in point of form or otherwise, independent of the mere truth of the fact pleaded, he may set down the. plea to be argued as in the case of pleas in general." 8 Where it is manifest upon the face of the plea that the two suits are not alike, no reference will be ordered. 4 § 142. Hearing upon pleas. — If the complainant deems a plea sufficient in form, or it has been so held by the court, he can still test its truth by taking issue upon it. 1 He does this by filing the general replication. 2 The proceedings in taking testimony, and bringing the cause to a hearing, are substan- 23MoKewan v. Sanderson, L. R 16 'Mitford's PI., ch. 2, § 2, part 2. Eq.'316. See also Emma S. M. Co. v. Emma S. 24 East India Co. v. Campbell, 1 M. Co. of N. Y., 1 Fed. R. 39: Jones Ves. Sen. 240; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th v. Segueira, 1 Phillips, 82; Story's Am. ed.) 702. Eq. PL, §§ 700, 743, 744. 25 Tarleton v. Barnes, 2 Keen, 632. 4 Loring v. Marsh, 2 Cliff. 811. See Story's Eq. PL, §§ 743, 744. § 143. i Mitford's PL, oh. 2, § 2, part §141. i Mitford's PL, ch. 2, § 2, 2; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 part 2. Pet. 210, 257. * Zimmerman v. So Relle, 80 Fed. 2 Hughes v. Blake, 6 Wheat. 453. R.417. § 142.] HEARING UPON PLEAS. 335 tially the same as after an issue raised upon an answer. 3 At the hearing the defendant has the right to open and close the argument, and the burden of proof rests upon him. 4 If the plea be then found false, it has been held that the plaintiff may, if he so choose, have the bill taken pro confesso? " Having put the plaintiff to the trouble and delay of an issue, the defendant cannot, after it has been found against him, claim the right to file an answer, although, if the complainant desires a discovery, which the plea is sought to avoid, he may undoubtedly insist upon it." 6 In an extraordinary case, however, the court might still allow the defendant to answer. 7 In a few later cases, the Supreme Court, where the issues raised by a plea were found against the defendant, allowed him to answer. 8 It has been held: that, where part of the issues are found for the defendant, he is entitled, under the thirty-third equity rule, to have the benefit of the facts so found for him and that the decree should be limited accordingly. 9 If the plea were found true, according to the former practice the plea was held a complete defense to so much of the bill as it was intended to apply to; and if filed to the whole bill, the bill would be dis- missed as of course, irrespective, of the sufficiency of the plea. 10 Now, however, the equity rules provide that " if, upon, an issue, the facts stated in the plea be determined for the defendant, they shall avail him as far as in law and equity they ought to avail him." n This gives the court power then merely to save the benefit of the plea to the hearing, and the sReissnerv. Anness, 13 Off. Gaz.7; U. S. 315, 326. See Elgin W. P. & P. Lilienthal v. Washburn, 8 Fed. R. Co. v. Nichols (C. C. A), 65 Fed. R 215. 707; Hughes v. Blake, 6 Wheat 453, 9 Earll v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 472; Farley v. Kittson, 120 U. S. 303. 87 Fed. R 528. * Stead's Ex'rs v. Course, 4 Cranch, " Hughes v. Blake, 6 Wheat. 453; 403,413; Gernon v. Boecaline, 2 Wash. s. C, 1 Mason, 515; Rhode Island v. 199; Farley v. Kittson, 120 U. S. 303; Massachusetts, 14Pet. 210, 257; Myers Lilienthal v. Washburn, 8 Fed. R.' v. Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 22; Theberath v. 707; Sharon v. Hill, 22 Fed. R. 28. Rubber & C. H. T. Co., 5 Bann. & A. s Kennedy v. Creswell, 101 U. S. 641, 584; Cottle v. Krementz, 25 Fed. R. 644; Mitford's PL, ch. 2, § 2, part 2. 494; Birdseye v. Heilner, 26 Fed. R. 6 Bradley, J., in Kennedy \. Cres- 147; Bean v. Clark, 30 Fed. R. 225; well, 101 U. S. 641, 644. Daniells v. Benedict (C. C. A.), 97 7 Taney, C. J., in Poultney v. La Fed. R. 367; Horn v. Detroit D.D. Co., Fayette, 12 Pet. 472,' 474 150 U. S. 610. 8 Farley v. Kittson, 120 U. S. 303; "Rule 33: But see Myers v. Dorr, Dalzell v. Dueber W. C. Mfg. Co., 149 13 Blatchf. 22. 336 pleas. [§ 143. plaintiff may, in such a case, avoid it by other matter which he is at liberty to adduce. 12 It has been held that after a rep- lication has been filed and testimony taken, the court may, without examining the testimony, overrule the plea for insuffi- ciency and allow the defendant to answer. 13 If, however, the truth of a plea upon which issue has been joined is established, and the plea meets and satisfies all the claims of the bill, the defendant is entitled to a decree. 14 If the truth of a plea is not established upon issue joined, the bill cannot before answer be dismissed for want of equity. 15 Leave to withdraw the repli- cation and amend or to set down the plea for argument may under special circumstances be obtained. 16 By replying to a plea, objections to its form or for a failure to support it by an- swer are waived." Pending an issue upon a plea all proceed- ings not germane to the same are usually stayed. 18 § 143. General remarks upon pleas. — In conclusion, it may be remarked that the cautious practitioner will act wisely in eschewing the use of pleas, unless he desires to plead matter in abatement, or in extraordinary cases. For it is as true now as in the time of Beanies, that the subject of pleas in equity is one. "concerning which so much still remains to be elucidated, that it may be said of them, maxima pars eorum quae scimus est minima eorum quae ignoramus." 1 ispearce v. Rice, 143 U. S. 28; 93 Fed. R 945; McAleer v. Lewis, 75 Elgin W. P. & P. Co. v. Nichols, 65 Fed. R. 734, Fed. R. 215, 218. 15 Farley v. Kittson, 120 IT. S. 303. "Matthews v.Lalance & G. Mfg. 16 Cottle v. Krementz, 25 Fed. R. Co., 2 Fed. R. 232. But see Myers v. 494; Hughes v. Blake, 6 Wheat. 453, Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 22; Theberath v. 473; Equity Rules 29 and 35. Rubber & C. H. T. Co., 5 Bann. & A, 17 Stead's Executor v. Course, 4 584; Cottle v. Krementz, 25 Fed. R. Cranch, 403; Farley v. Kittson, 120 494 See Chisholm v. Johnson, 84 U. S. 303; U. S. v. California & O. L. Fed. R. 384. Co., 148 U. S. 81. " Horn v. Detroit T. D. Co., 150 18 Piayf ord v. Lockard, 65 Fed. R. U. S. 610, 625; Rejall v. Greenhood, 870. § 143. i Beames on Pleas, 61. CHAPTEK X. ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. • § 144. Pleading defenses in an answer. — An answer in equity serves two purposes : the setting up of the defenses to the suit, and discovery. It cannot ordinarily pray relief against the complainant, and never against a co-defendant. 1 If a de- fendant desires such relief he must ordinarily file a cross-bill. 2 The defendant is entitled in all cases 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 or to the merits of the bill, of which he may be entitled to avail himself by a plea in bar.' Matters in abatement, such as Us jpendms, which do not affect the jurisdiction, cannot be set up by answer. 4 An answer may contain defenses which have been previously raised by plea or demurrer and overruled. 5 Facts that have occurred since the filing of the bill may be pleaded in an answer. 6 The defenses must not be inconsistent with each other. 7 If so, it seems that both will be disregarded, 8 § 144. 1 Ford v. Douglas, 5 How. • Earl of Leicester v. Perry, 1 143; Hubbard v. Turner, 3 McLean, Brown Ch. 0. 305; Turner v. Robin- 519; Morgan v. Tipton, 3 McLean, son, 1 Sim. & S. 3. 339; Chapin v. Walker, 6 Fed. R 794; i Chapman v. School Dist. No. 1, s. a, 2 McCrary, 175. Deady, 108, 115; Jesus College v. 2 See infra, §§ 170, 171. It has been Gibbs, 1 Y. & C. 145, 147; Leech v. held in New York that the defense Bailey, 6 Price, 504; Daniell's Ch. Pr. that a contract was executed under (5th Am. ed.) 714. It is not consid- undue influence can be set up by an- ered inconsistent for a defendant swer without a cross-bill. McCabe both to deny the complainant's title v. Cooney, 2 Sand. Ch. 347. and to allege that he has waived a 8 Rule 39. right which he claims under it Carte * Pierce v. Feagans, 39 Fed. R. 587; v. Ball, 3 Atk. 496, 499; Comstock v. supra, § 125. Herron, 45 Fed. R. 660; Daniell's Ch. » Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 714. The defense of Wash. 484; Burnley v. Jeffersonville, a license from the plaintiff to com- 3 McLean, 336; Storms v. Kansas mit the acts complained of is, in the Pac Ry. Co., 5 Dill. 486; Rhode Isl- absence of special covenants or re- and v. Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 210. citals in the license, not inconsistent « Jesus College v. Gibbs, 1 Y. & C 145; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 714. 338 ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. [§ 14:5. unless the inconsistent allegations are trifling, when they may be treated as surplusage. 9 The defenses must be pleaded with sufficient certainty ; 10 although it seems that the same degree of certainty is not required in an answer as in a bill, 11 or a plea. 12 The general rule is that no affirmative defense can be proved unless it has been set up in the answer. 13 In a suit to restrain the infringement of a patent, a license is an affirmative defense. 14 It has been said that, if a defendant states in his answer certain facts as evidence of a particular case, which he represents to be the consequence of those facts, and upcn which he rests his defense, he is not permitted afterwards to make use of the same facts, for the purpose of establishing a differ- ent defense from that to which, by his answer, he has drawn the plaintiff's attention. 15 Thus it has been said that where fraud is set up in the answer " the party making the charge, if it is denied in a proper pleading, will be confined to that issue." 16 §145. Defenses peculiar to patent cr.ses. — The Revised Statutes provide that the defendant to a suit in equity for re- lief against an alleged infringement of a patent may set up in his answer any one or more of the following defenses, and give with other defenses impugning the representations by the plaintiff, or validity of complainant's patent, some of them, made to the Commis- National Mfg. Co. v. Meyers, 7 Fed. R sioner of Patents, and is wholly void 355. It was held to be consistent to at law," is also too uncertain to be qualify in one part of an answer a sufficient to constitute a defense, denial in another, and to plead dif- Clark v. Scott, 5 Fisher, 245. ferent statutes of limitations. Von H Daniell's Ch. Pr.(5th Am.ed.)714. Sohroder v. Brittain, 98 Fed. R. 169. Vi Maury v. Mason, 8 Porter (Ala.), » Jenkinson v. Royston, 5 Price, 496, 213, 228. 510; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 13 Stanley v. Robinson, 1 Russ. & 714. M. 527; Cummings v. Coleman, 7 10 Graham v. Mason, 4 Cliff. 88; Rich (S. C.) Eq. 509, 520; Burnham Armstrong v. Lear, 8 Pet. 52. It has v. Dalling, 3 C. E. Green (18 N. J. been said that "the respondent can- Eq.), 132; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. not set up as a defense that if com- ed.) 712; Black v. Thorne, 10 Blatchf. plainant's patent be so construed as 66, 84; Sperry v. Erie Ry. Co., 6 to cover the machine made and sold Blatchf. 425. by him, then the machine embraced 14 Watson v. Smith, 7 Fed. R 350. in said patent was known and used 15 LangdeH's Eq. PI., § 79; Bennett prior to the invention thereof by the v. Neale, Wightwick, 324. patentee." Graham v. Mason, 4 Cliff. le French v. Shoemaker, 14 Wall. 88. An averment that a patent "was 314, 335. See § 70. obtained upon false and fraudulent § 14:5-2 DEFENSES PECULIAR TO PATENT OASES. 339 notice therein that he will offer proof of the same : " Firsts that for the purpose of deceiving the public the description and specification filed by the patentee in the Patent Office was made to contain less than the whole truth relative to his in- vention or discovery, or more than is necessary to produce the desired effect; or, second, that he had surreptitiously or un- justly obtained the patent for that which was in fact invented by another, who was using reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting the same; or, third, that it had been patented or described in some printed publication prior to his supposed invention or discovery thereof; or, fourth, that he was not the originator and first inventor or discoverer of any material and substantial part of the thing patented ; or, fifth, that it had been in public use or on sale in this country for more than two years before his application for a patent, or had been aban- doned to the public. And in notices as to proof of previous invention, knowledge or use of the thing patented, the defend- ant shall state the names of patentees and the dates of their patents, and when granted, and the names and residences of the persons alleged to have invented, or to have had the prior knowledge of the thing patented, and where and by whom it had been used ; and if any one or more of the special matters alleged shall be found for the defendant, a decree shall be en- tered in his favor with costs." 1 Such a notice need not be under oath, and a consent to an order that the answer be con- sidered as amended by the insertion of such defense and no- tice is a waiver of any further oath. 2 Under this statute it has been held that no evidence can be admitted in support of any of these defenses unless it has been properly pleaded and the requisite notice has been given to the complainant; 8 but that the respondent, after pleading these defenses or some of them, with the names of such of the persons therein referred to as he knows, may also plead a general allegation " that the same had been previously invented and known and used by many § 145. i U. S. K. a, § 4920. Cf. An- Blanchard v. Putnam, 8 Wall. 420; derson v. Miller, 129 U. & 70; infra, Bates v. Coe, 98 U. a 31; Pitts v. § 360. Edmonds, 2 Fisher, 52, 54; Salaman- 2 Campbell v. Mayor of N. Y., 45 der Co. v. Haven, 3 DilL 181; Jen- Fed. R. 243. nings v. Pierce, 15 Blatchf. 42; Will- 3 Teese v. Huntington, 23 How. 2; iams v. Boston & A. R. Co., 1? Blatchf, Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583; 21; Decker v. Grote, 10 Blatchf. 331. 340 ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. [§ 145. other persons whose names are unknown to the respondent, which, when known, the respondent prays leave to insert and set forth in the answer." 4 Upon the subsequent discovery of any such persons, testimony concerning them may be taken, and leave obtained from the court to insert their names in the answer by amendment nunc pro tunc. An order to this effect may be obtained before or after the testimony has been taken. 5 It seems that when a previous patent has not been referred to in an answer, such patent may still be proved, as evidence of a prior use of the invention, which has been properly pleaded, 6 to show the state of the art at the date of the complainant's alleged invention. 7 The defense of a want of patentability need not be pleaded in the answer. 8 It is unsettled whether the defense of insufficient description can be set up without alleging an intent to deceive the public. 9 The statute requires * Roemer v. Simon, 95 U. S. 214, 220; Brown v. Hall, 6 Blatchf. 405. 6 Ibid 6 Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. a 192. But see Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96, 105; Kennedy v. Solar Eef. Co., 69 Fed. R. 715. 1 Am. S. Co. v. Hogg, 1 Holmes, 133; S. a, 6 Fisher, 67; Stevenson v. Ma- gowan, 31 Fed. R 824. 8 Stevenson v. Magowan, 31 Fed. R 824. SLoom Co. v. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, 588, 589; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet 218; Whittemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 429; Lowell v. Lewis, 1 Mason, 182; Gray v. James, Pet. C. C. 394. It has been said concerning the de- fense of want of novelty: "Where the thing patented is an entirety, consisting of a separate device or of a single combination of old elements incapable of division or separate use, the respondent cannot make good the defense in question by proving that a part of the entire invention is found in one \prior patent, printed publication, or machine, and another part in another, and so on indefi- nitely, and from the whole or any given number expect the court to determine the issue of novelty ad- versely to the complainant" . . . " Defenses of the kind, if the thing patented is an entirety, incapable of division or separate use, must be ad- dressed to the invention, and not to a part of it, or to one or more claims of the patent, of less than the entire invention. More than one patent may be included in one suit, and more than one invention may be secured in the same patent: in which cases the several defenses may be made to each patent in the suit, and to each invention, to which the charge of infringement relates." Mr. Justice Clifford, in Parks v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96, 104; citing Bates v. Coe, 98 U. S. 31. It has been said that a defense charging that the original patentee "fraudulently and surrep- titiously obtained the patent for that which he well knew was invented by another, unaccompanied by the further allegation that the alleged first inventor was at the time using reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting the invention, is not suf- ficient to defeat the patent, and con- stitutes no defense to the charge of infringement." Clifford, J., in Aga- wam Co. v. Jordan, 7 WalL 583, 597. § 146.1 ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS. % 341 notice of the names and residences of the inventors and, of those who have the prior knowledge of the thing patented, not the names of the witnesses. 10 Notice of the time when the person named possessed a knowledge or use of the invention is not required. 11 The omission of the place of the use makes the notice fatally defective. 12 The question whether a defend- ant has an interest in the patent which is the foundation of the bill, and whether he has a license to use such patent, cannot be considered unless specifically raised by plea or answer. 13 § 146. Admissions and denials independent of discovery. — According to Professor Langdell, "If the defendant has no affirmative defense, the answer need contain nothing but dis- covery, unless the defendant proposes to offer a line of evidence in disproof of the bill which may take the plaintiff by sur- prise ; in which case it will be prudent to indicate the nature of such evidence in the answer. This should be done also whenever it is at all doubtful whether the evidence establishes an affirmative defense or is in denial of the bill." x Although the weight of authority is in support of the rule that a failure to deny an allegation in the bill does not operate as an admis- sion of its truth, provided some answer is made, 2 it is more prudent and is customary, even when an answer under oath is waived, for the defendant to deny or admit every allegation in the bill; and out of abundant caution, a general traverse deny- ing the unlawful combination charged in the bill, and all other matters therein contained, is still often inserted after the spe- cific denials. 3 The statement that the respondent believes an 1» Woodbury P. Mach. Co. v. Keith, Wall 583, 609; Webb v. Powers, 2 101 U. S. 479; Eoemer v. Simon, 95 W. & M. 497, 510; Myers v. Busby, 33 U. a 214. Fed. K. 770. » Phillips v. Page, 24 How. 164. 3 See 'Story's Eq. PL, § 870. When 12 Schenck v. Diamond Match Co. defendants avoid answering specific (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. E. 208; S. C, 71 Fed. interrogatories concerning a charged R 521. infringement, but merely deny the 13 Puetz v. Bransford, 31 Fed. R use of any machinery "in, violation 458. and infringement of any rights of § 146. 1 LangdelFs Eq. PL, § 79. the plaintiff, or that they are using, 2 Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51; or have made, or sold, or used any Brown v. Pierce, 7 WalL 205, 211; machines not protected or covered Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 296, 302; by the proviso in the act of Con- Rule 61. But see Commercial M. M. gress," it seems that they thereby Ins. Co. v. Union M. Ins. Co., 19 How. presumptively admit infringement. 318, 323; Agawara Co. v. Jordan, 7 Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 WalL 583, 342 ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. [§ 147. allegation to be true is equivalent to an admission; 4 but the statement that he has no knowledge upon the subject seems to be equivalent to a denial, 5 although, if full discovery be re- quired, it is subject to exception for insufficiency. 6 The denial of a conclusion of law is of no effect. 7 There is no need of a denial of the common confederacy clause unless accompanied by special charges of combination. 8 § 147. Impertinence and scandal. — An answer should con- tain no impertinence or scandal. 1 "What constitute scandal and impertinence has been explained in the chapter on Bills. 2 Usu- ally nothing is considered scandalous which is relevant or re- sponsive to the allegations of the bill. 3 But in an English case brought by a clergyman, where the defendant included in a schedule of accounts a charge for money paid by him for an order of filiation of a bastard made upon the plaintiff, the court held the item, although relevant, a proper subject of exception, because the mode of bringing it forward was intended to drive 609. A denial of two allegations con- junctively is not a denial of each. Pierson v. Ryerson, 5 N. J. Eq. 196. * Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 296, 311. 8 Brown v. Pierce, 7 Wall. 205, 212; Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 296. 6 Kittredge v. Claremont Bank, 1 W. & M. 244. 7 Union M. Ins. Co. v. Commercial M. M. Ins. Co., 2 Curt. 524; s. C. on ap- peal, as Commercial M. M. Ins. Co. v. Union M. Ins. Co., 19 How. 318, 319. Thus, when the bill alleged that the defendant executed and delivered a deed, a denial by the defendant of its delivery, accompanied by an ad- mission that he made the deed and placed it upon record, is equivalent to an admission of its delivery. Adams v. Adams, 21 Wall. 185. An admission in an answer that the defendant had made locks of the kind described in the patent sued upon, " is satisfied by assuming that the smallest number of locks were made consistent with the use of that word in the plural, and with the use by the defendants of any part of the patent which is valid." See Miller, J., in Jones v. Morehead, 1 Wall. 155, 165. But compare Troy I & N. Fac- tory v. Corning, 6 Blatchf. 328, 336, 337. An admission that a deed bears a certain date does not estop the re- spondent from showing that it was fraudulently antedated. Holbrook v. Worcester Bank, 2 Curt. 244, 8 Story's Eq. PI., §§ 30 with note, and 856; Rule 32. § 147. i Story's Eq. PL, §§ 861-863; Langdon v. Goddard, 3 Story, 13. 2 See § 68, supra, 'Peck v. Peck, Mosely, 45; Woods v. Morrell, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 103, 106; Fisher v. Owen, LB.8 Ch. D. 645, 653; Story's Eq. PI., § 862. An alle- gation that a previous decree was made " without a full reading of the proofs in the cause, or a careful con- sideration of the briefs of the counsel filed therein,'' and not "after full consideration," is not scandalous; for it contains no imputation upon the court. Miller v. Buchanan, 5 Fed. R. 366. Allegations to meet charges of bad faith made in the bill were held not scandalous. Mercantile Tr. Co. v. § 148.] DISOOVEET. 343 the plaintiff out of his parish. 4 It may be doubted whether so much respect for the cloth would be shown by an American court. Exceptions for impertinence are only allowed when it is apparent that the matter excepted to is not material or rel- evant, or is stated with needless prolixity. If it may be mate- rial, the exception will not be allowed, as that would leave the defendant without remedy, but the allegations excepted to will be allowed to remain in the answer, and the effect thereof, if found to be true, determined on the final hearing. 5 It has been said to be permissible ; and it is customary to plead in answers in equity matters of law as well as matters of fact which con- stitute a defense. 6 It has been held that a short sentence inserted out of abundant caution will not be expunged as im- pertinent. 7 Neither is new matter not responsive to the bill setting up an insufficient defense the proper subject of an exception for impertinence, 8 although such matter has been ex- punged by motion. 9 A demurrer to an answer is not permitted." Exceptions to answers for scandal and impertinence are taken and disposed of in substantially the same manner as exceptions to bills for the same reasons. 11 Exceptions for impertinence should be filed and disposed of before exceptions for insuffi- ciency are filed. 12 § 148. Discovery. — Discovery, or answer under oath, which was formerly one of the principal grounds of equitable juris- Ma, K. & T. Ry. Co., 84 Fed. R allegation in an answer that plaintiff 379. brought this suit in a State distant 4 Atty. Gen. v. Hewit, in Chanc., from that of the defendants' resi- July, 1801; cited in Cooper's Eq. PL dence for the purpose of harassing 319; Story's Eq. PL, § 862. them and involving them in large 6 Deady, J., Chapman v. School expense was held to be impertinent. Disk No. 1, Deady, 108, 110. Whittemore v. Patten, 84 Fed. R. 51. « Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. N. P. R » Armstrong v. Chem. Nat. Bank, Co., 76 Fed. R. 15. But see Florida 37 Fed. R 466; Adamsv.Bridgewater Mtge. &lnv. Co.v.Finlayson,74Fed. I Co., 6 Fed. R. 179; Gilchrist v. R. 671. Helena, eta R Co., 47 Fed. R 593. 'Desplaces v. Goris, 1 Edw. Ch. 10 Crouch v. Kerr, 38 Fed. R 549. (N. Y.) 350. . "See Equity Rules 26 and 27 ; Hood s Adams v. Bridgewater L Co., 6 v. Inman, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 437; Lang- Fed. R 179; Bower-Barff R I. Co. v. don v. Goddard, 3 Story, 13; supra, Wells R. I. Co., 43 Fed. R 391. But §68. see Ford v. Douglas, 5 How. 143, 12 Patriotic Bank v. Bank of Wash- 165; Harrison v. Perea, 168 U.S. ington, 5 Cranch Q C. 602. 311; s. C. below, 7 N. M. 666. An 344 ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. [§ 148. diction, is now of little practical importance. For the statutes of the United States, as well as those of all of the individual members of the American Union with which the writer has any acquaintance, allow the full benefits of discovery to be ob- tained by the oral examination of any party or person other- wise interested in the cause on trial. 1 Moreover, a recent amendment to the equity rules provides that, " if the com- plainant, in his bill, shall waive an answer under oath, or shall only require an answer under oath with regard to certain specified interrogatories, the answer of the defendant, though under oath, except such part thereof as shall be directly re- sponsive to such interrogatories, shall not be evidence in his favor, unless the cause be set down for hearing on bill and an- swer only ; but may nevertheless be used as an affidavit with the same effect as heretofore upon a motion to grant or dis- solve an injunction, or on any other incidental motion in the cause ; but this shall not prevent a defendant from becoming a witness in his own behalf under section 3 of the act of Con- gress of July 2, 1864." 2 Consequently, an answer under oath is now usually waived by the complainant. 3 When no such waiver is made, however, the old rule still prevails; and the sworn statement by the defendant in direct response to an alle- gation in the bill is deemed to be true, unless contradicted by two witnesses, or a single witness and corroborating circum- stances. 4 Irresponsive allegations are not evidence. 5 Neither are allegations upon information and belief, 6 nor allegations sworn to positively, concerning facts of which it is evident the respondent can have no personal knowledge. 7 The ad- missions of the defendant are binding upon him ; and unless he can obtain leave to amend his answers by withdrawing §148. 'U. S. R.S.,§858. See infra, Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 TJ. a 580,582; §§109,281. Vigel v. Hopp, 104 U. S. 441; Sles- 2 Amendment of December, 1871, singer v. Buckingham, 17 Fed. R 454, to Equity Rule 41. The statute cited 456. is now U. S. R S., § 858. See Wood- 6 Sargent v. Lamed, 2 Curt 340; ruff v. Dubuque & a C. R. Co., 30 Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580. Fed. R. 91. 6 Berry v. Sawyer, 19 Fed. R. 286; 'SeeSlessinger v. Buckingham, 17 Allen v. O'Donald, 28 Fed. R. 17; Fed. R 454, 456. ' Earle v. Art L. Pub. Co., 95 Fed. R 54. * Clark's Ex'rs v. Van Riemsdyk, 9 7 Clark's Ex'rs v. Van Riemsdyk, Cranch, 153, 160; Union Bank of 9 Cranch, 153, 161; Allen v. O'Don- Georgetown v. Geary, 5 Pet. 99, 110; aid, 28 Fed. R 17. § 148.] DISCOVERY. 345 them, he cannot disprove them at the hearing. 8 , When, dis- covery is required, the defendant must answer every allegation in the bill which is material to the plaintiff's case, and an an- swer admitting which would not expose him to a penalty, for- feiture or criminal prosecution, or expose a privileged commu- nication. 9 " It is not a sufficient foundation of exception that a fact charged in a bill is not answered, unless the fact is ma- terial and might contribute to support the equity of the plaint- iff's case, and induce the court to give the relief sought by the bill." 10 The former practice required that if a defendant sub- mitted to answer, he must, in general answer fully; and that he could usually protect himself from a full discovery only by a plea or demurrer to the objectionable part of the bill. 11 Now, however, the Equity Rules provide that " the rule that if a de- fendant submits to answer 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 answer and discovery. And the defendant shall be entitled in all cases by answer to insist upon all matters of defense (not being matters of abate- ment, or to the character of the parties, or matters of form) in bar of or to the 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 compelled to answer any other matters than he would be compelled to answer and discover upon filing a plea in bar and an answer in support of such plea, touching the matters set forth in the bill, to avoid or repel the bar or defense. Thus, for example, a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice, may set up that defense by way of answer in- stead of plea, and shall be entitled to the same protection, and shall not be compelled to make any further answer or discov- ery of his title than he would be in any answer in support of such plea." 12 "A defendant shall be at liberty, by answer, to decline answering any interrogatory, or part of an interroga- tory, from answering which he might have protected himself s Gold & S. 0. S. Co. v. U. S. Dis. O. " Hare on Discovery, pp. 247, 296, Co., 6 Blatchf. 307, 310. See Troy L 297; Story's Eq. PI., §§ 605, 606, 609, &, N. Factory v. Corning, 6 Blatchf. 846; Mazarredo v. Maitland, 3 Madd. 328, 336. 66,72; v. Harrison, 4 Madd. 252. » Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39. 12 Rule 39. 10 Taney, C. J., in Hardeman v. Harris, 7 How. 726. 346 ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. [§ 148. by demurrer; and he shall be at liberty so to decline, notwith- standing he shall answer other parts of the bill from which he might have protected himself by demurrer." 13 If the plaintiff is the only person who can enforce a penalty or forfeiture, and he waives it in his bill, the defendant may be compelled to answer disclosing his liability thereto. 14 There has been much controversy as to whether the defendant to a bill demanding an account can be obliged to give discovery as to the account when he answers denying the equity of the bill and the com- plainant's right to an account. 15 The better opinion seems to be that he can. Such is the doctrine of Professor Langdell, lfr and of the last English case upon the subject. 17 No discovery can be required of an infant, 18 or other person under a disabil- ity ; 19 nor, it seems, of a corporation, 20 or a public officer when sued in his official capacity. 21 But it has been held that, al- though a corporation cannot be compelled to answer under oath, it can be compelled to answer, and to answer fully. 22 The defendant must answer specifically and categorically, dis- tinguishing between matters within his personal knowledge and those within his information and belief. 23 If he asserts ignorance as to any matter, he must aver that he is ignorant both of his own knowledge and as to information and belief. 24 is Rule 44. 81 Davison v. Atty. Gen., 5 Price, "Lord Uxbridge v. Staveland, 1 398, note; Atty. Gen. v. Lambirth, 5 Ves. Sen. 56; Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Price, 386, 398; U. 8. v. McLaughlin, Blatchf. 39. 24 Fed. R 823. i» The authorities have been well n Hale v. Continental L. Ins. Co., collected by Chancellor Cooper in 16 Fed. R 718; s. a, 20 Fed. R. 344; French v. Rainey, 2 Tenn. Ch. 640. Gamewell F. A. Tel. Co. v. City of w Langdell's Eq. PL, §§ 70-73. New York, 31 Fed. R 312. " Elmer v. Creasy, L.R 9 Ch. 69, 71. 23 Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 296; i 8 Copeland v. Wheeler, 4 Brown, Kittredge v. Claremont Bank, 3 Ch. C. 256; Lucas v. Lucas, 13 Ves. Story, 596; a C, 1 W. & M. 244. It 274; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) has been said that the defendant 214 must answer not only as to all facts I'Micklethwaite v. Atkinson, 1 within his knowledge, but to all Coll. 173. which he can ascertain from an in- 2 « Union Bank of Georgetown v. spection of books and papers in his Geary, 5 Pet 99, 110; "Wallace v.Wal- possession or under his control, lace, Halst. (N. J.) Dig. 173; Smith v. Davis v. Mapes, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 105. St. Louis M. Ins. Co.,% Tenn. Ch. 599; M Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 296; Burpee v. First Nat Bank, 5 Biss. Kittredge v. Claremont Bank, 1 W. 405. But see Kittredge v. Claremont & M. 244 It has been held that when Bank, 3 Story, 590; s. a, 1 "W. & M. the bill asks for testimony concern- g45 < ing his recollection he must give it § 148.] DISCOVERY. 347 He cannot deny that he has no knowledge as to a subject which the bill charges as a personal transaction in which he took part. 25 This last rule, it has been said, applies to officers of corporations. 26 If new officers have succeeded those in office at the time when the matters charged are said to have oc- curred, it is their duty, when called upon for discovery, to ascer- tain the facts by searching the records of the corporation and by inquiry of their predecessors. 27 It has been said that " a corporate answer should be made by the principal officer of the corporation, who should be able to admit or deny the facts charged and interrogated about, or to state want of knowledge clearly and truly as a reason for not doing it." ** It is insuffi- cient to deny any " recollection or belief " as to a transaction in which the defendant is said to have been personally en- gaged. 29 " The defendant in his answer must state the facts as they then are." 30 But where a bill charged that the defendant would in future infringe a patent as he was charged to have done before, it was held insufficient for him to merely deny that he had done so since the trial of an action at law which established the complainant's rights. 31 He has also to answer as to his future intentions. 32 In drawing such an answer, it is usual and often advantageous to interweave the discovery with a narrative of the transactions from the defendant's point of view in a continuous statement, so that it will be hard for the plaintiff to read as evidence the defendant's admissions without also reading the latter's own explanation and account of the controversy. accordingly. Brooks v. Byam, 1 Mason v. Jones, 1 Hayw. & H. 329; Story, 296. In extraordinary cases, s. C, Fed. Cas. No. 9,240. answers as to the defendants' re- 26 Burpee v. First Nat. Bank, 5 Biss. mem brance have been allowed, even 405; Kittredge v. Claremont Bank, when there was no request for the 1 W. & M. 244. remembrance upon the subject. Hall 27 Kittredge v. Claremont Bank, 1 v. Bodily, 1 Vernon, 470; Carey v. W. & M. 244. Jones, 8 Ga. 516; Hall v. Wood, 1 ™ Wheeler, J., in Hale v. Continen- Paige (N. Y.), 404; Story's Eq. PI., tal L. Ins. Co., 16 Fed. E. 718, 719. § 855. But see Talbot v. Sebree's 29 Taylor v. Luther, 2 Sumner, 228. Heirs, 31 Ky. 56. 30 Sir Thomas Plumer, V. C, in 25 Burpee v. First Nat. Bank, 5 Biss. Knight v. Matthews, 1 Madd. 566. 405. It has been held that it is in- 31 Poppenhusen v. N. Y. G. P. C sufficient to deny fraud charged to Co., 4 Blatchf. 185; s. a, 2 Fish. 74 have been committed by an agent 32 Poppenhusen v, N. Y. G. P. C. upon the information of the agent Co., 4 Blatchf. 185; S. C., 2 Fish. 74 and the belief of the principal. 348 ANSWEBS AHD DISCLAIMEE3. [§§ 149, 150. § 149. Proceedings to compel answer. — The defendant must file in the clerk's office on the rule-day next succeeding that of entering his appearance, an answer to as much of the bill as he does not cover by a plea or demurrer. In default thereof, unless his time to answer has been enlarged, for cause shown by a judge of the court, upon motion for that purpose, the bill may be taken against him pro confesso. 1 "When a plea or demurrer is overruled, with leave to the defendant to answer within a certain time, and he fails so to do, the bill may then also be taken pro confesso? Otherwise the plaintiff, if he re- quires any discovery or answer to enable him to obtain a proper decree, is entitled to process of attachment against the defend- ant to compel an answer, and the defendant, when arrested upon such process, is not discharged therefrom unless upon filing his answer, or otherwise complying with such order as the court or judge thereof may direct, as to pleading to or fully answering the bill, within a period to be fixed by the court or judge and undertaking to speed the cause. 3 If the attachment is returned non est inventus, a commission of rebellion will issue. 4 If this proves insufficient, it will be followed by a writ of sequestration. 5 § 150. Frame of answer. — An answer should be entitled in the cause, so as to agree with the names of the parties as they appear in the bill at the time the answer is filed. 1 It seems that the defendant may not correct or alter the names of the parties as they appear in the bill, and that if there is a mistake he must correct it in the part following the title of the cause; thus, " The answer of the defendants, the mayor, alderman, and commonalty in the bill called the mayor, alderman and citizens of the city of New York." 2 The answer should begin substantially thus: "The answer of John Aber, one of the above-named defendants, to the bill of complaint of the above- named plaintiff;" if the bill has been amended after answer, " to the amended bill of complaint." 3 If two or more defend- §149. 1 Equity Rule 18; Heymanv. §150. iDaniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. Uhlman, 34 Fed. R. 686. ed.) 731. 2 Suydam v. Beals, 4 McLean, 13. 2 Atty. Gen. v. Worcester Corp;, 1 'Rule 18. C. P. Cooper, 18; Daniell's Ch. Pr. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1666, 427. 1667. 26 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 31 Campbell v. City of New York, 1683; Pedrick v. White, 1 Met (Mass.) 85 Fed. R 14 But see Ross v. City 76. of Ft. Wayne, 58 Fed. R 404, 406. 27 Lloyd v. Johnes,9 Ves. 27; Dan- §190. »Mitford's PL, ch. 1, § 3; iell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1683. Campbell v. New York, 35 Fed. R. 14; MMitford's PL, oh. 1, § 3; Daniell's Tappan v. Smith, 5 Biss. 73. But see Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1684, 1685. , Secor v. Singleton, 41 Fed. R. 725, 29 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1684 ; 726. Turrell v. Spaeth, 9 Off. Gaz. 1663. § 190.] BILLS IN NATUEE OF SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS. 417 supplemental bill, or a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill. 2 Such a bill must also be filed to bring into a suit the as- signee of a sole plaintiff who had acquired his interest during its pendency. 8 The reason given for this is the doctrine of main- tenance, in consequence of which " it is not enough for the new plaintiff to state that his assignor instituted a suit and assigned to him the benefit of it; he must show that his as- signor had the property in respect of which the suit was in- stituted, and that that property has been assigned and carries witJh'it the right to sue." 4 Such a bill may be brought by the assignee of the complainant to a bill to enjoin the infringe- ment of a patent and for an account of profits and damages, although the assignment was made, and the bill in the nature of a supplemental bill was filed, after the expiration of the patent, pending the suit, and merely for the purpose of collect- ing damages. 5 The assignee of a decree for an injunction and an account of damages caused by the infringement of a trade- mark may have the benefit of the suit by filing an original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill. 6 Neither such a bill nor a supplemental bill will be sustained when filed by a pur- chaser of a railroad at a foreclosure sale to obtain the benefit of a decree enjoining the collection of taxes obtained by stock- holders in a suit brought subsequent to the mortgage. 7 So where a defendant dies before appearance or a decree against him pro confesso, his successor can only be brought in by a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill,,which, however, is considered merely supplemental as to the other defendants. 8 Such a bill may be filed by a purchaser of the complainant's interest even after a decree; 9 but where the purchase was made 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1685 ; * Ross v. City of Ft. Wayne, 58 Fed. Mitford's PL, ch. 1, § 3. E. 404; s. c on appeal, 63 Fed. R. 466. s Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1667; 6 Walter Baker & Co. v. Baker, 89 Campbell v. New York, 35 Fed. R. Fed. R, 673. But see New York B. 14; Ross v. City of Ft. Wayne, 58 & P. Co. v. N. J. C. S. & R Co., 47 Fed. R. 404; s. C. on appeal, 65 Fed. Fed. R. 504. R. 466; Tappan v. Smith, 5 Biss. 73.. 'Keokuk & S. W. R. Co. v. Scot- But see Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumn. 173; land County, 152 U. S. 317. Sedgwick v. Cleveland, 7 Paige 8tj. S. v. Fields, 4 Blatchf. 326; (N. Y.), 290. Crowfoot v. Mander, 9 Sim. 396; 4 White on Supplement and Re- Asbee v. Shipley, M. & G. 296j Dan- vivor, 126, 174; Daniell's Oh. Pr. (2d iell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1673. Am. ed.) 1667. 9 Walter Baker & Co.' v. Baker, 89 27 418 SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS. . [§§ 191, 192. after a direction for a decree, the bill should not be filed until after the decree is entered. 10 § 191. Frame of a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill. A bill in the nature of a supplemental bill " must state the original bill, the proceedings upon it, the event which has de- termined 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 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 so become entitled, and pray the decree of the court adapted to the case of the plaintiff in the new bill." x It will not be impertinent for it to restate allegations of the bill or answer in the original suit, nor to charge new matter which occurred before the original bill was filed, for the purpose of meeting a defense in the original answer. 2 But a bill in the nature of a supple- mental bill need contain no more of the allegations in the original bill than suffices to show a cause of action aga^t the defendants to it. 3 Otherwise, its form should be, as far as possible, in compliance with that of an original bill. If, how- ever, its object be merely to obtain the benefit of the proceed- ings in the original suit, the want of the difference of citizen- ship necessary to support an independent original bill will not deprive the court of jurisdiction of it, provided the first suit were properly brought. 4 § 192. Proceedings upon bills in the nature of supple- mental bills. — A bill in the nature of a supplemental bill is filed in the same manner as a supplemental bill, and the same rule governs the time of the filing of pleadings to it. 1 Other- wise, proceedings upon bills in the nature of supplemental bills resemble those upon independent original bills. 2 According to Lord Kedesdale, " a new defense may be made ; the pleadings Fed. R 673; Hazleton T. R Co. v. 'Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1675- Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 72 Fed. R 325. 1677; Vigersv.Lord Audley,9Sim.72. i» Hazleton T. R. Co. v. Citizens' St. 4 Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Ry. Co., 72 Fed. R 325. Wall. 609. § 191. i Mitford's PI., ch. 1, § 3. § 192. i Rule 57. See § 189. 2 Woods v. Woods, 10 Sim. 197; 2 Mexican Ore Co. v. M. G. M. Co., Atty. Gen. v. Foster, 2 Hare, 81; 47 Fed. R 351, 356. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1667, 1668. § 192.] BILLS IN NATUKE OF SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS. 419 and depositions cannot be used in the same manner as if filed or taken in the same cause ; and the decree, if any has been ob- tained, is no otherwise of advantage than as it may be an induce- ment to the court to make a similar decree." 3 As ha£ been remarked by Lord Eldon, this passage contains an obscurity of language which is due to an obscurity in the subject. 4 But the probable meaning and the view of the matter best supported by authority are, that upon the filing of what is called a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, "no further benefit of the pro- ceedings in the original suit can be obtained than would be if it were styled merely an original bill ; and the evidence and ad- missions and the benefit of the decree in the former suit will only be allowed when the parties to the second are in privity with those to the first suit. 6 s Mitford's PL, ch. 1, § 3. 1685, 1688; Great Western Tel Co. v. * Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Ves. 37, 56. Purdy, 162 U. a 329. *Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) m CHAPTER XV. INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. § 193. Definition and classification of interlocutory ap- plications. — An interlocutory application is a request, not incorporated in a bill, made to the court for its interference in a matter arising in a cause either before or after a decree. An interlocutory application is made by motion on petition. § 194. Definition and classification of motions. — Amotion has been defined as " an application either by a party or his counsel, not founded upon any written statement addressed to the court." 1 But the rules of the Supreme Court of the United States provide that " all motions hereafter made to the court shall be reduced to writing, and shall contain a brief state- ment of the facts and objects of the motion." 2 And most motions are supported by affidavits. Motions are either of course or special. Special motions are either ex parte or upon notice. § 195. Motiops of course. — Motions of course are those which, by some rule or practice of the court, are invariably granted without notice, and to which no opposition is allowed. 1 In Federal equity practice, the term is usually confined to such motions as are granted as of course by the clerk without the intervention of a judge of the court. 2 The equity rules provide that "all motions and applications in the clerk's' office for the issuing of mesne process and final process to enforce and exe- cute decrees ; for filing bills, answers, pleas, demurrers, and other pleadings; for making amendments to bills and answers; for taking bills pro confesso; 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 ' §194 1 Darnell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. §195. iDaniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.)1787. See the language of Folger, ed.) 1599; U. S. v. Parrott, 1 McAll. J., in Shaft v. Phoenix Mut. K Ins. 447, 454. Co., 67 N. Y. 544, 547. 2 Robinson v. Satterlee, 3 Saw. 184, 2 Supreme Court Rule 6. 141. § 196.] SPECIAL MOTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE. 421 court, or of any judge thereof, shall be deemed motions and applications 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." 3 The order dismissing a bill for an omission to duly file a replication is an order as of course. 4 It has been held that an order for the issue of a commission is not. 5 " The clerk's office shall be open, and the clerk shall be in attendance therein, on the first Monday of every month, for the purpose of receiving, entering, enter- taining, and disposing of all motions, rules, orders, and other proceedings, which are grantable of course and applied for, or had by the parties or their solicitors, in all causes pending in equity, in pursuance of the rules hereby prescribed." 6 " All motions, rules, orders, and other proceedings made and directed at chambers, or on rule-days at the clerk's office, whether spe- cial or of course, shall be entered 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 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 required or directed, such entry in the order-book shall be deemed sufficient notice to the parties and their so- licitors, without further service thereof, of all orders, rules, acts, notices, and other proceedings entered in such order-book, touch- ing any and all the matters in the suit to and in which they are parties and solicitors." 7 § 196. Special motions without notice. — A special motion is a motion which can only be granted by a judge of the court under special circumstances or in his discretion. 1 Such motions are either upon notice or without notice. Orders granted upon motions without notice are said to be expwrte; and the same term is applied to the motions upon which they are granted. An exijpwrte special mption must be supported by an affidavit. 2 Estspwrte special motions are not common. 3 They are usually s Equity Rule 5. §196. iDaniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. * Robinson v. Satterlee, 3 Saw. 134, ed.) 1789; U. S. v. Parrott, 1 MoAll. 141. 447, 454. s U. S. v. Parrott, 1 MoAlL 447. 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1789. 6 Rule 2. 3 McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 Mc- ' Rule 4 Lean, 503; U. & v. Parrott, 1 MoAlL 422 INTEEL00UT0BY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 196. granted to prevent some irreparable injury to the moving party which would otherwise occur within the time limited for no- tice, when the same is required ; and the court should always lend a willing ear to an application to discharge or set aside an ex parte order. 4 "Writs of ne exeat republica are usually granted ex parte. 5 So are applications for extensions of time to plead, or take other proceedings in a cause. The equity rules provide that " "Whenever an injunction is asked for by the bill to stay proceedings at law, if the defendant do not enter his appear- ance, and plead, demur, or answer to the same within the time prescribed therefor by these rules, the plaintiff shall be entitled as of course, upon motion, without notice, to such injunction. But special injunctions shall be grantable only upon due notice to the other party by the court in term, or by a judge thereof in vacation, after a hearing, which may be ex parte, if the ad- verse party does not appear at the time and place ordered. In every case where an injunction — either the common injunction or the special injunction — is awarded in vacation, it shall, un- less previously dissolved by the judge granting the same, con- tinue until the next term of the court, or until it is dissolved by some other order of the court." 6 The Eevised Statutes, however, make an exception to this rule, in providing that " whenever notice is given of a motion for an injunction out of a Circuit or District Court, the court or a judge thereof may, if there appears to be danger of irreparable injury from delay, grant an order restraining the act sought to be enjoined until the decision upon the motion; and such order may be granted with or without security, in the discretion of the court or judge." 7 The rule was, moreover, thus construed by Mr. Jus- tice Miller: "The justices of the Supreme Court have power to grant injunctions which do not expire by the commence- ment of the next succeeding term. To injunctions thus granted, the latter part of the rule applies, namely, — that they continue until dissolved by some other order of the court. To injunc- 447; Marshall v. Mellersh, 5 Beav. »Collinson v. , 18 Ves. 353; 496; Gray v. C, I & N. E. Co., 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1789, "Woolw. 63. 1937. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1789, 6 Rule 55. See also Yuengling v. 1790; Isnard v. Cazeaux, 1 Paige Johnson, 1 Hughes, 607. (N. Y.), 39; Hart v. Small, 4 Paige 'U. S. R. R, § 7ia See infra, (N. Y.), 55L §§ 230, 231. § 197.] NOTICE OF MOTION. 423 tions granted by the judges of the District Courts, the other alternative of the disjunctive sentence applies, merely reiterat- ing the provision of the statute, that they continue till the next term of the court, unless otherwise ordered by the court." 8 Ms parte orders may be obtained at any time and in any place within the jurisdiction of the judge, whether in court or else- where. 9 § 197. Notice of motion. — The 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 exparte, and granted, as if not objected to, or refused, in his discretion." 1 "Any judge of the Circuit Court, as well in vacation as in term, may, at chambers, or on the rule-days at the clerk's offrce, make and direct all such interlocutory orders, rules, and other proceedings, preparatory to the hearing of all causes upon their merits, in the same manner and with the same effect as the Circuit Court could make and direct the same in term, reasonable notice of the application 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." 2 It has been held that the foregoing rule does not apply to a motion made in term and in the presence of counsel for the opposing side. 8 " Except in cases where personal or other notice is specially required or directed, such entry in the order-book shall be deemed suffi- cient notice to the parties and their solicitors, without further service thereof, of all orders, rules, acts, notices and other proceedings, entered in such order-book, touching any and all matters in the suits to and in which they are parties and so- licitors. And notice to the solicitors shall be deemed notice 8 Gray v. G, L & N. R. Co., 1 Woolw. § 197. i Equity Rule 6. 63.68. 2 Equity Rule a 9 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1789; 3 McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 Mo- Equity Rule 3. Lean, 503, 505. 424 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 197. to the parties for whom, they appear and -whom they represent, in all cases where personal notice on the parties is not other- wise specially required. Where the solicitors for all the par- ties in the suit reside in or near the same town or city, the judges of the Circuit Court may, by rule, abridge the time for notice of rules, orders, or other proceedings not requiring per- sonal service on the parties, in their discretion." 4 This subject is usually regulated by rule or local practice differently in the several circuits. In the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, four days' notice personally served, together with a copy of the bill and of the affidavits intended to be used in support of the motion, is all that is usually required. 5 All notices of motion for any process of contempt or com- mitment must be served personally on the party against whom the process is sought, 6 except, perhaps, when an order for sub- stituted service has been previously obtained. 7 In England, under special circumstances, notice of a motion could be made upon an agent of a person without the jurisdiction. 8 A notice of motion should be properly entitled in the cause or matter in which it is made. 9 It should be addressed to the solicitor of the party intended to be affected by it, or to the party himself when he appears in person or personal service is intended. It should be dated, 10 and signed by the solicitor for the moving party, or by that party himself if he appear in person. 11 It has been held in New York that a notice signed in person by a defendant who has previously appeared by a solicitor who has not been removed is irregular. 12 A notice of motion should state the day, place, and hour at which the mo- * Equity Rule 4 9 Barb. Ch. Pr. 570; Eowlatt v. Cat- 8 See Rule 105 of the Rules of the tell, 2 Hare, 186; Salomon v. Stalman, U. S. C. C. for the Southern District 4 Beav. 243; Davis v. Barrett, 7 Beav. of New York. 171 ; Morrall v. Prichard, 11 Jur. (N. S.) « Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1794; 969. Gray v. G, I & N. R. Co., 1 Woolw. «Barb. Ch. Pr. 570; Moody v. Heb- 63; supra, § 96. berd, 11 Jur. 941; Hutchinson v. 7 Hope v. Hope, 4 De G., M. & G. Horner, 9 Jur. 615; Parker v. Francis, 328. 9 Jur. 616, note. s Daniell's Ch.Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1794; "Barb. Ch. Pr. 570; Perry v. Hope v. Hope, 4 De G., M. & G. 328; Walker, 4 Beav. 452. Cooper y. Wood, 5 Beav. 391; Pulte- 12 Halsey v. Carter, 6 Robertson ney v. Shelton, 5 Ves. 147; Hunt v. (N. Y.), 535; Webb v. Dill, 18 Abb. Pr. Lever, 5 Ves. 147; and § 96. (N. Y.) 264, § 197.] NOTICE OF MOTION. 425 tion will be made." It is usual, however, to designate the hour by the expression "at the opening of the court oh that day," and to add the words " or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard." u Where the motion can be made only by leave of the court, the notice ought to mention that it is so made ; or, otherwise, it seems that it may be disregarded. 15 "Where the object of the motion is to discharge an order for irregu- larity, it is usual for the notice to state the ground of the ap- plication. 16 It is usual for the notice also to state before what judge the motion will be made; and to specify the affidavits and other documents which will be used in its support. 17 The notice must state clearly the terms of the order which will be asked for, and everything which the party would have should be expressed ; as the court will not extend .the order beyond the notice. 18 For this reason, it is usual to add a no- tice of a motion for general relief; that is, "for such other or further order or relief as to the court shall seem just ; " under which, other relief germane to that, a motion for which has been specifically noticed, may be granted. 19 A general ap- pearance and consent to an adjournment waives a defect in a- notice of motion. 20 It has been held that on the hearing of a motion for the production of papers under a subpoena duces tecum coupled< with a prayer for general relief, if the other party appears by counsel, an order may be granted commit- ting him, or, : if a corporation, committing its officers, for con- tempt for disobedience to the subpoena. 21 It has been held that a motion for the appointment of a receiver cannot be made at the hearing of a motion for an injunction against an interference with a railroad claimed to be in the possession of the moving party. 22 A motion to suppress depositions brings "Barb. Ch. Pr. 570; Bod well v. Clement v. Griffith, C. P. Coop. 470 ; Willcox, 2 Caines (N. Y.), 104; Anon., Brown v. Ricketts, 2 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 1 J. R. (N. Y.) 143. 425. « Barb. Ch. Pr. 570; In re Electrio « Barb. Ch. Pr. 570; Mann v. King, Tel. Co. of Ireland, 10 W. R. 4. 18 Ves. 297. J* Hill v. Rimell, 8 ! Sim. 632; Jack- "Barb. Ch. Pr. 570. lin v. Wilkins, 6 Beav. 607. 20 Marye v. Strouse, 6 Sawyer, 204. m Brown v. Robertson, 2 PhD. 173; "Edison El. L. Co. v. U. S. EL L. Alexander v. Esten, 1 Caines (N. Y.), Co., 44 Fed^R. 294, 300. 152: Jackson v. Stiles, 1 Cowen (N. Y), 22 st. L., K. C. & C. Ry. Co. v. De- 134. wees, 23 Fed. R, 691. "Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1793; 426 INTEKLOCUTOEY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 197. up the regularity of an ex parte order directing them to be taken, as well as the competency of the witnesses examined, if the party moving to suppress has never done anything to waive the objection." 23 A motion may be made by any party to a cause except one who is in contempt. 24 It has been said, that a party in con- tempt cannot move for any other purpose' than to discharge the contempt proceedings, 25 or to expunge scandal from the- record ; 26 and in such cases he should apply by petition. 27 The rule in the Federal courts, however, is that he is only debarred from applications which are not of strict right, but are mat- ters of favor in the discretion of the court, 28 such as an appli- cation to open a default; 29 and that his answer cannot be stricken out of the record nor can he be denied a hearing. 30 No one should join in a notice for a motion in which he is not directly interested. 31 The joinder of one disinterested party with others who had an interest was held in England a suffi- cient reason 'for refusing the whole motion. 32 A motion in the course of proceedings under an information cannot be made on behalf of the relators, but only on behalf of the attorney- general or district attorney. 33 Where it is clearly for the in- terest of a person under a disability to make a motion, and he has no next friend, or his next friend refuses to do so, a next friend for the purposes of the application may move on his be- half. 34 A number of objects not inconsistent with each other, and even inconsistent objects, if prayed for in the alternative, may be included in the same notice and motion. 85 The court will 23 Bradley, J., in Eslava v. Mazange, 80 Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409. 1 Woods, 623, 627. . Contra, Walker v. Walker, 82 N. Y. 24Daniell'sCh.Pr.(2dAm.ed.)1787; 260; Pickett v. Ferguson, 45 Ark. Nicholson v. Squire, 16 Ves. 259, 260. 177, 191. 25 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 554- siDaniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1793; 558, 1787; Anon., 5 Ves. 656. Folland v. Lamotte, 10 Sim. 486. 26 Everett v. Prythergch, 12 Sim. 82 Folland Vi Lamotte, 10 Sim. 486. 363. 83 Atty. Gen. v. Wright, 3 Beav. 447. 2' Lord Eldon in Nicholson v. 84 Cox v. Wright, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 981; Squire, 16 Ves. 259, 260. Guy v. Guy, 2 Beav. 460; Furtado v. 28 See the learned opinion of Mr. Furtado, 6 Jur. 227; supra, §§ 32, 33. Justice White in Hovey v. Elliott, 85 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1792, 167 U. S. 409. 1793. 29 Ellingwood v. Stevenson, 4 Sandf, Ch. (N. Y.) 366. § 198.] AEGUMENT OF MOTIONS. 427 discourage when directing as to costs the making of separate motions for objects which might have been conveniently ob- tained by a single application. 36 § 198. Argument of motions. — The manner of bringing motions to a hearing is regulated by local rule or usage differ- ently in the different circuits. Lord Campbell has thus de- scribed the former English practice, which was abolished by . Lord Mansfield, whose rules for the hearing of motions at common law were followed by the Court of Chancery: "Day by day during the term, each counsel when called upon had been accustomed to make as many motions successively and continuously as he pleased. The consequence was, that by the time the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and two or three other Dons, had exhausted their motions, the hour had arrived for the adjournment; and as, the counsel of highest rank was again called to at the sitting of the court next morning, juniors had no opportunity of making any motions with which they might be intrusted till the last day of the term, when it was usual, as a fruitless compliment to them, to begin with the back row, — after the time had passed by when their motions could be made with any benefit to their clients. The conse- quence was, that young men of promise were unduly depressed, and more briefs were brought to the leaders than there was time for them to read, even had they been toiling all night at their chambers instead of sitting up in the House of Commons, absorbed in party struggles. Thus the interests of the suitors were in danger of being neglected, and the judges did not re- ceive the fair assistance from the bar in coming to a right con- clusion which they were entitled to expect. To remedy these evils, a rule was made that the counsel should only make one motion a-piece in rotation ; and that if by chance the court rose before the whole bar had been gone through, the motion should begin next morning with him whose turn it was to move at the adjournment. The business was thus both more equally distributed and much better done." l This custom, however, if it ever did prevail, was early abolished in this country; and here usually either no method is observed, and motions are 86 Hawke v. Kemp, 3 Beav. 288. 399. See also Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d § 198. l Campbell's Lives of the Am. ed.) 1797. Chief Justices, ch. xxxiv, pp. 398, 428 INTEBLOOUTOBY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 198. made by counsel as they catch the judge's eye, or a calendar upon which motions are placed by the clerk in the order in which they were first brought to his attention, is made and called. In the Supreme Court of the United States the Attor- ney-General and the Solicitor-General take precedence. When, at the hearing of a motion, the opposite party is not represented, proof of service must be shown by entry in the order-book, affidavit, or admission; and the hearing may then proceed ex parte? "When the moving party does not then ap- pear, his motion will be dismissed. When both sides are rep- resented, the moving party has the right of opening and reply- ing. 3 , The English rule, was that, "in injunction cases, where upon an order to dissolve an injunction nisi the plaintiff shows cause upon the merits confessed in the answer; then no reply is allowed, the motion for the order nisi being considered as the application, to which the plaintiff answers by showing cause upon the merits; after this, the defendant's counsel is allowed to argue against the cause shown by the plaintiff, and this is considered as the reply." * As a general rule, no person can be heard in support of a motion unless he has been one of the parties who gave notice of it.' But when the object of a motion is to reverse the conclusion of a master, it seems that all persons interested in the master's report are entitled to be heard in its support. 6 At the hearing, if the English practice should be followed, any affidavit might be read by either party that had been filed in the clerk's office before the hearing. If an affidavit were filed too late for the other side to take a copy of it, or to obtain an affidavit controverting facts stated in it, that was a ground for moving to postpone the hearing. ]STo affidavit filed previous to the entry of the. motion could be used by the moving party, unless he had in his notice of motion stated specifically that he intended to use it. A separate no- tice to that effect, if served a reasonable time before the hear- ing of the motion, would, however, probably be sufficient. 7 This subject is, however, by local rule or custom regulated dif- 2 Equity Rule 6. 6 Johnston v. Todd, 5 Beav. 394; 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1799. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1793. 4 Ibid. 7 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1797, »Stubbs v. Sargon, 3 Beav. 408; 1798. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1793. § 199.] PETITIONS IN GENERAL. 429 ferently in the different circuits. Affidavits upon information and belief, where the grounds of the belief are set forth, may be read in support of a motion, 8 and other proof which would be incompetent upon a trial may be used. 9 "Where an order is made by which a particular act is to be done, unless the other party shall within, or rather, as is the' usual American custom, at a certain time, show cause to the contrary; which order is called in England an order nisi, in the United States usually an order to show cause ; the party obtaining it must, on the return-day, move for another order " to confirm the previous order nisi absolute." The motion, in this case, requires no no- tice, but the application must be supported by an affidavit to prove clue service of the order nisi, similar to the proof of serv- ice of a notice of motion, unless a different mode or time of service be directed by the judge granting it. 10 By rule, in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, " all spe- cial motions, in reference to matters of practice, may be made in open court, or before a judge at chambers." u § 199. Petitions in general. — A petition is a request in writ- ing directed to the judge or judges of the court, and showing some matter or cause whereupon the petition prays some direc- tion or order. 1 It may be made by one who is, or by one who is not, a party to a cause pending in the court. Lord Erskine said formerly: "I do not find that there are any precise or positive boundaries between motions and petitions, as they are to be applied to carry into effect decrees and orders, so as to exclude all discretion in the court to grant or refuse them, ac- cording to circumstances; but, generally speaking, motions which have for their object the giving effect to decrees or or- ders, should be confined to cases where the order which is to be made upon the motion arises out of recent proceedings upon which there is no doubt; for as the adverse party knows noth- ing but by the notice, containing only the name of the cause 8 City of Detroit v. Detroit City v. Hermance, 1 Blatch. 322; Mathews Ry. Co., 54 Fed. R. 1. v. Ironclad Mfg. Co., 19 Fed. R 321; 9 Casey v. Cincinnati Typograph- infra, '§§ 232, 269, 386. ical Union No. 3, 45 Fed. R. 135, 147; "Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) Coeur d'Alene Am. Mining Co. v. 1593. Mining Union of Warden, 51 Fed. R. « U S. C. C, S. D. N. Y. Rule HL 260; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Texas & § 199. 1 2 Barb. Ch. Pr. 579. P. Ry. Co., 51 Fed. R 529, 542; Buck 430 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 199. and what is prayed of the court, the proceedings ought to be recent and notorious, so as that the adverse party may be sup- posed to be perfectly conusant of all the steps and proceedings in the cause, as much as if, at a greater expense, they were re- cited in the petition." 2 But petitions are now rarely filed by a party to a cause, since any relief which he desires can usually be obtained equally well by a motion supported by an affidavit containing the allegations which would be necessary in a peti- tion. Petitions are usually filed by some person not a party in order to obtain the' benefit of proceedings in a cause pend- ing in the court, or else to obtain an order in relation to some matter which is not the subject of any litigation in it. Peti- tions which are made in a cause are termed cause petitions. 3 The most common instances of cause petitions are petitions for the appointment of a next friend, petitions of intervention, pe- titions for payment out of a fund in the hands of an officer of the court, and petitions for leave to sue a receiver. The most common instances of petitions which are not cause petitions are petitions for the appointment, removal, or resignation of a trustee, and petitions for the appointment of the guardian of an infant, and the maintenance of the infant out of his prop- erty. But in most, if not all, of these cases the application can also be made by motion, unless a long statement of facts is needed to show the right of the applicant to relief. 4 "Where a petition is founded upon a former decree it is sufficient to state that decree without setting out the papers upon which that decree was rendered. 5 After a decree which purports to finally dispose of the suit, one plaintiff cannot obtain relief against another by means of a petition setting up matters which could not have been introduced by an amended or supplemental bill ; at least without notice to the party against whom he seeks re- lief. 6 Ordinarily, a petition cannot be presented in a cause be- fore the bill has been filed. 7 A petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis is an exception to this rule; and in an ex- traordinary case a stay order might perhaps be granted upon a 2 Lord Shipbrooke v. Lord Hinch- i Jones v. Roberts, 12 Sim. 189; inbrook, 13 Ves. 387, 393. See, how- Barker v. Todd, 15 Fed. R. 265. ever, Nicholson v. Squire, 16 Ves. 6 Davis v. Davis, 65 Fed. R. 380. 259, 360. 6 Smith v. Woolfolk, 115 U. S. 143. a Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1801. ' Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1801. § 200.J PETITIONS FOK LEAVE TO SITE IN FOEMA PAUPERIS. 431 petition before the filing of a bill. 8 The objection, that a party who has proceeded by a petition should have filed a cross-bill, a supplemental bill, or a supplemental answer, is too late when not taken till after an answer to the petition and a decree thereupon. 9 A paper improperly styled a petition may, if it contains the necessary allegations, be sustained as a dependent original bill. 10 § 200. Petitions for leave to sue in forma pauperis at common law and in equity. — "The right to sue in forma pau- peris originated in the statute of Hen. VII. This and the subsequent statute of Hen. VIII. are confined to actions in the courts of common law, and do not extend to defendants. The courts of equity have adopted the principle of these stat- utes, and, proceeding further, have extended the relief to the case of defendants." 1 The act of July 20, 1892, provides " that any citizen of the United States, entitled to commence any suit or action in any court of the United States, may commence and prosecute to conclusion any such suit or action without being required to prepay fees, or costs, or give security therefor before or after bringing suit or action, upon filing in said court a statement under oath, in writing, that, because of his poverty, he is un- able to pay the costs of said suit or action which he is about to commence, or to give security for the same, and that he be- lieves he is entitled to the redress he seeks by such suit or ac- tion, and setting forth briefly the nature of his alleged cause of action." 2 "That the officers of the court shall issue, serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases, and the wit- nesses shall attend as in other cases, and the plaintiff shall have the same remedies as are provided by law in other cases." 3 " That the court may request any attorney of the s Mayor of London v. Bolt, 5 Ves. ' 2 27 St. at L., p. 252. Before this 129; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am.ed.) 1801. act, the Federal courts followed the 9 Kelsey v. Hobby, 16 Pet. 269, 277; English practice in equity, Fergu- Coburn v. Cedar V. C. & L. Co., 138 son v. Dent, 15 Fed. B. 771; not at TJ. S. 196, 222. common law, Boy v. Louisville, N. O. M Central Tr. Co. of N. Y. v. Mari- & T. E. Co., 34 Fed. B. 276; but in etta & N. G-. B. Co., 63 Fed. B. 492. the absence of a State statute, which § 200. * Lord Lyndhurst in Old- it followed, Heckman v. Mackey, 32 field v., Cobbett, 1 Phil. 613, 615. Fed. B. 57. See Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. B 771. » Ibid. 432 INTEELOOUTOET APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 200. court to represent such poor person if it deems the cause worthy of trial, and may dismiss any such causa so brought under this act if it be made to appear that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if said court be satisfied that the alleged cause of action is frivolous or malicious." 4 " That judgment may be rendered for costs at the conclusion of the suit as in other cases : Provided that the United States shall not be liable for any of the costs incurred." 5 The English practice required that such an application be made by a petition containing a short statement of his case or defense, and when filed by a complainant that it should be ac- companied by a certificate signed by counsel, " that he con- ceives the plaintiff has just cause to be relieved touching the matter of the petition for which he has exhibited his bill;" and also in all cases by the affidavit of the party himself " that he is not worth in all the world the sum of 51. after payment of his just debts, his wearing apparel and the matters in ques- tion in the cause only excepted.'' 6 It seems, that, under the statute of the United States, the application may be made upon a' motion and affidavit without a petition or a certificate of counsel, although a prudent practitioner should not omit them. The affidavit, when filed by the plaintiff, should show that he is a citizen, and that there is no person interested who is able to pay or secure the costs. 7 An attorney who had contracted to bring a suit upon a contingent fee was held to be such an interested person. 8 "Where the plaintiff sued in a representative capacity, it was held that he must show that those whom he represented were unable to pay the costs. 9 According to the English practice, a person suing or being sued in a representa- tive capacity could not obtain an order of this character. 10 A person may take an appeal to the Supreme Court n or to a Cir- 4 ibid. WOldfield v. Cobbett, 1 Phil. 613; 5 ibid. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 44; « Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 46; Anon., 1 Ves. Jr. 409. ButseeThbmp- Wilkinson v. Belsher, 2 Brown, Ch. son v. Thompson, cited in 1 T. & V. C, 27a. Ch. Pr. 513; Ferguson v. Dent, 15 'Boyle v. Great N.Ey. Co., 63 Fed. Fed. E. 771; Clay v. Southern Ry. K. 539. Co. (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. R. 472. 8 ibid. "In re Mills, 135 U. S. 263; Fuller » Clay v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), v. Montague, .53 Fed. R. 206. 90 Fed. R 472. § 200.] PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO SUE IN FORMA PAUPERIS. 433 cuit Court of Appeals, 12 or sue out a writ of habeas corpus 13 in the Supreme Court, im, forma pauperis : After such an appeal from a decree sustaining a demurrer, it was held to be too late to move to dismisg the case for a defect in the affidavit upon the original application for leave to sue. 14 An appeal in forma pauperis was not allowed when it was plainly without merit. 1 * In England the counsel and solicitor assigned could not take any fee, profit, or reward of the- pauper for the despatch of business, while 'the cause was pending and the party continued in forma pauperis, except paupers' fees, which were twopence a sheet for the labor of copying. 16 Nor could any agreement be made for the payment of any recompense afterwards." For an offense in either of these respects, both the lawyer and the client were guilty of contempt of court; and the client was dispaupered, and forever disqualified from suing as a pauper in the same suit. 18 When it was made to appear to the court that a pauper had sold or contracted for the benefit of his suit, or any part thereof, while the same was depending, his suit was dismissed absolutely. 19 No fees except paupers' fees could be collected from the pauper, nor could costs be decreed against him, 20 except for scandal. 21 In case of success, however, the court might allow him full costs. " For though he is at no costs, or but small expense, yet the counsel and clerks do not give their labor to the defendant, but to the pauper." a The order permitting a party to sue or defend in forma pauperis had to be served upon the opposite party as soon as possible. For the pauper was liable for all costs decreed against him be- i 2 Fuller v. Montague (C. C. A., 1st 16 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 47. Ct), 53 Fed. R 206; Columb v. Web- « Ibio. ster Mfg. Co., 76 Fed. R 198. Contra, " Ibid. The Presto (C. C. A., 5th Ct), 93 Fed. w Ibid. R 522. See Wiokelman v. A. B. so Ibid.; Soatchmer v. Foulkard, 1 Dick Co. (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R 851; Eq. Cas. Abr. 125. Brinkley v. L. & N. R Co., 95 Fed. a Rattray v. George, 16 Ves. 232. R 345, 354. See also Murphy v. Oldis, 2 Molloy, win re Mills, 135 U. S. 263. 475; Richardson v. Richardson, 5 m Fuller v. Montague, 53 Fed. R. 206. Paige (N. Y.% 58. 15 Brinkley v. Louisville & N. R 22 Scatchmer v. Foulkard, 1 Eq. Co., 95 Fed. R 345, where there is a Cas. Abr. 125; Rattray v. George, 16 learned and instructive opinion by Ves. 232; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. Judge Hammond upon the whole ed.) 49, 50. subject of this section. 434 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 201. fore the service of the order. 33 A party could be dispaupered for improper or vexatious conduct in the suit. 24 § 201. Petitions of intervention. — A petition of interven- tion is filed in a pending cause by a person who is not a party to it; and prays permission to intervene and become a party, either plaintiff or defendant. The general rule is that the court has no power to allow a stranger to a cause " to be heard therein either by petition or motion, except in certain cases arising from necessity, as where the pleadings contain scandal against a stranger, or where a stranger purchases the subject of litigation pending the suit, and the like." 1 But persons be- longing to a class represented in the suit are regarded as quasi- parties; and for that reason they are often allowed to inter- vene. 2 In a suit brought by a member of a class on behalf of himself and others similarly interested, another member of the class who desires the success of the complainant 3 can always intervene, 4 even after a decree for a sale, provided there has been no distribution of the assets,' upon payment of his share of the costs, expenses, and reasonable counsel fees which have been previously paid or incurred. 6 It has been held that, where a creditor delays his intervention until after a decision in favor of the plaintiff, the payment of his claim will be postponed until after those who have conducted the litigation have re- ceived full satisfaction. 7 Ordinarily an intervenor in a suit 23 Ballard v. Catling, 2 Keen, 606. < Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 2 Black, 24 Wagner v. Mears, 3 Sim. 127. 539; s. C, 23 How. 380; Myers v. Fenn, § 201. > Bradley, J., in Anderson v. 5 Wall. 205; Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. Jacksonville, P. & M. E. Co., 2 Woods, 248; First Nat. Ins. Co. v. Salisbury, 628,629. See also Searles v. Jackson- 130 Mass. 303; Hallett v. Hallett, 2 ville, P. & M. R Co., 2 Woods, 621, Paige (N. T.), 432; Leigh v. Thomas, 625; Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 2 Ves. Sen. 312; Story's Eq. PL, § 99. 145; Bronson v. Railroad Co., 2 Black, 6 George v. St. Louis C. & W. Ry. 524; Coleman v. Martin, 6 Blatchf. Co., 44 Fed. R 117. 119; Drake v. Goodridge, 6 Blatchf. « Central R Co. v. Pettus, 113 U. S. 151; Pagev. Holmes B. A. Tel. Co., 116; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 18 Blatchf. 118. 527. 2 Fidelity Tr. & S. D. V. Co. v. Mo- 7 Smith v. Kraft, 11 Biss. 340; Jones bile S. Ry. Co., 53 Fed. R 850. v. Davenport, 45 N. J. Eq. 77, 87. Of. ' Forbes v. Memphis, El P. & P. R. McDermott v. Strong, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) Co., 2 Woods, 323. The right was de- 687; Edmiston v. Lyde, 1 Paige (N. Y.), nied where the petitioner acquired 639. But see Wilder v. Keeler, 3 his claim pending the suit. Terry v. Paige (N. Y.), 164; Strike's Case, 1 Bank of Cape Fear, 20 Fed. R. 777. Bland (Md.), 57 Cf. Davis v. Sullivan, 33 N. J. Eq. 569. § 201.] PETITIONS OF INTERVENTION. 435 brought on behalf of a class will be joined as plaintiff. If he is a citizen of the same State as one of the defendants, that will not in most, if in any, cases deprive the court of jurisdiction. 8 If there should be any danger that it would, he may be joined as a defendant. 9 If he intends to act in hostility to the orig- inal complainant, the court may, in its discretion, add him to the defendants. 10 In suits brought by or against a trustee, or otherwise affect- ing trust property, the beneficiaries of the trust, such as hold- ers of bonds secured by a railroad mortgage, may be allowed to intervene for the purpose of protecting their interests; n but ordinarily the right to intervene will be denied them in the absence of fraud, neglect, inability, collusion or bad faith by the trustee. 12 Where a trustee represents bondholders under different mortgages with conflicting interests ; or where, if a corporation, one of its officers or directors or controlling stock- holders or counsel is a member of a reorganization committee which intends to buy the mortgaged property or is interested in a large claim against it, the trustee is under such disability to exercise unbiased judgment that an intervention should always be allowed. 13 "When there is a substantial dispute be- tween the bondholders as to the policy to be pursued, it is also proper to allow the intervention of committees representing 8 Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61. senting; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. But see Mangels v. Donau Br. Co., 53 Kansas City, W. & N. W. R Co., 53 Fed. R 513. Fed. R. 182; Clyde v. Richmond & D. s Brown v. Pac. M. S. S. Co., 5 R. Co., 55 Fed. R. 445. See supra, Blatchf. 525, 535. § 171. i° Galveston R. Co. v. Cowdrey, 11 i» Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Nor. Pao. Wall. 459, 478; Forbes v. Memphis, R Co., 66 Fed. R. 169; Farmers' L. & El P. & P. R Co.. 2 Woods, 323. Tr. Co. v. Cape Fear & Y. V. Ry. Co., » Williams v. Morgan, 111 U.S. 684; 71 Fed. R 38; Grand Tr. Ry. Co. v. Drew v. Hannah, 5 Price, 319; Say- Central Vt. Ry. Co., 88 Fed. R 622; lors v. Saylors. 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 525; Fowler v. Jarvis-Conklin M Tr. Co., Birdsong v. Birdsong, 2 Head (Tenn.), 64 Fed. R 279; Hamlin v. Toledo, St. 289; Carter v. New Orleans, 19 Fed. L. & K. C. R Co., 78 Fed. R 664, 672. R 659; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Mo. But see Clyde v. Richmond & D. R I. & N. Ry. Co., 21 Fed. R. 264; Farm- Co., 55 Fed. R. 445. A provision in ers' L. & Tr. Co. v. No. Pac. R Co., 66 the mortgage, that no holder can sue Fed. R 169. to foreclose until after a refusal by I 2 Richards v. Chesapeake & O. R the trustee, does not preclude the Co., 1 Hughes, 28, 36; Skiddy v. At- intervention of a bondholder. Farm- lantic, M. & O. R Co., 3 Hughes, 320, ers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Nor. Pac. R Co., 350-352, per Bond, J., Hughes, J., dis- 66 Fed. R. 169. 436 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 201. them. 14 In general, injustice is more apt to result from the denial, than from the grant, of a prayer for intervention in a railroad foreclosure suit. In suits brought by or against a corporation, stockholders may be allowed to intervene if there is any danger of their being injured by fraud, neglect or collusion on the part of the officers ; 15 and in some such cases stockholders have been al- lowed to file an answer and defend the suit in the name of the corporation. 16 In the absence of fraud, neglect, or collusion by the officers of the corporation, stockholders will not ordi- narily be allowed to intervene before a decree ; 17 unless a receiver has been appointed, when each separate group of stockholders with conflicting interests or taking opposite positions may be allowed an intervention. 18 A stockholder who prays leave to intervene and defend on behalf of his corporation should show a previous request to the board of directors and their refusal to defend, or else circumstances which would make such a re- quest a vain form ; u but if a petition defective in this respect shows a good defense, the proceedings should be stayed until an opportunity has been afforded for the petitioner to apply to the board of directors and then file a new petition. 20 Laches may be a reason for denying a stockholder's, bondholder's or creditor's petition of intervention when equities on the part of the complainant or other parties interested have arisen during the delay. 21 "Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Cape « Forbes v. Memphis, El. P. & P. R Fear & Y. V. Ry. Co., 71 Fed. R 38; Co., 2 Woods, 323, 333. For a pecul- Toler v. East Tenn., V. & G. Ry. Co., iar case, see Coffin v. Chattanooga 67 Fed. R 168. W. & P. Co., 44 Fed. R 535. is Bayliss v. Lafayette, M. & B. Ry. 18 Fowler v. Jarvis-Conklin M. Tr. Co., 8 Biss. 19a Co., 64 Fed. R. 270; Hamlin v. Toledo, 16 Bronson v. La Crosse & M. R Co., St. L. & K C. R Co., 78 Fed. R. 664, 2 Wall. 283; Guarantee Tr. & S. Co. 672. See Toledo, St. L & K. C. R v. Duluth & W. R Co., 70 Fed. R Co. v. Continental Tr. Co., 95 Fed. R 803; Ex parte Jordan, 94 TJ. S. 248, 497, 535. 249; Bayliss v. Lafayette, M. & B. » Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Toledo, Ry. Co., 8 Biss. 193. Contra, Ex parte A. A. & N. M. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. R 49; Printup, 87 Ala. 148; Stretch v. General EL Co. v. West Asheville Stretch, 2 Tenn. Ch. 140. In Central Imp. Co., 73 Fed. R 386; supra, %% 12, Tr. Co. v. Marietta & N. G. R Co., 48 76. Fed. R 14, the facts were held not 20 Farmers* L. & Tr. Co. v. Toledo, to justify the intervention; but this A. A. & N. M. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. R. 49, 53. case might very properly not be fol- 21 Boston S. D. & Tr. Co. v. Am. R lowed. See also Blackman v. Cen- TeL Co., 67 Fed. R. 165; Continental tral R & B. Co., 58 Ga. 189. Tr. Co. v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R § 201.] PETITIONS OF INTEBVENTION. 437 In general, a creditor who has no judgment cannot inter- vene to defend the suit ; 22 nor can any intervenor set up a de- fense which was not open to the original defendant. 23 But where the corporation and the mortgage bondholders have ar- ranged for a sale to a purchaser who agreed to give the stock- holders an interest in the property without extending that privilege to unsecured creditors, the creditors who have no judgments may be allowed to intervene and set the sale aside. 24 Under a general creditor's bill, any creditor who intervenes may attack the claim of any other creditor, 25 except, perhaps, the complainant; 26 and when the creditor's suit has been con- solidated with a subsequent foreclosure suit, he can attack the mortgage or the right of any bondholders to share in the pro- ceeds of the sale. 27 A State cannot intervene in a foreclosure suit affecting property upon which it claims no lien, in order to enjoin the proceedings upon the ground that the plaintiff is forbidden by a State statute from acting as trustee for the mortgage bondholders. 28 But the State was allowed to inter- vene in a foreclosure suit to enforce its rights under a contract to which it was not a party. 29 Co., 82 Fed. E. 642. But see Farm- ers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Toledo, A. A. & N. Ey. Co., 67 Fed. B. 49, 53, where relief was granted after an order taking the decree as confessed by the corporation; and Guarantee Tr. & S. D. Co. v. Duluth & W. B. Co., 70 Fed. B. 803, where relief was granted after the decree had been signed but not entered. Cf. infra, § 201a, n. 2. 22 Lombard In v. Co. v. Seaboard Mfg. Co., 74 Fed. R 325; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chicago & N. P. Ey. Co., 68 Fed. E. 412. See George v. St. Louis, C. & M. Ey. Co., 44 Fed. E. 117. 2 » Powell v. Leicester Mills, 92 Fed. B. 115. Such as a defense which the mortgagor is estopped from setting up Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chi- cago & N. P. E. Co., 68 Fed. E. 412. But see Hollins v. Brierfield C. & I. Co., 150 U. S. 371, 379. That the corpo- ration mortgagor has no legal exist- ence. Continental Tr. Co. v. Toledo, St. L. & K C. E Co., 82 Fed. R 642. That the court has no jurisdiction when that defense has been waived by the defendant. Central Tr. Co. v. McGeorge, 151 U. S. 129. 24 Louisville T. Co. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ey. Co., 174 U. S. 674. 2 <> Continental Tr. Co. v. Toledo, St. L. & K C. B. Co., 82 Fed. E. 642, 647; Shewen v. Vanderhorst, 1 Buss. & M. 347; Owens v. Dickerson, Craig & P. 48, 56; Woodgate v. Field, 2 Hare, 211, 213; Graves v. Wright, 2 Dru. & War. 77, 79. 2(i Continental Tr. Co. v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. E Co., 82 Fed. E. 642, 647; Fuller v. Eedman, 26 Beav. 614; Briggs v. Wilson, 5 De Gex, M. & G. 12. 27 Continental Tr. Co. v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. Ey. Co., 82 Fed. E 642, 647. 28 Farmers' L & Tr. Co. v. Chicago & N. P. R Co., 68 Fed. E. 412, 417. 29 Tennessee v. Quintard, 80 Fed. R 829. 438 INTEBLOCUTOBY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 201. New parties can always intervene by consent of the original parties. 30 Persons interested in disputing the validity of the patent have been allowed to intervene to defend a suit brought against their bailee, to enjoin the use by it of cars belonging to them ; 31 and to move to set aside a decree establishing the va- lidity of a patent entered by collusion, in a suit to which they were strangers. 32 But such persons were not allowed to inter- vene in a suit to restrain the infringement of a patent when they relied upon a distinct defense not raised therein. 33 Nor in any case where they were not employers of the person sued, nor in direct privity with him. 34 In a suit to cancel a deed, it was held to have been erroneous to refuse one of the representatives of the grantors the right to intervene as a party plaintiff. 33 A person claiming a right to property held by a marshal 36 or receiver, 37 or claiming a right to share in a fund in court, 38 is usually allowed to intervene pro interesse suo, provided that he does not resist the prayer of the complainant. 39 A telegraph company claiming the right to use 80 Galveston R. Co. v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 459, 464; French v. Gapen, 105 U.S. 509; 525. 81 Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pac. E. Co., 54 Fed. R. 521. 32 Barker v. Todd, 15 Fed. R 265. But see Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Colwell S. B. F. Co., 1 Fed. R. 225; Cochrane v.. Deener, 95 U. S. 355. 88 Page v. Holmes B. A. Tel. Co., 18 Blatch. 118; S. a, 2 Fed. R 330; Coch- rane v. Deener, 95 U. S. 355 ; Thomson- Houston EL Co. v. Sperry El. Co., 46 Fed. R. 75. 34 Thomson-Houston EL Co. v. Sperry EL Co., 46 Fed. R. 75. In Ring R&Itt Co. v. St. Louis Ice Mfg. Co., 67 Fed. R 535, a manufacturing company, which had stopped using the invention, was not allowed to in- tervene in a suit against one Of its former customers. In Curran v. St. Charles Car Co., 32 Fed. R. 835, a vendor was allowed to intervene to defend an infringement bill against one of its vendees. '6 Billings v. Aspen M. & S. Co. (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R 338. 36Gumbel v. Pitkin, 124 U. a 181; supra, § 9. But where land had been sold by the marshal, a stranger claim- ing to be its owner was not allowed to intervene to set aside the sale. Ex parte Mensing, 55 Fed. R 17. 37 Lord Pelham v. Duchess of New- castle, 3 Swanst. 290; Minot v. Mastin (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R. 734; Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 63 Fed. R. 513, 517; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1270; infra, § 242. In the Sec- ond Circuit, interventions by cred- itors are not encouraged after the appointment of a receiver. Sands v. E. S. Greeley & Co., 80 Fed. R. 195. 38 Central Tr. Co. v. Marietta & N. G. R. Co., 63 Fed. R. 492; Rice v. Dur- ham Water Co., 91 Fed. R 433. But see as to non-residents, Sands v. E. S. Greeley & Co. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 195. as Continental Tr. Co. v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R Co., 82 Fed. R. 642; Es- § 201.J PETITIONS OF INTERVENTION. 439 the railroad's right of way was allowed to intervene in a fore- closure suit. 40 A party claiming the equitable title to land held by a railway company of which the receiver had not taken possession, and which was exempted from the receivership by order, and not otherwise mentioned in the proceedings, was denied leave to intervene in a suit to foreclose a mortgage on the property 'of the railroad. 41 The Attorney-General of, the United States may intervene for the protection of the Federal governmentin a suit between two States affecting their bound- aries. 42 The United States 43 or a State 44 may usually intervene in a suit affecting property in which the government claims an interest. A district attorney of the United States was refused permission to intervene in a suit by a person charged with a crime to obtain possession of certain papers, where the papers were needed as evidence before a grand jury. 45 A State statute authorizing or forbidding interventions in suits of equity will not be followed by a Federal court. 46 terbrook Co. v. Ahem, 31 N. J, Eq. 3; supra, note 10. 4 ° Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Atlantic & P. R Co., 63 Fed. R. 513; Union Tr. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R Co. (N. M.), 43 Pac. R 701. 41 Cutting v. Florida Ry. & Nav. Co., 45 Fed. R. 444. « Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; supra, § 14. « Stanley v. Schwalby, 147 IT. S. 508, 513. 44 Tennessee v. Quintard, 80 Fed. R. 828; Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. a 204; supra, § 37. « Potter v. Beal (C. C. A), 50 Fed. R 860. 46 Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Atlantic & P. R Co., 63 Fed. R 513, 517. In ' an instructive essay, Mr. Ed- ward C- Eliot, of St. Louis, classifies cases of intervention as follows (31 Am. Law Rev. 377, 381, 382, 383, 385, 387, 390, 391, 392): " The interventions of strangers to the original cause which will be en- tertained, and adjudicated by the Federal courts may have as the basis of their institution one of the follow- ing matters of interest: " 1. They may be based upon a right or title to the subject-matter para- mount in quality to the claims of the original parties to the suit and ex- tending to the whole matter of right- ful ownership. Into this class of in- tervention will fall almost all those proceedings which are permitted by the Federal courts as incidental to suits at law; and they are closely analogous to the ordinary interpleas permitted by statute and in the State courts. . . . " 2. In the second 61ass of interven- tions may be placed those which are based upon some statutory or con- tractual lien which the intervenor has by law, independent of the pecul- iar jurisdiction of the Federal court, and which he seeks to impose upon the property in the charge of the court and to enforce in the Federal court because of his inability to pur- sue the same right or remedy in the State courts. Into this class of in- terventions fall the enforcement of 440 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 201fl5. § 201a. Practice upon interventions. — A petition of in- tervention may be filed at any stage of the cause, even after a final decree, provided, at least, that it is filed at the same statutory or mechanics' liens, charges or liens which may be the result of private contract between the parties, and also judgment liens of later or earlier date obtained in the State courts, and which by State statute are made precedent in right ±o the complainant's cause of action. . . . " 3. The third class of interventions consists of those which are based, not upon rights or titles in the subject- matter existing in full force by law, irrespective of the action of the Fed- eral tribunal, but such as rest upon equities which are purely the crea- tion of the Federal courts and which in the judgment of such courts jus- tify the preference of the interven- ers, owing to such equities, over the rights of the parties to the suit. It is believed that the interventions which are now referred to are pecul- iar to railroad foreclosures. . . . "4. The fourth class includes those interventions which rest upon legal rights or equitable liens upon the subject-matter in the hands of the court, but which are deferred in law or equity to the jights of the com- plainant. They may be superior to the rights of other parties to the suit. Manifestly these interventions, though they may be adjudicated, have no effect to postpone or inter- fere with the original purpose of the suit. They apply simply to any pos- sible surplus which may be in the hands of the officers of the court after the objects of the original suit have been effected. They are then classified among themselves, but are made liens or charges only upon the remnant of the property which may be in the hands of the court. "5. In the fifth class are interven- tions based upon contractual obli- gations which may be made or in- curred by the receiver or other officer of the court in charge of the prop- erty during the litigation. , . . " 6. The last class of interventions includes those based upon the torts of the receiver in the management of property in the control of, the court. . . . " Owing to the lack of understand- ing of the real nature of interven- ing petitions and the fundamental ground upon which the court acts, attempts are often made to extend the jurisdiction of the Federal court upon petitions of this character to matters or for results which the court ought not to consider or to effect. In a railroad foreclosure suit, a deficiency decree against the defendant corporation for the amount of indebtedness not satisfied out of the proceeds of sale is proper, because such is the original cause of action of the complainant. But effort is sometimes made by indi- vidual bondholders, through inter- ventions, to enforce some statutory or common-law liability Upon the stockholders of the defendant cor- poration. While there may be no direct adjudication to that ef- fect reported, it is evident that this would be an extension of the juris- diction of the Federal court beyond reason. There may be, of course, causes in which the entire assets of a corporation are taken in charge by the court, as upon creditor's bill, where the individual liability of the stockholders of the corporation may be an asset in the hands of the receiver or other officer of the court. In that event, at the suggestion or motion of a creditor, no doubt the object of the principal cause would justify the enforcement of the liability. But it will be seen that § 201a.] PEACTIOB TTPON INTERVENTIONS. 441 term. 1 The petition may, however, be denied for laches. 2 "Where the original complainant had no interest in the relief prayed in a petition of intervention, it was held to be demur- rable because of his joinder as a co-petitioner with the person interested.' A petition for leave to intervene should describe the proceedings in the cause in which it is filed, so that the court can see the nature and condition of the suit. 4 It may also contain a statement of the petitioner's view of the case, and pray in addition to intervention the final relief which he desires. While a petition of intervention need not be as formal as a bill of complaint, and should perhaps be distinguished for brevity, it yet should exhibit all the material facts which are relied upon for the specific relief asked, embodying, either by this is really the purpose and ob- ject of the principal, suit. The matter does not arise collaterally. And the personal liability is one of the property interests seized. So, in other cases, attempts have been made through interventions to try titles or rights which have been derived through the receiver, or by operation of the decrees or judgment of the court. These, also, are not properly subjects of interventions, although the courts have indeed held that a bill or motion may be enter- tained as ancillary to a decree or judgment, for the interpretation of that judgment or decree at the in- stance of a person who claims title under it. This is another case of the extreme limit of the principle. In- terventions are also attempted and sometimes entertained to force upon the receiver a duty to make some equitable contract in favor of a pub- lic interest. "Where such an inter- vention is to be considered, it ought to rest upon the propriety of the court's advising the receiver, and the proceeding should be considered as in the nature of a. petition by him for advice. There has been, how- ever, an instance where the inter- vening petition of a stranger to a suit was entertained to force the re- ceiver to make a contract for the electric lighting, -public and private, of a city, which was dependent upon the operation of the property in the hands of the receiver for that pur- pose. And, in that case, the judge of the United States court said that he would consider the application out of public necessity and because he would not permit his receiver to leave the city in darkness for want of a proper contract." Hodgen v. Met. El. Ry. Co., U. S. C. C. W. D. Mo., per Philips, D. J., May, 1894. § 201a. iNew York G. & L Co. v. Tacoma Ry. & M. Co. (C. C. A), 83 Fed. R. 365; supra, § 200. 2 Continental Tr. Co. v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co., 82 Fed. R 642; Boston S. D. & Tr. Co. v. Am. Rapid Tel. Co., 67 Fed. R 165. A delay of about three years and a half in pre- senting a claim for payment in a foreclosure suit was held not to be laches, where the intervenor had in the meantime obtained a judgment against the defendant. New York G. & I. Co. v. Tacoma R. & M. Co. (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. R. 365. 'Of. supra, § 201, note 21. 3 Central Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & R Ry. Co., 46 Fed. R. 156. 4 Ransom v. Davis' Adm'rs, 18 How. 295. 442 INTEKLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 201<2S. recital or by reference, so much of the record of the original suit in which the petition is filed as is essential to show a right to the particular relief demanded by the petitioner. 5 "Where, subsequently to the filing of the petition of intervention, pro- ceedings have been had under the original bill which would fortify the right of the intervening petitioner, either to the particular relief demanded or to some other relief, the matter should be incorporated into the petition of intervention by amendment. 6 A petition seeking the payment by a receiver of a claim must specifically allege that he has sufficient funds which are properly applicable to the claim. 7 A petition to intervene and defend a suit should be accompanied by the answer proposed, 8 or, at least, should show the nature of the defense. 9 All the parties to the suit are presumed to be parties to the petition of intervention, and, it has been held, are presumed to take notice of the same when it is filed, although it is the safer practice to serve them. 10 Notice of an application for inter- vention may, by leave of the court, be served on the attorneys for the other parties to the suit, who are beyond the jurisdic- tion of the court, unless the petition sets up new facts not set out in the bill nor germane to the case thereby made, which are made the basis of a prayer for independent affirmative re- lief, when it has been held that such substituted service cannot be permitted. 11 New parties brought in by the interveners should be served with a subpoena or some other notice in the same manner as if the petition were an original bill. 12 'French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 8 Toler v. East Term., V. & G. Ey. 519, 520. Co., 67 Fed. R. 168. e Jenkins, J., in Empire Dis. Co. v. 9 Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Central McNulta (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R. 700, Vt. R Co., 91 Fed. R. 569. 703. "Central Tr. Co. v. Madden (C. C. 7 Ibid. For allegations in an inter- A.), 70 Fed. R. 451; McLeod v. City vening petition, claiming preference of New Albany, 66 Fed. R. 378; Lom- for a judgment for death by negli- bard Inv. Co. v. Seaboard Mfg. Co., gence on the ground that the road 74 Fed. R. 325. was operated by a company acting ll Fidelity Tr. & S. V. Co. v. Mobile as the agent of the bondholders, St. Ry. Co., 55 Fed. R 850. See supra, which were held to be too vague and §§ 96, 172. indefinite to sustain a preference, 12 Hook v. Mercantile Tr. Co., 95 see Veatch v. Am. L. >& Tr. Co. (C. Fed. R 41, 47. • C. A.), 79 Fed. R 47L § 201a.] PEACTIOE UPON INTERVENTIONS. 443 The proceedings in the suit may be stayed pending the hear- ing upon a petition of intervention, although such relief is ex- traordinary. 13 If any of the original parties wishes to contest the petition- er's right to intervene, he must do so specifically at the hear- ing upon the petition. 14 He may file a demurrer, plea or an- swer to the petition. 15 But the usual practice is to present the objections informally by affidavit or otherwise upon the hear- ing. 16 It was held that the objection, that the intervener's claim was barred by his failure to present the same within the time limited by a previous order in the cause, should be raised by plea and not by demurrer. 17 The filing of a replication to a petition of intervention and the proceeding to a hearing were held to be a waiver of objections to the sufficiency of the petition and to the absence of an order granting leave to in- tervene. 18 At the hearing upon a petition of intervention, it is customary for the court to determine the right of the pe- titioner to intervene; and then, if it. decides in his favor in that respect, to refer the case to a master to report upon his right to the other relief which he seeks. But the court may decide the whole case without a reference. 19 And it is the rule in the Eighth circuit, that where the 1 petition sets up a cause of action maintainable at common law the issue shall be tried by a jury. 20 It has been said that a denial of a petition for leave to intervene in an action at law is res adjudicate against a bill in equity to enjoin the proceedings and to per- mit an intervention; 21 but that a denial of leave to intervene in a suit in equity is not res adjudicata against an original bill for the same relief. 22 Leave to intervene when granted should 13 Pennsylvania Co. v. Jacksonville, "Central Tr. Co. v. Madden, 70 T. & K. By. Co., 55 Fed. R 131. Fed. R 450. "French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, a) Rouse v. Hornsby (C. C. A.), 67 525; Meyers v. Fenn, 5 Wall. 205. Fed. B 219. So held in Atkyn v. is Central Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St L. Wabash Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R 193, N. D. & P. By. Co., 46 Fed. B 156. Ohio. 16 Interventions in the Federal 21 McDonald v. Seligman, 81 Fed. Courts, by Edward C. Eliot, 31 Am. B 753. Law Bev. 377. 2a Credits Commutation Co. v. U. S., " Central Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. 177 U. S. 311. See Manhattan Tr. Co. & P. By. Co., 46 Fed. E. 156. v. Sioux City & N. R Coy, 102 Fed. R " Perry v. Godbe, 82 Fed. R 141. 710. 44i INTEELOOUTOBY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 231(35. be given by order; 23 bat, by proceeding without objection, an omission .to enter such an order will be waived. 24 The filing of a petition of intervention is a voluntary gen- eral appearance in the suit, and the petitioner is thereby es- topped from claiming that the court has no jurisdiction over him for any purpose or cause which, by proper amendment of the pleadings, can be brought into it. 25 After intervention the new parties are treated to all intents and purposes as if they had been original parties to the suit. 26 But a party who intervenes as an aditional plaintiff cannot make any separate motion in the cause except by special permission of the court, the original complainant remaining dominus litis™ The citi- zenship of the interveners, if the suit is pending in a Federal court at the time of their intervention, does not affect the ju- risdiction. 28 But the court will not decide an independent controversy between an intervenor and an original defendant of which it would have no jurisdiction upon an original bill, un- less it relates to property in the court's possession. 29 Where the original suit appeared to have been brought by collusion, jurisdiction vas retained over intervening petitioners who as- serted claims to property held by a receiver therein appointed. 30 "Where, at the time of the intervention, the suit is pending in a State court, the intervenors may in a proper case remove it. 31 They have the right to appeal from the final decree, and can M For the form of an order see Ex C. A.), 67 Fed. R 1. "Where an inter- pai'te Jordan, 94 U. S. 248, 249. vening petition was filed in a fore- 24 Myers v. Fenn, 5 Wall. 205; closure suit, asserting a lien superior French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 525 ; to that of the mortgage, and the in- Ferry v. Godbe, 82 Fed. R. 141. tervenor was found to have no lien; 25 Bowdoin College v. Merritt, 59 it was held not error to dismiss the Fed. R. 6; Jack v. D. M. & Ft. D. R petition without awarding him a Co., 49 Iowa, 627; supra, §§ 100, 101. money judgment. U. S. Tr. Co. v. 26 French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, Western Contract Co. (C. C. A.), 81 525. Fed. R. 454. 2' Manning v. Mercantile Tr. Co., 26 30 El. Supply Co. v. Port Bay W. L. Misc. (N. Y.) 440. & Ry. Co., 84 Fed. R 740. 28 Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 31 Hack v. Chicago & G. S. Ry. Co., 376, 283, 284; Park v. N. Y., L. E. & 23 Fed. R 356; Jackson & Sharp Co. W. R. Co., 70 Fed. R 641. v. Pearson, 60 Fed. R 113, 123; infra, 29 United EL S. Co. v. Louisville El. § 384. But see Iowa Homestead Co, L, Co., 68 Fed. R 673; Clyde v. Rich- v. Des Moines Nav. & R Co., 8 Fed. R mond & D. R Co., 65 Fed. R 336. See 97. Olds Wagon "Works v. Benedict (C. § 201a.] FKAOTICE UPON INTEBVENTI0N8. 445 then object to all interlocutory proceedings taken after their intervention. 32 It has been held that, where the issues have been decided by a jury trial, the review should be by writ of error. 33 The final order or decree upon a petition of interven- tion after the intervention has been granted may be reviewed apart from the appeal from the final decree in the whole cause where it is distinct from the same ; 34 but where the case is one in which the Circuit Court of Appeals has final jurisdiction of an appeal from the decree in the original cause, its decree upon an appeal from the final decree or order upon the intervenor's claim is likewise final, even though a Federal question is in- volved therein. 35 Where a denial of the right to intervene would be a practical denial of all the relief to the petitioner, perhaps an appeal will lie from an order denying an interven- tion. 38 For example, where there is a fund in court in the course of administration which will be distributed to others unless the intervenor's claim is forthwith determined. 37 But otherwise an order denying leave to intervene is not appeal- able. 88 A paper -styled a cross-bill, 39 or which purports to be an original bill, 40 if otherwise correct in form, may be sus- tained as a petition of intervention. A paper improperly styled a petition of intervention may, if it contains the neces- sary allegations, be sustained as a cross-bill. 41 Where relief was granted upon a petition for intervention, which regularly should have been sought by an original bill, since all the par- 32 Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 248, 252; 177 U. S. 311 ; Toledo, St. L & K C. Williams v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684. R. Co. v. Continental Tr. Co., 95 Fed. 83 Rouse v. Hornsby, 67 Fed. R 219. R 497, 536. But see Louisville Tr. 84 Central Tr. Co. v. Grant Locomo- Co. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., tive Works, 135 U. S. 207; Pennsyl- 174 TJ. S. 674; Hamlin v. Toledo, St. vania R. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. L & K C. R Co., 78 Fed. R 664. It Ry. Co., 155 U. S. 225; Rouse v. has been held that the proper prao \Hornsby, 67 Fed. R 219; Hanriok v. tice is for the Circuit Court to grant Patrick, 119 U. S. 156. an appeal in every case, leaving the 85 Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47; question of the appealability of the Gregory v. "Van Ee, 160 U. S. 643; order for the decision of the court Rouse v. Hornsby, 161 U. S. 58a of review. XJ. S. v. Phillips (C. a A.), 8 « Credits Commutation Co. v. U. S., 107 Fed. R 824. 91 Fed R 570, 573; s. C, 177 TJ. S. 311. 8 *> French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 37 Ibid. 519; Gregory v. Pike, 67 Fed. R 837. 38 Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14; «» Minot v. Mastin, 95 Fed. R. 734. Jones & Laughlin's L'd v. Sands, 79 41 Central Tr. Co. of N. Y. v. Mari- Fed. R 913; Credits Commutation etta & N. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. R 492. Co. v. U. S., 91 Fed. R 570. 573; S. a, 4±6 INTEELOOUTOEY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 202. ties interested had been brought before the court and had had a hearing, the decree was affirmed. 42 § 202. Form of petitions and practice upon them. — A pe- tition should be properly entitled in tha( cause in which it is presented. 1 "When not a cause petition, a petition is entitled " In the matter of the application of," etc. The petitioner, if not a party to a cause in which the petition is filed, should state his name, residence, and description. 2 A petition should con- tain no scandal or impertinence ; for which, like any other pro- ceeding, it may be referred. 3 A petition need not be signed by counsel unless it seeks a rehearing on appeal.* Petitions are usually signed by the party making them, either personally or by his solicitor. 5 " Petitions are either for orders of course, or for special orders. Petitions for orders of course are forthwith granted, without any attendance being ordered ; if they are for special matters a day is appointed for hearing them, Most things which may be moved for of course, may also be obtained as of course, upon petition." 6 All petitions which are for matters not granted as of course must be served upon all parties interested in the mat- ter prayed for in them. Service is made substantially in the same way and at the same time before the hearing as that of notices of motions. 7 If actual, and not constructive, service is required, it seems that it must be made by delivering a copy of the petition, and at the same time showing the original to the person served, 8 unless the court otherwise directs. Objections to the form of a petition can only be taken by demurrer. 9 By answering a respondent lcses his right to demur, 10 and, it has been held, waives the objections that the petitioner had a complete and adequate remedy at law, 11 that he should have proceeded by bill instead of by petition; 12 and, if a receiver, that he has not obtained leave to sue. 13 Adverse 42 Central of Georgia Ey. Co. v. 'See Rules 5 and 6; Daniell's Ch. Paul, 93 Fed. R 878. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1804 §202. ! Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1804 ed.)1802. 9 U. S. R. S., § 954; Newman v. 2Glazbroofc v. Gillatt, 9 Beav. 492. Moody, 19 Fed. R. 858. 3 Daniell's Ch: Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1803. 10 Newman v. Moody, 19 Fed.R 858. « Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1803. » Newman v. Moody, 19 Fed. R. 858. 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1803. 12 Newman v. Moody, 19 Fed. R. 858. e Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1802. " Newman v. Moody, 19 Fed. R. 85a § 203.] oedees. 447 parties may file answers denying the facts stated in a petition, or setting up other facts in avoidance. Such answers should be verified by affidavit. 1 * If the parties are at issue as to the facts, according to the more formal practice testimony may be taken as in the regular course of a suit ; 15 but the more usual course is for the parties on either side to support their claim toy affidavits, in the same manner as when supporting or op- posing a motion. 16 Proceedings upon the hearing of petitions are similar to those upon the hearing of motions. 17 It has been said by Daniell that a petition cannot be amended by adding to it a statement of facts which have occurred since it was filed ; I8 but an English judge has held otherwise. 19 § 203. Orders. — An order is a direction of the court or a judge thereof in writing. 1 A telegram may be an order, but a message by telephone is not. 2 When contained in a decree, an order is termed a decretal order. Orders may be made at any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court; 3 and in a •Circuit Court, if all judges authorized to sit therein are absent from the circuit, it seem that they may be made by a justice of the Supreme Court sitting anywhere within the United •States. 4 It has been held, that when a district judge has, under the order of the circuit judge, tried a case in another district than his own, he may hear in his own district a motion for a new trial when the counsel for all parties waive his return to the district of the trial for the purpose of hearing and deciding the motion. 5 It is usual, though not indispensable, in the Fed- ■eral courts, before the entry of an order or decree upon the •decision of the court after argument, to serve upon the attor- ney for the opposite party a copy of the paper proposed to be M Mitf ord's & Tyler's PL 448. the papers and proceedings " was said 15 Mitford's & Tyler's PL 448. to be too indefinite. Faxon v. Mason, »» Doss v. Tyaok, 14 How. 297, 313; 405 -.Stafford v.Brown, 4 Paige (N.Y.), Basset v. U. S., 9 Wall. 38, 41; Hen- 360. derson v. Carbon dale C. & C. Co., 140 10 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1616, U.' S. 25, 40. See infra, % 3D0. 1807; Eslava v. Mazange, 1 Woods, "Buckles v. Chicago, M. & St P. 623, 627; Nelson v. Barker, 3 McLean, Ry. Co., 53 Fed. R. 566. 879. is C. & A Potts Co. v. Creager, 71 Fed. R 74. § 203.] oedees. 449 been held that, even in a criminal case, the court, at a term after final judgment, may enter an order correcting a clerical error nunc pro tunc as of the preceding term. 16 An order granted after a hearing before one judge of a court will, un- less under extraordinary circumstances, not be modified or vacated by another except upon appeal. 17 Unless limited by their terms, or, as in the case of injunctions granted by district judges, by statute, 18 orders within the jurisdiction of the judge or court that grants them remain in force until discharged by a subsequent order; 19 or until the final decree, when, unless renewed by its terms, all orders expire. 20 Before the Evarts Act, no appeal lay before the final decree from an interlocu- tory order which was not final in its nature. 21 It has been said by Chief Justice Taney, that " In this respect the practice of the United States chancery . courts differs from the English practice. For appeals to the House of Lords maybe taken from an interlocutory order of the chancellor, which decides a right of property in dispute ; and therefore there is no irrep- arable injury to the party by ordering his deed to be can- celed, or the property he holds to be delivered up, because he may immediately appeal, and the execution of the order is sus- pended until the decision of the appellate court. But the case is otherwise in the courts of the United States, where the right to appeal is by law limited to final decrees. And if by an in- terlocutory order or decree he is required to deliver up prop- erty which he claims, or to pay money which he denies to be due, and the order is immediately carried into execution by the Circuit Court, his right of appeal is of very little value to him, and he may be ruined before he is permitted to avail him- self of the right. It is exceedingly important, therefore, that the Circuit Courts of the United States, in framing their inter- locutory orders, and in carrying them into execution, should "In re Wight, 134 U. S. 136. Reg- 18 TJ. S. R. S., § 719; Gray v. Chi- ularly the date of an order should oago, L & N. R. Co., 1 Woolw. 63; be the day when it was pronounced, infra, § 230. not the day of its entry. Ex parte 19 Eslava v. Mazange, 1 Woods,'623, Hookey, 4 De G„ F. & J. 456;. Ex 627. parte Whitton, 13 Ch. D. 881. 20 Gardner v. Gardner, 87 N. Y. 14; » Cole S. M. Co. v. Virginia & G. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1902. H. W. Co., 1 Saw. 685, 689; Oglesby 21 See infra, chapters on Writs of v. Attrill, 14 Fed. R. 214. Errors and Appeals. 29 450 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [§ 204. keep in view the difference between the right of appeal, as practiced in the English chancery jurisdiction, and as restricted by the act of Congress, and abstain from changing unneces- sarily the possession of property, or compelling the payment of money by an interlocutory order." 22 An appeal lies to the Circuit Court of Appeals from an interlocutory order or decree granting or continuing an injunction or appointing a receiver. 23 § 204. Judges who may grant orders. — An order may be made by any judge authorized to sit in the court in which the cause is pending. In the Supreme Court it is the custom for each justice to refer to the full bench every application of im- portance which is made to him. 1 An order in a case pending in a Circuit Court may be made by the justice of the Supreme Court allotted to that circuit ; 2 or by any justice of the Supreme Court requested, in writing, by the circuit justice to hold court in his circuit; 3 or if there is no justice of the Supreme Court allotted to that circuit, by any justice of the Supreme Court requested by the Chief Justice to hold court there ; 4 by the circuit judge of that circuit; 5 by the district judge of that dis- trict; 6 or by any judge authorized to hold the District Court in that district; 7 or by any two of those judges. 8 An order in a case pending in a District Court may be made by the judge of that district; or, if such office is vacant, by the judge of any other district within the same State ; 9 in case of the disability of the district judge for that district, or such an accumulation or urgency of business as to make the public in- terest require his appointment, by any other district judge within the same circuit designated and appointed after a cer- tificate, under the court's seal, by the clerk as to those facts, by the circuit justice or circuit judge of the circuit, or, if both of them are absent from the circuit and unable to make such designation and appointment, by the Chief Justice of the United States; 10 in the District Court for the Northern District of New ^Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 301, 4 U. S. R. S., §618. 205. 6 U. S. R. S., §609. ** Act of June 16, 1900, 31 St at L. e U. S. R. 8., g 609. 660; infra, § 238. 7 U. S. R. S., §§ 591-603. § 204. 1 Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. »U. S. R. S., § 609. 131. 9 U. S. R. S. 603; Am. L. & T. Co. v. 2 C S. R. S., §§ 605, 606, 609. ' East & West R. Co., 40 Fed. R. 183. »U. S. R. S., § 617. See Supervisors i» U. S. R. S., §§ 591-596. The ap- v. Rogers, 7 Wall. 175. pointment should be , filed in the § 204.] JUDGES WHO MAX GEANT OEDEES. 451 York, when the judge thereof is disabled and so notifies the judge of the Southern District of New York, by the latter judge; u in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, when the judge thereof is disabled and so notifies the judge of the Eastern District, by the latter judge; 12 in the same court, by the judge of the Eastern District of New York, whenever the judge of the Southern District deems it desirable on account of the pressure of public business that the former shall perform judicial duties in his district, and has entered an order to that effect ; 13 in one of the District Courts of Florida, by the judge of the other district, in a place where a term of such court is regularly held, when the judge of the district has filed in the clerk's office a certificate stating that he is disabled to hold a term of court there, and requesting the judge of the other district to hold the same. 14 An order made by the dis- trict judge of another district in the same State who was not sitting nor designated to sit in the district where the suit was pending, the office of district judge of the latter district not being vacant, was held null and void. 15 An order signed by a judge after his successor has been appointed and he has re- ceived notice thereof is void. 16 clerk's office of the District, not of «U. S. B. S., § 598. the Circuit Court, but a failure to "Am. L. & T. Co. v. East & West file the same does not invalidate the B. Co., 40 Fed. R 182. judge's acts. National H. for D. V. 16 U. S. v. Alexander, 46 Fed. R 728; S. v. Butler, 33 Fed. R 374. Norton v. Shelby Co., 118 TJ. S. 425. 11 U. S. R S., § 599. But see Manning v. Weeks, 139 TJ. S. 12 U. S. R 8., § 599. 504; Ball v. U. a, 140 U. a 11& M u. aR.a, §600. CHAPTER XVI. INJUNCTIONS. § 205. Definition, classification, and objects of injunc- tions. — An injunction is a writ issued from a court of equity commanding a person to do an act or acts other than the pay- ment to the complainant of a sum of money, or not to do an act or acts specified therein. According to the different as- pects from which they are considered, injunctions are classified as judicial writs, and writs remedial; as mandatory and pro- hibitory ; as provisional and perpetual ; or as common and spe- cial. Before describing the different characteristics of each of these classes, it may be well to refer briefly to the different occasions for the issue of the writ. Injunctions may be ob- tained to enforce a trust or other purely equitable right, to compel obedience to a covenant or other contract affecting land, to compel the obedience of corporations to their charters, to prevent a multiplicity of suits, generally to prevent an irrep- arable injury for which damages at law would be no adequate remedy, and also in cases in which they are expressly author- ized by statute. § 206. Injunctions to enforce trusts and other purely equitable rights. — As trusts and other purely equitable rights are not recognized in courts of law, equity will always inter- fere to protect them by injunction when they are threatened with infringement. 1 On this account an injunction may be obtained to prevent the revelation or use of a secret of manu- facture by a workman who has learned it under an express or implied promise of secrecy, or one to whom such a person has disclosed it; 2 and to restrain the publication of lectures, 3 man- § 206. ! Scott v. Becher, 4 Price, 2 Yovatt v. Winyard, 1 Jac. & 346; In re Chertsy Market, 6 Price, Walk. 394; Morison v. Moat, 9 Hare, 261; Sloo v. Law, 3 Blatchf. 459; 241; Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 Mass. Draper v. Davis, 104 U. S. 347; 452. But see Newbery v. James, 2 Cowles v.Whitman, 10 Conn. 121; Meriv. 446. Bispham's Eq., §425; Kerr on In- 3 Abernethy v. Hutchinson, 3 L. J. junctions, 172, 173. Ch. 209. § 207.] INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COEPOBATIONS. 453 uscripts 4 or works of art 5 heard or obtained under an express or implied agreement not to publish, or reproduce them. "Whether or not the publication of private letters which have no value as literary productions can be restrained at the prayer of their writer, upon the ground that it would be a breach of an implied trust, is, under the authorities, an open question. 6 § 207. Injunctions to restrain corporations from violating their charters. — The charters of corporations are considered " in the light of contracts made by the legislature on behalf of every person interested in anything to be done under them." l On account of the irreparable injury that would otherwise ensue, and in the case of corporations to whom the State's right of eminent domain is delegated, because they are trustees, 2 the disobedience of a corporation to its charter may be restrained by injunction, at the suit either of the attorney-general 3 of the State to which it owes its existence, or of any individual who suffers special injury thereby. 4 This rule applies whether the act complained of has been forbidden expressly, or merely by implication as not included within the powers expressly given to the corporation and those which are necessary for their proper exercise. 5 " It is," said Lord Hatherley, " a principle of public policy that where Parliament has authorized a company to raise a large capital for a specified purpose, the privilege confers no right upon the company to employ their capital in competition with the general public upon speculations of a dif- ferent character." 6 "It is because these companies, being 4 Stapleton v. Foreign V. Ass'n, 13 § 207. l Blakemore v. Glaniorgan- W. R. 976; Soheile v. Brakell, 11 W. shire Canal Nav., 1 MyL & K. 154 162. R 796. See, however, Southey v. 2 M'Coy v. Chicago, L, St. L. & C. Sherwood, 2 Meriv. 435. R Co., 13 Fed. R 3. 5 Prince Albert v. Strange, 1 Macn. 8 Atty. Gen. v. Great N. Ry. Co., 1 & G. 25, 42. Dr. & Sm. 154; Atty. Gen. v. Rail- 's Woolsey v. Judd, 4 Duer (N. Y.), road Cos., 35 Wis. 425. But see Atty. 379, and Eyre v. Higbee, 35 Barb. Gen. v. Utica Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 502, hold that they can, and (N. Y.) 371. Judge Story concurs in this view. 4 Bostock v. North Staffordshire Folsom v. Marsh, 2 Story, 100, 109, Ry. Co., 3 Sm. & Giff. 283; Colman v. 110; Story's Eq. Jur., §§ 946-948. But Eastern Counties Ry. Co., 10 Beav. 1. • the opposite view is maintained in * Atty. Gen. v. Great N. Ry. Co., 1 Gee v. Pritchard, 2 Swanst. 402; Dr. & Sm. 154. Wetmore v. Scovell, 3 Edw. Ch. ' 6 Cited in Kerr on Injunctions, (N. 1 Y.) 515; Hoyt v. Mackenzie, 3 p. 473. Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 320; Brandreth v. Lance, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 24, 28. 454 injunctions. [§ 207. armed with the "power of raising large sums of money, if they were allowed to apply their funds to purposes other than those for which they were constituted, might acquire such a pre- ponderating influence and command over some particular branch of trade or commerce, as would enable them to drive the ordinary private trader from the field, and create in their own favor a practical monopoly, whereby the interests of the public would be most seriously injured." 7 "When the corpora- tion violates its charter by refusing to perform an act thereby expressly or impliedly commanded, it has been held that the attorney-general cannot compel its obedience by a mandatory injunction, but should, in such a case apply for a mandamus. 8 A private individual suing to enjoin a corporation from violat- ing its charter must show some special damage caused to him- self by the breach. 9 A shareholder in a company is considered to incur special damage by its' diverting jts funds to other pur- poses than its charter authorizes, and can obtain an injunction to restrain it from so doing, 10 even, it has been held, if he bought shares in the company for the very object of prevent- ing it; u provided that he sues in good faith, and does not act as the mere puppet of a rival corporation ; 12 and that the suit is not brought "against the corporation and other parties, founded on rights which may properly be asserted by the cor- poration." 13 The holder of a lien to secure an indebtedness of a corporation is also, it seems, entitled to an injunction in a similar case. 14 An unsecured creditor cannot bring such a suit, 15 'Atty. Gen. v. Great N. Ry. Co., 1 489; Robson v. Dodds, L. R 8 Eq. Dr. & Sm. 154, 159, 160. 301; Rogers v. Oxford, W. & W. Ry. s Atty. Gen. v. B. & O. J. Ry. Co., Co., 2 De G. & J. 662. 15 Jur. 1024; People v. Albany & "Rule 94; Hawes v. Oakland, 104 Vt. R Co., 24 N. Y. 261. U. S. 450. See supra, §g 12, 76, 87. 9 Chamberlaine v. Chester & B. Ry. "Bagshaw v. Eastern U. Ry. Co., Co., 1 Exch. 869, 877; Railroad Co. v. 2 Maon. & G. 889; Herrick v. Grand Ellerman, 105 U. S. 166, 173, 174. T. Ry. Co., 7 Up. Can. L. J. 240. And i» Colman v. Eastern Counties Ry. it has been held that such a bond- Co.,. 10 Beav. 1. holder need not show that the cor- li Colman v. Eastern Counties Ry. poration is not in collusion with Co., 10 Beav. 1; Atty. Gen. v. Great him. Mercantile T. Co. v. Texas & N. Ry. Co., 1 Dr. & Sm. 154; Bloxam P. Ry. Co., 51 Fed. R 529, 536. v. Met. Ry. Co., L. R. 3 Ch. 337. « Syers v. Brighton B. Co., 11 L. T. ia Forrest v. Manchester, S. &L. Ry. (N. S.) 560; Mills v. Northern Ry. of Co., 4 De G, F. & J. 126: Filder v. Buenos Ayres Co., 23 L. T. (N. S.) 719. London, B. & S. C. Ry. Co., 1 H. & M § 208.] TO ENFORCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 455 except under very extraordinary circumstances. 16 One whose land has been taken from him for the use of a corporation by the exercise of the State's right of eminent domain can obtain an injunction to restrain the use of the iand for any other pur- pose than is allowed by the company's charter, 17 provided at least that he can show that he is thereby injured. 18 It is, how- ever, no properground for complaint by an individual that a corporation by exercising powers not conferred upon it by its charter enters into competition with him, and thereby dimin- ishes the profits of his trade or calling. 19 An English judge has said : " "Where a statute prohibits the doing of a particular act affecting the public, no person has a right of action against another merely because he has done the prohibited act. It is incumbent on the party complaining to allege and prove, that the doing of the act prohibited has caused him some special damage, sbme peculiar injury, beyond that which he may be supposed to sustain in common with the rest of the Queen's subjects, by an infringement of the law. But where the act prohibited is obviously prohibited for the protection of a par- ticular party, there it is not necessary to allege special dam- age." 20 § 208. Injunctions to enforce the specific performance of covenants and other contracts affecting land. — As no two pieces of land are exactly alike, equity considers that in no case can damages in money be adequate compensation for the breach of a covenant or other contract affecting land. 1 Ac- cordingly, the specific performance of contracts for the pur- chase or sale of land and of covenants affecting the same, will be specifically enforced with the aid of an injunction, when- ever they are mutual, 2 certain, 3 not unconscionable, 4 and their 16 Evans v. Coventry, 5 De G„ M. & 869, 877. See Blakemore v. Glamor- G-. 91 1. ganshire Canal Nav., 1 Mylne & Keen, "Bostock v. North S. Ry. Co., 3 154, 162. , Sm. & Giff. 283. § 208. 1 Adderley v. Dixon, 1 Sim. is East & W. India Docks & B. J. & Stu 607; Bispham's 1 Eq., § 375. Ry. Co. v. Dawes, 11 Hare, 363; Lee ^Dorsey v. Packwood, 12 How. 136; v. Milner, 2 Y. & C. 611; Ware v. Re- Bispham's Eq., § 377. gents Canal Co., 3 De G-. & J. 212. 8 Colson v. Thompson, 3 Wheat. 336; 19 Railroad Co. v. Ellerman, 105 Bispham's Eq., § 377. U. S. 166, 173, 174. 'Surget v. Byers, Hempst. 715; 20 Pollock, C. B., in Chamberlaine Roundtree v. McLain, Hempst 245; v. Chester & B. Ry. Co., 1 Exchequer, Miss. & Mo. R Co. v. Cromwell, 91 456 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 209. enforcement would be practicable. 5 The rule concerning the enforcement of covenants affecting land has been thus stated: " If the construction of the instrument be clear and the breach clear, then it is not a question of damage, but the mere circum- stance of the breach of covenant affords sufficient ground for the court to interfere by injunction." 6 This is, however, sub- ject to the exception that if it would be against public policy to enforce the covenant, — for example, if a change of circum- stances have rendered it improper to use land in accordance with the terms of a covenant regulating its use, — or if, on account of such a change, the object of the parties to the cove- nant would not be accomplished by its enforcement, equity will not interfere. 7 § 209. Injunctions to restrain a multiplicity of suits. — Injunctions are granted in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits under bills of peace. Bills of peace are bills to restrain a number of persons from endeavoring to enforce in different suits the same or similar claims; 1 or to prevent a single per- son from reiterating in several successive suits the same unsuc- cessful claim; 2 or to prevent a person from levying a tax, the payment of which will subject the plaintiff to the hazard of a number of suits from other parties ; 3 bills of interpleader 4 and in the nature of interpleader; s bills to enjoin'a continuing tres- U. S. 643; Bisphara's Eq., § 376. See § 209. » Sheffield Water Works v. Randolph's Ex'r v. Quidniok Co., 135 Yeomans, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 8. See U. S. 457. Scottish Union, etc. Ins. Co. v. J. 6 Ross v. Union Pac.R. Co., 1 Wool w. H. Mohlmann & Co. 73 Fed. R 68; 26; Fallon v. Railroad Co., 1 Dill. 121 ; supra, §§ 73, 73. Texas & Pao. Ry. Co. v. Marshall, 136 2 Earl of Bath v. Sherwin, 4 Brown U. S. 393; Bispham's Eq., § 377. Parliamentary Cases, 373. 6 V. C. Wood in Tipping v. Eokers- 8 Cummings v. National Bank, 101 ley, 2 K. & J. 264 See also Lord U. S. 153, 157; Pelton v. National Manners v. Johnson, L. R. 1 Ch. D. Bank, 101 U. S. 143, 148; Hills v. Ex- 673; Lloyd v. London, C.&D. Ry. Co., change Bank, 105 U. S. 319; supra, 2 De G., J. & S. 568; T. of Columbia § 12. College v. Lynch, 70 N. Y. 404 4 Louisiana State Lottery Co. v. 1 Duke of Bedford v. British Mu- Clark, 16 Fed. R 20; S. a, 4 Woods, seum, 2 M. & K. 552; Troy & B. R. 169; McLaughlin v. Swann, 18 How. Co. v. Boston, H T. & W. Ry. Co., 86 217; City Bank v. Skelton, 2 Blatchf. N. Y. 107; Columbia College v. 14; supra, § 88. Thacher, 87 N. Y. 311; Leake's Digest 5 Dorn v. Fox, 61 N. Y. 264; supra, of the Law of Contracts, 1152. But § 89. see Lloyd v. London, Ch. & D. Ry. Co., 11 Jur. (N. S.) 380. § 210.] TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE INJURY. 457 pass, 6 nuisance, 7 infringement of patents, 8 copyrights 9 and trade-marks; 10 and bills to quiet possession. 11 Injunctions to restrain a continuing trespass, nuisance and the infringement of patents, copyrights and trade-marks, are more often said to be granted to prevent irreparable injury, and will, therefore, be considered under that head. An injunction to quiet the possession before the hearing formerly issued to restrain the party to whom it was directed from taking forcible possession of lands pending litigation concerning them. It was issued at ^the request of either a plaintiff or a defendant to a suit, if the applicant had had peaceable possession of the premises for the iree years preceding the filing of the bill, and his interest therein had not been determined by forfeiture, surrender, or oiher lawful means. He was required to swear to these facts in his bill, and according to the practice before Lord Bacon's tims, to give a bond to the amount of £10 as a security that the\nformation so given was true. 12 Such injunctions were formerly very common; but have now fallen into disuse. The last reported instance was in Lord Hardwicke's time. 13 § 2D. Injunctions to prevent irreparable injury for which the reVdy at law is inadequate; in general. — The most or- dinary Wound upon which an injunction issues, and the one, indeed, Vhich includes all but the first of those previously men- tioned, iathat, otherwise, the plaintiff would suffer an irrepa- rable injuW for which damages at law would be no adequate remedy. \t would be impossible specifically to mention here all the different instances in which an injunction issues for this reason; bufthe following is an enumeration of those of more frequent occurence which have not been previously described. An injunctio\ will issue on account of the inadequacy of the remedy at conmon law: to stay proceedings in other courts, either of law, quity, or admiralty; 1 to restrain the indorse- 6 Northern Pac. \Co. v. Burling- ton & Missouri R. CoV^ MoCrary,203; infra, § 215. '"Woodruff v. NortHaiooinfleld G. M. Co., 18 Fed. R. 753. V ee § 214 «U. S. R. S.,§ 4921; sWg 216. »U. S. R. S., §4970;\p TO) § 77; infra, § 217. i° Shaw Stocking Co. v. Mack, 12 Fed. R 707; supra, § 218. 11 Hughes v. Morden College, 1 Ves. Sen. 188. See supra, § 7. 12 Eden on Injunctions, ch. xvi, p. 240. 13 Hughes v. Morden College, 1 Ves. Sen. 188. § 210. i § 211. 4:58 INJUNCTIONS. - [§ 211. ment or negotiation of notes and bills of exchange, the sale of land, the sailing of a ship, the transfer of stock, or the aliena- tion of a specific chattel ; 2 to restrain the commission of every species of waste or act in the nature of waste; ' to suppress the continuance of a public or private nuisance; 4 to prevent a threatened destructive trespass; 5 to prevent the infringement of patents ; 6 to prevent the violation of copyright, whether by printed publications, or theatrical representation, or other- wise ; 7 to prevent the unauthorized use of trade-marks, 8 and the opening of private letters; 9 to compel the performance or prevent the breach of contracts other than those for the pay- ment of money only ; 10 and, under very extraordinary circum- stances, to compel the delivery of personal property wrong- fully withheld. 11 An injunction has been granted to restrain the sale by scalpers of return railroad tickets, which by their terms were not transferable, when the use of such tickets c«uld only be made by fraud ; 12 and to prevent the creation of a aoud on a title. 13 § 211. Injunctions to stay proceedings in other cou'ts. — Injunctions to stay proceedings in other courts are of mich less frequent occurrence now that discovery and the inspection of documents can be obtained at common law without tte aid of equity than they were formerly ; but they are still occasionally issued, especially in bankruptcy. 1 Such injunctions must not be confounded with writs of prohibition, which areaddressed to the judges of a court, whereas injunctions areiirected to the parties to the proceedings which it is desired o restrain. 2 Ordinarily, when two courts have a concurrent jurisdiction over the same thing, whichever court was first pressed of the cause has a right to proceed with the same, and jrocee dings in it will not be prohibited or restrained in another A State court 2 § 212. 13 Wilson v. Libert, 168 U. S. 611. s § 213. § 311. . i McLet» v. Lafayette Bank, 4 1 214. 8 McLean, 185 In re Schwartz, 14 5 §215. Fed. R 787. 6 §216. 2 8ee Eden->n Injunctions, ch. ii; 7§ 217. Peck v. Jensss, 7 How. 624; Dillon 8 § 218. v. K. C. a J Ry- Co., 43 Fed. R. 109, 9 §219. 111. 10 § 220. 3 NichoJs v - Nicholas, Prec. in Ch. n §221. 546; Daiell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 12 Nashville, C. & St L Ry. Co. v. 1845; si™, §§ 9, 10. But see Erie MoConnell, 82 Fed. R 65. Ry. Co'- Ramsey, 45 N. Y. 637. § 211.] TO STAT PBO0EEDING3 IN OTHEK COURTS. 450 has no power to stay by injunction a proceeding in a court of the United States. 4 The Constitution does not forbid a State court from enjoining in a proper case a person within its juris- diction from 4 prosecuting a suit in a court of another State. 5 The Revised Statutes of the United States expressly provide that "The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State, except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy." 6 "This pro- hibition of the statute extends to all cases over which the State court first obtains jurisdiction, and applies not only to injunc- tions aimed at the State court itself , but also to injunctions aimed to parties before the court, its officers or litigants therein. 7 Accordingly a Federal court has refused to enjoin a railway company from taking possession of land upon the termination of condemnation proceedings in a State court, 8 and a town from selling property to pay an assessment the collection of which has been ordered by a State court directing the laying out of a highway ; 9 and a State receiver from issuing receiver's certifi- cates ; 10 and parties to a suit in a State court from carrying out an agreement sanctioned by it; 11 and an administrator from distributing the estate in' his hands. 12 The statute does not forbid an injunction against the com- mencement of a civil suit not already brought. 13 It has been 4 MoKim v. Voorhies, 7 Cranch, an injunction, the whole bill will be 279; Duncan v. Darst. 1 How. 301- dismissed on demurrer. Molony v. 306; City Bank of N. Y. v. Skelton,2 Massachusetts Loan Ass'n, 53 Fed. Blatchf. 14. R. 209. s Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107. TToulmin, D. J., in Whitney v. 6 IT. S. R. S., § 720. See Slaughter Wilder (C. C. A), 54 Fed. R 554, 555; House Cases, 10 Wall. 273; Haines v. Chicago Trust & Sav. Bank v. Bentz Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254; Dial v. Rey- (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R 645, 647. nolds, 96 U. S. 340; Rensselaer & S. « Dillon v. Kansas City S. B. Ry. R. Co. v. Bennington & R. R. Co.,. 18 Co., 43 Fed. R. 109. Fed. R. 617; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. » Fenwick Hall Co. v. Old Say- Scott, 13 Fed. R. 793; s. C, 4 Woods, brook, 66 Fed. R 389. 386; Hamilton v. Walsh, 23 Fed. R w Reinach v. Atlantic & G. W. R. 420-, Tifft v. Iron Clad Mfg. Co., 16 Co., 58 Fed. R 33. Blatchf. 48; Yick Wo v. Crowley, 26 » Ibid. Fed. R 207. Where a bill prays an "Whitney v. Wilder (C. C. A.), 54 injunction or stay proceedings in Fed. R 554 a State court, and also other relief 13 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Kutemen which would be useless without such (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R 547. Forthe con- 460 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 211. held that a Federal court has power to issue an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court which interfere with the en- forcement of one of its own judgments, and to stay proceed- ings which have been instituted or continued after the begin* ning or removal of the suit in the Federal jurisdiction. 14 Such an injunction should rarely be issued. 15 It has been held that where property has been sold under a decree directing that the purchaser pay all claims against the receiver, the court will enjoin a suit against the purchaser 16 in the State court, but that this rule does not apply where property in the posses- sion of a receiver is returned to the original owner on the same conditions ; 1T that under the act of Congress limiting the lia- bility of the owners of ships, a District Court of the United States may issue a stay-order restraining proceedings previously begun in State courts ; 18 that when a creditor of a corporation has begun proceedings in a Federal court to enforce his claim against the corporation, the defendant corporation may be en- joined "from taking proceedings for its own dissolution, or for the appointment of a receiver of its effects, or for the dis- tribution thereof among its stockholders and any other per- sons, and from making any distribution or transfer of any of its effects." 19 It has been said that " it is now so thoroughly struotion of an order forbidding the tion had been taken upon them and use of a certain defense, see Wakelee no copy of the record had been filed v. Davis, 50 Fed. R. 523. in the Federal court Coeur d'Alene » French v. Hay, 23 Wall 350; Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Spalding (C. C. A.), Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 T7. S. 494; 93 Fed. R 280. See Missouri, K. & T. Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co., 10 Blatchf. Ry. Co. v. Scott, 13 Fed. R 793. 518; Sharon v.Terry, 36 Fed. R. 837; "Frishman v. Insurance Co., 41 Jesup v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., Fed. R 449; Sinclair v. Pierce, 50 Fed. 44 Fed. R. 663, 664, 667; Abeel v. Cul- R. 851 ; infra, § 391. berson, 56 Fed. R. 339; Baltimore & 16 Jesup v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. O. R. Co. v. Ford, 85 Fed. R 170; Bow- Co., 44 Fed. R. 663, 664, 667; Central doin College v. Merritt, 59 Fed. R 86; Tr. Co. v. St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co., Central Trust Co. v. St. Louis, A. & 59 Fed. R. 385. T. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. R. 385; Central Tr. « Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, Co. v. Western N. C. R. Co., 89 Fed. 151 U. S. 81. R. 24; Garner v. Second Nat. Bank, 18 In re Long Island, N. S. P. & F. 67 Fed. R 833; Lanning v. Osborne, T. Co., 5 Fed. R. 599. See Providence 79 Fed. R 657; supra, § '9; infra, & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 §§ 223, 251, 391. But an injunction U. S. 578, 600. was refused where, although a peti- 19 Fisk v. Railroad Co., 10 Blatchf. tion for removal with a bond had 518. But see Kessler v. Continental been filed in the State court, no ac- C. & L Co., 42 Fed. R. 258. § 211.] TO STAT PROCEEDINGS IN OTHEE OOITETS. 461 settled that this provision of law does not apply to proceedings incidental to jurisdiction properly acquired by a Federal court for other purposes than that of enjoining proceedings in a State court, that the proposition needs no discussion." 20 It has been held that a judge of a Circuit or District Court has no power to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment in a State court after an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States and a supersedeas ; n and that can only be done, if at all, by a justice of the Supreme Court. 22 Proceedings in a State court cannot be enjoined upon the sole ground that they are taken under a State statute which is repugnant to the Federal Con- stitution. 23 It has been held that a Federal court can prevent by injunction the levy of a State sheriff under State process against a State judgment-debtor upon the property of a stranger to the suit and process; M but not the sale by the sheriff of the property of sureties on a sale bond under the execution of a State court; 25 nor, it seems, enjoin the sale by the sheriff of property in his possession and in the custody of the State court; 26 that a Federal court may enjoin the use of a judg- ment of a State court when the validity of the judgment is not thereby impaired. 27 An injunction granted by a State court to stay proceedings in the same or another tribunal of the State remains in force after a removal to a Federal court of the suit in which it was granted, 28 although such an injunction could not be originally issued in the Federal court in a suit removed from a State court. 29 It has been held that in the Federal courts an injunc- tion cannot be granted to forbid the prosecution in a State 2 » Gregory v. Pike, 67 Fed. E. 835, 26 Southern Bank & Tr. Co. v. Fol- 836, per Putnam, J. som (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R. 929: Wat- 21 Murray v. Overstoltz, 8 Fed. R son v. Bondurant, 2 Woods, 166; Perry 110. v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. R 23; supra, § 9. 22 Ibid. 27 Linton v. Mosgrove, 14 Fed. R 23 Rensselaer & S. R Co. v. B. & R 543, criticised in Am. Ass'n Ld. v. Co., 18 Fed. R 617. See, however, Hurst, 59 Fed. R 1, 4, but supported U. S. R. S., § 1979; Tuchman v. Welch, by Provident L. & Tr. Co. v. Mills, 91 42 Fed. R. 548; reversed, s. a, 45 Fed. Fed. R 435. R. 283; criticised in 24 Am. L. Rev. 28 Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. R 455; 661. Perry v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. R 15. But 21 Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. 465. see Lawrence v. Morgan's R R & S. 25 Am. Ass'n Ld. v. Hurst, 59 Fed. S. Co., 121 U. a 634. R. 1. 29 Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179. 462 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 211. court of criminal proceedings, whether then pending 30 or to be subsequently commenced; 31 nor against a removal from office, State 32 or Federal. 33 "This court," said Lord Hard- wicke, speaking of the Court of Chancery, " has no jurisdiction to stay proceedings on a mandamus; 34 nor to an indictment ; nor to an information; nor to a writ of prohibition, that I know of." 35 It has been doubted whether a Federal Circuit Court has the power to enjoin the prosecution of a suit in a Federal court in another circuit. 36 Such an in junction has been refused when sought by a defendant to a patent-suit for the purpose of enjoining the prosecution of suits previously brought upon the same patent. 37 The subsequent commencement of suits upon the same patent has been enjoined. 38 It has been held that, in a suit by the United States to vacate a patent for an invention, a preliminary injunction will not be granted to restrain -the. prosecution by the defendant of suits for the infringement of the patent. 39 "Where a plaintiff is bringing suits upon the same patent against different defendants, who rely upon the same defenses, the court may stay proceedings in all but one till the validity of the patent has been finally determined in the excepted case. 40 But where some of the de- s'Fitts v. MoGhee, 172 U. S. 516, But see Ida v. Ball Eng. Co., 31 Fed. 571; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. R 901. 148, 169. ssBirdsall v. Manufacturing Co., 1 31 Ibid. Hughes, 64 But see Strait v. Nat. 32 In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200. Harrow Co., 51 Fed. R 819. A bill 33 White v. Berry, 171 U. S. 366; to enjoin defendant from prosecut- "White v. Butler, 171 U. Si 379. ing an action at law for an infringe- u But it has been held that a Fed- ment cannot be sustained when the eral court may enjoin a State officer only grounds alleged are that com- from an act, although an application plainant will be put to great expense is then pending for a mandamus to for attorney's fees and other costs, compel him to perform it, and it was and that he is informed that defend- said that the injunction would be a ant will be unable to pay the same, defense to the mandamus proceed- Germain v. Wilgus (C. C. A.), 67 Fed] ing. Bank of Kentucky v. Stone, 88 R. 597. Fed. R 383, 398. 39 U. S. v. Colgate, 21 Fed. R 318. 35 Lord Montague v. Dudman, 2 40 Birdsell v. Hagerstown Ag. I. "Vesey Sr. 396, 398. Mfg. Co., 1 Hughes, 64; Rumford 36Kelley v. Ypsilanti D. S. Mfg. Chem. Works v. Hecker, 5 Off. Gaz. Co., 44 Fed. R. 19, 20, per Brown, J. 644; Allis v. Stowell, 16 Fed. R. 783; 3' Kelley v. Ypsilanti D. S. Mfg. Nat. Cash Reg. Co. v. Boston Cash I. Co., 44 Fed. R 19; Am. School F. Co. & R. Co., 41 Fed. R. 51. v. J.' M. Sauder Co., 106 Fed. R. 731. § 212.] TO EESTEAIN ALIENATION OF PEOPEETY. 463 fendants set up different defenses, it was held that the court " could not restrain in part and permit in part the prosecution of the cases. It would have no right to issue an injunction which should [sie] have the effect to split up the cases, enjoin- ing their prosecution as to some branches of the controversy and permitting it as to the others." 41 It was at first held that a court had no power to restrain a defendant from suing in a foreign court; 42 but it is now established that it can do so, 43 though such a power is exercised with great caution. 44 An in- junction order providing "that all suits and proceedings on the part of " certain persons " against the said bankrupt, to collect, the debt set forth, be, and the same are hereby stayed, to await the determination of the court in bankruptcy on the question of the discharge therein," was held violated by those who, after discontinuing a suit then pending, subsequently in- stituted another to recover the same claim, with new allega- tions charging fraud. 45 § 212. Injunctions to restrain the alienation of property. Injunctions may be obtained to prevent the alienation of prop- erty " where it would work irremediable or gross injustice." x An injunction will, therefore, issue to prevent the transfer of notes, bills of exchange, and other documents, whether nego- tiable or not, whose possession gives their holder a presumptive title to the rights which they evidence, 2 when obtained from the plaintiff by the defendant through duress, fraud, or other in- iquity; or when forged; 3 or when, though the holder may have properly obtained them, he threatens or is about to use them in an inequitable manner. 4 An injunction may be granted to prevent a party from making vexatious alienations of land «Dyer, J., in Allis v. Stowell, 16 «In the Matter of Schwarz, 14 Fed. Fed. R. 783, 790. E. 787. « Love v. Baker, 1 Ch. Cas. 67, de- § 212. 1 Story's Eq. Jur., § 953. cided by Lord Clarendon; but the 2 Osborn v. U. S. Bank, , 9 Wheat, reporter added, "sed quaere, for all 738, 845; Lloyd v. G-urdon, 2 Swanst the bar was of another opinion." 180; Hood v. Aston, 1 Euss. 412; Lord 43 Bunbury v. Bunbury, IBeav. 318; Chedworth v. Edwards, 7 Ves. 46; Dehon v. Foster, 4 Allen (Mass.), 545; Eeeve v. Perkins, 2 J. & W. 390; Engel v. Scheuerman, 40 Ga. 206 ; Mas- Schennerhorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 Dull, sie v. Watts, 6 Cranoh, 148; Cole v. 360. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107. 3 Esdaile v. La Nauze, 1 Y. & C. 394. "Vail v. Knapp, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) * Anon., 6 Madd. 10. 299; Story's Eq. Jur., §§ 899, 900. 464 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 213. pending a suit concerning the title to the same. 5 For it was said that, otherwise, the plaintiff might be put to the expense of making each vendee or grantor a party to the proceedings; ' and, at all events, his title, if he prevails in the suit, may be embarrassed by the new outstanding claims of title under the threatened transfer. 6 The sale or transfer, 7 or removal beyond the jurisdiction of the court, 8 of a chattel, the loss of which could not be compensated in damages, may also be thus re- strained ; and so has been the sale of ether personal property. 9 Injunctions have also been granted at the suit of a part-owner to prevent the sailing of a ship until his share could be ascer- tained, and a bond given to secure him against loss upon the voyage; 10 to prevent the removal of timber wrongfully cut down; 11 and to prevent the trustees of a dissenting chapel from appointing as a minister a person not duly qualified ac- cording to its constitution. 12 § 213. Injunctions to prevent waste. — An injunction will issue to prevent waste, whether legal or purely equitable. 1 "Waste is a permanent injury to real estate committed by a person in possession with a limited interest in the same. Legal waste consists of such acts as would be considered waste at common law; equitable waste, of such acts as at law would not, under the circumstances of the case, be considered waste, but which are so esteemed in the view of a court of equity, from their manifest injury to the inheritance, though not inconsist- ent with the legal rights of the party committing them. 2 Such is wilful and wanton injury to land committed by a tenant » Daly v. Kelly, 4 Dow, 417; Echliff Christie v. Craig, 2 Mer. 137. But see v. Baldwin, 16 Ves. 267. But see Wilkinson v. Dobbie, 12 Blatchf. 298. Turner v. Wight, 4 Beav. 40. "Bradley v. Eeed, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) • « Daniell's Ch, Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 519; Anon., 1 Ves. Sr. 93; Daniell's 1873. Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1874. 'Gibson v. Lewis, 11 Phila. (Pa.) i 2 Milligan v. Mitchell, 1 M. & K. 476 ; Lady Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 446. 139; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) §213. 'Garth v. Cotton, 1 Dick. 1872. 183; Thruston v. Mustin, 3 Cranch, « Green v. Hanberry, 2 Brock. 403; C. C. 335; U. S. v. Gear, 3 How. 120; Haly v. Goodson, 2 Mer. 77; Christie Fletcher v. N. O. N. E. R. Co., 20 Fed. v. Craig, 2 Mer. 137. E. 345; Lanier v. Alison, 31 Fed. E. 'Bateau v. Bernard, 3 Blatchf. 244; 100; Bispham's Eq., §S 429-432. Higgins v. Jenks, 3 Ware, 17. 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1854, io Haly v. Goodson, 2 Mer. 77; 1855. § 214.] TO PKEVENT CONTINUANCE OF A NUISANCE. 46& without impeachment for waste. 3 The interference of equity in cases of this kind is justified, not only by the fear of irre- mediable injury, but also because the tenant for life or years is considered to stand in a trust relation toward the remainder- man. So anxious is equity to prevent waste, that it has sus- tained a bill praying such an injunction filed in behalf of a child in its mother's womb. 4 An injunction will be granted to restrain acts in the nature of waste committed by one in pos- session of land the title to which is in litigation. 5 It has been held that an applicant for the purchase of government land whose claim is disputed in the land office cannot obtain an in- junction to prevent acts of waste by county officers. 6 § 214. Injunctions to prevent the continuance of a nui- sance. — The interference of equity to enjoin the continuance of a nuisance is not only due to the fact that the acts complained of produce irreparable injury, but also is allowed to prevent the multiplicity of suits that would be necessary were the plaintiff confined to his remedy at common law. 1 Nuisances are of two kinds: those which are injurious to the public at large, and those which are injurious to the rights and interests of private persons. 2 The use of this remedy.to suppress a public nuisance is of very ancient date. 3 It was applicable in England, both to nuisances strictly so called and to purjprestures. " Hypurpres- ture is meant, in its present acceptation, an encroachment upon the Crown, either upon part of the demesne lands, or upon the high roads, rivers, ports, or streets; and the difference between jpurprestures and nuisances consists in this, that where the jus privatum of the Crown is invaded it is a purpresture, but where the jus publicum is violated it is a nuisance. In cases of pur- presture the remedy is either by information for an intrusion at the common law, or by information in equity at the suit of the attorney-general. The consequence of a judgment at common a Vane v. Lord Barnard, 2 Vern. 738; »U. S. v. Parrott, 1 McAll. 271; Garth v. Sir John Hind Cotton, 1 Lanier v. Alison, 31 Fed. R. 100. Dick. 183; s. a, 1 White & Tudor's « McBride v. Pierce County, 44 Fed. Lead. Cas. in Eq. (6th ed.) 806; Bisp- E. 17. ham's Eq., § 434 § 214. i Fishmongers' Co. v. East *Musgrave v. Parry, 2 Vern. 710; India Co., 1 Dick. 163; Atty. Gen. v. Lutterel's Case, cited Prec. Ch. 50; Nichol, 16 Ves. 338, 343. Scatterwood v. Edge, 1 Salk. 229. ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1857. » Ibid. 30 4-66 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 214. law being the abatement of the erection or grievance com- plained of, whether it is or is not a nuisance, whilst upon an information in equity, where the trespass does not produce any public injury, the court may direct an inquiry whether it is most beneficial to the Crown to abate the purpresture, or to suffer the erection to remain and be assessed as a part of the legal revenue." 4 Cases of public nuisance may be enjoined at the suit of the attorney-general, who in- England sues by in- formation. 5 It has been held that the United States may sue to enjoin acts in pursuance of an unlawful conspiracy to forcibly obstruct interstate commerce and the transport of the mails; 6 and to enjoin a nuisance which threatens injury to works in aid of commerce constructed under the authority of the national government. 7 A public nuisance may also be re- strained at the suit of any who have suffered by it special dam- age distinct from that which it causes to the public at large; but not otherwise. 8 A bill, for example, may be filed by a State to enjoin the erection of a bridge across a navigable stream which will injure her commerce; 9 but not by a city for a similar reason, 10 unless its property, for example, a wharf, is thereby injured. 11 A private nuisance is an act, or series of acts, unaccompanied by an act of trespass, which causes a substantial injury to a person's property, health, or comfort. It will al- ways be restrained when it would otherwise cause an irrepa- rable injury or a multiplicity of suits. 12 " It used to be thought, that if a man knew there was a nuisance, and went and lived * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1857, 9 Pennsylvania v. W. & B. a Co., citing Atty. Gen. v. Richards, 2 Anst. 13 How. 518. 603; Atty. Gen. v. Johnson, 2 J. Wil. 10 Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal 87. .See also U. S. v. Gear, 3 How. Co., 12 Pet. 91. 120. H St. Louis v. Knapp Co.. 104 U. a 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1858. 658. Arailroad company cannot have 6 In re Debs, 158 U. S. 581; In re an injunction against the keeping of Lennon, 166 U. S. 548. a saloon where its workmen buy 7 U. S. v. Miss. & R. R. Boom Co., liquors. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. 3 Fed. R. 548; s. c, 1 McCrary, 601. Whalen, 149 U. S. 157. 8 Baines v. Baker, Amb. 158; Miss. 12 0sbume v. Barter & Goddins, & Mo. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485; anno 26 Eliz., Choyce Cas. in Ch. Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal (ed. of 1870), p. 176; Parker v. Win- Co., 12 Pet. 91; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 nipiseogee Lake C. & W. Co., 2 Black, How. 10; Spooner v. MoConnell, 1 545; Woodruff v. North Bloomfield McLean, 337; Works v. Junction R. G. M. Co., 18 Fed. R. 753; St. Helen's Co., 5 McLean, 425. S. Co. v. Tipping, 11 H L. C. 642. § 215.] TO RESTRAIN TRESPASS. 467 near it, he could not recover, because, it was said, it is he that goes to the nuisance, and not the nuisance to him. This, how- ever, is not the law now." 18 Formerly, an injunction was rarely issued to restrain a nuisance until the plaintiff's right of action had been established at law; " but now a suit at law is no longer a necessary preliminary, and the right to an injunc- tion, in a proper case, in England and most of the States, is just as fixed and certain as the right to any other provisional remedy." 14 Formerly, it was a fundamental objection to an order for an injunction to restrain a nuisance to land when the legal title was disputed, that the order contained no provision for putting the question in a course of legal investigation. 15 § 215. Injunctions to restrain trespass. — Injunctions to restrain trespass are of comparatively recent origin. The first that is to be found in the books was granted by Lord Thur- low. 1 They are only granted when the trespass is destructive or continuous. The rule upon the subject has been thus stated by Yice-Ohancellor Kindersley : " "Where, therefore, the plaint- iff is in possession and the person doing the acts complained of is an utter stranger, not claiming under color of right, the tend- ency of the court is not to grant an injunction, unless there are special circumstances, but to leave the plaintiff to his rem- edy at law ; though, where the acts tend to the destruction of the estate, the court will grant it. 2 But where the party in possession seeks to restrain one who claims by adverse title, then the tendency will be to grant the injunction, at least where the acts done either did or might tend to the destruction of the estate." s The destruction of credit by an illegal seizure of is Byles, J., in Hole v. Barlow, 4 C. § 215. l Flamang's Case, cited by B. (N. S.) 334. See St. Helen's S. Co. Lord Eldon in Hanson v. Gardiner, 7 v. Tipping, 11 H. L. C. 643; Campbell Ves. 305. For injunctions against v. Seaman, 63 N. Y. 568. the collection of an illegal tax, see 14 Judge Earl in Campbell v. Sea- supra, § 12. man, 63 N. Y. 568, 582. See, how- s See Jerome v. Ross, 7 J. Ch. (N. Y.) ever, Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. 10; 315; Troy & B. R. Co. v. Boston, H. Murtagh v. Philadelphia, 1 Weekly T. & W. Ry. Co., 86 N. Y. 107; Van tiotes of Cases, 37. But seeMcBride Norden v. Morton. 99 U. S. 378; Er- v. Board of Com'rs of Pierce County, hart v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 537; St. Louis. 44 Fed. R 17. M. & M. Co. v. Montana M. Co., 58 1 5 Harman v. Jones, Cr. & Ph. 299; Fed. R 129. Sanxter v. Foster, Cr. & Ph. 303. ' Lowndes v. Bettle, 33 L. J. Ch. 461. 468 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 215 one's stock in trade, 4 and the injury to a farm done by the ille gal taking of all the stock and tools upon it, have been held instances of such irreparable injury. 5 An attempt by a rail- road company to build its road upon private property without payment of compensation, may be thus prevented. 6 It is not certain, whether the fact that a person who threatens to com- mit a wrong is insolvent and unable to pay any damages which could be recovered at law, is in itself a sufficient ground for the interference of equity by injunction; but the weight of authority seems to hold that it is.' It was held, where there was a dispute as to the possession and as to right to the pos- session of a railroad track, that the court would not interfere by injunction to assist in " a scramble for possession." 8 A number of cases decided in the courts of different States hold that an injunction cannot be obtained to restrain an illegal ar- rest; since it is said that the writ of habeas corpus followed by an ?ction for damages always affords an adequate remedy for any injury resulting therefrom; 9 but if the result of the arrests would be an irreparable injury to the business of the complain- ant, an injunction might perhaps be issued. 10 * Watson V.Sutherland, 5 Wall 74; g 436; Caro v. Met. El. Ry. Co.. 4ft Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. 465; North N. Y. Super. Ct. 138. Contra, Heil- v. Peters, 138 U. S. 27l. man v. Union Canal Co., 37 Pa. St. 'Breeden v. Lee, 2 Hughes, 484. 100; Thompson v: Williams, 1 Jones' «N. P. R Co. v. Burlington & MR Eq. (N. C.) 176; Nessle v. Reese, 19> Co., 2 McCrary, 203; s. C, 4 Fed. R. Abb. Pr. (N. Y.)240; High on Injunc- 29a See also Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. tions, § 18. T. & St. L. Ry. Co., 10 Fed. R 497. 8 St. Louis, K C. & C. Ry. Co. v. But see D. M. Osborne Co. v. Mo. Pac. Dewees, 23 Fed. R 69li See Latham R Co., 147 U. S. 248; Burlington G. v. Northern Paa R Co., 45 Fed. R. L Co. v. Burlington, C. R & N. Co., 721. 165 U. S. 370. 9 Cohen v. Com'rs of Goldsboro, 77 1 Connolly v. Belt, 5 Cranch C. C. N. C. 2; Burnett v. Craig, 30 Ala. 135; 405; M'Elroy v. Kansas City, 21 Fed. Burchv.Cavanaugh, 12 Abb.Pr.(N.S.> R 257, 262: Coeur dAlene Cons. & (N. Y.) 410; Davis v. Am. Soo. for P. Mining Co. v. Miners' Union of Ward- of C. to A., 6 Daly (N. Y.), 81 ; s. a on ner, 51 Fed. R 260; Agar v. Regent's appeal, 75 N. Y. 3.62. See also Yiok Canal Co., cited in 1 Swanst. 250; Wo v. Crowley, 26 Fed. R 207; Elec- Musselman v. Marquis, 1 Bush (Ky.), trio N. & M. T. Co., 75 Fed. R 89& 463; Hicks v. Compton, 18 Cal. 206; 10 Louisiana S. L. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, Britton v. Hill, 12 C. E. Green (N. J.), 3 Woods, 222; Dinsmore v. New York 889; Lloyd v. Heath, Busb. Eq. (N. C.) B. of P., 12 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 436; 39; Gause v. Perkins, 3 Jones' Eq. Manhattan L W. Co. v. French, 12- (N. C.) 177; Ches. & O. R Co. v. Pat- Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 446. ton, .5 W. Va. 234; Bispham's Eq., § 215.] TO EESTEAIN TBESPASS. 469 During the last few years this branch of equitable jurisdic- tion has been widely extended by the issue of injunctions against striking laborers upon the complaint of their employ- ers. Injunctions have been granted forbidding all of the strik- ers from acts of violence against their employer's property, 11 and acts of violence, or threats of violence, against persons employed to take their places ; 12 and even to forbid gathering or marching in procession upon the highway near their em- ployer's premises, 13 and picketing the works by stationing men outside to request travelers on the highway not to buy of their employer and not to enter his service. 14 A few of the judges have gone so far as to enjoin striking 15 and boycotting ; 16 but the principal injunction against striking was reversed upon ap- » Consol. S. & W. Co. v. Murray, 80 Fed. R 811. 12 ConsoL S. & W. Co. v. Murray, 80 Fed. R. 811; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Saxey, 131 Mo. 212; s. C., 32 S. W. R 1106; Am. S. & W. Co. v. Wire Drawers' & D. M. Unions. 90 Fed. R 608; Springfield S. Co. v. Riley, L. R 6 Eq. 551. But see Riohter v. Journey- men T. Union, 24 Ohio L. Bull. 189. "Mackall v. Ratchford, 82 Fed. R 41; ConsoL S. & W. Co. v. Murray, 80 Fed. R 811; Am. S. & W. Co. v. Wire Drawers' & D. M. Unions, 90 Fed. R 608; Sherry v. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212; Bruce Bros. v. Evans, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. R 163. 14 Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92; s. C, 44 N. E. R 1077, with a strong dissent by Field, C. J., and Holmes, J.; Am. S. & W. Co. v. Wire Drawers' & D. M. Unions, 90 Fed. R 608. Of. Charnook v. Court, [1899] 2 Ch. 35; Trollupe v. London B. T. Fed'n, 72 Law Times, 342; Lyons v. Wilkins, [1899] 1 Ch. 255. But see Allen v. Flood, [1898] Appeal Cases, 1. is Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. N. Pao. R Co., 60 Fed. R 803, per Jenkins, J.; reversed in Arthur v. Oakes (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R 310. Of. U. S. v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. R 698. w Casey v. Cincinnati Typ. Union, 45 Fed. R 135; Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. R 803; Oxley Stave Co. v. Coopers' I. Union (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R 695; S. C., Hop- kins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 Fed. R 912, Caldwell, J., dissenting; Barr v. Essex Trades Council, 53 N. J. Eq. 101; S. C, SOAtl. R881; Beck v. Ry. Teamsters' Pr. Union, 118 Mich. 497; s. C., 43 L R. A. 406, with note. Cf. Hagan v. Blindell (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 696; Arthur v. Oakes (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R 310; Elder v. Whitesides, 72 Fed. R 724; Davis v. Zimmerman, 91 Hun (N. Y.), 489; Sinsheimer v. United G. W. of Am., 77 Hun (N. Y.), 215; U. S. v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. R. 698; Gra- ham v. St. Charles St. R Co., 47 La. Ann. 215. But see Reynolds v. Ever- ett, 144 N. Y. 189; Allen v. Flood, [1898] Appeal Cases, 1; Mogul S. S. Co. v. McGregor, 23 Q. B. D. 598; s. C, [1892] Appeal Cases, 25; Mayer v. Journeymen S. C. Ass'n, 47 N. J. Eq. 519; Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223; S. a, 55 N. W. B. 1119; Sweeny v. Torrence, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. R 497 ; Francis v. Flinn, 118 U. S. 385; Worthington v. Waring, 157 Mass. 421; Pr. & Pub. Co. v. Howell, 26 Ore. 527; S. O., 28 L. R A. 464; DePear v. Cooks Union, 27 Chic. Leg. N. 387. 470 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 216. peal, 17 and an attempt made to impeach the judge who granted it. The importance of this class of injunctions is very great. For the acts forbidden are in most cases offenses punished by the criminal law, those charged with which would, in the ab- sence of an injunction, have the right to a trial by jury; and the object of an injunction is to deprive them of that right. 18 This so-called "government by injunction" has been sharply criticised. The jurisdiction of courts of equity to entertain a suit for such an injunction has been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States; 19 but the propriety of those which have been issued has not yet been decided by that tribunal. 20 § 216. Injunctions to restrain the infringement of pat- ents. — Injunctions to restrain the infringement of patents and copyrights are of ancient use in equity. They are founded upon both the irreparable injury that would otherwise be caused to the complainant, and the desire of the court to pre- vent a multiplicity of suits. 1 This inherent power of the courts is confirmed in the United States by statute. The provision of the Eevised Statutes authorizing injunctions to restrain the infringement of patents is as follows: "The several courts vested with jurisdiction of cases arising under the patent laws shall have power to grant injunctions according to the course and principles of courts of equity, to prevent the violation of any right secured by a patent, upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable ; and upon a decree being rendered in any such case for an infringement, the complainant shall be entitled to recover, in addition to the profits to be accounted for by the defendant, the damages the complainant has sus- tained thereby ; and the court shall assess the same or cause the same to be assessed under its direction. And the court shall have the same power to increase such damages, in its discretion, as is given to increase damages found by verdicts " Arthur v. Oakes (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. w In re Debs, 158 TJ. S. 564, 581 ; In R. 310. re Lennon, 166 U. S. 548. is In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 581, 582; 2» But see In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, U. S. v. Debs, 64 Fed. R. 724. See 581, 592, 597. U. S. v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. R. 698, 783, for § 216. 1 Eden on Injunctions, chs. a refusal of a jury to convict in a xii and xiii; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th similar case, upon much stronger Am. ed.) 1642-1648; Hogg v. Kirby, 8 evidence than that offered against Ves. 215; Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. Debs. 422. § 216.] TO KESTBAIN INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS. 471 in actions in the nature of actions of trespass upon the case." 2 It seems to have been formerly the opinion that courts of equity would not interfere to protect a patent right by injunction, until the right has been established at law; but since Lord Eldon's time their jurisdiction thus to interfere, when the title of a complainant is established by the preponderance of evi- dence, has been undisputed. 8 Before a preliminary injunction will be granted against the alleged infringement of a patent, it should be shown: that the plaintiff's right to the exclusive use of the invention is clear, 4 and usually that it has been es- tablished by a prior adjudication 5 or by public acquiescence;' 2 TJ. S. R a, § 4921. See supra, §§ 77, 144, and 29 St. at L. 695; cited supra, % 22. 3 Universities of Oxford and Cam- bridge v. Richardson, 6 Ves. 689; Hill v. Thompson, 3 Meriv. 622; Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 W. & M 23; Motte v. Bennett, 2 Fisher, 642; Kerr on In- junctions, 272. * Welsbach Lt. Co. v. Cosmopolitan Inc. G. L. Co., 100 Fed. R 648; Brad- ley & H. Mfg. Co. v. Charles Parker Co., 17 Fed. R 240; Consol. S. V. Co. v. Crosby S. G. & L. Co., 7 Fed. R 768; Illingworth v. Spaulding, 9 Fed. R 154. For a case where the complain- ant's rights were held so clear as to warrant a preliminary injunction without a prior adjudication or pub- lic acquiescence, see Wilson v. Consol. a & Co. (C. C. A), 88 Fed. R 286. 5 Duff Mfg. Co. v. Kalamazoo Ry. Sig. Co., 100 Fed. R. 357; Richmond Milk Co. v. De Clyne, 90 Fed. R. 661. Before the creation of the Circuit Courts of Appeal, the rule was that if previous "adjudications in the same or other Circuit Courts had estab- lished the validity of the plaintiff's patent, a preliminary injunction would be granted him almost as of course in a subsequent suit, to pre- vent the infringement of the same by a person not a party to those suits. Orr v. Littlefield, 1 W. & M 13; Thayer v. "Wales, 9 Blatchf. 170; s. C, 5 Fisher, 130; Kirby Bung Mfg. Co. v. White, 1 Fed. R. 604; but see Many v. Sizer, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 31; unless the latter could produce new evidence, Page v. Holmes B. A Tel. Co., 2 Fed. R 300; S. C, 18 Blatchf. 118; or show that such judgments were obtained by consent, collusion or fraud, Am. Nic. P. Co. v. Eliza- beth, 4 Fish. 189; Page v. H. B. A. Tel. Co., 2 Fed. R 330; American M. Purifier Co. v. Vail, 15 Blatchf. 315; but see Orr v. Littlefield, 1 W. & M. 13. It is settled, however, that the rule depends upon comity, which is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency; that when a judge is clear in his convic- tion that a previous decision cited, made in another Circuit against an "Palmer P. T. Co. v. Newton R Works, 73 Fed. R 218; Duff Mfg. Co. v. Kalamazoo Ry. Sig. Co., 100 Fed. R 357. Eight months of public ac- quiescence were held not to be enough. Wilson v. Jefferson, 78 Fed. R 366. Of. Johnston R Co. v. Avery Maoh. Co., 28 Fed. R 193; Stahl v. Williams, 52 Fed. R 645. Five years of public acquiescence were held sufficient. McDowell v. Kurtz (C. C. A), 77 Fed. R 206. So of six years. White v. Hunter, 47 Fed. R 819; Nat Typ. Co. v. N. Y. Typ. Co., 46 Fed. R 144, 4:72 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 2i6. and that there is no room for reasonable doubt as to the in- fringement. 7 Laches by the plaintiff may be a ground for refusing a preliminary injunction. 8 If serious public inconven- ience would result from a preliminary injunction, the appli- cation may be denied. 9 Where the defendant is pecuniarily other defendant, has been wrongly- decided, he is not bound to follow it; and that a case will never be re- versed by the Supreme Court merely because insufficient weight was given below to the doctrine of com- ity. Mast, F. & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485, 488, 489; Wels- baeh Lt. Co. v. Cosmopolitan Inc. El. Co., 100 Fed. R. 648; Horn & Br. Mfg. Co. v. Pelzer, 91 Fed. R 665; Nat. Cash Reg. Co. v. Amer. C. R Co. (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R 367; Wana- maker v. Enterprise Mfg. Co. (C. C. A), 53 Fed. R 791. See also Hatch S. B. Co. v. EL St. Ry. Co. (C. C. A), 100 Fed. R 975; ConsoL El. S. Co. v. Accumulator Co. (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R. 485; Am. Paper B. & P. Co. v. Nat. F. B. & P. Co. (C. C. A), 51 Fed. R 229; N. Y. Filter Mfg. Co. v. Niagara Falls W. W. Co. (C. C. A), 80 Fed. R. 924; Adams v. Tannage P. Co. (C. C. A), 81 Fed. R. 178; Elec- tric Mfg. Co. v. Edison EL L. Co. (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R 834; Overman Wheel Co. v. Curtis, 53 Fed. R. 247. A decision of the Supreme Court sustaining a patent in a suit between other parties will be regarded as con- clusive upon a motion for a prelimi- nary injunction. Am. Bell Tel. Co. v. McKeesport Tel. Co., 57 Fed. R. 661. It has been held that the de- cision of the patent office upon an interference is not conclusive against third parties upon a motion for a preliminary injunction. Wilson v. Consol. Store-Service Co. (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. R 286. Contra, Smith v. Halkyard, 16 Fed. R 414; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Chrowlithian C. & C. Co., 24 Fed. R 275. Decisions of the Ca- nadian courts are entitled to con- sideration. Carter & Co. v. Woll- schlaeger, 53 Fed. R 573. A decision of the Supreme Court of the Dis- trict of Columbia has the same weight as that of another Circuit Court. White Dental Mfg. Co. v. Johnson, 56 Fed. R 262. But see Fenton Met. Mfg. Co. v. Chase, 73 Fed. R 831. Where, in granting an injunction, the court had followed the decision of another court, upon a motion for an attachment for the violation thereof, it followed the con- struction put upon the patent by such other court. Accumulator Co. v. ConsoL EL Storage Co., 53 Fed. R 793. f Whippany Mfg. Co. v. United L F. Co. (C. C. A), 87 Fed. R. 215; Duff v. Kalamazoo Ry. Sig. Co., 100 Fed. R 357; Richmond Mica Co. v. De Clyne, 90 Fed. R. 661; Standard Paint Co. v. Reynolds, 43 Fed. R. 304; Johnson R R S. Co. v. Union S. & S. Co. (C. C. A), 55 Fed. R 487; Hatch S. Ry. Co. v. El. Storage By. Co. (C. C. A), 100 Fed. R. 975. Cf. Sawyer Sp. Co. v. Turner, 55 Fed. R 979, « United Nickel Co. v. New H S. M. Co., 17 Fed. R. 528; Waite v. Chi- chester Chair Co., 45 Fed. R 258; Keyes v. Pueblo Sm. & Ref. Co., 31 Fed. R 560. In one case a delay of two months was held such laches as to defeat the application. Ney Mfg. Co. v. Superior Drill Co. (C. C. Ohio), 56 Fed. R. 152. But see Brush El. Co. v. El. Imp. Co., 45 Fed. R 241; Nat Heeling Mach. Co. v. Abbott, 77 Fed. R. 462; Collignon v. Hayes, 8 Fed. R. 912; N. Y. G. S. Co. v. Buffalo G. S. Co., 18 Fed. R 638. s S. W. Brush El. & P. Co. v. La. El. L. Co., 45 Fed. R 893; Bliss v. § 216.] TO RESTRAIN INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS. 473 responsible, 10 or offers a bond or undertaking with a sufficient surety that he will pay whatever may be awarded against him. for damages or profits, the injunction will usually be denied, unless there has been a previous adjudication sustaining the plaintiff's patent. 12 An em parte application for an injunction to restrain the infringement of a patent should, it seems, be supported by an affidavit, or an allegation in a bill verified by affidavit of the plaintiff, stating that he believes that the per- son to whom the patent was issued was the original inventor thereof, or that the invention was new, or had not been intro- duced into public use in the United States for more than two years prior to the application upon which the patent was issued. 15 It has been held that after the expiration of a pat- ent an injunction may issue to prevent the use of a machine made while the patent was in force; and it has been said that an injunction previously issued will, until dissolved by order, Brooklyn, 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 596; Am. Ordnance Co. v. Driggs-Seebury Co., 87 FecL'R. 947; Hoe v. Boston Adv. Corp., 14 Fed. E. 914; Robin- son on Patents, § 1300. But see Pelzer v. Binghamton (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R 823; N. Y. Filter Mfg. Co. v. Niagara Falls W. Co. (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R. 900; Westinghouse A. B. Co. v. Great N. Ry. Co., 86 Fed. R 132. The com- bination of the complainant with other patentees so as to create a mo- nopoly was held to be no reason for withholding an injunction. Edison EL L. Co. v. Sawyer-Man El. Co. (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. R. 592. But see infra, §223. • io N. Y. G. S. Co. v. Amer. G. S. Co., 10 Fed. R. 835; Westinghouse A. B. Co. v. Burton S. C. Co., 70 Fed. R. 619; Nilsson v. Jefferson, 78 Fed. R 366; Huntington D. P. Co. v. Alpha P. C. Co., 91 Fed. R 534. Especially when the complainants have estab- lished a regular license fee. Over- weight C. EL Co. v. Cahill & H. EL Co., 86 Fed. R 338; Overweight C. EL Co. v. Improved O. of R. M. "3, Ass'n (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R155. 11 Especially in the First Circuit. Nat. Heeling Mach. Co. v. Abbott, 77 Fed. R 462. See Nat. Cash Reg. Co. v. Navy C. R Co., 99 Fed. R. 565; Eastern P. B. Co. v. Nixon, 35 Fed. R 752; McMillan v. Conrad, 16 Fed. R. 128; Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Chamber- lain Plow Co., 36 Fed. R 905; Hoe v. Knap, 27 Fed. R 204; Geo. A. Mac- beth Co. v. Lippiucott Glass Co., 54 Fed. R. 167; Washburn & M. Mfg. Co. v. H. B. Scott & Co., 22 Fed. R. 710; Edison EL Lt. Co. v. Columbia Inc. L. Co., 56 Fed. R 496; N. Y. Belt- ing & P. Co. v. Magowan, 23 Fed. R. 596; Greenwood v. Bracher, 1 Fed. R 856. But see McWilliams Mfg. Co. v. BlundelL 11 Fed. R. 419; Camp- bell Pr. Press Co. v. Prieth, 77 Fed. R 976; Carter & Co. v. Wollschlaeger, 53 Fed. R 573. *- Sometimes even where there had been such an adjudication. Westing- house A. B. Co. v. Burton S. Car Co. (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R 301; Norton v. Eagle Auto. Can Co., 61 Fed. R 29a « Hill v. Thompson, 3 Meriv. 622 Sturz v. De La Rue, 5 Russ. 322, 329 Sullivan v. Redfield, 1 Paine, 441 U. S. R S., §§ 4886, 4887. 474 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 217. remain in force so far as still to forbid such a use. 14 But a bill praying for such an injunction must allege either that the. de- fendant is using machines manufactured during the term of the patent and in violation of it, or that the plaintiff has cause to fear such a use. 15 An injunction against the manufacture or sale of articles in violation of a patent right is violated by their sale or manufacture within the United States, but beyond the jurisdiction of the court. 16 § 217. Injunctions to restrain the infringements of copy- rights. — The Kevised Statutes authorize injunctions to pre- vent the infringement of copyrights, as follows : " The Circuit Courts, and District Courts having the jurisdiction of Circuit Courts, shall have power, upon bill in equity, filed by any party aggrieved, to grant injunctions to prevent the violation of any right secured by the laws respecting copyrights, accord- ing to the course and principles of courts of equity, on such terras as the court may deem reasonable." l This statute is, however, merely declaratory of the previous rule in equity which, it is said by Lord Eldon, was "founded upon this; that the law does not give a complete remedy to those whose lit- erary property is invaded ; for if publication after publication is to be made a distinct cause of action, the remedy would soon become worse than the disease. This court, therefore, inter- poses by injunction; but not in cases where an action cannot be maintained." 2 The rules regulating the issue of injunctions to prevent the infringement of copyrights are in general sim- ilar to those regulating the issue of injunctions restraining the infringement of patents. The plaintiff must show a clear title to his copyright, and an infringement or threatened infringe- ment by the defendant. 3 The injunction will be denied. if the defendant shows that the plaintiff has consented to his in- fringement, or has been guilty of unreasonable delay after he w Am. D. R B. Co. v. Rutland M. § 217. » U. S. R S., § 4970. Co., 2 Fed. R 356. But see Am. Cable 2 Lawrence v. Smith, Jacob, 471, Ry. Co. v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 41 472. Fed. R 522; Westinghouse v. Carpen- 3 Chase y. Sanborn, 6 Off. Gaz. 932; ter (C. C. A.), 43 Fed. R 894 Parkinson v. Laselle, 3 Saw. 330 ; Law- is Am. D. R B. Co. v. Rutland M. rence v. Dana, 4 Cliff. 1; Yuengling Co., 2 Fed. R 355. v. Schile, 12 Fed. R 97; Drone on lOMacaulay v. White & M. Co., 9 Copyright, oh. xi, pp. 496-543. Fed. R 698. § 217.] TO KESTBAra INFBINGEMENTS OF OOPTEIGHTS. 4t5 learned that it had occurred or was threatened. 4 How long a time must have elapsed to bar the plaintiff's right to an injunc- tion has not been definitely settled. It has been held in England, however, that an injunction may be obtained after the copyright has been infringed* to the plaintiff's knowledge during four years. 5 Moreover, delay will not prejudice him, if solely caused by his waiting until the result of litigation, whether prosecuted by himself or others, to settle a doubtful question of law involving the validity of his title. 6 As has been said, an injunction will not be granted unless the plaintiff shows a plain title to the copyright which he claims; but " the copyright is prima fade evidence that he is the author, and the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show the contrary," 7 or that, for some other reason, there is a defect in the title claimed. 8 And the court will protect an equitable title against infringement unless the defendant possesses superior equities to those of the complainant. 9 The complainant is not obliged to prove damage from the breach of copyright. 10 If there is any doubt concerning the infringement, and its ascertainment will necessitate the examination of a great deal of matter, the court, in this country, usually directs a reference to a master te hear testimony and state the facts, together with his opinion for its consideration, before granting an injunction. 11 Such a reference is usually ordered before the final hearing, but may be at the decree. 12 In England, however, laborious examina- tions have frequently been made by the judges themselves, unassisted, except by counsel. 13 Instead of a reference, an issue «Rundell v. Murray, Jacob, 811; 9 Little v. Gould, 2 Blatchf. 165. Saunders v. Smith, 3 Myl. & Cr. 711; "Reed v. Holliday, 19 Fed. R 325, Chappell v. Sheard, 1 Jur. (N. S.) 996; 327. Tinsley v. Lacy, 1 Hem. & M. 747; "Folsom v. Marsh, 2' Story, 100; Keene v. Clarke, 5 Robertson (N. Y.), "Webb v. Powers, 2 W. & M. 497 ; Story 38, 66, 67; Miller v. M'Elroy, 1 Am. v. Derby, 4 McLean, 160; Greece v. Law Reg. 198. Bishop, 1 Cliff. 186; Lawrence v. s Hogg v. Scott, L. R 18 Eq. 444, Dana, 4 Cliff. 1; "West Pub. Co. v. 454; Drone on Copyright, 504, 512. Lawyers' Co-operative Pub. Co., 64 « Buxton v. James, 5 De G. & Sm. Fed. R. 360; s. c. (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R 80; Rumford Chem. "Works v. Vice, 756; Drone on Copyright, 513. But 14 Blatchf. 179. see Smith v. Johnson, 4 Blatchf. 252. 7 Taney, C. J., in Reed v. Carusi, li Lawrence v. Dana, 4 Cliff. 1; Taney, 72, 74. Drone on Copyright, 513. "Drone on Copyright, 499; Story's "Lewis v. Fullarton, 2 Beav. 6; Eq. Jur., § 936, note 6. Murray v. Bogue, 1 Drew. 353; Jar- 476 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 217. at law may be directed. 14 The plaintiff need not specify in either his bill or his affidavit the parts of the defendant's pub- lication which he thinks have been taken from his work. A general allegation of infringement accompanied by a verifica- tion by affidavit of the two works is sufficient. 15 The practice has been that, " when the injunction has been moved for, the two works have been brought into court, and the counsel have pointed out to the court the passages which they rely upon as showing the piracy." 16 Clearer proof and a stronger case than would be sufficient to .entitle a plaintiff to an injunction after the hearing is often required before he can obtain an inter- locutory injunction. 17 The difficulty of accurately determining the damages resulting from an unauthorized publication of his work will often have weight in leading the court to grant a preliminary injunction, when otherwise it might refuse one. 18 But, on the other hand, the court will often refuse an injunction before the hearing, when it is plain that the defendant would suffer more injury from being obliged to discontinue the pub- lication than will result to the plaintiff from his continuing it. 19 It has been held in England that if a work be libelous, immoral, or blasphemous, which last named term would in- clude one " which impugned the doctrines of the immateriality and immortality of the soul," 20 there can be no copyright therein, and a piratical edition thereof will not be enjoined. 21 These decisions, however, one of which stigmatized as un- worthy of protection Byron's " Cain," 22 have been severely crit- icised, 23 and it is not likely that they would be fully sustained rold v. Houlston, 3 Kay & J. 708 ; Pike 9 Eq. 324; Lodge v. Stoddart, 9 Rep. v. Nicholas, L. R 5Ch. 251; Drone on 137. But see Emerson v. Davies, 3 Copyright, 513. Story, 768. i* Jollie v. Jaques, 1 Blatchf. 618. 20 Lawrence v. Smith, Jacob, 471. is Parmer v. Calvert L. Co., 1 Flip. sl Walcot v. Walker, 7 Ves. 1 ; Stock- 228, 235; Sweet v. Maugham, 11 Sim. dale v. Onwhyn, 5 Barn. & Cr. 173; 51; Drone on Copyright, 513. Murray v. Benbow, 6 Petersd. Abr. i« Sweet v. Maugham, 11 Sim. 51, 53. 559; Lawrence v. Smith, Jacob, 471 ; "Johnson v. Wyatt, 2 De G., J. & Southey v. Sherwood, 2 Meriv. 435. S. 18; Drone on Copyright, 517, 518. But see Burnett v. Chetwood, 2 Meriv. is Matthewson v. Stockdale, 12 Ves. 441. 270; Wilson v. Luke, 1 Vict. Law R 22 Murray v. Benbow, 6 Petersd. 127; Prince Albert v. Strange, 1 Mac. Abr. 559. &G. 25, 46; Little v. Gould, 2 Blatchf. 23 Campbell's Lives of the Lord 165; Drone on Copyright, 516-519. Chancellors, ch. ccxiii; Drone on "Spottiswoode v. Clarke, 2 PhiL Copyright, 181-196. 154; Cox v. Land & W. J. Co., L R. § 218J TO EESTBAIN UNLAWFUL USE OF TEADE-MABKS. 477 if the question should be raised in the United States; although in a case in the Federal courts Judge Deady assigned as one among several reasons for refusing to enjoin an unauthorized representation of " The Black Crook," that it " only attracts at- tention as it panders to a prurient curiosity or an obscene imagi- nation by very questionable exhibitions and attitudes of the female person." 24 The injunction forbids the publication of only so much of the defendant's work as infringes upon the copyright of the plaintiff. 25 § 218. Injunctions to restrain the unlawful use of trade- marks. — Injunctions to restrain the use of trade-marks by others than their owners are granted by courts of equity, it has been said, partly to prevent the fraud upon the public which would otherwise be perpetrated, and partly on account of the difficulty of estimating the injury which would be caused the owner of a trade-mark from its improper use. 1 The former ground of the interference of the court has, however, been ex- pressly repudiated by a great judge, Lord Westbury, who said, when Lord Chancellor, in delivering the judgment in a leading case: "Imposition upon the public becomes the test of the property in the trade-mark having been invaded and injured, but not the ground on which the court rests its jurisdiction." * " Trade-marks are of two kinds. They may consist of pictures or symbols or a peculiar form and fashion of label, or simply of a word or words, which, in whatever form printed or rep- resented, continue to be the distinguishing mark of the manu- facturer who has appropriated it or them, and the name by which his products are known and dealt in." s " Where the trade-mark consists of a picture or symbol, or in any peculiar- ity in the appearance of the label, the imitation must be such as to amount to a false representation, liable to deceive the public, and enable the imitator to pass off his goods as those of M Martinetti v. Maguire, 1 Deady,- Blatchf. 440; Shaw Stocking Co. v. 216, 223. Mack, 12 Fed. R. 707. M Webb v. Powers, 2 W. & M. 497; 2 Leather C. Co. v. American L. a Story v. Holcombe, 4 McLean, 306; Co., 10 Jur. (N. S.) 81. But see the Farmer v. Elstner, 33 Fed. E. 494. language of Coxe, J., in ShawStock- § 218. » Perry v. Truefit, 6 Beav. 66, ing Co. v. Mack, 12 Fed. R. 707, 710. 73; Croft v. Day, 7 Beav. 84; Leather 3 Judge Rapallo in Hier v. Abra- C. Co. v. American L C. Co., 10 Jur. hams, 82 N. Y. 519, 523. (N. S.) 81; Walton v. Crowley, 3 478 injunctions. [§ 218. the person whose trade-mark is imitated. And when there is such an absence of resemblance that ordinary attention would enable customers to discriminate between the trade-marks of different parties, the court will not interfere." 4 " But where the trade-mark consists of a word, it may be used by the manu- facturer who has appropriated it, in any style of print, or in any form of label, and its use by another is unlawful. The statute " of New York " requires only that the imitation should be either the same to the eye, or in sound to the ear, as the genuine trade-mark, and this accords with the authorities." 5 " To make an exclusive right to use a name or symbol as a trade-mark, such use must be new ; if ever before used as ap- plicable to a like article, it cannot be exclusively appropriated. If the article is known to commerce in general, by the term claimed, as a trade-mark, the claim is ill-founded. If the term employed indicates the nature, kind, or quality of the article, instead of showing its origin, an exclusive right to its use is not maintainable." 6 In accordance with the maxim that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands, it is well established that, if the trade-mark for which protection is sought contains representations calculated to deceive the public, an injunction will be denied the plaintiff. 7 An act of Congress allowing suits to enjoin the use of trade-marks to be brought in "a Fed- eral court against a citizen of the same State as the complain- ant, was held unconstitutional. 8 A subsequent act of Congress gives the Federal courts jurisdiction of such a suit when the plaintiff has registered his trade-mark for use in foreign com- merce or commerce with the Indian tribes, and the defendant has used such registered trade-mark in such commerce. 9 The constitutionality of this act is an open question. 10 This statute does not give the Federal courts jurisdiction of a suit between citizens of the same State to enjoin unfair competition in trade, where the complainant has no valid and exclusive trade-mark. 11 4 Ibid. Wright, 3 Wall. Jr. 141; Ginter v. 6 ibid. Kinney Tobacco Co., 13 Fed. R. 782. « Van Beil . v. Prescott (The Rye & 8 Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82. Rook Case), 82 N. Y. 630. 9 21 St. at L. 502; Graveley v. i Leather C. Co. v. American L. C. Graveley, 42 Fed. R. 264. Co., 11 H. L. C. 523; & c. in a lower "Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Illinois court, 10 Jur. (N. S.) 81; Fowle v. Tr. C. Co., 179 U. S. 665. Spear, 7 Penn. L. J. 176; Heath v. "Ibid. § 220.] TO ENFORCE CONTRACTS. 479 § 219. Injunctions to prevent the opening of letters. — In- junctions may be granted to restrain the opening of business letters. 1 § 220. Injunctions to compel the performance or prevent the breach of contracts not affecting land. — The perform- ance of a contract not affecting lands will be enforced in equity by means of an injunction when, and only when, a judgment for damages would be no adequate remedy for its breach ; * and it does not require a purely personal act which it would be im- possible for the court to enforce. 2 The inadequacy of the rem- edy at law which will entitle one to specific performance of a contract may, it has been held, be proved by the fact that the damages in money cannot be ascertained. 3 In some cases an injunction may be obtained to restrain a defendant from vio- lating a negative promise contained in a contract, although the court has no power specifically to enforce the affirmative prom- ises contained therein. Thus, when opera singers of extraor- dinary talent had contracted to sing at the plaintiffs' theatre and nowhere else, injunctions have been granted to restrain them from singing in rival establishments, although they could not be compelled to sing for the plaintiffs. 4 The rule has been thus stated by Judge Lowell: "I think the fair result of the later cases may be thus expressed: If the case is one in which the negative remedy of injunction will do substantial justice between the parties, by obliging the defendant either to carry out his contract or lose all benefit of the breach, and the rem- edy at law is inadequate, and there is no reason of policy against it, the court will interfere to restrain conduct which is contrary to the contract, although it may be unable to enforce a specific performance of it." 5 But where the affirmative promise cannot § 219. iSoheile v. Brakell, 11 W. B. 607; Sullivan v. Tuck, 1 Md. Ch. 59; 796; David Kennedy Corp. v. Ken- Finley v. Aiken, 1 Grant's Cases (Pa.), nedy, 165 N. Y. 353, 359. 83; Bispham's Eq., § 309. § 220. 1 Buxton v. Lister, 3 Atk. * Lumley v. "Wagner, 1 De G., M. & 383; Kobinson v. Cathcart, 2 Cranoh G. 604; McCaull v. Braham, 16 Fed. C. C. 590; Tayloe v. Merchants' Fire R 37. Ins. Co., 9 How. 390; Very v. Levy, 5 Singer Co. v. Union Co.,1 Holmes, 13 How. 345. 253, 258. See also Goddard v. Wilde, 2 Clarke v. Price, 2 Wilson Ch. Cas. 17 Fed. R. 845; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Union 157; Mair v. Himalaya T. Co., L R 1 Pac. Ry. Co., 3 Fed. R 423; W. U. Eq. 411. Tel. Co. v. St Joseph & W. Ry. Co., 3 'Adderley v. Dixon, 1 Sim. & Stu. Fed. R 430. 4:80 injunctions. [§§ 221, 222. be specifically enforced, the court will not import into it a nega- tive covenant, neither expressly nor by a fair implication con- tained therein. 6 It has been held that a court should not enjoin laborers from striking nor from advising other laborers to join in a strike ; 7 but that it may enjoin them from combining to quit work in order to cripple their employer's property and embarrass his business ; 8 and from refusing to handle or oper- ate cars while remaining in the employ of a railroad company. 9 § 221. Injunctions to compel the delivery of personal property tortiously withheld. — Under very extraordinary circumstances, equity will interfere to compel by injunction the delivery or return of letters, documents, or other articles of such a unique character that it would be impossible to re- place them, when they are tortiously withheld from their right- ful owners. 1 § 222. Injunctions authorized by statute. — The statutes of the United States also authorize an injunction in the follow- ing cases, amongst others, besides those arising from infringe- ments of patents and copyrights : " Any person who considers himself aggrieved by any warrant of distress issued under the " provisions of the statutes authorizing one to be issued by the Solicitor of the Treasury against an officer in default for not accounting for and paying over public money received by him, "may prefer a bill of complaint to any district, judge of the United States, setting forth therein the nature and extent of the injtiry of which he complains; and thereupon the judge may grant an injunction to stay proceedings on such warrant altogether, or for so much thereof as the nature of the case re- quires. But no injunction shall issue till the party applying for it gives bond with sufficient security, in a sum to be pre- scribed by the judge, for the performance of such judgment as « Clarke v. Price, 2 Wilson Ch. C. Cf. Allen v. Flood, Appeal Cases 157; Pickering v. Bishop of Ely, 2 (1898), 1; supra, § 215. Y. & C. Ch. C. 249; Johnson v. S. & 8 S. Cal. Ry. Co. v. Rutherford, 62 B. Ry. Co., 8 De G., M. & G. 914; Bis- Fed. R. 796; In re Lennon, 166 U. a pham's Eq., § 464; Kerr on Injuno- 548, 555. tions, 524 §221. 'Pusey v. Pusey, 1 Vera. 273; 1 Arthur v. Oakes (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. Duke of Somerset v. Cookson, 3 P. R. 310. Wms. 389; Clarke v. White, 12 Pet 8 Arthur v. Oakes (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. 178; Prince Albert v. Strange, 1 R. 310, 324, 329, a decision on this Macn. & G. 25, 42; McGowin v. Rem- point of very doubtful authority, ington, 12 Pa. St. 56. § 222.] , INJUNCTIONS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE 481 may be awarded against him ; nor shall the issuing of such in- junction in any manner impair the lien produced by the issuing of the warrant. And the same proceedings shall be had in such injunction as in other cases, except that no answer shall be necessary on the part of the United States ; and if, upon dissolving the injunction, it appears to the satisfaction of the judge that the application for the injunction was merely for delay, the judge may add to the lawful interest assessed on all sums found due against the complainant such damages as, with such lawful interest, shall not exceed the rate of ten per centum a year. Such injunction may be granted or dissolved by the district judge either in or out of court." * " When the district judge refuses to grant an injunction to stay proceed- ings on a distress warrant, as aforesaid, or dissolves such in- junction after it is granted, any person who considers himself aggrieved by the decision in the premises may lay before, the circuit justice, or circuit judge of the circuit within which such district lies, a copy of the proceeding had before the district judge ; and thereupon the circuit justice or circuit judge may grant an injunction, or permit an appeal, as the case may be, if, in his opinion, the equity of the case requires it. The same proceedings, subject to the same conditions, shall be had upon such injunction in the Circuit Court as are prescribed in the District Court." 2 "Whenever an association against which proceedings have been instituted, on account of any alleged refusal to redeem its circulating notes as aforesaid, denies hav- ing failed to do so, it may, at any time within ten days after it has been notified of the appointment of an agent, as pro- vided in section fifty-two hundred and twenty-seven " of the Kevised Statutes of the United States, " apply to the nearest Circuit, or District, or Territorial court of the United States to enjoin further proceedings in the premises; and such court, after citing the Comptroller of the Currency to show cause why further proceedings should not be enjoined, and after the decision of the court or finding of a jury that such association has not refused to redeem its circulating notes, when legally presented, in the lawful money of the United States, shall make an order enjoining the Comptroller, and any receiver acting under his direction, from all further proceedings on ac- § 222. i U. S. E. S., § 3636. 2 U. S. E. S., § 3637. 31 482 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 223. count of such alleged refusal." * A district attorney of the United States acting under the direction of the Attorney- General may upon a petition obtain an injunction to restrain a contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or a conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce, or a monopoly of any part of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations. 4 Compliance with the interstate com- merce act may also, in certain cases^ be compelled by an in- junction. 5 § 223. When injunctions will not issue.— As a general rule, it may be stated that an injunction will not issue at the prayer of one who will suffer no pecuniary injury from the act which he wishes to prevent. 1 Thus, one will not be granted at the suit of a State to prevent the invasion of a purely political right; 3 or of adjacent property owners and church members to prevent a railroad from outraging their religious feelings by running cars upon Sunday;' nor at the suit of a minister of the gospel to prevent the use of his building for theatrical pur- poses, under a lease the validity of which he disputes. 4 The Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, however, was al- lowed an injunction to prevent Kossuth and his associates from manufacturing in England paper currency not purporting to be issued by imperial authority, intended for circulation in Hungary, upon the ground that his property rights were thereby injured. 5 An injunction will not issue to prevent an injury which is not actually threatened to the complainant. 6 Thus an injunction will not be granted to prevent an injury to a navigable stream, at the suit of an individual who is not » U. S. R. S., § 5237. A. C. of N. O., 54 Fed. R. 994; In re <26 St. at L., ch. 647, p. 209; 28 St Lennon, 166 U. S. 548. But see U. S. at L., p. 570; U. S. v. Trans-Missouri v. Patterson, 55 Fed. R. 605. Freight Ass'n, 166 U. S. 290; U. S. »24 St. at L. 380. v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 IT. S. 505; § 223. iHigh on Injunctions, § 20. Addyston P. & S. Co. v. U. S., 175 U. 2 Georgia v. Stanton, 6 WalL 50. S. 211. It has been held that this 3 Sparhawk v. Union P. R. Co., 54 statute applies to a strike intended Pa. St. 401. to prevent the operation of a rail- 4 Bod well v. Crawford, 26 Kan. 292. road used for interstate commerce. ' 6 Emperor of Austria v. Day, 2 Gift Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. 628; S. C. on appeal, 3 De G., F. & J. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. R. 803, 821; U. S. v. 217. Agler, 62 Fed. R 824; U. S. v. Elliott, fi Slessinger v. Buckingham, 17 Fed. 63 Fed. R. 801 ; U. S. v. Workingmen's R. 454, § 223.] WHEN INJUNCTIONS WILL NOT ISSUE. 483 •engaged in navigating the same ; 7 nor, at the suit of a coupon holder who is not liable to the payment of taxes to a State, to prevent the State officers from refusing to receive his coupons, when tendered by others to whom he has agreed to assign them for the payment of their taxes, in pursuance of a con- tract made by the State with its creditors and their successors. 8 *' No court sits to determine questions of law in thesiP 9 A threat of irreparable injury to a right actually enjoyed and exercised by the complainant, or acts indicating a preparation to commit such a wrong, are, however, always a ground for the issue of an injunction. 10 And after a defendant has once infringed a patent owned by the plaintiff, it seems that the court will usually enjoin him from doing so in the future, even though he swears that he has no intention of doing so again; unless he further proves, that he has paid all damages occa- sioned by his infringement, and has desisted from it. 11 The Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York has re- fused to grant a preliminary injunction to restrain an obstruc- tion to navigation in a navigable channel coming up from the Bay of New York, caused by a structure projecting from the New Jersey shore. 12 An injunction cannot be issued against the United States; 1S nor against an officer to interfere with the exercise of his discretion ; M nor against an officer of the United 7 Spooner v. MoConnell, 1 McLean, Mfg. Co., 34 Fed. E. 324. But see 337. See also Mason v. Rollins, 2 Biss. Home Ins. Co. v. Nobles, 63 Fed. R. «9. Cf. Works v. Junction R. Co., 5 642. McLean, 425. 12 Atlantic D. Co. v. Bergen Neck s Virginia Coupon Cases, Marye v. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 208. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325. 13 U. S. v. McLemore, 4 How. 286; s Matthews, J., in Virginia Coupon Hill v. IT. S., 9 How. 386. Cases, Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 14 Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 325, 330. 475; Walker v. Smith, 21 How. 579; i»St. Louis v. KnappCo., 104 U. S. McElrath v. Mcintosh, 1 Law R. •658; Sherman v. Nutt, 35 Fed. R. 149; (N. S.) 399; Warner V. S. Co. v. Smith, Butz Thermo-El. Reg. Co. v. Jacobs 163 U. S. 28; Smith v. Raynolds, 9 El. Co., 36 Fed. R. 191; Mc Arthur v. D. C. App. 287, 166 U. S. 717. An in- Kelly, 5 Ohio, 139; Frearson v. Loe, junction has been issued to restrain L. R. 9 Ch. D. 48. See also Piek v. the Secretary of the Interior from •C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 6 Biss. 177. the commission of an act beyond his n Jenkins v. Green wald, .1 Bond, jurisdiction which would cause an 126; S. C, 2 Fisher, 37: Sickels v. irreparable injury to the plaintiff. Mitchell, 3 Blatchf. 548; Poppen- Noble v. Union R. L. R. Co., 147 U. a husen v. N. Y. G. P. C. Co., 4 Blatchf. 165. Cf. U. S. v. Nourse, 9 Pet. 8; 184; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Arlington Kirwan v. Murphy (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. 484 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 223. States to prevent the infringement of a patent by him while in the exercise of his official duties. 15 The Eevised Statutes pro- vide that " No suit for the purpose of restraining the assess- ment or collection of any tax " imposed by the United States for purposes of internal revenue, "shall be maintained in any court." 16 Under this provision, it has been held that wher- ever a tax is imposed by a person in office having authority over the assessment of taxes for the United States, and acting under color of a statute, no injunction will be issued to restrain its collection, no matter how erroneous the assessment may be, and although the person against whom the assessment is made does not own the property taxed. 17 " It is sufficient that a stat- ute has authorized the assessor to entertain the general subject of taxation ; that it was in fact entertained, and a judgment, lawful or unlawful, was rendered concerning it." 18 It seems that the unconstitutionality of the statute imposing the tax will not authorize the issue of an injunction ; 19 but it has been held that a bill to restrain a trustee from voluntarily making a return of his income and from paying an unconstitutional income tax is not within the prohibition of the statute. 20 An injunction cannot issue against a State at the suit of a citizen of another State or of a foreign State. 21 Nor can a mandatory injunction issue against an officer of a State so as to compel R 275; s. a, 49 U. S. App. 659. It and cannot be granted. Miles v. has been held that a State court has Johnston. 59 Fed. R. 38. no power to enjoin an officer of the 17 Kensett v. Stivers, 10 Fed. R. 517; United States. People ex rel. Brewer Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abb. U. S. 94; v. Kidd, 23 Mich. 440. It has been Howland v. Soule, Deady, 413; Dela- held that an injunction will not issue ware R Co. v. Prettyman, 17 Int. to restrain the Commissioner of Rev. Rec. 99; Alkan v. Bean, 23 Int. Patents from issuing letters-patent. Rev. Rec. 351 ; Kissinger v. Bean, 7 IUingworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. R 141. Biss. 60; U. S. v. Black, 11 Blatchf. 16 James v. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356; 538. But see Frayser v. Russell, 3 Hollister v. Benedict & B. Mfg. Co., Hughes. 227. 113 U. S. 59, 67; Belknap v. Schild, '"Emmons, J., in Pullan v. Kin- 161 U. S. 10; supra, § 36; infra, § 442. singer, 2 Abb. U. S. 94, 99. W U. S. R S., § 3224. It has been held 19 Robbins v. Freeland, 14 Int. Rev. that a mandatory injunction requir- Rec. 28; Moore v. Miller, 5 D. C. App. ing a collector of internal revenue to 413. accept an export bond for spirits in a 20 Pollock v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., warehouse and to allow their with- 157 IT. S. 429, 454, 653. drawal for export, without payment 21 Eleventh Amendment of the of taxes, is in effect a bill to restrain Constitution, the collection of internal revenue, § 223.] WHEN INJUNCTIONS WILL NOT ISSUE. 485 the action of the State against its expressed will. 22 But an officer of a State may be enjoined from an invasion of pri- vate rights which would cause irreparable injury, when about to act under an unconstitutional State statute. 23 As has been said before, an injunction will not ordinarily be granted to stay proceedings in a State court. 24 In England, a person may be restrained from petitioning or applying to the legisla- ture in order to procure the passage of an act relating solely to private interests, provided he be under an express or implied agreement not to do so, or his doing so would amount to a breach of trust. 25 This doctrine has, however, never been up- held in the United States, and in a well-considered case in New Jersey was expressly repudiated. 28 The early English cases held that an injunction would not issue to restrain the publica- tion of a slander or libel, no' matter how injurious it might be to the complainant. 27 Since the passage of the Judicature Act, however, such injunctions have been granted there in order to protect rights of property. 28 An injunction was denied when sought to prevent a defendant from advertising that a patent was void, and it appeared that he honestly believed it to be so, and published the statement for the sole purpose of protecting what he believed to be his rights. 29 "Whether a Federal court 22 Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 TJ. S. 711 ; L. R. 10 Ch. 143; Clark v. Freeman, Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769, 11 Beav. 112. See also Brandreth v. 782-784: Cunningham v. M. & B. R Lance, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 24; Maugerv. Co., 109 U. S. 446; supra, § 37. But Dick, 55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 132; Singer see McCauley v. Kellog, 2 Woods, 13. Mfg. Co. v. Domestic S. M. Co., 49 Ga. 23 Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat. 70; Boston D. Co. v. Florence Mfg. 738; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall 203; Co., 114 Mass. 69; Whitehead v. Kit- Board of L. v. McComb, 93 U. S. 531; - son, 119 Mass. 484; Smith v. Hutch- Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 269; inson S. B. Co., 110 Mo. 492. Louisiana v. Layarde, 60 Fed. E. 186. 28 Thorley's C. F. Co. v. Massam, 'See, however, In re Ayers, 123 U. S. L. R. 6 Ch. D. 582; Saxby v. Easter- 443; supra, § 37. brook, L. R 3 C. P. D. 339; Wren v. 2* T7. S. R S., §720; supra, §211; Weild, L. R 4 Q. B. 730. See also infra, § 391. Grand Rapids S. F. Co. v. Haney S. 25 Ware v. Grand J. W. W. Co., 2 F. Co., 92 Mich. 558; S. C, 52 N. W. Russ. & M. 470; Stockton & H. Ry. R 1009. Co. v. Leeds & Th. Ry. Co., 2 Phil. 2!>Halsey v. Brotherhood, 45 L. T. 666; Heathcote v. N. S. Ry. Co., 2 (N. S.) 640; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Mac. & G. 100. Goodyear D. V. Co., 13 Blatchf. 375; 26 Story v. J. C. & B. P. P. R Co., 1 Pentlarge v. Pentlarge, 14 Repr. 579; C. E. Green (16 N. J. Eq.), 13. N. F. Filter Co. v. Schwartzwalder, 27 Prudential Assur. Co. v. Knott, 58 Fed. R 577. 486 injunctions. [§ 224. will in any case grant an injunction against the publication of a libel is a disputed question. 30 It has been held that an in- junction may be granted against the publication and circulation of posters and handbills in aid of a boycott, 31 and of threats to commit an unlawful act. 32 An injunction will not issue to assist in the maintenance of a monopoly injurious to public policy ; 33 nor in any other case when its operation would be repugnant to public policy. 34 An injunction will not issue when the moving party has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. 35 United States Eevised Statutes, section 5242, provides that " No attachment, injunction or execution shall be issued against a ' national bank ' association or its property before final judgment in any suit, action, or proceeding in any State, county, or municipal court." § 224. Distinction between the judicial writ and the writ remedial. — Injunctions were formerly either judicial writs or writs remedial. A judicial writ was a direction to yield up, to quiet, or to continue the possession of lands, and is said to be in the nature of a writ of execution. 1 It was issued in aid of, and only after a final decree in equity; and, in extraordinary circumstances, in aid of a judgment at law. 2 Under the equity 30 Held that it can, in Ide v. Ball sl Casey v. Cincinnati Typ. Union Engine Co., 31 Fed. R. 901, U. S. C. C, No. 3, 45 Fed. R 135; Coeur d'Alene S. D. Illinois, by Allen J. ; Emack v. Cons. & Min. Co. v. Miners' Union, 51 Kane, 34 Fed. R. 46, U. S. C. C, N. D. Fed. R 260. Illinois, by Blodgett, J. ; Home Ins. s2 Continental Ins. Co. v. Board of Co. v. Nobles, 63 Fed. R 642. Cf. Fire Underwriters, 67 Fed. R. 310. Palmer v. Travers, 20 Fed. R 501, U. S. 83 Pullman P. C. Co. v. Texas & Pac C. Q, S. D. N. Y, by Wheeler, J.; Ry. Co., 11 Fed. R 625; s. c, 4 Woods, Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear D. V. 317; Foil's Appeal, 91 Pa. St. 434, 438. Co., 13 Blatchf. 375, U. S. C. C, S. D. But see Edison El. Lit. Co. v. Sanger- N. Y., by Hunt, J. Held that it can- man El. Co. (C. C. A), 53 Fed. R 592; not, in Kidd v. Horry, 28 Fed. R 773, supra, § 216. U. S. C. C. E. D. Pa., by Bradley and 34 Bryant v.W. U. Tel. Co., 17 Fed. McKennan, JJ.; Baltimore C. W. Co. R. 825; Blake v. Greenwood Cem., 14 v. Bemis, 29 Fed. R 95, U. S. ,C. C, Blatchf. 342; Denehey v. Harrisburg, D. Mass., by Colt and Carpenter, JJ. ; 2 Pearson (Pa.), 330, 334. Fougeres v. Murbarger, 44 Fed. R 35 U. S. R S., § 723. 292, U. S. C. C, D. Indiana, by Woods, § 224. i Eden on Injunctions, chs. J.; International T. C. Co. v. Car- i and xvii, pp. 1, 2, 261, 262; Beames' michael, 44 Fed. R 350, 351, U. S. C. Orders, 8, 16. C, E. D. Wis., by Jenkins, J. See 2 Boult v. Blunt, Cary, 72; Eden on Francis v. Finn, 118 U. S. 385; Kelley Injunctions, 26a v. YpsilantiJ D. S. M. Co., 44 Fed. R 19, 23. § 225.] MANDATORY AND PKOHIBITOKY INJUNCTIONS. 487 rules, however, it is never necessary; and it had previously fallen into disuse in England. All other injunctions are writs remedial. § 225. Distinction between mandatory and prohibitory in- junctions. — Injunctions are either mandatory or prohibitory. A mandatory injunction is one that commands a defendant to perform a certain act or acts ; a prohibitory injunction, one that forbids a defendant's doing a certain act or acts. Manda- tory are far less common than are prohibitory injunctions. Those most frequently issued have been such as commanded a defendant to abate a nuisance, 1 or to deliver the possession of land. 2 They also have been granted to compel the return of letters and other documents, 8 the delivery of personal property whose loss could not be compensated in damages, 4 the giving of collateral security in obedience to a contract, 6 the making of a policy of insurance,' the stopping and receiving freight by a railroad company at a particular place, 7 the performance of a contract by one railroad company to send freight over the lines of another railroad, 8 the receipt of freight cars and pas- sengers from one railroad company by another, and the trans- portation of the same, 9 the furnishing of equal facilities by a railroad company to another railroad company, 10 or to a ship- per, 11 and the rescission of an order for the boycott of a rail- way company. 12 In a case involving the constitutionality of §225. 1 Lane v. Newdigate, 10 Ves. s Robinson v. Cathcart, 2 Cranch 192; Robinson v. Lord Byron, 1 Bro. C C. 590. C. C. 588; Hervey v. Smith, 1 K. & 6 Union M. Ins. Co. v. Commercial J. 389; Rankin v. Huskisson, 4 Sim. Mut. M. Ins. Co., 2 Curt. 524. 13; Bickett v. Morris, L. R. 1 H. L. 7 Coe v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 3 So. 47; Cole S. M. Co. v. Virginia & Fed. R. 775; McCoy v. Cincinnati, I, G. H. W. Co., 1 Saw. 470. St. L. & C. R. Co., 13 Fed. R. 3. 2 Hepburn v. Auld, 5 Cranch, 262; 8 Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. N. Y., L. Hepburn v. Dunlop, 1 Wheat. 170; E. & W. R. Co., 34 Fed. R 516. Findlay v. Hinde, 1 Pet. 241; Poke- 9 Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Bur- gama S. P. L. Co. v. Klamoth R. L. lington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 34 Fed. R. & L Co., 86 Fed. R. 528. 481; Toledo, A. A. & N. M. R. Co. v. 'Evitt v. Price, 1 Sim. 483; Seton Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. R 730; In on Decrees (4th ed.), 179. See also re Lennon, 166 U. S. 548. Clarke v. White, 12 Pet. 17a " Ibid. * Pusey v. Pusey, 1 Vern. 273; Duke " Butchers' & D. St. Co. v. Louis- of Somerset v. Cookson, 3 P. Wms. ville, S. & N. R Co. (C. C. A.), 67 389; Greatrex v. Greatrex, 1 De G. & Fed. R 35; Wells, F. & Co. v. N. Pac. Sm. 692; McGowin v. Remington, 12 ' Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R. 469. Pa. St. 56. 12 Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Bur- 488 injunctions. [§ 226. certain Kentucky Searles v. Jacksonville, P. & M. Co. v. Electrical S. Co., 58 Fed. R. 732. R. Co., 2 Woods, 621. 10 Parker v. Judges of Circuit s U. S. v. Louisville & P. C. Co., 4 Court, 12 Wheat. 561; Gray v. C, L Dili 600. & N. R Co., 1 Woolw. 63. 9 Parker v. Judges of Circuit Court, u 28 St. at L. 666, as amended by 12 Wheat. 561. See Gray v. C, I. & 31 St. at L. 660. N. R Co., 1 Woolw. 63. This is so 494 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 230. performance or representation of any such dramatic or musical composition, may be served on the parties against whom such injunction may be granted anywhere in the United States, and shall be operative and may be enforced by proceedings to pun- ish for contempt or otherwise by any other Circuit Court or judge in the United States; but the defendants in said action, or any or either of them, may make a motion in any other circuit in which he or they may be engaged in performing or representing said dramatic or musical composition to dissolve or set aside the said injunction upon such reasonable notice to the plaintiff as the Circuit Court or the judge before whom said motion shall be made shall deem proper; service of said motion to be made on the plaintiff in person or on his attorneys in the action. The Circuit Court or judges thereof shall have juris- diction to enforce said injunction and to hear and determine a motion to dissolve the same, as herein provided, as fully as if the action were pending or brought in the circuit in which said motion is made. " The clerk of the court, or judge granting the injunction, shall, when required to do so by the court hearing the applica- tion to dissolve or enforce said injunction, transmit without delay to said court a certified copy of all the papers on which the said injunction was granted that are on file in his office." 12 12 29 St. at L. 481. complainant to rebut the cause In the Circuit Court for the South- shown by the defendant; but the re- em District of New York the rules ception of such additional proofs is provide as follows: — not to permit the introduction of " 105. No motion for an injunc- further proofs in opposition thereto tion (except to stay waste) shall be by the defendant, previous to the heard unless a ,copy of the bill and final hearing upon the merits." of the depositions to be offered in its "Rule of May 18, 1846. "Here- support shall be served on the ad- after, on motions for an injunction, verse party, or his attorney, at least because of the infringement of a pat- four days before motion made." ent right, the complainant shall not "106. The defendant may show be permitted to give evidence to cause against the allowance of an rebut the cause shown by the de- injunction, either by plea, answer, fendant against the allowance there- or demurrer to the bill, or by parol of, other than to a denial that the exception to its legal sufficiency, or defendant uses the discovery or in- by deposition, disproving the equity vention claimed by the complainant, on which the motion is founded." or to a claim by the defendant that "107. Suppletory, or supporting, he acts under an assignment or proofs may, at the discretion of the license from the patentee, and on court, or judge, be offered by the motions for injunctions to stay § 231.] " NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOB INJUNCTION. 495 § 231. Notice of application for interlocutory injunction. As a general rule, notice of an application for an injunction must always be given to the person against whom the injunc- tion is desired ; but in very pressing cases, where the mischief sought to be prevented was serious, imminent, and irremedi- able, or where the mere act of giving notice to the defendant of the intention to make the application might have been of itself productive of the mischief apprehended, by inducing him to accelerate the act in order that it might be complete before the time for making the application should have arrived, the courts have always awarded injunctions without notice. 1 On an application for an injunction without notice, the plaintiff should state in his affidavit the time when he first learned of the threatened mischief, 2 if the injunction desired be to restrain the infringement of a patent that he believes that the person to whom the patent was issued was the original inventor thereof, or that the thing or process patented was new or had not been introduced into public use in the United States for more than two years prior to the application upon which the patent was issued, 3 and every material circumstance connected with the case, whether the same bears for or against his application.* If his affidavit be defective in any of these particulars, accord- ing to the English practice, an injunction would not be issued, or if issued the order for it would be discharged. 6 In the ab- waste, only to a defense set up justi- § 231. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. fying the waste; and in neither case ed.) 1664; Kerr on Inj. 545; Wing v. shall such suppletpry or supporting Fairhaven, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 363; Scher- proofs be received, unless tlje court, merhorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 DalL 360; or one of the judges, on satisfactory Yuengling v. Johnson, 1 Hughes, 607. cause shown, shall, by order pre- 2 Calvert v. Gray, 2 Cooper's Ch. viously made, allow the same to be 171, n. given. And so much of rule 107 of 3 Hill v. Thompson, 3 Meriv. 622; the standing Rules in Equity of this Sturz v. De la Rue, 5 Russ. 322, 329; court adopted April 28, 1838, as may Sullivan v. Redfleld, 1 Paine, 441. See be inconsistent herewith, is repealed, also IT. S. R. S., §§ 4886, 4887. Motions for injunctions shall be 4 Dalglish v. Jarvie, 2 Macn. & G. brought on by the complainant on 231. the day named in the notice, if the 5 Dalglish v. Jarvie, 2 Macn. & G. court is then, in session; and in de- 231, 243, 244, per Baron Rolfe: "The fault thereof, the defendant may application for a special injunction move that the notice be discharged is very much governed upon the for the term, with costs, unless fur- same principles which govern insur- ther time is given, or the hearing is ances, matters which are said to re- delayed by order of the court." quire the utmost degree of good 496 injunctions. [§ 232. sence of any local rule upon the subject, the practice in giving notice of an application for an injunction, and of proceeding at the time when the application is made, are the same when an injunction is asked for as upon any other interlocutory ap- plication. It has been said that an application for an inter- locutory special injunction, during term and after the begin- ning of a suit and before answer, can only be made by motion; but that in vacation a judge may grant such an application upon petition. 6 The usual practice is, however, to apply by motion. It has been held that a mandatory injunction can only be granted upon notice. 7 It has been further held that the evidence which would prevent the issue of an interlocutory injunction will be sufficient to induce the court to dissolve one previously granted. 8 § 232. Affidavits upon an application for an injunction. — The affidavits upon which an injunction is sought are usually sworn to by the plaintiffs or one of them, 1 but may be sworn to by any person acquainted with the . facts, 2 in which latter case the affidavit should, it seems, state a good reason for its not being sworn to by one of the plaintiffs. 3 Except in extraor- dinary cases, the allegations must be sworn to positively and not upon information and belief, unless the sources of the in- faith, 'uberrima fides.' In cases of 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) insurance a party is required not 1666; Smith v. Clarke, 2 Dick. 455; only to state all matters within his Nichols v. Kearsly, 2 Dick. 645. knowledge, which he believes to be 7 Chicago, B. & Q. R Co. v. Bur- material to the question of the in- lington, C. R & N. R Co., 34 Fed. R surance, but all which in point of 481. fact are so. If he conceals anything 8 Cary v. Domestic S. Co., 26 Fed. that he knows to be material, it is a R 38. Contra, Toledo, A. A. & N. M. fraud; but besides that, if he con- Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. ceals anything that may influence R 780; S. C, 54 Fed. R 7<16; supra, the rate of premium which the un- § 225. derwriter may require, although he § 232. l Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. does not know that it would have ed.) 1669. that effect, such concealment en- 2 Lord Byron v. Johnston, 2 Meriv. tirely vitiates the policy. So here, 29; Brooks & Hardy v. O'Hara Bros., if the party applying for a special 8 Fed. R. 529. injunction abstains from stating 3 Lord Byron v. Johnston, 2 Meriv. facts which the court thinks are 29; Spaulding v. Keely, 7 Sim. 377; most material to enable it to form Scotson v. Gaury, 1 Hare, 99; Kerr its judgment, he disentitles himself on Inj. 548. to that relief which he asks tha court to grant." § 232.] AFFIDAVITS UPON APPLICATION FOE INJUNCTION. 497 formation are stated and some excuse given for the absence of the affidavit of the informant. 4 It is in general necessary that a plaintiff should swear positively to his title. 5 An injunction has been refused when a plaintiff merely swore upon informa- tion and belief that he was a remainderman under a settle- mant. 6 Upon an application for an injunction to stay waste, he must set out his title with particularity. A statement " that the plaintiff was entitled to the fee simple of the estate " has been held insufficient. 7 It has been said that if fraud is relied upon as a basis for an injunction, it must be sworn to , posi- tively, and not merely upon information and belief. 8 The plaintiff should also in the affidavits show some actual viola- tion of his rights, or a sufficient ground to* apprehend it. 9 An injunction may be granted though the bill is not sworn to, provided that the accompanying affidavits show a proper case for it; 10 but not unless a proper case is made out by the bill itself. 11 If the defendant in his opposing affidavits set up as a defense new matter in avoidance of the case shown by the plaintiff, the latter may have leave to file further affidavits in rebuttal ; but generally no subsequent affidavits can be filed by the defendant. 12 Eebutting affidavits may also be used to sup- port any allegations of the bill denied in the answer except such as state the plaintiff's title to property affected by the lit- igation. 13 The authorities are conflicting as to whether or not the plaintiff's title, if denied in the answer, can be supported ♦ Lake S. & N. Ry. Co. v. Felton son v. Cator, 5 Ves. 688; Hanson v. (C. C. A.), 103 Fed. R. 227; Murphy Gardiner, 7 Ves. 305. v. Jack, 142 N. Y. 215, 218; Rosevelt "Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. R 455. v. Edson, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 227. In " Cooper v. Mattheys, 8 Law R Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 573, the bill 413; Wilson v. Stolley, 4 McLean, filed by a railroad company was ver- 272; Leo v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 17 ified only by the affidavit of a per- Fed. R 273; Land Co. v. Elkins, 20 son not shown to be connected with Fed. R 545; St Louis T. F. v. Carter it, stating that he had read the bill & G. P. Co., 31 Fed. R 524, and believed the statements therein 12 Day v. New Eng. C. S. Co., 3 contained to be true. Blatchf. 154. See Rule 107 and Rule »Daniell'sChPr.(5thAm.ed.)1669. of May, 1846, of U. S. C. C, S. D. 6 Davis v. Leo, 6 Ves. 784. N. Y., quoted supra, § 230. ' 1 Whiteleggv.Whitelegg, 1 Brown, 18 Brooks v. Bicknell, 3 McLean, Ch. C. 57. 250; Farmer v. Calvert Lith. Co., 1 « Brooks & Hardy v. O'Hara Bros., Flip. 228. See Rule 113 and Rule of 8 Fed. R 539. May, 1846, of TJ. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y. 9 Gibson v. Smith, 2 Atk. 182; Jack- 32 498 injunctions. [§ 233. by rebutting affidavits. 14 "Where an allegation in the bill is not denied* in the answer, it is taken as admitted for the purposes of a motion for a preliminary injunction. 15 Documentary proof, if of equal force with affidavits, can also be used in support or in opposition to a motion for an injunction. 16 Upon the hear- ing of a motion for a preliminary injunction, the rules of evi- dence are applied less strictly than upon the final hearing of the cause; and consequently decrees entered in suits between strangers affecting the validity of a patent in question may be offered in evidence, in support of an application for a prelim- inary injunction, but not in support of an application for one that is to be perpetual. 17 Hearsay evidence may also be used. 18 In one case statements in a proclamation by the Governor of the State were treated as evidence upon such a motion. 19 In another, campaign speeches by the Governor of the State were treated as evidence of the proper construction of a law. 20 § 233. Rules of decision upon applications for interlocu- tory injunctions. — The issue of an interlocutory injunction is never a matter of right, but rests in the sound discretion of the court. In order to obtain one, the plaintiff must show either that there is no doubt of the wrongful nature of the act sought to be enjoined, 1 or that his own claims of right have been ac- quiesced in without question for a long period of time, 2 or that the injury which will result to himself from a refusal of the injunction will be very great, and that to the defendant from the issue thereof very slight. 3 Otherwise, an interlocutory in- 14 Compare Poor v. Carleton, 3 Sage quotes this passage with ap- Sumu. 70; Goodyear v. Mullee, 3 provaL Fisher, 420, with Farmer v. Calvert 19 Coear d' Alene Cons. & M. Co. v. Lith. Co., 1 Flipp. 228; Parker v. Miners' Union, 51 Fed. R 260. Sears, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 93; U. S. v. 20 Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Texas & P. Parrott, 1 McAlL 271. See Eule 107 Ey. Co., 51 Fed. R 529, 542. and Eule of May, 1846, of U. S. C. C, § 233. 1 Minturn v. Larue, 1 MoAll. S. D. N. Y. 370; Buchanan v. Howland, 2 Fish. 15 Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51. 341; Doughty v. West, 2 Fish. 553. See § 146. 2 Variok v. Mayor of N. Y., 4 J. Oh. 16 Schermerhorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 (N. Y.) 53; Kirby Bung Mfg. Co. v. DalL 360. White, 1 Fed. R. 604; McKay v. Dib- "Buck v. Hermance, 1 Blatchf. ert, 5 Fed. E. 587; W. U. Tel. Co. v. 322; Matthews v. Ironclad Mfg. Co., Union Pao. E. Co., 3 Fed. E 721; At- 19 Fed. E 321. lantic & Pac. Tel. Co. v. Union Pao. 18 Casey v. Cincinnati Typ. Union Ey. Co., 1 Fed. E. 745. No. 3, 45 Fed.'R 135, 147, where Judge » W. U. TeL Co. v. St. J. & W. Ey. § 233.] BULES OF DECISION UPON APPLICATION. 499 junction will be denied him. 4 In a suit under the act to pro- tect trade and commerce against unlawful monopolies, a pre- liminary injunction was refused when doubtful questions of law and fact were involved, partly upon the ground that as the United States tendered no bond, more injury would result to the defendant from the issue than to the plaintiff from the re- fusal of the writ. 5 A preliminary injunction to restrain the infringement of a patent will nearly always be refused, if the defendant has ample pecuniary responsibility, or gives security against loss to the plaintiff, and is willing to keep an account of his manufacture, use, and sale of the article claimed to be patented, and the damages which the plaintiff will suffer can be readily reckoned in money. 6 Danger of inconvenience to the public is a ground for refusing a preliminary injunction. 7 A preliminary injunction may also be refused when the plaintiff has been guilty of laches in applying for it; even though his delay has not been such as to disentitle him to a perpetual in- junction after the hearing. 8 If an injunction has been obtained Co., 3 Fed. R 430; W. U. TeL Co. v. Burlington & S. W. Ry. Co., 11 Fed. R. 1; Am. U. Tel. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 1 MoCrary, 188; Atlantic & Pac. Tel. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 1 McCrary, 541; Allison v. Corson (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. R 581; Dimick v. Shaw (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R 266; In- dianapolis Gas Co. v. Indianapolis, 82 Fed. R 245, 246, per Baker, J.: "It is settled that upon a preliminary application for a temporary restrain- ing order all that the judge should, as a general rule, require is a case of probable right, and of probable dan- ger to that right without the inter- ference of the court, and its discre- tion should then be regulated by the balance of inconvenience or injury to the one party or the other.'' Cit- ing New Memphis G. & L. Co. v. Memphis, 72 Fed. R 953. 4 Coffeen v. Brunton, 5 McLean, 256; Smith v. Cummings, 1 Fish. Pat. Cas. 152; French v. Brewer, 3 Wall. Jr. 346; Pentlarge v. Beeston, 1 Fed. R. 862; Kirby Bung Mfg. Co. v. White, 1 Fed. R 604; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Tr. Co., 45 Fed. R Ei. An injunction was granted against an illegal ordinance regulating water rents for one year, although an ap- peal from the order could not be determined before the end of the year. Los Angeles C. W. Co. v. Los Angeles, 88 Fed. R. 720. »U. S. v. Jellico M. C. & C. Co., 43 Fed. R 898. "Foster v. Moore, 1 Curt. 279; Mor- ris v. Shelbourne, 8 Blatchf. 266; Gil- bert & B. Mfg. Co. v. Bussing, 12 Blatchf. 426; Swift v. Jenks, 19 Fed. R 641; Hoe v. Boston D. Adv. Co., 14 Fed. R 914; U. S. Annunciator Co. v. Sanderson, 3 Blatchf. 184. But see Gibson v. Van Dresar, 1 Blatchf. 532; Tracy v. Torrey, 2 Blatchf. 275; Park hurst v. Kinsman, 2 Blatchf. 78; Mc- Williams Mfg. Co. v. Blundell, 11 Fed. R 419. The rules of decision upon motions for injunctions in pat- ent suits are explained in § 217, supra. 7 Southwestern B. El. L. & P. Co. v. Louisiana El. L. Co., 45 Fed. R. 893; supra, § 216. 8 Gordon v. Cheltenham Ry. Co., 5 500 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 234. by an interlocutory order, and it is desired to continue it pro- visionally after a hearing, a direction to that effect should be inserted in the interlocutory decree then entered.* Upon the assignment of a motion for an injunction the defendant can raise any defense to the substance of the bill that would be set up by a demurrer. 10 §234. The writ of injunction. — Immediately upon the entry of an order for an injunction, the party who obtained it is entitled to have the writ issued from the clerk's office and served. 1 He should attend to this within a reasonable time. Where the writ was tested six weeks after the entry of the order granting it and was not served till nearly a year afterwards, the court refused to punish the defendant for diso- bedience, saying that, after the lapse of so much time, the plaintiff should have applied for leave to use the writ. 2 Like all other writs and processes issuing from the courts of the United States, writs of injunction must be under the seal of the court from which they issue, and signed by the clerk thereof. Those issuing from the Supreme Court or a Circuit Court must bear teste, from the date of such issue, of the Chief Justice of the United States, or, when that office is vacant, of the associate justice next in- precedence, and those issuing from a District Court must bear teste of the judge, or, when that office is vacant, of the clerk thereof.' " The orders pronounced by the court in cases of special injunctions before answer, have varied at different periods. The form most frequently adopted enjoined the party ' till further order.'' In some cases the injunction has been till 'appearance and further order; ' in others till ' answer and further order.' But the form at pres- ent used, and which is established by a rule laid down by Lord Eldon, is 'till answer or further order.' This has been adopted as giving defendant the liberty to move, if necessary, to dis- solve upon affidavit, before he has answered the bill." * The Beav. 229 ; Mundy v. Kendall, 23 Fed. » U. S. R. S., §§ 911, 912. E. 591 ; Kerr on In j. 22. 23. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1895 ; » Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1902 ; Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 174. See Gardner v. Gardner, 87 N. Y. 14. Bolton v. London School Board, 7 WLadd v. Oxnard, 75 Fed. R. 703. Ch. D. 766, 771; Gardner v. Gardner, §234. i Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. 87 N. Y. 14; State v. Wakeley, 28 ed.) 1816, 1817, 1964. Neb. 431, 437. 2 McCormiok v. Jerome, 8 Blatcht § 234] WKIT OF INJUNCTION. S01 writ should contain a coneise description of the particular acts or things in respect to which tire defendant is enjoined ; 5 and should conform to the directions of the order granting the in- junction. 6 If, however, the writ is broader than the order warrants, the'defendant should apply to the court for an order setting it aside or modifying it. 7 It seems that he is not justi- fied in disobeying it and raising the objection when a motion is made for an attachment against him. 8 It seems that a writ is insufficient which designates the acts sought to be enjoined by a reference to the bill without describing them. 9 The Eng- lish practice was to mention in the writ a money penalty to be incurred by the defendant if he disobeyed it ; but that does not seem to be necessary here. 10 The writ should be addressed to the persons whom it is desired to enjoin. 11 If the injunction is against waste, or forbids the continuance of a nuisance, or some other similarly inequitable act, it is usually addressed to the defendant, his servants, workmen, and agents ; 12 if to re- * Whipple v. Hutchinson, 4 Blatchf. 190. 6 Sickles v. Borden, 4 Blatchf. 14 'Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Whipple v. Hutchinson, 4 Blatchf. 190; Sullivan v. Judah, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 444. io Low v. Hauel, 1 Wall. Jr. 345. it Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1817. 12 Kerr on Injunctions, 559; Dan- iell's Ch Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1673; Humphreys v. Roberts, Seton's De- crees (4th ed.), 173; In re Lennon, 166 U. S. 548. In Dadirrian v. Gullian, 79 Fed. E. 784, per Kirkpatrick, D. J. : "The writ is directed specifically to the defendants in the suit, and then generally, without naming them, to their servants, agents, and employees. The object of this generalization is to prevent the defendants from do- ing by others that which the court has forbidden them to do personally ; from accomplishing indirectly a re- sult prohibited by the court. The full effect of the order is that the de- fendant shall not do the unlawful act himself, neither shall his agent, servant, or employee do it for him, nor shall the defendant do it as the agent, servant or employee of an- other. Potter v. Muller, 1 Bond, 601, Fed. Cas. No. 11,333. There is no re- straint laid upon the agent, servant, or employee personally, but merely as the agent, servant, or employee of the enjoined defendant. Slater v. Merritt,75 N. Y. 268; Wellesley v. Mprnington, 11 Beav. 181. Notwith- standing the injunction and notice of it, he, upon ceasing to be the agent, servant, or employee of the defend- ant, is free to act for himself in the protection of his own rights and the prosecution of his own interests, even though it involve his doing the very thing prohibited his former master. Mexican Ore Co. v. Mexi- can G. M. Co., 47 Fed. E. 351. He may avoid obedience to a mandatory injunction by actually ceasing to be an employee of the company (Toledo, A. A. & N. M. Ey. Co. v. Pennsylva- nia Co., 54 Fed. R. 746); and he may enter the service of another master, a stranger to the suit, and be as free as he from obligation to obey the 502 . injunctions. [§ 235. strain proceedings in another court, to the defendant, his attorneys, and agents, 13 even though the bill prays for an in- junction against the defendant alone. But the latter's tenants cannot be thus enjoined, unless they have become such after the commencement of the suit or have been made parties to it. 14 In one case an injunction was granted against all persons act- ing in concert with the defendants named and under their di- rection and control. 15 The writ should be indorsed or sub- scribed with the name and office address of the plaintiff's solicitor, or with the name and residence of the plaintiff if he appears in person. 16 § 235. Dissolution and modification of interlocutory in- junctions. — The common injunction was dissolved as of course upon the defendant's putting in a sufficient answer to the bill. The practice in such a case was for him to obtain an order nisi, upon the return of which the injunction was always dis- solved, unless the plaintiff could show that the answer was in- sufficient for the purpose either of defense or of discovery. 1 A special injunction can only be dissolved by a special motion, either in open court or at a special hearing appointed elsewhere for that purpose by a judge of the court. 2 The motion may be made at any time before decree, 3 even, it seems, before the de- fendant has been served with process, 4 and before he has appeared. 5 When a special injunction has been granted against several defendants, any of them may move to dissolve it as against himself; but he should in that case serve the others as well as the plaintiff with a notice of his motion. 6 In one case after answer, a notice left at the office of the solicitor for the plaintiff during his absence from the city three days before the court's decree. People v. Randall, 73 2 Kerr on Inj. 561 ; DanielPs Ch. Pr. N. Y. 416; Slater v. Merritt, 75 N. Y. 1675; Wilkins v. Jordan, 3 Wash. C. 268." C. 226; Caldwell v. Walters, 4 Cranch, i3Daniell'sCh.Pr.(5thAm.ed.)1673. C. C. 577. "Hudson v. Coppard, 29 Beav. 4; s Kerr on Inj. 560; Daniell's Ch. Pr. Kerr on Inj. 543. (5th Am. ed.) 1675; Met. G. & S. is U. S. v. Elliott, 64 Fed. R. 27, 35. Exch. v. Chicago B. of T., 15 Fed. E. 16 Kerr on Inj. 559; Daniell's Ch. 847. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1674. * Shields v. McGlung, 6 W. Va. 79. §235. i Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. 6 Menzies v. Rodrigues, 1 Price, 92. ed.) 1820-1829; Poor v. Carleton, 3 'Thompson v. Geary, 5 Beav. 131; Sumn. 70; New York v. Connecticut, Kerr on Inj. 564. But see Daniell's 4 Dall. 1, 3, note 1, per Washington, J. Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1676, note 1. § 235.] DISSOLUTION AND MODIFICATION OF INTERLOCUTORY. 503 motion was held sufficient. 7 If the motion to dissolve is made before answer, it must be supported by affidavits or document- ary proof contradicting the statements upon which the injunc- tion was obtained, 8 unless the defendant can show that it is plain upon the face of the plaintiff's bill and affidavits that he was not entitled to the injunction, when the motion will be granted. 9 "When the injunction has been irregularly issued, the defendant should move to discharge the order granting it. 10 If he should move to dissolve it, he might be held to have by so doing recognized its regularity. 11 It has been held that after a demurrer put in by him to the bill has been overruled a defendant can only move to dissolve by leave of the court; which was, in one case, only granted upon his affidavit that the demurrer was not interposed for delay, and his giving se- curity to pay all damage to the plaintiff thereby caused. 12 Where the application for dissolution was made after answer, it was originally thought that the plaintiff could not show that any of the allegations therein contained were false ; 13 but that doctrine has been, in this country at least, exploded, 14 and it is well settled that the plaintiff can not only dispute the truth of such allegations, whether they are positive or negative, but is at liberty to file counter affidavits in reply to new matter con- tained in the defendant's affidavits or answer. 16 When a stay- order has been made, and simultaneous applications, by the defendant to. discharge the stay -order, and by the plaintiff for an injunction," are heard together, the plaintiff has the right to open and close the argument. 16 If upon the application to dis- ' Caldwell v. Walters, 4 Cranoh, " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) C. C. 577. 1676, note 4. 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) "Poor v. Carleton, 8 Sumn. 70; 1676; Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51. U. S. v. Parrott, 1 MoAll. 271 ; Orr v. 9 Hudson v. Maddison, 12 Sim. 416; Littlefleld, 1 W. & M. 13; Orr v.Mer- Kidwell v. Masterson, 3 Cranch, C. C. rill, 1 W. & M. 376; Clum v. Brewer, 52; Fen wick Hall Co. v. Town of 2 Curt. 506. Old Saybrook, 66 Fed. R. 389. isDay v. New Eng. C. S. Co., 3 io Angier v. May, 3 W. E. 330; Dan- Blatchf. 154; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th iell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1676; Kerr Am. ed.) 1676; Shoemaker v. Nat. on Inj. 564. Mech. Bank, 1 Hughes, 101. 11 Vipan v. Mortlock, 2 Meriv. 476; 16 Fraser v. Whalley, 2 Hem. & M. Kerr on Inj. 564. 10. is Wood worth v. Edwards, 3 W. & M. 120. 504: INJUNCTIONS. [§ 235. solve an injunction the court is not satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to retain it, it will dissolve the injunction, and may then direct an issue, an action at law, or a reference before the hearing. 17 If, however, it is satisfied that the plaintiff is en- titled to the writ, the court will direct the injunction to be continued until the hearing. 18 "Where the court dissolves the injunction upon the ground that it appears upon the face of the bill that the plaintiff is not entitled thereto, and that is the only relief prayed for by him, it cannot at the same time dis- miss the bill ; for the plaintiff has still the right to bring the suit to a hearing. 19 If the question is left in doubt upon the motion to dissolve, it seems that the motion will be denied. 20 The ambiguity of the order granting the injunction is suffi- cient ground for its dissolution or modification. 2 . 1 The defend- ant's delay in moving to dissolve the injunction may deprive him of his right to have it dissolved. 22 "When a special injunc- tion has been granted after a full hearing, it will not be dis- solved except on new evidence. 23 It has been held that a prelim- inary injunction will not be dissolved after answer upon grounds shown by affidavits, which, from their not having been set up in the answer, cannot be used at the hearing of the whole case. 24 A judge will very rarely dissolve an injunction granted by one of his judicial brethren. 28 A temporary injunction may be modified or dissolved by a Circuit Court after it has been "Daniell'sCk.Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1897. Baker S. M. Co., 110 Mass. 1; Kerr 18 Packington v. Packington, 1 on Inj. 565; Antisdel v. Chicago H. Dick. 101; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. C. Co., 89 Fed. R. 308, 311. ed.) 1678. 23 Woodworth v. Hall, 1 W. & M. i» Brooke v. Clarke, 1 Swanst. 550; 389. Blow v. Taylor, 4 Hen. & Munf. (Va.) 2* Union P. B. M. Co. v. Newell, 11 159. Blatchf. 549. 20 Cooper v. Mattheys, 5 Penn. L. J. 25 Cole S. Min. Co. v. Virginia & Q. 38; S. C, LawR. 413; Fisher v. Lord, H. W. Co., 1 Saw. 685; Preston v. 6 West L. J. 137; "Wood worth v. Walsh, 10 Fed. R. 315; Reynolds v. Hall, 1 W. & M. 389; Wood worth v. Iron S. Min. Co., 33 Fed. R. 354; Rogers, 3 W. & M. 135; Sparkman Klein v. Fleetford, 35 Fed. R 9a It v. Higgins, 1 Blatchf. 205. But see has been said that, in case of the Edison EL L. Co. v. Westinghouse death of the judge who made the EL & Mfg. Co., 54 Fed. R. 504 order, the motion to dissolve it should 21 Dalglish v. Jar vie, 2 Macn. & G. be made before two judges. West- 231. erly Waterworks v. Town of'West- 22 Florence & M Co. v. Grover & erly, 77 Fed. R. 78a § 235.] DISSOLUTION AND MODIFICATION OF INTEELOCUTOBY. 505 affirmed upon appeal. 28 After an injunction has been dissolved, if evidence subsequently taken shows that it was properly issued, it may be issued anew. 27 The dissolution of an exparte injunction on account of a suppression of material facts does not preclude the plaintiff from applying for another injunction on the merits. 28 An injunction may also be dissolved if the plaintiff is guilty of gross and inexcusable delay in taking testimony or in bring- ing the cause to a hearing ; 29 and in general if from a change of circumstances its continuance would no longer serve any useful purpose. 30 The subsequent passage of an act of Congress legalizing a structure which has been enjoined as a nuisance is a reason for the dissolution of an injunction. 31 It has been held that an injunction staying proceedings at law against a bank- rupt is dissolved ipso facto by his discharge; 32 but remains un- affected by his delay in applying for his discharge. 33 It has been held that at the expiration of a patent the court will dis- solve an injunction against its infringement, and leave the complainant no remedy except his claim for damages against the subsequent sale and use of articles manufactured while the patent was alive in infringement of the patent. 34 An injunc- 25 Edison El. L. Co. v. U. S. El. L. » Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. G C. Co. (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R. 501; An- 174; Bradley v. Reed, 12 Pitts L. J. drews v. National P. & P. Works, 61 65; Schermerhorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 Fed. R 782, 790; S. a, 10 C. C. A. 60, DalL 360; In the Matter of Schwarz, 68; s. a, 24 U. S. App. 81. Cf. Stand- 14 Fed. R 787. ard EL Co. v. Crane El. Co. (C. C. A.), 3 » In re Jackson, 9 Fed. R. 493; Re 76 Fed. R 767, 794. It has been said Pitts, 9 Fed. R 542. that a Circuit Court has no power to 31 Baird v. Shore L. Ry. Co., 6 modify or dissolve a perpetual in- Blatohf. 461 ; Hadden v. Dooley (C. junction contained in an interlocu- C. A.), 74 Fed. R 429. It has been tory decree which has been affirmed said that a modification of the order upon appeal. Bissell C. S. Co. v. will usually be refused when its ef- Goshen S. Co., 72 Fed. R. 545. It is feet would be to change the position the safer practice for the defendant of the property affected by the suit. to obtain a clause in the order of af- Ulman v. Ritter, 72 Fed. R 1000. firmance granting leave to the Cir- 32 In re Thomas, 3 K B E 7. cuit Court to modify the injunction 33 In re Schwarz, 14 Fed. R 787, 789. order. Hadden v. Dooley (C. C. A.), 34 Westinghouse v. Carpenter, 43 74 Fed. R 429. Fed. R 894, Miller and Love, JJ.; 27 Tucker v. Carpenter, Hempst. Am. C. Ry. Co. v. Chicago C. Ry. Co., 440. 41 Fed. R 522. But see Am. D. R B. as Fitch v. Rochfort, 18 L. J. Ch. Co. v. Rutland M. Co., 2 Fed. R 356; 458; Kerr on Inj. 564. supra, §§ 11, 216. 506 injunctions. [§ 236. tion is not dissolved by an amendment of the bill, 35 unless the amendment substantially changes the cause of action, 36 or aban- dons the praj 7 er for the injunction. 37 But it is customary to include in the order allowing an amendment a direction that it be " without prejudice to the injunction." The allowance of a demurrer to the whole bill puts an end to an injunction which had previously been obtained; 38 but leave will usually be given to amend without prejudice to the injunction, when the demurrer is allowed on account of a defect in form, 39 such as multifariousness. 40 " The allowance of a plea does not dis- solve an injunction. There may be some equity shown to con- tinue it. An order for its dissolution must be obtained." 41 An injunction is not dissolved by an abatement or by a defect in the suit, but the defendant must, if he wishes to be freed from the restraint thereby imposed, move that the plaintiff or his representatives be required to revive or take such other steps as may be necessary within a limited time, and that if he fail to do so the injunction may be dissolved. 42 § 236. The imposition of terms upon the issue, denial, dissolution, or continuance of an injunction. — As the issue of a special injunction is in its discretion, the court may impose terms upon the plaintiff or defendant when granting or refus- ing the issue, dissolution, or continuance of the same. 1 The usual terms are the giving of a bond or undertaking with good security to indemnify the other party against all loss that may result from the issue or withholding of the injunction. 2 These undertakings were invented by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, and originally they were acquired only upon ex parte injunc- 85 Reed v. Consequa, 4 Wash. C. C. « Lehigh Z. & L Co. v. N. J. Z. & 174; Warburton v. L. & B. Ry. Co., L Co., 43 Fed. R. 545, 550. 2 Beav. 253. But see Sharp v. Ash- 41 Kerr on Inj. 566; Philips v. Lang- ton, 3 V. & B. 144 horn, Dick. 148; Ferrand v. Hamer, 36 Atty. Gen. v. Marsh, 16 Sim. 572; 4 M. & C. 143. Kerr on Inj. 566. 42 Chowick v. Dimes, 3 Beav. 200; 37 Westcott v. Mulvane, 58 Fed. R. Lee v. Lee, 1 Hare, 632; Chester v. 305. Life Ass'n of Am., 4 Fed. R. 487. 38 Schneider v. Lizardi, 9 Beav. 461, § 237. l Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 468; Kerr on Inj. 565. 433. ssRawlings v. Lambert, 1 J. & H. 2 Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 433; 458; Kerr on Inj. 565, 566; Lehigh Kirby Bung Mfg. Co. v. White, 1 Fed. Z. & L Co. v. N. J. Z. & 1 Co., 43 Fed. R. 604; Northern Pao. R. Co. v. St. R. 545, 550. P., M. & M. R Co., 2 MoCrary, 200; S. C, 4 Fed. R. 688. § 236.] IMPOSITION OF TEEMS. 507 tions, being designed to protect the court as well as the defend- ant from improper ex parte applications. Later the practice was extended to interlocutory injunctions granted upon notice to the defendant, first in special cases, then generally; and now they are usually inserted as a matter of course in England and in most of the United States, although in some of the circuits the Federal judges are accustomed to grant injunctions with- out such a requirement. The reason for the requirement is that upon an interlocutory application but a short time is al- lowed for the preparation of the case, and it is impossible for the court to obtain a complete knowledge of the facts. More- over these applications are heard upon affidavits, so that it is impossible to say which side will ultimately turn out to be right. Consequently. the court reserves the right to indemnify the defendant in case it should have been induced, upon an in- complete state of facts, to make a wrong order. 3 It is not usual to require security from the United States when a pre- liminary injunction is granted at their request in a suit in which they are plaintiffs. 4 It has been held that, where there is proof that the defendant has been guilty of bad faith in connection with the subject of the suit, no bond should be required. 5 In some instances the court has withheld an injunction to restrain an infringement of a patent or copyright, upon the defendant's merely undertaking to keep an account of the sales made by him during the pendency of the suit; 6 and in England in other cases upon his giving undertaking to abide by the farther order of the court. 7 An injunction will never be issued to re- strain the collection of State taxes, unless the plaintiff first pays " what is conceded to be due, or what can be seen to be due on the face of the bill, or be shown by affidavit, whether conceded or not." 8 It has been held at circuit that when the 'Smith v. Day, 21 Ch. D. 431. See (Eng.) Ry. Cas. 436; Jones v. G. W. Lowenfeld v. Curtis, 72 Fed. R 105. Ry. Co., 1 (Eng.) Ry. Cas. 684. * U. S. v. Jellioo, M. C. & C. Co., 43 8 State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. a Fed. R 898. 575, 017; National Bank v. Kimball, » Pasteur C. F. Co. v. Funk, 53 Fed. 103 XT. S. 732; Albuquerque Nat, R 146, 147. Bank v. Perea, 147 U. S. 87; Parmley 6 Furbush v. Bradford, 1 Fish. Pat. v. Railroad Cos., 3 Dill. 25; Hunting- Cas. 317; McCrary v. Penn. C. Co., 5 ton v. Palmer, 8 Fed. R 449; supra, Fed. R 367; Kerr on Inj. 39, 30. § 84. ?Atty. Gen. v. M. & L. Ry. Co., 1 508 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 236. court upon the final hearing dissolves an injunction previously granted, or grants an injunction previously denied upon the giving of a bond or undertaking, the successful party can have his damages assessed and the bond or undertaking enforced by the court in the same suit, without being required to bring a new action at law. 9 Where the amount of the recovery is un- certain, the sureties should have notice of the application to enforce the bond. 10 It has been held that a Circuit Court has jurisdiction of an action at law upon the bond where it exceeds $2,000, irrespective of the citizenship of the parties, because the suit arises under the laws of the United States. 11 The court has power, when dissolving the injunction, to absolve the bondsmen from liability. 12 It is unsettled in England whether the undertaking can be enforced upon the dissolution of the injunction on the ground that the court erred as to the law." Only direct and approximate damages can be recovered upon the bond; remote, conjectural and speculative damages are dis- allowed. 14 It has been held by the Supreme Court that the » Lea v. Deakin, 13 Fed. R. 514; Coosaw Min. Co. v. Farmers' Min. Co., 51 Fed. R 107; Lamb v. Ewing (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. R 269; supra, § 21. See also Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 433; Leslie v. Brown (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. R 171; Deakin v. Stanton, 3 Fed. R 435; Grundy v. Young, 2 Cranoh, C. C. 114; Bentley v. Joslin, Hempst. 218; Moore v. Moore, 25 Beav. 8; Sug- den v. Hull, 28 Beav. 263. Contra, Curtis, J., in Merryfleld v. Jones, 2 Curt. 306. See also Bein v. Heath, 13 How. 168. 10 Coosaw M. Co. v. Carolina M. Co., 74 Fed. R. 860: Leslie v. Brown (C. C. A.), 90 Fed. R 171. » Leslie v. Brown, 90 Fed. R. 171. 12 Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 433. Cf. Allen v. Jones, 79 Fed. R. 698. w Smith v. Day, 21 Ch. D. 421, 424, 426, 428, 429, 431. But see Novello v. James, 5 De G., M. & G. 876. "Smith v. Day, 21 Ch. D. 421; Chi- cago C. R. Co. v. Howispn, 86 III 215; Hotchkiss v. Platt, 8 Hun (N. Y), 46; Livingston v. Exum, 19 S. C. 223. Where the injunction forbade inter- ference with the possession of per- sonal property, it was held that the defendant upon the dissolution could recover all damages caused by his delay in obtaining possession of the property, including any loss caused by a fall in the market price, if it had a market price, and could have been sold at once on the market for a sum nearly equal to its value, but not if it had no market price, and could not have been sold immediately for a sum "anything like its value;" and that the price which the defend- ant might have made by the use of the property in his business was too remote and speculative to be recov- ered. Lehman v. McQuown, 31 Fed. R. 138. It has been held that "an injunction bond in an action in the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, condi- tioned that the obligors 'will well and truly pay the ' obligee, ' defend- ant in said injunction, all such dam- ages as he may recover against us, § 237.] PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS. 509 fees of counsel in procuring the dissolution of the injunction, cannot be included in the damages upon the bond. 15 This de- cision is, however, in conflict with the weight of authority in the United States. 16 The court might direct the insertion of a clause in. the bond providing that counsel fees should be included in the damages. Where no security is given, the defendant has no remedy to recover damages caused by an in- junction improperly issued, unless, perhaps, where facts will support an action for malicious prosecution." The surety can- not, pending an appeal from a decree for the defendant to the injunction suit, maintain a bill of quia timet to obtain in- demnity from the principal before the bond has been paid or the amount of the liability upon the same has been adjudi- cated. 18 § 237. Perpetual injunctions. — Perpetual injunctions can only be granted at the entry of a decree. 1 It is irregular to grant one upon affidavits, 2 In patent, trade-mark and copy- right cases, however, injunctions that are permanent until the expiration of the plaintiff's monopoly are often granted by an interlocutory decree which also directs a reference to a master for an accounting;' but the court has the power to suspend the injunction until an appeal can be had. 4 A perpetual in- junction is either originally granted, or continued. They may in case it should be decided that the bond." Meyers v. Block, 120 U. S. said writ of injunction was wrong- 206. fully issued,' which bond was made 15 Oelrichs v. Spain, 15 Wall. 211. under an order of the court ' that the 16 See High on Inj., sec. 1685, and injunction be maintained on the com- cases cited. plaining creditor's giving bond and "Scheck v. Kelly, 95 Fed. K. 941; security to save the parties harmless City of St. Louis v. St Louis Gas- from the effects of said injunction,' light Co., 82 Mo. 354 is a sufficient compliance with the 18 Am. B. & Tr. Co. v. Logansport order of the court, and when con- & M. G. Co., 95 Fed. R. 49. strued with reference to the rule § 237. x Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. prevailing in the Federal courts (con- ed.) 1903. trary to that prevailing in the State 2 Adams v. Crittenden, 17. Fed. R. courts of Louisiana), that without a 42. bond and.in the absence of malice 3 Rumf ord Chem. Works v. Hecker, no damages can be recovered in such 11 Off. Gaz. 330; Brown v. Deere, 6 case, means that the obligors will Fed. R. 484; s. C, 2' McCrary, 425. pay such damages as the obligee 4 Barnard v. Gibson, 7 How. 650, may recover against them in a suit 658; Potter v. Mack, 3 Fish. 428; on the bond itself, whether incurred Brown v. Deere, 6 Fed. R. 487; Mun- before or after the giving of the son v. Mayor, 19 Fed. R 313. 510 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 237. be granted originally in all cases in which temporary injunc- tions might have been granted, and also to restrain the setting up of outstanding terms when it would be inequitable to do so. 5 In order to obtain a perpetual injunction, it is not necessary that a provisional injunction should have been asked for. 6 For after the commencement of a suit asking to prevent an act upon the defendant's part, he is said to proceed at his peril, and if the court finally decides in favor of the plaintiff it may order him to undo the result of his acts since he first had notice of the suit. 7 A perpetual injunction may be obtained in a case where a preliminary injunction has been asked for and refused, or obtained and dissolved. 8 If, however, the plaintiff has not previously obtained a preliminary injunction, and at the hear- ing fails to make out a clear title, he usually will not be allowed to use the facts proved by him, as evidence of a prima facie case, entitling him then to a temporary injunction till he can establish his case beyond a doubt ; 9 unless indeed, the injunction sought be one that is never granted before a hearing. 10 Perpet- ual injunctions may continue or extend and make perpetual preliminary injunctions at the hearing. This can only be done by inserting a direction to that effect, in the decree. 11 In order to support a decree for a perpetual injunction, it has been said that the court requires that there should be nothing like a doubt in the case. 12 The granting of such an injunction is in the discretion of the court, and, like a provisional injunction, it may be allowed 13 or refused u upon terms. On account of 8 Askew v. Poulterers' Co., 2 Ves. 382; s. C. on appeal, sub nom. Bacon Sen. 89; Duke of Buckingham v. v. Jones, 4 M. & C. 433, 438; Daniell's Duchess of Buckingham, 2 Eq. Cas. Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1901. Abr. 527. i°Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1901. 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1900. See supra, § 226. See also Bailey v. Taylor, 1 R. & M. 73. "Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1 902; i Charles River Bridge v. Warren Gardner v. Gardner, 87 N. Y. 14. Bridge, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 376; Wing v. 12 Whittinghamv.Woler, 2Swanst. Fairhaven, 8 Cush.(Mass.) 363; Win- 428, n.; Troy & B. R Co. v. Bos- slow v. Nayson, 113 Mass. 411; Smith ton, H. T. & W. Ry. Co., 86 N. Y. 107; v. Day, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 651. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1900. 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1900; 13 Southern Exp. Co. v. St. Louis, Bailey v. Taylor, 1 R & M. 73; Bacon I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 10 Fed. R 210; v. Spottiswoode, 1 Beav. 382; Bacon s. C, 10 Fed. R. 869. v. Jones, 4 M. & C. 433; Tucker v. "McCrary v. Penn. Canal Co., 5 Carpenter, Hempsfc 440. Fed. R. 367; Brown v. Deere, M. & 9 Bacon v. Spottiswoode, 1 Beav. Co., 6 Fed. R 487. § 238.] APPEALS. FROM INJUNCTION OEDEES. 511 the weight as a precedent given to a decree for a permanent injunction in a patent case, the court may refuse to grant one when the case has been compromised and the defendant aban- dons it at the hearing. 15 § 238. Appeals from injunction orders. — " "Where, upon a hearing in equity in a District Court or a Circuit Court, or by a judge thereof in vacation, an injunction shall be granted or continued, or a receiver appointed by an interlocutory order or decree, in a case in which an appeal from a final decree may be taken under the provisions of this act to the Circuit Court of Appeals, an appeal may be taken from such interlocutory order or decree granting or continuing such injunction, or ap- pointing such receiver, to the Circuit Court of Appeals: pro- vided, that the appeal must be taken within thirty days from the entry of such order or decree, and it shall take precedence in the appellate court; and the proceedings in other respects in the court below shall not be stayed unless otherwise ordered by that court or by the appellate court or judge thereof during the pendency of such appeal r provided further, that the court below may in its discretion require, as a condition of the ap- peal, an additional bond." 1 There is no appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from any of such orders; 2 but the Circuit Court of Appeals can certify to the Supreme Court any question involved upon said appeal, even a question of jurisdic- tion.' A Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of such an appeal, even, it seems, when the only question in dispute is one of jurisdiction. 4 It has been held that a Circuit Court of Ap- peals has no jurisdiction of an appeal when the construction of the Constitution of the United States, or when the validity or construction of a treaty made by the United States, is the sole question involved. 5 It seems that where such a question is 15 Hayes v. Leton, 5 Fed JR. 521. 6a v. Bank (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R 517. § 238. 1 26 St. at L. 826; 31 St. at L. But see Carson v. Combe (C. C. A.), 660. As to bond pending appeal, see 86 Fed. R 202; Lake Street El. R Cotting v. Kansas City S. Y. Co., 82 Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. (C. G. Fed. R 850. A), 77 Fed. R 769. 2 Kirwan v. Murphy, 170 U. S. 205. 5 Westerly v. Westerly Water »In re Tampa S. R. Co., 168 U. S. Works, 76 Fed. R 467; s. c, 22 C. C. 583. A. 278; Mayor, etc. of Macon v. Ga. « In re Tampa S. R Co., 168 TT. S. P. Co. (C. C. A.), 60 Fed. R 781; Hast- S83 ; Lake Nat. Bank v. Wolf eborough ings v. Ames (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R 512 INJUNCTIONS. [§ 238. combined with other questions of a different character, a Cir- cuit Court of Appeals may, if the constitutional or treaty ques- tion is controlling, decline to take jurisdiction of the appeal, or may certify the constitutional or treaty question to the Supreme Court, and after that question is there decided proceed to judg- ment upon the appeal, or may decide the whole case in the first instance. 6 Under this act the Circuit Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction to review, not only orders granting preliminary injunctions, but also interlocutory decrees made after a hear- ing upon the merits which grant perpetual injunctions and refer the cases to a master to ascertain profits and damages. 7 It was held that a docket entry in a suit. to enjoin the infringement of a patent, " Opinion — decree for complainants," did not con- stitute a decree for an injunction, although the opinion filed directed that an injunction be granted; and that no appeal could be taken until a decree was entered. 8 The fact that the order or decree which grants an injunction also gives other relief, which, if granted alone, could not be reviewed until the final decree, does not prevent a review of the entire order. 9 The Circuit Court of Appeals can then reverse the whole order and dismiss the bill or grant such other final relief upon the merits as the case before it may justify. 10 Such final disposi- tion of the case will not, however, ordinarily be made where the evidence has not been taken by deposition, unless the plead- ings or the undisputed facts show that there can either be no right to relief or no defense to the bill. 11 But where, before 726; Central Tr. Co. v. Citizens' St. 9 In re Tampa a E. Co., 168 U. S. Ry. Co., 82 Fed. R 1; Indianapolis v. 583; Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, Central Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. K. 165 U. S. 518. 529; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Adams 10 Ibid. (C. C. A), 93 Fed. R 852. "Highland Ave. & B. R Co. v. « Carter v. Roberts, 177 TJ. S. 496, Columbian Eq. Co., 168 U. S. 627; 500; Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Lake Nat. Bank v. Wolfeborough Thiebard, 177 U. S. 615-620; Pike's. Sav. Bank (C. C. A), 78 Fed. R. 517; P. P. Co. v. Colorado Springs (C. C. U. S. Rubber Co. v. Am. O. L. Co. A.), 105 Fed. R 1, 7. (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. R 248. But see 1 Lockwood v. Wickes (C. C. A), 75 Fidelity L T. & S. D. Co. v. Dixon Fed. R. 118; Raymond v. Royal B. P. (C. C. A.), 78 Fed. R 205. Upon such Co. (C. C. A), 76 Fed. R 465. But an appeal the discretion of the court see Standard EL Co. v. Crane El. Co. below may be reviewed. Charles E. (C. C. A), 76 Fed. R 767. Hires Co. v. Consumers' Co. (C. C. A.), »Herrick v. Cutcheon (C. C. A.), 100 Fed. R 809. 55 Fed. R 6; S. a, 5 C. C. A 21. § 238.] APPEALS FROM INJUNCTION ORDERS. 513 the act authorizing appeals from orders appointing receivers, an order appointed a receiver and contained no other injunc- tion than the usual mandate that the defendant, its officers, agents and employees deliver to him the property in their hands, it was held that it was not appealable. 12 An order va- cating the appointment of a receiver and staying all further proceedings in the suit in which the receiver was appointed was held to be an injunction order and appealable. 13 No ap- peal can be taken from an interlocutory order or decree which denies or which dissolves an injunction. 14 i2Bissell C. a Co. v. Goshen S. Co. v. Melsing (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R 775; (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. E 545; Marden v. In re McKenzie, 180 U. S. 536. Campbell Pr. & Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), "Columbia Wire Co. v. Boyce (C. 67 Fed. E. 809. C. A.), 104 Fed. E 172; Omaha & S. » Baker v. Walter Baker & Co. (C. W. E Co. v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. C. A.), 83 Fed. R 3. See Tornanses Ey. Co. (a C. A.), 106 Fed. R 586. S3 CHAPTEE XVII. EECEIVEES. § 239. Definition of receiver. — A receiver is an officer ap- pointed by a court of equity to assume the custody of prop- erty pending litigation concerning the same. The effect of the appointment of a receiver is to put the property inhis cus- tody as an officer of the court, for the benefit of the party ulti- mately proved to be entitled, but not to change the title or even the right of possession to the property. 1 In England the term is usually applied only to those appointed to receive the rents and profits of land and to get in outstanding property ; and one selected to carry on or superintend a trade or busi- ness is usually denominated " a manager," or " a receiver and manager." 2 But in the United States both classes of officers are called receivers. The Revised Statutes authorize the Comp- troller of the Currency to appoint in certain cases a receiver of a national banking association, whose powers and duties are in many respects analogous to those of a receiver appointed by a court of equity. 3 But, as the learning upon this subject does not concern the practice of courts of equity, it will not be considered here. § 240. When receivers will be appointed. — A receiver may be appointed to provide for the safety of property pending liti- gation to determine the title to the same ; to preserve property in danger of being dissipated or destroyed by those having the legal title to its possession; to preserve the property of infants during their minority, when they have no guardian and their parents are dead or unfit to be trusted with it; to preserve the property of idiots and lunatics when it is impossible to obtain a proper person as committee; and when the appointment is authorized by statute. 1 A receiver may be appointed to pro- vide for the safety of property pending litigation to determine § 239. 1 Union Bank v. Kansas C. 216; 24 St. at L., oh. 28, p. 8; Price Bank, 136 IT. S. 223, 236. v. Abbott, 17 Fed. R. 506; supra, 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 2006. § 15; infra, g§ 240, 330. s See IT. S. R. S., §§ 5234-5237; 19 § 240. i Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. St. at L. 63; 1st Supp. IT. S. R. S. ed.), 3. § 240.] WHEIST EEOEIVEES WILL BE APPOINTED. 515 the title to the same, whether the litigation is in a court of equity, 2 of probate, 3 of bankruptcy, 4 in a foreign court, 8 or some- times, though very rarely, in a court of law. 6 The most usual cases where a receiver is appointed are, suits in equity to ob- tain equitable assets, for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and for the dissolution or winding up of the affairs of a partnership. It was the English rule that a receiver could not be appointed at the suit of a first mortgagee, since he had it in his power to take possession himself. 7 In this country, however, receivers are frequently appointed in such a case. 8 Ordinarily, a receiver of the effects of a partnership will not be appointed unless the bill prays a dissolution and shows a proper case for the same. 9 But where suits have been instituted to compel partners to act according to the provisions of instruments into which they have entered, the court will take care that the decree shall not be defeated by anything to be done in the mean time, and may appoint a receiver to protect the property. 10 Receivers may be appointed to preserve property in danger of being dissipated or destroyed by those having the legal title to its possession, at the suit of beneficiaries, legatees, next of kin, or creditors, where a trustee, 11 executor, 12 or administrator 13 is in- 2 Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 7 Berney v. Sewell, 1 J. & W. 647. Swanst. 108; Curling v. Marquis 8 See, for example, Stanton v. Ala- Townshend, 19 Ves. 628. But see bama & C. a Co., 2 Woods, 506; Moore v. Bank of Br. Columbia, 106 Allen v. D. & W. R. Co., 3 Woods, Fed. R 574. 316, 326. 3 King v. King, 6 Ves. 172; Matter 9 Goodman v. Whitoomb, U. & W. of Colvin, 3 Md. Ch. Dec. 279; Rob- 589; Oliver v. Hamilton, 2 Anst. 453; inson v. Taylor, 42 Fed. R 803; Kerr Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1966, on Eeceivers (2d Am. ed.), 28-37. 1967; Kerr on Eeceivers (2d Am. ed.), * Sedgwick v. Place, 3 N. B. E. 35; 93. Alabama & C. E Co. v. Jones, 5 N. 1° Daniell's Ch. Pr.(2d Am.ed.) 1967; B. E. 97; Keenan v. Shannon, 9 N. B. Const v. Harris, T. & E 496. R 441. See 30 St. at L. 544, 546, n Hagenbeck v. Hageribeck Z. A. § 2. Co., 59 Fed. E. 14; McCosker v. Brady, 5 Transatlantic Co. v. Pietroni, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 329; Brodie v. Johns. 604. Barry, 3 Meriv. 695; Janeway v. 6 Talbott v. Scott, 4 K & J.,96; Fin- Green, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 215, note, gal v. Blake, 8 Molloy, 50; Whitney ■ ^utterson v. Mair, 2 Ves. Jr. 95; v. Buckman, 26 Cal. 447; Horton v. Scott v. Becher, 4 Price, 346. But White, 84 N. C. 297; Jeffreys v. see Gladdon v. Stoneman, 1 Madd. Smith, 1 J. & W. 298; Robinson 143, n.; Langley v. Hawk, 5 Madd- v. Taylor, 42 Fed. E. 803. But see 46; Kerr on Eeceivers (2d Am. ed.),20. Tornanses v. Melsing (C. C. A.), 106 13 Hervey v. Fitzpatrick, Kay, 421; Fed. R 775. Ware v. Ware, 42 Ga. 408. 516 EECEIVEES. [§ 240. solvent and has not given bonds, or is guilty of misconduct ; or "where two trustees or executors disagree so that it is impossible for them to act together; 14 and at the suit of remainder-men, where the holder of the particular estate is guilty of voluntary or permissive waste, 15 or improperly refuses to renew lease- holds. 16 In the case of trustees, the court will thus interfere whether the trust is express or implied." A receiver may be appointed over the property of an infant, 18 when the latter has no guardian, or his guardian is insolvent or has been guilty of misconduct, 19 and has no parents, or his parents are unfit to be intrusted with the care of his estate. 20 Receivers may be ap- pointed over the property of idiots and lunatics, when no per- son can be found disposed to act as committee; 21 or, it seems, when the committee is infirm, or the management of the estate is very onerous, or the committee lives far from the estate. 22 The statutes of the several States authorize the appointment of receivers in numerous cases, especially in providing for the dissolution of corporations. In so far as State statutes au- thorize the appointment of receivers, they will be followed by the Federal courts, provided at least that they do not deprive a party of a trial by jury to which he would have been entitled at common law; and the Federal courts will also observe the statutory conditions required for such appointments, but not the State practice. 23 State statutes forbidding the appointment of receivers or the taking of possession by a mortgagee in cer- tain cases will not be followed by the Federal courts. 24 The "Ball v. Tompkins, 41 Fed E. 486. "Ex parte Warren, 10 Ves. 622; is Vose v. Reed, 1 Woods, 647, 650. Anon., 1 Atk. 578 ; Ex parte Radcliff e, 16 Bennett v. Colley, 2M.&K 225; J. & W. 639; Kerr on Receivers (2d s. C 5 Sim. 181, 192; Lord Montford Am. ed.), 113, 114. v. Lord Cadogan, 17 Ves. 4S5. 2i Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), i' Pritchard v. Fleetwood, 1 Meriv. 113, 114, citing Re Birch, Shelf, on 54; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) Lun. 146; Re Seaman, Shelf, on Lun. 1724. , r 146. is Hicks v. Hicks, 3 Atk. 277 ; Union a3 Bates v. International Co. of Mex- Tr. Co. v. ia M. R Co., 117 U. S. 434; ico, 84 Fed. R. 518; Flash v, Wil- Sage v. M. & L. R. Co., 125 U. S. 361;' kerson, 22 Fed. R. 689; Fechheimer Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 16-18. v. Baum, 37 Fed. R. 167; Tomlinson is Pitcher v. Helliar, Dick. 580; & W. Mfg. Co. v. Shatto, 34 Fed. R. High on Receivers, §g 725-733. 380; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 219, 20 Butler v. Freeman, Amb. 301; 220; supra, § 7. Kiffin v. Kiffin, cited in 1 P. Wms. 24 American Nat. Bank v. North- 705; Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), western M. L Co., 89 Fed. R. 610; 16-18. supra, § 6. § 240.] WHEN BECEIVERS WILL BE APPOINTED. 517 statutes of the United States authorize the appointment of a receiver of a national bank by the Comptroller of the Currency in certain specified cases. 25 Until the Comptroller has acted, a court of the United States may appoint a receiver of the assets of such a corporation. 26 After the appointment by the Comp- troller of such a receiver, it is doubtful whether a court of the United States would appoint another; and after the appoint- ment of a receiver by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is doubtful whether the Comptroller of the Currency could thus interfere. 27 Independently of statutory authority, a court of equity will ordinarily appoint a receiver of the property of a corporation in only eight classes of cases : firstly, at the suit of mortgagees 28 or other holders of liens upon it ; 29 secondly, at the suit of judgment creditors seeking equitable assets after executions have been returned unsatisfied, and the return shows that there is no corporate property upon which a levy can be made; 80 thirdly, at the suit of persons interested in the property, whether as stockholders 31 or creditors, even creditors without judgments or liens, 32 where there is a breach of duty by the directors, and 25 U. S. R S., §§ 5141, 5191, 5195, «i Evans v. Coventry, 5 De G, M. & 5201, 5205, 5234, 5235, 5236; Laws of G. 911; Powers v. Blue Grass B. & L. 1876, ch. 156 (19 St. at L., p. 63); 1st Ass'n, 86 Fed. R 705. But see Ed- Supp. U. 8. E. a, p. 216; supra, § 15; wards v. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Fed. R infra, §§ 240, 330. 942; Hunt v. American Grocery Co., as Wright v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 80 Fed. R 70; Becker v. Hoke, 80 1 Flippin, 568; Irons v. Mfrs. Nat. Fed. R. 973; Texas C.C.& Mfg. Ass'n Bank, 6 Biss. 301. v. Storrow, 92 Fed. R. 5; Ranger v. 27 Harvey v. Lord, 10 Fed. R. 236. Champion C. P. Co., 52 Fed. R 609. 28 Milwaukee & M. R Co. v. Soutter, »2 s age v . Memphis & L. R. R Co., 2 Wall. 510; Mercantile Tr. Co. v. 125 U. S. 361; Consolidated T. L. Co. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 36 Fed. R v. Kansas C. V. Co., 43 Fed. R. 204; 221. But see Trust & D. Co. of Onon- Doe v. Northwestern C. & T. Co., 64 daga v. Spartanburg Water Works, Fed. R. 928; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. 91 Fed. R 324. Chattanooga C. Co., 53 Fed. R 314. 39 D. A. Tompkins Co. v. Catawba Contra, Leary v. Columbia R & S. S. Mills, 82 Fed. R 780, 783. Nav. Co., 82 Fed. R 775; Texas C. C. ao Covington D. Co. v. Shepherd, 21 & Mfg. Ass'n v. Storrow (C. C. A.), 92 How. 112; Shainwald v. Lewis, 6 Fed. R 5; Syers v. Brighton Br. Co., Fed. R 166, 775; Buckeye E. Co. v. 11 L. T. (N. S.) 560; Mills v. Northern Donau Br. Co., 47 Fed. R 6. See Ry. of B. A. Co., 23 L T. (N. S.) 719. Brown v. Lake S. L Co., 134 U. S. 530, See Pennsylvania Co. for Insurance, 534; Sage v. Memphis & L. R R. Co., etc. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. 125 U. S. 361. Co. (C. C. A.), 55 Fed. R 131. That 518 BECEIVEKS. [§ 240. an actual or threatened damage of a serious nature ; fourthly, where a corporation has been dissolved and has no officer to attend to its affairs ; 33 fifthly, where for a long time the corpo- ration has ceased to transact business and its officers have ceased to act; 34 sixthly, where the governing body is so di- vided and engaged in such mutual contentions that its mem- bers cannot act together; 35 seventhly, at the suit of unsecured creditors, where the corporation makes no defense and waives its right to require the complainants to reduce their claims to judgment, upon proof that the corporation is insolvent, that unless the court interferes its business will be interrupted by the levy of judgments and executions, and that the continuance of such business is necessary for the convenience of the public, or possibly when such interruption will greatly depreciate the value of its assets ; 36 and eighthly, in a few cases receivers have been appointed at the application of the corporations them- selves, made before default in the payment of mortgage inter- est, where it was for the interest of the public that the corporate business, the operation of a railroad, should be continued with- out interruption, it was hopelessly insolvent, and there was danger of attempts by creditors to gain preference by attach- ments or otherwise in such a manner as would have stopped the operation of the railroad. 37 lienholders have a right to a receiver For an extraordinary case, where in such a case is held in Farmers' L. a receiver was appointed because of & Tr. Co. v. Winona & Str. Ry. Co., a dispute with one stockholder, see 59 Fed. E. 957. SeeHerrick v. Grand Arents v. Blacksvell's D. T. Co., 107 Trunk Ry. Co., 7 Upper Can. 240. Fed. R. 338. as The Late Corporation of the 36s ee Hollins v. Brierfleld C. & L Church of J. C. of L. D. S. v. U. S., Co., 150 U. S. 371; Sage v. Memphis 130 U. S. 1; Lawrence v. Greenwich St. R. Co., 125 U. S. 361 ; .Consolidated F. Ins. Co., 1 Paige (N. Y.), 587. See T. Co., v. Kansas C. T. Co., 43 Fed. R. also Hamilton v. Accessory T. Co., 26 204; Doe v. Northwestern C. & T. Co., Barb. (N. Y.) 46; Murray v. Vander- 64 Fed. R 928; Merchants' Nat. Bank bilt, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 140. v. Chattanooga C. Co., 53 Fed. R. 314; s* Warren v. Fake, 49 How. Pr. Park v. N. Y, L E. & W. R. Co., 70 (N. Y.) 430. Fed. R. 641; Enos v. N. Y. & O. R 35 Featherstone v. Cooke, L. R 16 Co., 103 Fed. R 47. But see Leary v. Eq. 298; Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Vick- Columbia & P. S. Nav. Co., 82 Fed. R. ers, L. R. 16 Eq. 303; D. A. Tompkins 775; Texas C. C. & Mfg. Co. v. Stor- Co. v. Catawba Mills, 82 Fed. R 780. row (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R 5. For the appointment of a receiver 37 Wabash, St. L & P. Ry. Co. v. because of a controversy between Central Tr. Co., 22 Fed. R 138; s. C, bondholders, see Benedict v. St. Jo- 22 Fed. R. 272; s. C, 22 Fed. R 513, seph & W. R. Co., 19 Fed. R. 173. 515; Brassey v. N. Y. & N. E. R Co., § 240.] "WHEN BEOEIVERS WILL BE APPOINTED. 519 A court has no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of the prop- erty of a corporation or other person not a party to the suit. 38 It is doubtful whether the receiver of a corporation can be ap- pointed by a Federal court at the suit of a shareholder whose shares are not worth more than $2,000. 89 A court of equity will often appoint a receiver of a railroad in a suit for the fore- closure of a mortgage containing a clause pledging its tolls and income, when it would not do so if no suoh clause were in- cluded in the mortgage. 40 Usually a receiver will not be appointed at the suit of subse- quent lienors over property of which a mortgagee is in posses- sion ; but an injunction may be issued to prevent the mortgagor from applying the rents and profits to any other purpose than the satisfaction of the mortgage. 41 It has been held that an assignment made by a corporation for the benefit of creditors after the filing of a bill for the appointment of a receiver will not deprive the court of jurisdiction to appoint a receiver. 42 "When a railroad is in the hands of receivers pending a fore- closure suit, the court may extend the receivership over a por- tion of the road for the benefit of an intervenor claiming a prior lien thereupon. 43 "Where a receiver has been appointed at the suit of a judgment or other creditor, his suit may be con- solidated with a subsequent foreclosure suit, and the receiver- ship extended for the benefit of the mortgagee. 44 "Where a receiver was appointed at the suit of a creditor, with the requi- site difference of citizenship, the mortgagee has been allowed to intervene, file a cross-bill to foreclose the mortgage and take the benefit of the receivership, although the mortgagor and 19 Fed. R. 663. Contra, Hugh v. Mo- on its property are not to be meas- Rae, Chase, 466. As to receiverships ured by the same rules as are applied of foreign corporations, see Leary v. to an ordinary mortgage on a farm Columbia R & P. S. Nav. Co. (C, C. or house and lot, to secure one or two A.), 82 Fed. R. 776; Republican M. notes held by one mortgagee." Allen Silver Mines v. Brown (C. C. A), 58 v. D. & W. R Co., 3 Woods, 316, 326, Fed. R. 644; infra, § 242. per Woods, J. 88 Hook v. Bosworth. 64 Fed. R. 443. « U. S. v. Marich, 44 Fed. R 19. "Robinson v. West Va. L. Co., 90 « Belmont Nail Co. v. Columbia L Fed. R 770. Contra, Towle v. Ameri- & S. Co., 46 Fed. R. 8. can B. L. & Inv. Soc, 60 Fed. R 131. « Mercantile T. Co. v. Ma, K. & T. "Tysen v. Wabash R Co., 8 Biss. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R 8, 9. 247. " The rights of holders of nego- u Lloyd v. Chesapeake, C. & S. W. tiable bonds issued by a railroad R Co., 65 Fed. R. 351. company and secured by a mortgage 520 RECEIVERS. [§ 24:1. mortgagee were citizens of the same State. 45 "Where a receiver had been appointed over the property of a corporation which controlled a railroad company through the ownership of a majority of its stock, it was held that he should surrender pos- session to a receiver of the latter corporation subsequently ap- pointed by a State court. 46 Upon an interlocutory application, in a suit to enjoin the infringement of a patent by an insolvent defendant, a Circuit Court appointed a receiver of the profits made by such in- fringement. 47 It has been held that a receiver will not be appointed to assist a trust formed to maintain a monopoly, or otherwise to aid in the prosecution of an enterprise against public policy. 48 § 241. Rules regulating the appointment of receivers. — It has been said that, in order to obtain the appointment of a receiver, the moving party must show, first, either that he has a clear right to the property itself, or that he has some lien upon it, or that the property constitutes a special fund to which he has a right to resort for the satisfaction of his claim; and, secondly, that the possession of the property by the defendant was obtained by fraud ; or that the property itself, or the in- come arising from it, is in danger of loss from the neglect, waste, misconduct, or insolvency of the defendant. 1 The ap- pointment of a receiver is always in the discretion 2 of the court, which, however, must be exercised with great circumspection, 3 and is subject to review by an appellate court. 4 It has been said, that' the appointment can be made only in accordance 45 Park v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R Co., should be some evidence of waste or 64 Fed. R. 190; a G, 70 Fed. R 641. mismanagement or carelessness or 46 Central R. & B. Co. v. Farmers' fraud or extravagance, wantonness L. & Tr. Co., 56 Fed. R 357. or collusion; some ground to appre- 47 Parkhurstv. Kinsman, 2 Blatohf. hend that the property will suffer 78. deterioration or serious in j ury ; some- 48 American B. & Mfg. Co. v. Klotz, thing to show that there is danger of 44 Fed. R. 721. probable loss, or that some rights may §241. i Chancellor Buckner in Mays be substantially impaired." Braw- v. Rose, Freeman's Ch. (Miss.) R 703, ley, J., in Tr. & D. Co. v. Spartanburg 718. See also Beecher v. Bininger, 7 Water-Works Co., 91 Fed. R. 324, 325. Blatchf. 170; Tysen v. Wabash R. 2 Owen v. Homan, 4 H. L. C. 997, Co., 8 Biss. 247. "Mere insolvency 1032. arising from no proved fault in the 8 Milwaukee & Minn. R Co. v. Sout- management of a private corporation ter, 2 WalL 521. is not a sufficient ground. There * Tysen v. WabashRCo.,8Biss.247. § 242.] ANCILLARY KEOEIVERS. 521 with the following rules: "1st. That the power of appointment is a delicate one, and to be exercised with great circumspection. 2d. That it must appear the claimant has a title to the prop- erty, and the court must be satisfied by affidavit that a receiver is necessary to preserve the property. 3d. That there is no case in which the court appoints a receiver merely because the measure can do no harm. 4th. That ' fraud or imminent dan- ger, if the intermediate possession should not be taken by the court, must be clearly proved ; ' and 5th. That unless the neces- sity be of the most stringent character, the court will not ap- point until the defendant is first heard in response to the appli- cation." 6 § 242. Ancillary receivers. — An ancillary receiver is a re- ceiver appointed in aid of a receiver appointed by another court. 1 When a receiver has been appointed by one Federal Circuit Court, the others through judicial comity will usually appoint the same person an ancillary receiver of so much of the same estate as is within their jurisdiction. 2 The usual practice is to make such an application ex parte; 3 but the court may require notice to be given to the persons interested in 5 Le Grand, C. J., in Blondheim v. and it is to be respected accordingly Moore, 11 Md. 365, 374 See Kelly v. in obedience to the constitutional Bettcher, 89 Fed. R 12S; infra, §252. provision whereby full faith and § 342. 1 Jennings v. Phil. & R. R. Co., credit is to be given in each State to 23 Fed. E. 569; Williams v. Hinter- the records and judicial proceedings meister, 26 Fed. E. 889. of every other State of the Union. 2 Jennings v. Phil. & R R Co., 23 But it is for the court to which the Fed. E. 569; Central Tr. Co. v.Wabash, application is made to decide what St. L. & P. Ey. Co., 29 Fed. E 618; Par- remedy it should extend in the par- sons v. Charter Oak L. Ins. Co., 31 ticular case and whether the proper Fed. E. 305; Shinney v. N. A. S., L. administration of the assets requires & Bld'g Ass'n, 97 Fed. E 9; Dillon v. the appointment of a receiver." Wal- Oregon, S. L. & IT. N. Ey. Co., 66 Fed. lace, J., in Sands v. E. S. Greeley & E 622. But see Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Co. (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. R 130, 132, 133. Kanawha & O. Ey. Co., 39 Fed. E 337; 3 That is said to be the rule in the Atkins v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ey. Co., First Circuit. Piatt v. Phil. & E. E 29 Fed. E 161. " When such an ap- Co., 54 Fed. E 569; Coe v. East & W. plication is.made, the court to which R Co. of Ala., 52 Fed. E 531. It has it is addressed exercises its own orig- frequently been done in the Second inal jurisdiction. The decree in the Circuit. Buchanan v. Bay State Gas court of the domicile of the corpora- Co., October 16, 1896. In the same tion is evidence in every other State case ancillary receivers were thus ap- that the corporation is insolvent and pointed exparte in the Circuit Courts that a proper case exists in that State of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and for the appointment of a receiver, Massachusetts. 522 EECEITEBS. [§■ 242. opposition. 4 In such a case, the appointment may be vacated after hearing parties interested. 5 The better practice is to move in a new suit instituted by the plaintiff to the bill upon which the original receiver was appointed, or by some other creditor claiming a right to share in the property of which a receiver is desired. 8 It seems that an appearance and a waiver of an objection to the jurisdiction because of non-residence may be made in the name of a defendant corporation by the receiver appointed in the State of its incorporation. 7 It seems that the application should not be made by the receiver who wishes the ancillary appointment ; 8 nor in a summary applica- tion where no bill has been filed ; 9 nor upon a bill which does not show the difference of citizenship or Federal question that would be essential to the jurisdiction for an original appoint- ment. The ancillary appointment depends upon the comity of the court that has jurisdiction of the assets sought to be im- pounded ; I0 and it may refuse to give the original receiver an ancillary appointment ; u and after such an appointment it may remove him. 12 Upon an ancillary receivership the court that had original jurisdiction, which, in the case of a railroad com- pany chartered by the United States, extending through sev- eral districts, should be that where the principal operating offices are situated and there is some material part of the rail- road, is considered as the court of primary jurisdiction and of 4 See Greene v. Star C. & P. Car L. & Tr. Co. v. No. Pao. R Co., 72 Fed. Co., 99 Fed. R 656. B. 26, which intimates that the an- 5 ibid. ciliary appointment of the same 6 See In re Brant, 96 Fed. R. 257. receiver should be made in the case 1 That was done in all the courts in of a railroad extending through sev- the case of Buchanan v. Bay State eral districts. Gas Co., supra, note 3. See infra, u Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Kanawha & §§ 245, 249. i O. Ry. Co., 39 Fed. R 337; Greene v. 8 In re Brant, 96 Fed. R. 257; Greene Star C. & P. Car Co., 99 Fed. R 656. v. Star C. & P. Car Co., 99 Fed. R 656. But see Farmers' Loan & Tr. Co. v. 9 In re Brant, 96 Fed. R. 257. No. Pac. R Co., 72 Fed. R 26. io Central Tr. Co. v. Texas & St. L. vi Atkins v. Wabash, St L. & P. Ry. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R 135; Mercantile Co.. 29 Fed. R. 161; Greene v. Star C. Tr. Co. v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co., 39 & P. Car Co., 99 Fed. R 656; Farmers' Fed. R. 337; Atkins v. Wabash, St. L. L. & Tr. Co. v. No. Pac. R Co., 69 Fed. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R. 161; Kirker R 871. But see Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. O wings (C. C. A.), 98 Fed. R 499; v. No. Pac. R Co., 69 Fed. R 871, 72 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. No. Pac. R. Fed. R 26; Chattanooga T. Ry. Co. v. Co., 69 Fed. R 871. But see Farmers' Felton, 69 Fed. R 273. § 242.] ANCILLARY EECEIVEES. 523 principal decree; and proceedings in the other courts are usu- ally considered as ancillary and subordinate thereto. 13 The accounting of the receiver is usually first instituted in the court where he was first appointed. 14 Local creditors, without liens or other security, have no absolute right to assets in the hands of the ancillary receiver prior to that of creditors in the other districts ; ,s and the ancillary court may order the transmission of all the proceeds of the assets to the court of primary juris- diction and require unsecured local creditors to present their claims for adjudication there. 16 The proceedings in the courts of ancillary administration are not binding upon that of orig- inal jurisdiction; 17 except to the extent to which they affect assets within the territorial jurisdiction of the former courts. A judgment against an ancillary receiver is not binding upon the court of primary jurisdiction. 18 The courts of ancillary' administration have the power to retain the assets which they collect and to distribute them independently. 19 They usually « Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. No. Pao. R Co., 72 Fed. R 26, 31. For a case of a difference between the adminis- tration in two districts of the same circuit where the circuit judge re- fused to interfere, see Central Tr. Co. v. Texas & St. L. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R 135. "Jennings v. Phila. & R R. Co., 23 Fed. R 569. To that court also was left the determination of the pro- priety of continuing a traffic agree- ment operating in two or more States, Ames v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 60 Fed. R. 966; and in one case even the propriety of excepting from the receivership assets within the ancil- lary jurisdiction. Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Baltimore & O. Ry. Co., 79 Fed. R 388. is Sands v. E. S. Greeley & Co. (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. R. 130; Smith v. Tag- gart (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R 94; Parsons v. Charter Oak L. L Co., 31 Fed. R 305. But see Taylor v. Life Ass'n of A, 3 Fed. R 465; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. No. Pac. R Co., 72 Fed. R 26, 81; Kirker v. O wings (C. C. A), 98 Fed. R 499; Johnson v. Southern B. & L. Ass'n, 99 Fed. R 646. It has been held that the ancillary receiver cannot be sued for a tort of the principal receiver. Union Tr. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R Co., 87 Fed. R.530. 16 Ibid.; Jennings v. Phila. & R R Co., 23 Fed. R 569. For cases where foreign receivers have been allowed to collect domestic assets without ancillary appointments, see Farley v. Talbee, 55 Fed. R 892; supra, § 34; infra, § 249. "Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254. 272. 18 Ibid. "Eirker v. Owings (C. C. A.), 98 Fed. R 499; Sands v. E. S. Greeley & Co. (C. C. A), 88 Fed. R 130; Miles v. New So. B. & L. Ass'n, 99 Fed. R 4; N. Y. Security & Tr. Co. v. Equi- table Mtge. Co., 71 Fed. R 556. Where the courts of primary jurisdiction exacted a stipulation from the re- ceiver as to his conduct in a suit in the ancillary jurisdiction, the court there enforced observance of such stipulation. "Wheeling, B. & St T. Ry. Co. v. Cochran, 85 Fed. R 500. 524 BECEIVEES. [§ 243. apply them to the discharge of local liens, 20 the expenses of the ancillary receivership and to the payment of claims arising out of his management of the property before transmitting any funds to the court of primary jurisdiction. 21 An ancillary re- ceiver is not justified in sending the assets to the court of orig- inal jurisdiction without the permission of the ancillary court ; and he may be held personally responsible for such conduct. 22 § 243. Terms npon the appointment of receivers, and preferences in foreclosure suits. — As the appointment of a receiver is in its discretion, the court may impose terms upon the party applying for it. Thus, it may insist as a condition precedent to appointing a receiver to manage a colliery that the moving party advance the funds necessary to continue the business. 1 So a party or person interested in a suit was in England rarely appointed receiver unless he agreed to act with- out compensation. 2 By analogy to this rule of practice, the Supreme Court of the United States first sustained the princi- ple granting preferences to certain classes of unsecured cred- itors upon the foreclosure of railroad mortgages. 8 It is the 20 Fletcher v. Harney P. T. M. Co., 84 Fed. R. 555, where the court of primary jurisdiction expressed its views as to the proper action of the court of ancillary jurisdiction upon claims for taxes. Clyde v. Richmond & D. R Co., 65 Fed. R. 336; Central Tr. Co. v. East Tenn., V. & G. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. R 658. The court of pri- mary jurisdiction remitted to the ancillary court the determination of the priority of receiver's certificates issued by the latter. Doe v. N. W. Coal & Transp. Co., 78 Fed. R 63. 21 Kirker v. Owings (C. C. A.), 98 Fed. R 499. 22 Ibid. §243. 1 Gibbs v. David, L. R. 20 Eq. 373. 2 Wilson v. Greenwood, 1 Swanst. 471. • Waite, C. J., in Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235, 251, 252. See also Tur- ner v. Ind., B. & W. Ry. Co., 8 Biss. 815. This is said to depend upon the principle that he who seeks equity must do equity. Waite, C. J., in Fosdick v. Schall, 99 D". S. 235, 253; Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Green Bay, W. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. R. 664, 666, 667. " The doctrine is analogous to that of the admiralty allowing certain supplies to a vessel prece- dence over a mortgage upon the ves- sel, and rests upon the same principle. The vessel must not be allowed to rot at the wharf. The railway must not be permitted to rust, and its franchise to be forfeited, through failure to operate. Such things, therefore, that are done to avoid such result, working destruction to the mortgage, should be compen- sated in priority to the mortgage." So Caldwell, J., in Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Kansas City, W. & N. W. R. Co., 53 Fed. R. 182, 190, 191. For criticisms of the practice, see Coe v. N. J. Midland Ry Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 37; Raht v. Attrill, 106 N. T. 423; Hollister v. Stewart, 111 N. Y. 644, 663. The doctrine originated in Ken- tucky.. Douglass v. Cline,. 12 Bush (Ky.), 613 (1876). § 243.] TEEMS UPON APPOINTMENT OF EECEIVEES. 525 better practice to provide for such, preferences as a condition in the order for the appointment of the receiver. 4 Even where no such order has been made when the receiver was appointed, if it appears at any time in the progress of the cause that bonded interest has been paid, additional equipment provided, or repairs of the property made out of its earnings during a short time before the default in interest, the court usually di- rects that such debts then incurred be paid out of the income of the receivership after the payment of the receiver's expenses in preference to the claims of creditors secured by a mortgage or other lien: 5 Although usually they are paid out of the net income of the receivers, in special cases, 6 especially where this 1 income has been used to pay for betterments or mortgage in- terest by a receiver appointed in the foreclosure suit, 7 or even by a receiver appointed in a prior suit to foreclose a junior lien, 8 or to preserve the property for other creditors or stock- holders; such claims have been ordered paid out of the pro- ceeds of the foreclosure sale before any payment on account of mortgage bonds ; and in some cases it has been made a con- * Central T. Co. v. St Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R 551. For forms of such orders, see Dow v. Memphis & L. R. Ry. Co., 20 Fed. R. 260, 266, 267; Central T. Co. v. St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R 551, 553, 554. 5 In Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235, 253, 254; Fosdick v. Car Co., 99 TJ. S. 256; Hale v. Frost, 99 IT. S. 389; Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 286, 308; Union T. Co. v. Souther, 107 U. S. 591; Union T. Co. v. Walker, 107 U. S. 596; Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776; Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. Ry. Co., 22 Fed. R. 471, 474, with a valuable note by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar; Porter v. Pittsburgh Bessemer S. Co., 120 U. S. 649; Virginia & A. Coal Co. v. Central R. & B. Co., 170 U. S. 355; Southern Ry. Co. v. Car- negie Steel Co., 176 U. S. 257; Doug- las v. Cline, 12 Bush (Ky.), 608. The rule is ordinarily otherwise when there was no diversion of the earn- ings from the payment of operat- ing expenses. Penn v. Calhoun, 121 U. S. 251; St. Louis, A. & T. H. R Co. v. Cleveland, C, C. & L Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 658; Wood v. Guar- antee T. & a D. Co., 128 U. & 416; Kneeland v. Am. L. & T. Co., 136 U. a 89; Lackawanna L & C. Co. v. Farmers' L & T. Co., 176 U. S. 298: U. S. Trust Co. v. N. Y. W. S. & B. R Co., 25 Fed. R 800; Finance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Charleston, C. & C. R Co., 52 Fed. R 524; Ruhlender v. Chesapeake, O. & S. W. R Co. (G C. A.), 91 Fed. R 5; Interna- tional T. Co. v. T. B. Townsend B. & C. Co. (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R 850. 6 Miltenberger v. Logansport, C. & S. W. R Co.,106 U. S. 286, 311, 312; Vir- ginia & A. Coal Co. v. Central R. & B. Co., 170 U. S. 355, 365-367; Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. R Co., 22 Fed. R 471, 475 ; Kneeland v. Bass F. & M. Works, 140 U. S. 592. "> Ibid. 8 Virginia & A. Coal Co. v. Central R & B. Co., 170 U. S. 355, 370. 526 EECEIVEKS. [§ 243. dition of the sale that the purchaser pay these claims in addi- tion to the nominal amount of his bid. 9 The doctrine has been extended so as to provide for preferences to those who have furnished supplies and performed labor, and to railroad compa- nies with connecting lines, who have claims for the settlement of ticket, freight and supply accounts, and to loans incurred within a short time before the receivership, irrespective of ■ whether there has been a diversion of income for the benefit of the mortgage bondholders. 10 The rule has been also applied to an application for a decree of strict foreclosure instead of a sale, whereupon the decree was granted saving the rights of intervenors who held claims which in the case of a receiver- ship would have been entitled to a preference. 11 The rule in- ■ eludes claims incurred by contracts made with a corporation to which was leased the railroad foreclosed, for the benefit of which the work was done, or which it had permitted to man- age and operate its railroad under color of a lease or by virtue of the ownership or control of a majority of its stock. 12 It 9 Southern Ry. Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co., 176 U. S. 357. 10 Virginia & A. Coal Co. v. Central R. Co., 170 U. S. 355, 365; Miltenber- ger v. Logansport,C. & S.W. R.Co.,106 U. S. 286, 311, 312: "It is easy to see that the payment of unpaid debts for operating expenses, accrued within ninety days, due by a railroad com- pany suddenly deprived of the con- trol of its property, due to operatives in its employ, whose cessation from work simultaneously is to be depre- cated, in the interests both of the property and of the public, and the payment of limited amounts due to other and connecting lines of road for materials and repair, and for un- paid ticket and freight balances, the outcome of indispensable business relations, where a stoppage of the continuance of such business rela- tions would be a probable result, in case of non-payment, the general consequence involving largely, also, the interests and accommodations of travel and traffic, may well place such payments in the category of payments to preserve the mortgaged property in a large sense, by main- taining the good will and integrity of the enterprise, and entitle them to be made a first lien." " Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776, 782, 783. Where the parties to a foreclosure suit waived a sale, and entered an order by consent leasing the property to another railroad and appointing a receiver of the rent, the court directed that all floating unse- cured creditors should be paid out of the rent before its application in dis- charge of the claims of the bond- holders. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Mo., I. & N. Ry. Co., 21 Fed. R. 264. 12 Virginia & A. Coal Co. v. Central R. R & B. Co., 170 U. S. 355; Clark v. Central R R. & B. Co., 66 Fed. R. 803. But see Felton v. Cincinnati (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R. 336. Such claims may also be given a preferred lien upon the whole property of the lessee or con- trolling company. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Hitchcock (C. C. A.), 91 Fed. R. § 243.] PEEFEBENCES IN F0EECL0STJEES. 527 must appear, however, in all cases, that the creditor allowed the debt to be incurred in the belief that it would be paid from the current earnings of the railroad, and that he did not rely solely upon the personal credit of the corporation with whom he made the contract, 13 and that the debt was one fairly to be regarded as part of the operating expenses of the railroad, in- curred in the ordinary course of business, and to be met out of current receipts. 14 Betterments, as distinguished from re- pairs, are less often allowed a preference. 15 In a proper case 209; Clyde v. Richmond & D. R Co., 56 Fed. R 539. 13 Southern Ry. Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co., 176 U. S. 357, 290; Lacka- wanna L & C. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 166 U. S. 290; Virginia & A. Coal Co. v. Central R R & B. Co., 170 U. S. 355, and cases cited. 14 Southern Ry. Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co., 176 U. S. 257, 296. 15 Lackawanna L & C. Co. v. Farm- ers' L. & Tr. Co., 176 U. S. 298; Am. L. & Tr. Co. v. B. & W. R Co., 46 Fed. R 101; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Stuttgart & A R Co., 92 Fed. R 246; Illinois Tr. & Sav. Bank v. Doud Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, by Thomas v. East Term., V. & G. 219, 220; Cowdrey v. Railroad Co., 1 Ry. Co., 60 Fed. R. 7. Woods, 331, 336. See Railroad Re- , 27 Jackson v. Jackson, 2 Hogan, 238. ceivers in Federal Courts, by Judge 28Daniell'sCh.Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1989. Caldwell.44Am.LawRev.161. Where 29 Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), an order appointing a receiver of a 210, 211. railroad company directed that "all 80 Dancer v. Hastings, 4 Bing. 2; the books, vouchers and papers touch- Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 211. ing the operation of the railroad," 81 Compare Montross v. Mabie, 30 and " all and every part of the prop- Fed. R 234, with Curran v. Craig, 22 erties, interest, effects, moneys, re- Fed. R 101. ceipts, earnings " of the railroad, 32 McCulloh v. Association Horlo- should be delivered to the receiver, gerie Suisse, 45 Fed. R. 479. held, that the order included the 83 South Carolina & G. R Co. v. company's seal and all records of its Carolina C. E. & C. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) past transactions and books relating 93 Fed. R. 543, 553. Where the board to its previous history. American of directors may assess the stock- Const. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. holders, the receiver may be em pow- W. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. R. 937. The re- 542 ' EECEIVEES. [§ 246. may be laid down as a general proposition,' that all outlays made by the receiver in good faith, in the ordinary course, with a view to advance and promote the business of the road, and to render it profitable and successful, are fairly within the line of discretion which is necessarily allowed to a receiver in- trusted with the management and operation of a railroad in his hands. His duties, and the discretion with which he is in- vested, are very different from those of a passive receiver, appointed merely to collect and hold moneys due on prior transactions, or rents accruing from houses and lands. And to such outlays in ordinary course may properly be referred, not only the keeping of the road, buildings, and rolling stock in repair, but also the providing of such additional accommoda- tions, stock, and instrumentalities as the necessities of the busi- ness may require, always referring to the court, or to the master appointed in that behalf, for advice and authority in any matter of importance, which may require a considerable outlay of money in lump; and except in extraordinary cases, the submission by the receiver of his accounts to the master at frequent intervals, whereby the latter may ascertain from time to time the character of the expenditures made, and disallow whatever may not meet with his approval, will be regarded as a sufficient reference to the court for its ratification of the re- ceiver's proceedings. In extraordinary cases, involving a large outlay of money, the receiver should always apply to the court in advance and obtain his authority for the purchase or im- provement proposed." 2 ceiver appointed in a suit to fore- court: " This rule, it will be observed, close a railway mortgage has no simply prescribes what expenditures, right to collect or retain moneys out of the fund in his hands as re- earned by the railroad before his ceiver, the court will recognize as appointment, although paid subse- legitimate and proper when the re- quently to such appointment; where ceiver comes to account for the ad- the mortgage contains a clause al- ministration of his trust, but nothing lowing the mortgagor to remain in here said gives the slightest support possession and collect and use its to the notion that the receiver may, revenues before default, and the re- in virtue of the power of his office, ceiver does not represent judgment make a contract, without the au- creditors. Hook v. Bosworth, 64 Fed. thority of the court, which will bind R. 443. 449. the trust, or which the court will be 2 Cowdrey v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, bound to recognize without regard 331, 336. This language has been to its necessity or propriety. A re- thus construed in a case in a State ceiver may, undoubtedly, appropri- § 246.] POWERS OF EECEIVEE3 OP EAILEOADS. 543 It has been held that the receiver is not obliged to obtain special authority from the court to make contracts for ordinary supplies or accommodations needed for the operation of the rail- road ; such as equipment, repairs, the use of the roundhouses and terminals, and the employment of an agent to solicit busi- ness; and that such contracts, although subject to review by the court, will not be set aside unless the charges are unreason- able, unusual, or extravagant.' The receiver is justified in paying such claims for the loss of freight upon proof by the affidavits of the shippers without any application to the court, where that is the usual course of business by railway and ex- press companies. 4 A loan to a receiver whom the court has not authorized to borrow money will be denied priority. 5 A receiver cannot make a permanent traffic agreement without the authority of the court. 6 It has been held that the court has power to authorize the receiver of a railroad company under proceedings for a foreclosure, to ratify a contract pre- viously made by the corporation giving a telegraph company certain privileges upon it's road ; and that the contract thus rati- fied will be binding upon purchasers of the railroad at a fore- closure sale ; 7 that such a receiver may be authorized to complete the construction of a line of railroad, and to borrow money for that purpose, 8 to purchase a lien upon part of its property, and ate moneys in his hands belonging * Central Tr. Co. v. Colorado Mid. to the trust to such purposes, con- By. Co., 89 Fed. R. 560, 564. nected with the trust, as he may 5 Union Tr. Co. v. 111. Mid. Ey. Co., think proper, always taking the risk 117 U. S. 434, 477. that the court will finally approve 6 Investment Co. of Phila. v. Ohio his action, but he has no authority to & N. W. Ey. Co., 4 Fed. E 378. bind the trust by contract without 7 W. U. Tel. Co. v. Atl. & Pac. Tel. the authority of the court. Until Co., 7 Biss. 367. his contracts are approved or ratified 8 Kennedy v. St. P. & P. Ey. Co., 2 by the court, the court is at liberty Dill. 448; infra, % 347. See also Smith to deal with them as to it shall ap- v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 25; Allen v. pear to be just, and may either D. & W. E Co., 3 Woods, 316. It modify them or disregard them en- has been held that ' a railroad re- tirely. This, in my judgment, is the ceiver may be authorized to pledge only safe rule which can be adopted." securities which are the property of Van Fleet, V. C, Lehigh Coal & Nav. the corporation as collateral for a Co. v. Central E. of N. J., 35 N. J. Eq. loan, and to incur liability for the 426, 429. To a similar effect is Union expenses of a scheme to refund the Tr.Co.v. 111. Mid. Ey. Co.. 117 U. S.434. corporate indebtedness. Clarke v. ' South Carolina v. Port Eoyal & Central E & B. Co., 54 Fed. E 556. A. Ey. Co., 89 Fed. R. 565, 573, 574, 544 RECEIYEKS. [§ 246. to assume a lease of a connecting railway, 9 even without notice to the mortgagee. 10 Without authority from the court a re- 9 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Burling- ton & S. W. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R 805. See also Central Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 34 Fed. R 359; Central Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R 863; Easton v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R 784. The rules which should regu- late a receivership of a consolidated railroad holding leased lines with separate mortgages upon the differ- ent branches, as well as a general mortgage upon the whole system, were thus stated in an opinion of Judge Brewer, delivered when de- nying an application by a receiver of such a system of railroads for leave to reject such leased roads as were unprofitable: "This Wabash road is composed of many subdivisions. While it is a single corporation to- day, yet into it have- passed many corporations and many separate rail- road properties. In administering such a consolidated property, the court must look at, not merely the interest of the mortgagee in this general mortgage, or of the mort- gagor as a single entity or corpora- tion, but also the separate and some- times conflicting interests of the various subdivisions and their re- spective incumbrances, and, back of all that, the duty which every rail- road corporation owes to the public. For underlying the rule which the Su- preme Court has laid down in respect to the payment, by receivers when they take possession of the railroad property, of prior unsecured debts re- cently accrued, runs the thought, as expressed by the Supreme Court, that a railroad corporation owes a duty to the public, which has given it its franchise and enabled it to construct its road,— the duty of operating that road for the benefit of the public, j While that may not be what you call an absolute duty, enforceable under all circumstances, it is still a duty to be regarded and enforced by the courts when they take possession of railroads through their officers. And that duty is not limited to the oper- ation of merely that particular frag- ment of a road which is pecuniarily profitable in its operations, but it ex- tends to the road as an entirety, and to all its branches, — all its parts; dif- fering in that particular from the duty which would rest upon the court if it had simply taken posses- sion of property Used for private pur- poses, manufacturing or otherwise, where the single question might well be said to be one of pecuniary profit. This Wabash road, as a system, was in operation, a going concern, from one end to the other; as. such, dis- charging its duties as best it could to its various creditors. This court, at the instance of the corporation, and to preserve the integrity of the sys- tem, took possession of it by its re- ceivers. It took possession of it as a going concern, and, so far as is rea- sonable and practicable, it should continue it as a going concern until it surrenders it to whoever may be the purchasers or future holders of it. With that preface, and calling these separate branches which have passed into this consolidated road, subdivisions, since some have passed in by way of lease and others by way of consolidation, subject to separate mortgages, we pass orders substan- tially as follows: The first is one which has already been entered, and we simply emphasize it by repeating it, that subdivisional accounts must be kept separately. That was an "Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R 8, 11, 12. § 247.] receiver's certificates. 545 ceiver of a railroad cannot lease offices for a term of four years. 11 Such authority is not included in the grant of power to make all contracts that may be necessary in carrying on the business of the railroad, 12 nor is the lease ratified by the approval of monthly accounts showing payment of rent under the lease. 13 § 247. Receiver's certificates.— Where it is absolutely nec : essary to raise money for the preservation of the property in his hands, a receiver may be empowered by the court to issue certificates which give their owners a lien upon the property order passed by Brother Treat at the very outset of this receivership, in order that the particular equities of each one of these divisions, as be- tween themselves, might be ascer- tained. 2. Where any subdivision earns a surplus over expenses, the rental or subdivisional interest will be paid to the extent of the surplus, and only to the extent of the surplus. Any part diversion of such surplus for general operating expenses will be made good at once, and, if need be, by the issue of receiver's certifi- cates. ... 3. Where a subdivis- ion earns no surplus, — simply pays operating expenses, — no rental or subdivisional interest will be paid. If the lessor or the subdivisional mortgagee desires possession or fore- closure, he may proceed at once to assert his rights. While the court ' will continue to operate such sub- division until some application be made, yet the right of a lessor or mortgagee whose rent or interest is unpaid to insist upon possession or foreclosure will be promptly recog- nized. That, it is true, may work a disruption of the system, as evi- denced by the movement just made in respect to this Cairo division; but the proceeding for disruption will come from the subdivisions. The court is not sloughing off branches, tearing the system in two; but the disruption, if it comes, will come from those who seek separation, and have a legal right so to da 4. Where 35 a subdivision not only earns no sur- plus, but fails to pay operating ex- penses, as in the St. Joseph & St. Louis branch, the operation of the subdivision will be continued, but the extent of that operation will be reduced with an unsparing though a discriminating hand; that is, if a subdivision does not earn operating expenses, and the receivers are run- ning two trains a day, then lop one of them off. If they are running one train a day, and still it does not pay, then run one train in two days. While the court will endeavor to keep that subdivision in operation, it will make the burden of it to the consolidated corporation, and to all the other interests put into that con- solidated corporation, a minimum." Treat, J., concurring, in Central Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R 863, 865-867. In the same case, Judge Woods subsequently re- jected a claim to a preference over the mortgage for rents accrued pend- ing a receivership, in a suit in which the mortgagee had been denied the extension of the receivership for his benefit. Central Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 46 Fed. R. 26. But see Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 81 Fed. R 254; supra, % 243, note 18. Of. infra, §751. 11 Chicago Deposit Vault Ry. Co. v. McNulta, 153 U. S. 554. 12 Ibid, w Ibid. 546 EECEIVEES. [§ 24T. prior to that held by any persons except those whose claims are paramount to the rights of the parties to the suit. 1 Such certificates are usually issued only in suits for the foreclosure of railroad or telegraph mortgages, or mortgages of other public corporations, in order to raise money for repairs, or to defray operating expenses, 2 or to discharge claims having an equitable preference to that of the party at whose instance the receiver was appointed, 3 or to restore to the rightful own- ers so much of the income as the receiver has improperly ap- plied to the foregoing purposes. 4 In a few cases, receivers have been authorized thus to borrow money in order to complete the construction of railroads, and save from forfeiture land grants and municipal subscriptions. 5 Certificates have been issued to pay interest upon a divisional mortgage prior to that to fore- close which the suit was brought." "Where the net earnings of a railroad are sufficient to defray current expenses, the court will not authorize the issue of receiver's certificates merely for the sake of paying interest upon the mortgage under foreclos- ure. 7 It has been said to be doubtful whether the court has § 247. 1 Meyer v. Johnston, 53 Ala. 237; Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734; Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146; Mil- tenberger v. Logansport Ey. Co., 106 U. S. 286; Stanton v. Ala. & C. Ry. Co., 2 Woods, 506; s. a, 31 Fed. E. 585; Kennedy v. St. Paul & P. E. Co., 2 DilL 448; Hoover v. Montolair & G. L. E. Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 4; Coe v. N. J. Mid. Ey. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 37; Union Tr. Co. v. Illinois Mid. Ey. Co., 117 U. S. 434. For a case where certain property was exempted from the lien, see Third St. & S. Ey. Co. v. Lewis, 79 Fed. R 196. Uerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734; Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146; Mil- tenberger v. Logansport Ey. Co., 106 U. S. 286. The issue of receiver's cer- tificates was authorized in the case of a land and irrigation company in order to pay taxes, but not to carry out contracts nor for operating ex- penses. Hanna v. State Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. E. 2. The power has been denied in the case of manufact- uring companies; Newton v. Eagle & P. Mfg. Co., 76 Fed. E. 418; Laugh- lin v. U. S. Boiling Stock Co., 64 Fed. E 25; but see Fidelity I. & §. Co. v. Shenandoah Iron Co., 42 Fed. E. 372; of a mining company. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Grape Creek Coal Co., 50 Fed. E 481 ; and of a building com- pany, Eaht v. Attrill, 106 N. Y. 423. ' Miltenberger v. Logansport Ey. Co., 106 U. S. 286; Taylor v. Phila. & R R Co., 7 Fed. R 377; Skiddy v. At- lantic, M. & O. R Co., 3 Hughes, 320. * Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. E. 863. 6 Kennedy v. St. Paul & P. E Co., 2 Dill. 448; Miltenberger v. Logans- port Ey. Co., 106 U. S. 286, 294, 295. See also Smith v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 25, 29. But see Investment Co. v. Ohio & N. W. R Co., 36 Fed. E. 48. See Credit Co. v. Arkansas Central R Co., 15 Fed. R. 446. « Skiddy v. Atlantic, Miss. & O. R. Co., 3 Hughes, 320, 341. 'Taylor v. Phila. & R E. Co., 9 Fed.R 1. § 247.] RECEIVES S CERTIFICATES. 547 the power to authorize a receiver to issue car-trust certificates secured by a lien upon the cars which are thus bought, and payable in ten annual instalments. 8 An order authorizing the issue of receiver's certificates to pay "wages and freights due and to become due " does not authorize the issue of a certificate to pay money advanced to pay wages by honoring " store orders." 9 The power of courts of equity to issue receiver's certificates is of modern origin, 10 has been severely criticised, 11 and should be exercised with great reluctance. 12 "Without leave from the court, a receiver has no power to pledge the trust estate, nor to make a. contract for a loan of money which will bind the estate, 13 or even bind the proposed lender. 14 An order for the issue of receiver's certificates is usually granted only upon notice to all parties in interest. 15 Those who have not received notice may move to set aside the order and to cancel the cer- tificates, if they act as soon as they learn what was done. 16 A very short delay after knowledge that such an order has been granted will estop a party from objecting to the validity of certificates issued in pursuance of it. 17 Receiver's certificates s Ibid. 9 Fidelity Ins. & S. D. Co. v. Shen- andoah I. Co., 42 Fed. R 372, 377. 10 The first case seem to have been Meyer v. Johnson (1875), 53 Ala. 237; Coe v. N. J. Mid. Ry. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 37; Hoover v. Montclair & G. L. Ey. Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 4; Jerome v. McCar- ter, 94 U. S. 734; Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146. " Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126, 138; Credit Co. v. Arkansas Cent. R Co., 15 Fed. E. 46. See The Court Management of Railroads by Hon. & D. Thompson, 27 Am. Law Eev. 481. 12 Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146, 183; Shaw v. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. 605, 612; Taylor v. Phila. & R R Co., 9 Fed. R. 1; Credit Co. of London v. Arkansas Cent. R Co., 15 Fed. R. 46; Street v. Md. Cent. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. R. 25. "Union Tr. Co. v. 111. Mid. Ry. Co., 117 U. S. 434; Cent. Tr. Co. v. Cincin- nati, J. & M. Ry. Co., 58 Fed. R 500. The court may ratify the loan after it has been made. Elk Fork O. & G. Co. v. Foster (C. C. A), 99 Fed. R 495; Ibid., 90 Fed. R. 767. "Smith v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 25, 29. is Ex parte Mitchell, 12 S. C. 83. But see Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 286, 297, 298. i«Hervey v. 111. Mid. Ry. Co., 28 Fed. R. 169. Cf. Central T. R. Co. v. Sheffield & B. C. L & Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R 526. 1 7 Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 286; Union Tr. Co. v. 111. Midland Ry. Co., 117 U. S. 434; Central Tr. Co. v. Marietta & N. G. R Co. (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R 193; s. C, 75 Fed. R. 209. It was held that notice of an application for receiver's cer- tificates given to a trustee of a mort- gage who was not a party to a suit did not make them, when issued, prior to his mortgage, Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Centralia & C. E. Co. (C. C. A), 96 Fed. R. 636; and that a bondhold- ers' committee empowered to act in 548 EECEIVEES. [§ 247. are assignable, but not negotiable. 18 It has been said that the power to issue them is a personal one which the receiver can- not delegate. 19 The holders of receiver's certificates are bound by all subsequent proceedings in the suit, whether or not the same affect their lien and with or without notice. 20 The purchaser at a judicial sale made subject to the payment of receiver's certificates cannot contest their validity. 21 A re- ceiver is personally responsible for a fraudulent statement in a matters requisite or necessary for the enforcement and protection of the legal rights of the holders of mort- gage bonds had no authority to con- sent in their behalf to the issue of re- , ceiver's certificates with a priority. over the mortgage, in order to pay claims not entitled to a preference. Ibid. is Union Tr. Co. of N. T. v. Chicago & L. H R Co., 7 Fed. R 513; Stanton v. Ala. & C. R. Co., 31 Fed. R. 585; Turner v. Peoria & S. R Co., 95 111. 134; Stanton v. Ala. & C. R Co., 2 Woods, 506; s. C, 31 Fed. R. 585; Central Nat. Bank v. Hazard, 30 Fed. R 484, A purchaser of receiver's certificates at par from the receiver without notice of any suspicious facts is not prejudiced by the appro- priation of the funds by the receiver for his own use. Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co., 50 Fed. R 874 Where a receiver issued a cer- tificate to a person named therein as payee, for negotiation and sale, and the latter never paid over any money on account of it, a purchaser of the certificate at much less than par, who was unable to prove that the person from whom he bought it had paid anything therefor to the person named as payee, was not allowed to receive anything from the receiver on account of the same. Union Tr. Co. v. Chicago & L. H. R Co., 7 Fed. R 513. See Stanton v. Ala. & C. R Co., 31 Fed. R 585; s. C, 2 Woods, 506. The court has power to pay out of the fund receivers' certificates in the hands of bona fide purchasers, although the receivership is dissolved and the bill dismissed. El. Supply Co. v. Put-in-Bay W. L. & Ry. Co., 84 Fed. R 740. 19 Union Tr. Co. v. Chicago & L. H. R. Co., 7 Fed. R 513. But see Ala. Iron & Ry. Co. v. Armiston L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A), 57 Fed. R 25. 20 Gordon v. Newman, 62 Fed. R. 686; Mercantile T. Co. v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co. (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R. 6. But see Sheffield & B. C. I. & Ry. Co. v. Newman (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R. 787. The order authorizing the issue of .receiver's certificates, although ex parte, remains in force till set aside; and is not revoked by a reference to determine all claims against the re- ceiver, and a confirmation of a re- port thereat making no mention of the certificates, when it appears that they were not presented or consid- ered at the reference, and that their holder had no notice of the ref erence. Mercantile T. Co. v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co., 50 Fed. R. 874. It has been said that a receiver's certificate pay- able out of the income is in the nat- ure of a call loan, and that the holder has the right to presume that the re- ceiver will notify him when the loan is to be collected or the money paid. Sage, J., in Mercantile T. Co. v. Ka- nawha & O. Ry. Co., 50 Fed. R 874, 878. 21 Central Nat. Bank v. Hazard, 30 Fed. R 484; Central T. Co. v. Shef- field & B. C. & L Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 526. § 248.] ADVICE TO RECEIVERS. 549 certificate which he issues. 22 In at least one case, the court ordered the receiver to execute a mortgage to secure the receiv- er's certificates. 23 But, ordinarily, the order for the issue of the certificates provides that they shall constitute a lien upon the property superior to all prior incumbrances, which is suffi- cient. 24 In one case the order simply stated that the certificates should be payable out of the income of the property, and " be provided for by this court in its final order in said cause, unless paid by the receiver out of the income of said road as afore- said." a Where the order provides that the certificates shall be a first lien on the property, the lien may be enforced by an independent suit, 26 or by a petition in the suit in which they were issued to the court which ordered their issue, 27 or to a court having territorial jurisdiction over a part of the railroad in an ancillary suit. 28 A receiver appointed in a suit for the fore- closure of a second railroad mortgage may be authorized to issue certificates constituting a prior lien to that of the first mortgage, provided the mortgagor is in default as to that, and the first mortgagee is a party to the suit. 29 An order authoriz- ing the issue of receiver's certificates is appealable. 30 A Federal court has no power to enjoin a receiver appointed by a State court from issuing certificates of indebtedness. 31 §248. Advice to receivers. — Eeceivers may apply to the court for instructions and advice, both generally and in par- ticular cases. 1 " If there are parties in interest, and they have their day in court, the advice may be decisive. But if the mat- ter is ex parte, the value of the advice depends largely upon the information and ability of the judge, and is probably binding only on the receivers, for the judge may change his mind on hearing full argument." 2 It has been said, that from the nat- 2 2 Bank of Montreal v. Thayer, 7 29 Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. Fed. R 622. Co., 106 U. S. 286. 23 Jerome v. MoCarter, 94 U.S. 734 . so Farmers' L. & T. Co., Petitioner, 2« For a good form of an order and 129 U. S. 296. a certificate, see Kennedy v. St. Paul 31 Eeinach v. Atlantio & G. W. R. & P. R. Co., 2 DM. 44a Co., 58 Fed. R 33. 25 Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. § 248. 1 Frank v. Denver & R G. Co., 106 IT. S. 286, 298. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R 757; Ex parte 2«Swann v. Clark, 110 U. S. 602. Koehler, 23 Fed. R 529; Mo. Pac. Ry. 27 Mercantile T. Co. v. Kanawha & Co. v. Tex. & P. Ry. Co., 31 Fed 1 . R 862. O. Ry. Co., 50 Fed. R 874 2 Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas & P. 28 ibid. Ry. Co., 31 Fed. R 862. 550 EECEIVEES. [§ 249. ure of things the court cannot determine how many trains a receiver shall run, 8 nor select his employees, 4 although it may regulate his treatment of them, 5 and his contracts with them, 6 and will listen to their complaints of unfair treatment by him. 7 The courts have, at the request of receivers, instructed them what rates to charge, 8 and directed them not to obey so much of a State statute as impaired the obligation of a con- tract, where the petition for instructions was filed a month before the act went into operation, 9 and advised a receiver whether he should pay a tax. 10 "When a railroad was in the hands of a receiver appointed in a suit to foreclose a mortgage, the court refused to entertain a petition by the mortgagee ask- ing for instructions as to the propriety of postponing a meet- ing of its stockholders, and for permission to postpone the meeting. 11 § 249, Litigation by receivers. — The causes of action which a receiver can enforce are of two kinds, — those which belonged to the estate of which he has charge before it was entrusted to him, and those which have accrued since his appointment. As has been said before, he cannot sue upon either without the leave of the court which appointed him. 1 A suit upon a cause of action which belonged to the estate before his appoint- ment is brought in the name of the legal owner of the estate ; 2 unless, as is not uncommon, the order authorizes the receiver to sue in his own name. 3 In the former case, the person whose 'Brewer, J., Treat, J., concurring, 'Continental Tr. Co. v. Toledo, St. in Central Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. L. & K. C. R Co., 59 Fed. R 514 & P. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R 863, 867. 8 Ex parte Koehler, 23 Fed. R 529. 4 Brewer, J., in Frank v. Denver & 9 Ibid. R. G. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R. 757, 764 "Ledoux v. La Bee, 83 Fed. R. 761. 5 Frank v. Denver & R. G. Ry. Co., » Taylor v. Phila. & R R Co., 7 23 Fed. R 757, 764; Waterhouse v. Fed. R 381. Comer, 55 Fed. R 149. § 249. i Wynne v. Lord Newbor- 6 Waterhouse v. Comer, 55 Fed. R ough, 1 Ves. Jr. 164; s. C 3 Brown, 149; Piatt v. Phila. & R R Co., 65 Fed. Ch. C. 88; Green v. Winter, 1 J. Ch. R 660. The court refused to permit (N. Y.) 60. receivers of a railroad to reduce the 2 Dick v. Struthers, 25 Fed. R 103; wages of the employees and change Dick v. Oil-Well S. Co., 25 Fed. R. 105; the terms of their employment with- Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1977, out notice to them. Ames v. Union 1991. Pac. Ry. Co., 60 Fed. R 674. A reduc- 3 Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203. See tion was allowed in U. S. Tr. Co. v. Frankle v. Jackson, 30 Fed. R. 398. Omaha & St. L. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. R. 737. § 249.] LITIGATION BY EECEIVEKS. 551 name is used is indemnified out of the fund for all costs to which he is thereby made liable. 4 Eeceivers of corporations are usually authorized to sue and defend in the name of the corporation. 5 Costs recovered against a receiver in an action brought' by him in his official capacity, are entitled upon the distribution of the fund to a priority over claims that existed against it before the receiver's appointment. 6 In the conduct of litigation, as in every other proceeding by him, a receiver is under the constant supervision of the court. 7 He is not bound by a stipulation which is not advantageous to the estate, made by himself or his counsel without the sanction of the court. 8 He cannot waive a defense on the merits. 9 He can- not allow a set-off not authorized by law. 10 He may be allowed to discontinue without costs an action honestly but errone- ously begun by him. 11 The rights of a receiver are in general no greater than those of the person whose estate he holds. 12 Thus, a receiver of an insolvent corporation appointed in a creditor's suit cannot " enforce a collateral obligation given to a creditor or to a body of creditors by a third person for the * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (3d Am. ed.) 1991. 5 Frankle v. Jackson, 30 Fed. R 398; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall 203; Harland v. a & M. Tel. Co., 33 Fed. R 199; Hale v. Hardon, 89 Fed. R 283, 287. Cf. Wilder v. New Orleans (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R. 843; Braddock Br. Co. v. Pfandler V. M. Co. (C. C. A), 106 Fed. R604. 6 Camp v. Receivers Niagara Bank,' 2 Paige (N. Y.), 283; Columbian Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 37 N. Y. 536; Locke v. Covert, 42 Hun (49 N. Y. S. C. R), 484 7 Van Dyck v. McQuade, 85 N. Y. 616; McEvers v. Lawrence, Hoflf. Ch. (N. Y.) 175. 8 Van Dyck v. McQuade, 85 N. Y. 616. Cf. Vance v. Royal C. Mfg. Co., 82 Fed. R 251. 'McEvers v. Lawrence, Hoffman Ch. (N. Y.) 172; Keiley v. Dusenbury, 10 J. & S. (N. Y. Superior Ct.) 238 ; s. G, 77 N. Y. 597; Van Dyck v. McQuade, 85 N. Y. 616. A receiver may waive service of process and an objection to the jurisdiction founded upon resi- dence. Whitcomb v. Hooper (C. C. A), 81 Fed. R 946. It was held that a receiver who had removed an ac- tion brought against him in a State court could not afterwards object that the Federal court had not ac- quired jurisdiction. Baggs v. Martin, 179 U. S. 206. A receiver is bound by an admission in the litigation made in good faith by the corpora- tion before his appointment. Perry v. Godbe, 82 Fed. R 141. He is not, however, bound by a promise of his own made before his appointment. Stanton v. Ala. & C. R. Co., 31 Fed. R 585. "Van Dyck v. McQuade, 85 N. Y. 616. Cf. Central Tr. Co. v. Clark (C. C. A), 81 Fed. R 269. 11 St John v. Denison, 9 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 343; Reeder v. Seely, 4 Cowen, 548; Arnoux v. Steinbrenner, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 82. « Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. R 454, 457. But see Hart v. Barney & S. Mfg. Co., 7 Fed. R 543. 552 RECEIVERS. [§ 249. payment of the debts of the insolvent; " 13 for example, a statu- tory liability of stockholders to creditors. 14 It has, however, been said: "It is the settled doctrine that the receiver of an, insolvent corporation represents not only the corporation but also creditors and stockholders, and that in his character as trustee for the latter, he may disaffirm and maintain an action as receiver to set aside illegal or fraudulent transfers of the property of the corporation made by its agents or officers, or to recover its funds or securities invested or misapplied." 15 The defendant to an action by the receiver of an insolvent's estate cannot set off claims against the insolvent which have been assigned to him since the application for the receiver's appointment. 16 A receiver has no absolute right to sue in the courts of a sovereignty foreign to that from which he holds his authority. 17 He may sue in a foreign court upon a judg- ment which he has recovered in the court which appointed him. 18 By comity he is usually allowed to sue in a foreign court, 19 unless by so doing he would interfere with a prefer- ence given to domestic creditors by the laws or public policy of the State wherein he brings the action. 29 In this respect, it seems, that a court of the State within which a Federal court is held is considered as foreign to the latter, at least when sit- 13 Wallace, X, in Jacobson v. Allen, suit there instituted is brought in his 12 Fed. R 454. ancillary capacity. Sullivan v. Shee- " Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. R 454. han, 89 Fed. R 247. 16 Andrews, J., in Atty. Gen. v. > 8 Wilkinson v. Culver, 25 Fed. R Guardian M. L. Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 272, 639. Or to recover land conveyed to 275. See also Gillet v. Moody, 3 N. Y. him as receiver. Oliver v. Clarke 479, 488; Talmage v. Pell, 7 N. Y. 328; (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R 402. Whittlesey v. Delaney, 73 N. Y. 571; w Ex parte Norwood, 3 Biss. 504; National T. Co. v. Miller, 33 N. J. Eq. Hunt v. Jackson, 5 Blatchf. 349; Cuy- 155, 158; Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. kendall v. Miles, 10 Fed. R. 342;Cham- R 454, 455. bers v. M'Dougal, 42 Fed. R 694, 696; I 6 In re Van Allen, 87 Barb. (N. Y.) Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Schultz (C. C. A.), 225, 231; Van Dyck v. Quade, 85 N. Y. 80 Fed. R 337; Hurd v. Elizabeth, 41 616. N. J. Law (12 Vroom), 1; Bank v. "Booth v.Clark, 17 How. 322; Brig- McLeod, 38 Ohio St. 174. But see ham v. Luddington, 12 Blatchf. 237; Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322; Holmes Olney v. Tanner, 10 Fed. R. 101; Haz- v. Sherwood, 16 Fed. R. 725. ard v. Durant, 19 Fed. R. 471,476; ™ Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322; Brig- Holmes v. Sherwood, 16 Fed. R 725; ham v. Luddington, 12 Blatchf. 237; & C, 3 McCrary, 405. In a court that Olney v. Tanner, 10 Fed. R 101; has appointed an ancillary receiver, Zacher v. Fidelity Tr. & S. D. Co. (C. it will be presumed, in the absence C. A.), 106 Fed. R 593; Hale v. Tyler, of allegations to the contrary, that a 104 Fed. R 757; supra, § 34, § 249.] LITIGATION BY EEOEIYEES. 553 ting in bankruptcy. 21 A substituted trustee can, however, sue in a foreign jurisdiction, even though the trial court that ap- pointed him required him to give a bond and to account to itself in the same manner as a receiver. 22 A receiver is espe- cially favored in the enforcement of causes of action arising after his appointment. He can, upon motion or petition in the suit wherein he is appointed, obtain injunctions to prevent dis- obedience to contracts made with him, 23 or prevent interference with property in his possession, 24 whether the person enjoined is a party to the suit or not, even if he be a^ state officer; for example, a tax collector. 85 In nearly every case, interference vrith a receiver in the discharge of his duties is a contempt of court, even when no injunction expressly forbidding it has been issued. 26 For example, striking laborers have been ad- judged guilty of contempt for attempting to prevent employees of a receiver of a railroad from working for him. 27 The court 21 Olney v. Tanner, 10 Fed. R 101. But see Chambers v. M'Dougal, 42 Fed. R. 694, 696; Hale v. Hardon, 89 Fed. R 283: Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Sohultz (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R 337. In an action in a State court by a re- ceiver of a Federal court it will be presumed that he has duly qualified in accordance with the order for his appointment, if a subsequent order of the Federal court recognizing him as receiver is put in evidence. Hege- wich v. Silver, 140 N. Y. 414. See Young v. Wempe, 46 Fed. R 354. 22 Glenn v. Soule, 22 Fed. R. 417; Holmes v. Sherwood, 16 Fed. R. 725; S. c, 3 McCrary, 405. Cf. Hale v. Har- don. 89 Fed. R 283, 287, 288. 23 "Walton v. Johnson, 15 Sim. 352. 2* Angel v. Smith, 9 Ves. 335; Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Felton (C. C. A.), 103 Fed. R. 227. 25 In re Tyler's Petition, 149 U. S. 164; Ex parte Chamberlain, 55 Fed. R 704; Ex parte Huidekoper, 55 Fed. R. 709; Ledoux v. La Bee, 83 Fed. R 761. A sale for taxes without leave of the court is void. Va., T. & C. Steel & L Co. v. Bristol Land Co., 88 Fed. R. 134 A valid tax upon the assets is, it seems, a prior lien after the judicial costs. Ledoux v. La Bee, 83 Fed. R 761. so Thompson v. Scott, 4 Dill. 508; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 218. « Secor v. Toledo, P. & W. R Co., 7 Biss. 513; King v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co., 7 Biss. 529; In-re Higgins, 27 Fed. R. 443. " If the testimony makes it clear that when these parties went in such numbers, and conducted themselves in such a way, that while they simply said, ' Please get off this engine,' or 'We want you to get off this engine,' they intended to over- awe, — intended, by the demonstra- tions which they made, to impress upon the minds of the engineers and train-men that personal prudence compelled them to leave, — why, then the government has made out its case. As my brother Treat said in a similar case, that we had before us in St Louis, a request, under these circumstances, is a threat. Every sensible man knows what it means, and courts are bound to look at things just as they are, to pass upon facts just as they are developed, to treat the conduct of men just as it is, and to impute to them that intention which their acts and their con- 554 EEOEIVEES. [§ 249. will not enjoin the employees of a receiver from a peaceable strike, unaccompanied by violence or intimidation. 28 He can compel, by a summary proceeding in the' court that appointed him, the delivery of property of his estate in the possession of a stranger to the suit who claims no right to its possession. 2 * Where a marshal had levied on property previously in the possession of a receiver of a State court, the receiver was al- lowed to proceed by a rule to take the possession of the same, although the regular practice was an intervention by him. 3 * It has been held, however, that the court should not enjoin a stranger to the suit who is a citizen of another State from en- forcing legal process in his own State against land there in the possession of the receiver; 31 and a receiver must proceed by an original suit to recover property held by a stranger to the litigation under a claim of title. 82 Since a proceeding to col- lect assets of an estate, whether brought in personam to recover damages, or in rem, as by replevin or ejectment, is ancillary to the principal suit, a receiver appointed by a Federal court can bring a suit for that purpose in the court of his appoint- ment irrespective of the citizenship of the parties or the amount involved. 33 He cannot, however, sue out a writ of error from duct disclose was their intention." so Remington P. Co. v. Louisiana Brewer, J., TJ. a v. Kane, 23 Fed. R Pr. & Pub. Co., 56 Fed. R 287. 748, 751, citing In re Doolittle, 23 " Schindelholz v. Cullum(C.C. A.), Fed. E. 544, 548. And in another case 55 Fed. R 885. the same judge said: "Now, if a M Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 218; party engaged in a lawful undertak- Parker v. Browning, 8 Paige (N. Y.), ing unintentionally interferes with 388; Noe v. Gibson, 7 Paige (N. Y.), some of the officers of this court, and 513. Or to collect a claim of the cor- obstructs them in the discharge of poration. Eau Claire v. Payson (C. their duties, this court is not tena- C. A.), 107 Fed. R 557. A receiver can- cious of any mere prerogative, and not by petition in the suit obtain an would let such action pass almost injunction against unlawful discrim- without notice; but where parties ination by a railroad company which are engaged in that which is of itself is not a party to the suit. Wood v. unlawful, in doing that which they N. Y. & N. E. R Co., 61 Fed. R 236. have no right to do, and in so doing Where a receiver took pay for cor- obstruct the officers of the court al- porate property in stock which he though intending no contempt, that kept himself, crediting his fund with is a very different thing." Brewer, J., price in cash, held, that he could not In re Doolittle, 23 Fed. R. 544, 548. sue individually for fraudulent repre- ss Arthur v. Oakes (C C. A.), 63 sentations by the vendor of the stock. Fed. R 310; supra, § 215. Kenedy v. Benson, 54 Fed. R 836. 29 Miles v. New So. B. & L. Ass'n, 33 White v. Ewing, 159 U. a 36; 95 Fed. R 919. Pope v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 173 U. S. 573; supra, §§ 15, 21. § 249.] LITIGATION BY KEOEIVEKS. 555 the Supreme Court of the United States to the judgment of a State court, except in a case where that might be done by an individual. 34 He has the right of appeal from an appealable order or decree of a Federal court which sustains a claim an- tagonistic to the rights of both parties to the suit, or antago- nistic to the rights of either party ; subject to the limitation that he may not question any order or decree which distrib- utes burdens, or apportions rights, or distributes the estate in his hands between the parties, or any clause in the order or decree appointing him, or any order or decree resting in dis- cretion. 38 He may appeal from an order or decree which af- fects his personal rights, such as an order which disallows his fees or commissions ; but it seems that he cannot appeal from an order which rests in the discretion of the court ; for exam- ple, an order which discharges or removes him, or directs him in the administration of the estate, as, for example, to issue receiver's certificates or to make improvements. 38 " His right to appeal from an allowance or claim against the estate does not necessarily fail when his receivership is terminated, to the extent of surrendering the property in the possession of the receiver." 37 Upon an appeal in a suit brought by him, in the absence of any Federal question, the jurisdiction is consid- ered as dependent upon the difference of citizenship in the suit in which he was appointed ; and the judgment or decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is final. 38 A receiver is pre- sumed to represent all parties to the suit, and he cannot object because other parties have no notice of an application duly served on him ; 39 although, of course, the court may listen to a suggestion of that nature by him. ^Bausman v. Dixon, 173 U. 8. 113. ministration of the estate from which 35 Boswbrth v. St. Louis T. E. Ass'n, he cannot appeal. Hunt v. 11L Cent. 174 U. S. 182, 186, 187. Co. (C. C. A.), 96 Fed. E. 644. But see 86 Bosworth v. St. Louis T. E Ass'n Felton v. Ackerman, 61 Fed. E. 225. 174 U. S. 182, 189. An order direct- 37 Bosworth v. St. Louis T. E. Ass'n, ing .the receiver of a railroad to con- 174 U. S. 182, 189. struct and maintain gates and other 38 Pope v.' Louisville, N. A. & C. Ey. safeguards at the crossing of an- Co., 173 U. S. 573. other road, in accordance with a con- 39 McLeod v. New Albany (C. C. A.), tract made between two railroad 66 Fed. E 378. As to the right of a companies, with covenants running creditor to enforce a cause of action with the land, is not a decree for owned by a receiver, see Werner v. specific performance, but merely an Murphy, 60 Fed. E. 769; Swope v. interlocutory order affecting the ad- Villard, 61 Fed. E 417. 556 EECEIVEES. , [§ 250. § 250. Duties of receivers. — A receiver holds the property of which he is given the care in trust for all persons interested therein, whether parties to the suit or not, 1 provided that they do not claim it by a title paramount to his own. 2 His duties, therefore, are substantially those of a trustee, although his pow- ers are usually more limited ; and the decisions concerning the duties and liabilities of trustees, executors, administrators, and assignees in bankruptcy and insolvency are often of service in determining those of a receiver. 3 A receiver's first duty after his appointment is to take possession of the property entrusted him by the order, using all the powers therein given him.* If any of it is under lease he should notify the tenants of his ap- pointment and demand that they attorn to him.* It seems that as soon as he has obtained possession of all the estate that con- sists of personal property he should make an inventory thereof. 6 " Under some circumstances a receiver would be derelict in duty, if he did not cause property in his hands to be insured against fire." "' All moneys that he receives he should either pay into court or deposit in a bank to the credit of himself as receiver, in a separate account from that for his private deposits. 8 In remitting money from one place to another, he may do so by using the ordinary means, provided that he uses due care. 9 He will be personally liable for all loss to the estate caused by his making any other disposition of the funds collected by him. 10 It is advisable for a receiver to take a receipt for all sums of money exceeding twenty dollars paid out by him. By so doing, and by using such receipts as vouchers, he will have less diffi- § 250. 1 Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, Thompson v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 136 217,218; Central T. Co. v. Wabash, U. S. 287, 293, per Mr. Justice Harlan. St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R. 863. 8 Salway v. Salway, 4 Russ. 60; S. c, 2 Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 2 R. & M. 215; Wren v. Kirton, 11 Swanst. 108, 118, 137, 138; Georgia v. Ves. 377; Hinckley v. Railroad Co., Atlantic & G. R. Co., 3 Woods, 434 100 U. S. 153, 157. For a case where 3 See, for example, Com. v. Frank- a receiver was held responsible for lin Ins. Co., 115 Mass. 278; People v. money lost by the failure of a bank, National T. Co., 82 N. Y. 283. see Fikener v. Bott, 47 S. W. R 251. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1987. 9 Knight v. Lord Plimouth, 3 Atk. » Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1987. 480; S. C, 1 Dickens, 120. « Lewin on Trusts (6th ed., London, 10 Salway v. Salway, 4 Russ. 60 ; S. C, 1875), 184; England v. Downs, 6 Beav. 2R &M 215; Rowth v. Howell, 3 269. See also Williamson v. Wilson, Ves. 565. 1 Bland (Md.), 418, 436. § 250.] DUTIES OF RECEIVEES. 557 culty in passing his accounts. 11 A receiver should so keep the estate in his hands that it can easily traced, delivered up, or accounted for. 12 He should, at least as often as once a year, account and pay into court all the money which he has received, together with the profits thereof, less all necessary or author- ized expenditures, and such compensation as the court allows him. 13 If he receives a considerable sum of money during the interval between the regular times for his accounting, it seems that he should apply to the court for directions' concerning its investment; " and in general, he should apply for instructions whenever any unexpected event occurs of which advantage may be taken for the benefit of the estate, or which necessitates active measures to preserve the estate from loss. 15 Any profit which he may make from the estate belongs to the finally suc- cessful party, or to him to whom the surplus, after the paj^ment of prior demands, is finally directed to be paid. 16 And if he uses the property over which he has been appointed in his private business, he must pay to the estate for its use. 17 It is usually considered improper for a receiver to retain as his coun- sel one who has previously acted in the suit for one of the par- ties. 18 But it is proper for a receiver appointed in a suit brought by a creditor for the satisfaction of his own debt alone, to re- tain the attorney of the complainant. 19 A receiver of a rail- road is a common carrier; 20 he is gnilty of impropriety, for which he may be removed, when he discriminates between "Remsenv. Remsen, 2J.Ch. (N.Y.) But see Whitesides- v. Lafiferty, 8 495, 501. Humph. (Tenn.) 150. " Williamson y. Wilson, 1 Bland » Battaile v. Fisher, 36 Miss. 321. (Md.), 18; Hinckley v. Railroad Co., 18 Ryckman v. Parkins, 5 Paige 100 U. S. 153, 157; Atty. Gen. v. North (N. Y.), 543; Blair v. St. Louis, H. & Am. L. I. Co., 89 N. Y. 94, 107, 108. K R Co., 20 Fed. R 348. In one case " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2dAm. ed.)1992; the court refused to allow the re- Shaw v. Rhodes, 2 Russ. 539. See §256. ceiver to retain a relative who had 14 Shaw v. Rhodes, 2 Russ. 539; previously practiced elsewhere, and Hioks v. Hicks, 3 Atk. 274; Earl of had come into the circuit appar- Lonsdale v. Church, 3 Brown Cb. C. ently for the purpose of acting as 41. counsel for the receiver. Blair v. St. 15 Shaw v. Rhodes, 2 Russ. 539, Louis, H. & K. R. Co., 20 Fed. R 348. Hicks v. Hicks, 3 Atk. 274; Earl of "Shainwald v. Lewis, 8 Fed. R Lonsdale v. Church, 3 Brown Ch. C. 878. See Davis v. Chattanooga U. Ry. 41. Co., 65 Fed. R 359. is Gibbs v. David, L. R. 20 Eq. 373. 2 ° Beers v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 34 Fed. R 244 558 EEOEITEES. [§ 251. different persons who use the railway ; 21 and he may be obliged to repay such sums of money as he has exacted from shippers of freight by unlawful discriminations against them. 22 A re- ceiver cannot resign without the permission of the court which appointed him. 23 A recent statute provides " that whenever in any case pending in any court of the United States, there shall be a receiver or manager in possession of any property, such receiver or manager shall manage and operate such prop- erty according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State in which such property shall be situated, in the same manner that the owner or possessor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof. Any receiver or manager who shall wilfully violate the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall on conviction thereof be punished by a fine not exceeding three thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both said punish- ments, in the discretion of the court." 24 § 251. Liability of a receiver. — The liability of a receiver is in many but not all respects analogous to those of a trustee. He is liable to all persons interested in the estate in his hands for any damage resulting to them from any breach of duty by him, whether intentionally 1 or through negligence. 2 It has been held that he is personally responsible for funds of the trust embezzled by his clerks. 8 He is, however, free from lia- bility to the parties to the suit on account of any act performed in obedience to an order of the court within its jurisdiction, and not obtained by fraud, until the same has been vacated upon appeal or otherwise. 4 A receiver's liability to strangers is much more limited than that of a trustee. 5 He is not liable "Handy v. Cleveland & M. R Co., v. De Coursey, 82 Fed. R. 302; U. S. 31 Fed. R. 689. See Missouri Pac. Ry. v. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co., 43 Fed. Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 30 Fed. R R. 414. 2; Cutting v. Florida Ry. & Nav. Co., § 251. J Knight v. Lord Plimouth, 3 43 Fed. R. 747. Atk. 480, 481; Kaiser v. Kellar, 21 22 Cutting v. Florida Ry. & Nav. Iowa, 95, 97; Koontz v. Northern Co., 43 Fed. R. 747. Bank, 16 Wall. 196, 202, 203. 23 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 2002. 2 Skerrett's Minors, 2 Hog. 192. See In the Matter of Jones, 4 Sandf. 8 Gunn v. Ewan, 93 Fed. R. 80. Ch. (N. Y.) 615. 4 Holoombe v. Johnson, 27 Minn. 2* 25 St. at L., § 2, p. 436; 24 St. at 353. L., § 2, p. 554, As to the liability of 6 See Taylor v. Davis, 110 U. S. 330, receivers under Federal statutes, see 335. Erb v. Morasoh, 177 TJ. S. 305; U. S. § 251.] LIABILITY OF A BBCEIVEE. 559 personally upon a covenant entered into in his official capacity with the sanction of the court. 6 Although it may be that in the courts of Massachusetts and New York he is personally re- sponsible for rent when he retains possession of a leasehold, 7 the rule of the Federal courts seems to be that he is not liable in such a case; and that the court may authorize him to aban- don a leasehold after experience has shown that it is unprofit- able to the estate, even after he has retained it for nine months or more ; and that then he incurs no personal liability, and the estate is responsible only for the use of the property during the time that he has remained in possession. 8 The same principles apply to a lease of personal property such as railroad cars. 9 A re- ceiver, even when acting as a common carrier, is not liable personally for injuries caused by the negligence of his em- ployees, when he exercised reasonable care in their selection. 10 6 Livingston v. Pettigrew, 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 405; Newman v. Davenport, 9 Bax. (Tenn.) 538; Taylor v. Davis, 110 U. S. 330, 335; Central Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ey. Co., 34 Fed. E 259. 7 Com. v. Franklin Ins. Co., 115 Mass. 278; People v. National Tr. Co., 82 N. Y. 283; People v. Univ. L. Ins. Co.. 30 Hun (37 N. Y. S. C. E.), 142; Wells v. Higgins, 132 N. Y. 459. 8 St. Joseph & St. L. E Co. v. Humphreys, 145 TJ. S. 105; Ames v. Union Pac. Ey. Co., 60 Fed. E. 966; U. S. Tr. Co. v. Wabash W. Ey. Co., 150 U. S. 287; Seney v. Wabash W. Ey. Co., 150 U. S. 310; Quincy, M. & P. Ey. Co. v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 82; Kneeland v. Am. L. & Tr. Co., 136 U. S. 89. For cases where it was held that the court had adopted and assumed the lease, see Central E & B. Co. of Ga. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 79 Fed. E. 158; Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Atlantic & P. E Co. (C. C. A.), 88 Fed. E. 140; s. C. as U. S. Tr. Co. v. M. Tr. Co. (C. C. A), 80 Fed. E 18; Cen- tral T. Co. v. Continental Tr. Co. (C. C. A), 86 Fed. E 517; U. S. Tr. Co. v. Mercantile Tr. Co., 88 Fed. E 140. The question whether the court should adopt the lease was said to be administrative rather than v judicial in its nature, and not to be reviewed by an appellate tribunal, unless there were a manifest abuse of discretion. Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 81 Fed. E 254. Certiorari denied, 168 U. S. 710. 9 Sunflower Oil Co. v. Wilson, 142 U. S. 31& Of. Piatt v. Phila. & E E Co. (C. C. A), 84 Fed. E. 535; Thomas v. Western Car Co., 149 U. S. 95; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Ey. Co., 42 Fed. E 6; Easton v. Hous- ton & T. C. Ey. Co., 38 Fed. E. 784. For the effect of other executory con- tracts by corporations upon their re- ceivers, see Manhattan Tr. Co. v. Sioux City & N. E. Co., 81 Feti. E 50; Central Tr. Co. v. East Tenn. Land Co., 79 Fed. E 19. 10 Kennedy v. L C. & L. E Co., 3 Fed. E 97; Union Tr. Co. v. Chicago & L. H Ey. Co., 7 Fed. E 513, 516; Davis v. Duncan, 19 Fed. E 477; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Central E E of Iowa, 2 McCrary, 181; s. C, 7 Fed. E 537; Thompson v. No. Pac. Ey. Co., 93 Fed. E 384, 389. See, however, Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 458. 560 EEOEIVEES. [§ 251. The only remedy of the person thus aggrieved is by an action against the receiver in his official capacity, seeking satisfaction out of the estate. 11 "When the receiver has been discharged and the estate sold, or returned to its owner, he has no remedy in a Federal court except against the employee, unless one has been preserved for him by the court ; 12 for the owner of the property is not liable for the negligence of the receiver's em- ployees. 13 For this reason it is customary to insert in the order for the sale in bulk of property in the possession of a receiver, that the purchaser shall take it subject to all claims for injuries caused while it was managed by the receiver. 14 - Such a pro- vision, although not mentioned in the order for the sale, may be inserted as a condition in the order confirming the sale, and the purchaser, after taking possession under the latter order, is estopped from disputing the validity of the condition. 15 Such claims are usually enforced in the suit in which the receiver was appointed. 16 By the former practice, following the old chancery rule, a receiver could not be sued without the per- mission of the court that appointed him. 17 An act of Congress has changed the practice as follows: "Every receiver or man- ager of any property appointed by any court of the United States may be sued in respect of any act or transaction of his in carrying on the business connected with such property, "Kennedy v. t C. & L. R. Co., 3 "Ibid. Fed. R. 97; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. "Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126. Central R. R. of Iowa, 2 McCrary, Such an order was revocable and 181; S. C, 7 Fed. R. 537; Union Tr. Co. might have been conditional. Cen- v. U. & L. H. Ry. Co., 7 Fed. R. 513, tral Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. 616. Co., 26 Fed. R 74. "The leave to 12 Davis v. Duncan, 19 Fed. R477; bring suit in any form reserves the White v. Keokuk & D. M. Ry. Co., 52 right to the receiver to set up any Iowa, 97. For cases where a State defense he may have, which can be court gave a remedy, see Texas & done by plea, answer, or demurrer." Pac. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 151 U. S. Davis v. Duncan, 19 Fed. R. 477, 483. 81; Texas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Griffin, 76 See also Jordan v. Wells, 3 Woods, Tex. 441 ; Fordyce v. Witters (Texas), 527. The court might direct that 20 S. W. R. 266. service of process be made upon the i» Davis v. Duncan, 19 Fed. R 477. resident agent of a non-resident re- 14 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Central ceiver. Central Tr. Co. v. St. Louis, R R Co. of Iowa, 2 McCrary, 181; A. & T. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R. 426. As B. C, 7 Fed. R. 537; s. a subsequently to the right to inspect a receiver's considered in 17 Fed. R. 758. books, see Chable v. Nicaragua C. C. 16 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Central Co., 59 Fed. R. 846. R. R of Iowa, 17 Fed. R 75a § 251.] LIABILITY OF A EECEIVEE. 561 without the previous leave of the court in which such receiver or manager was appointed; but such suit shall be subject to the general equity jurisdiction of the court in which such re- ceiver or manager was appointed, so far as the same shall be necessary to the ends of justice." 18 This dispossesses receivers appointed by a Federal court of any right which they might otherwise have to remove suits brought against them from the State to the Federal courts, where no difference of citizenship exists and no Federal question is involved. 19 It has been held that this statute makes the judgment in the State court in such an action conclusive as to the right of the plaintiff therein to recover damages, and as to the amount of the recovery ; 20 that the receiver has the right to appeal from the judgment of the State court, and that the Federal court should not, as a condi- tion of such appeal, oblige him to execute a supersedeas bond ; 2l but that judgment in such a suit cannot be enforced by execu- tion against the property ; 22 that the time and manner of pay- ment mnst be determined by the court that appointed a re- ceiver; 28 that the statute does not authorize the interference by the State court with property in the possession of the re- ceiver, 23 by an action of unlawful detainer, 24 a suit to recover 18 25 St at L., p. 436; 24 St. at L., properly applicable thereto. Empire p. 554 See Croy v. Marshall, 21 Ohio Distilling Co. v. McNulta (C. O. A.), 77 W. L. B. 489; Atkin v. Wabash Ry. Feci R 700. But see Veatch v. Am. Co., 41 Fed. R 193, 194. L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 84 Fed. R 274. 19 Gableman v. Peoria, D. & E. Ry. The holder of a common-law claim Co., 179 U. S. 335. who intervenes in the Federal court 2 » Dillingham v. Hawk (C. C. A), in the first instance waives his right 60 Fed. R. 494; St Louis S. W. Ry. to a trial by jury; and if the court Co. v. Holbrook (C. C. A), 73 Fed. R submits to a jury the issues that 112. But see Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. arise thereupon, the verdict is merely Texas Pac. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R. 311, 314 advisory. Flippin v. Kimball (C. G. 21 Central Tr. Co. v. St. Louis, A & A), 87 Fed. R 258. Of. Atkin v. T. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R. 551, 555, 556. Wabash Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R 193. For 22 Ibid. ; Dillingham v. Hawk (C. C. a case where the claimant did not A), 60 Fed. R 494; St. Louis S. W. lose any rights by delay till after a Ry. Co. v. Holbrook (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. dividend had been paid, and the R 112; Mo. Pac. R Co. v. Texas Pac. State rule requiring a surrender of R Co., 41 Fed. R 311; Gableman v. collateral was not followed, see Lon- Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co., 179 U. S. 335, don & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Willamette S. 839. A petition to the Federal court M. L. & Md. S. Co., 80 Fed. R 226. for the payment of a claim should 2S Comer t. Felton (C. C. A.), 61 show that the receiver holds assets Fed. R 731; Stateler v. Cal. Nat s< Comer v. Felton (C. C. A), 61 Fed. R 731. 36 562 EECEIVEKS. [§ 251. title or possession to property, 25 or garnishment, 26 or condemna- tion proceedings, 27 nor prevent an injunction against the inter- ference by the creditors of the assets in the hands of a receiver of a national bank, 28 nor authorize a stockholder of a corpora- tion to enforce a corporate cause of action by a suit against a debtor to the corporation, when the receiver refuses to sue. 29 The proper remedy in all such cases but the last is usually a pe- tition of intervention. 30 It has been further held that the statute applies to receivers appointed before its enactment ; M that it ap- plies to suits against a receiver for liabilities incurred by his predecessor in office ; 32 that it applies to receivers appointed by the courts of the Territories over the property of corporations created by acts of Congress; 33 that non-resident receivers may be served in the same manner as the corporations over which they were appointed; 34 and that an order of a Federal court which discharged a railroad receiver, restored the property to the defendant company and required that all claims against the receiver be presented by intervention to that court before a given date, did not prevent the subsequent recovery in a State court of a judgment against the company for damages Bank, 77 Fed. R 43; J. I C. Plow- Works v. Finks (O. C. A.), 81 Fed. R 524, 529. For a remarkable exertion of Federal power, see Louisville Tr. Co. v. Cincinnati L P. Ry. Co., 78 Fed. R. 307. m J. L C. Plow Works v. Finks, 81 Fed. R. 529. So held of a suit to fore- close a lien when the receiver was a defendant. Am. L. & Tr. Co. v. Cen- tral Vt. R. Co., 84 Fed. R. 917. Cf. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. C. Vt. R. Co., 88 Fed. R. 622. So a Federal court refused to entertain a suit to foreclose a lien, Am. L. & Tr. Co. v. Central Vt, R Co., 84 Fed. R 917; nor to set aside a fraudulent con- veyance of property in the hands of a State receiver. Werner v. Mur- phy, 60 Fed. R. 769. Cf. supra, § 9. For a case where the Federal court appointed a trustee to protect the rights of lienors, see Risk v. Kansas Tr. Co., 58 Fed. R 45. 26 Central Tr. Co. v. East Tenn., V. & G. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. R 523. For the practice by the receiver in such a case, see In re Barnard, 61 Fed. R 531. For the remedy by a State re- ceiver when property is attached by a United States marshal, see Rem- ington P. Co. v. Louisiana P. & Pub. Co., 56 Fed. R 287. 27 Hayes v. Columbus, L. & M. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. R. 630. 28 Stateler v. CaL Nat. Bank, 77 Fed. R 43. 29 Swope v. Villard, 61 Fed. R 417. Cf. Werner v. Murphy, 60 Fed. R 769. 30 Winchester v. Davis Pyrites Co. (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R'45; Minot v. Mas- tin (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R 734. "Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593. »2McNulta v. Lochridge, 141 TJ. S. 327; State v. Port Royal & A. Ry. Co., 84 Fed. R 67. But see Jones v. Schlapbeck, 81 Fed. R 274. 83 Wheeler v. Smith, 81 Fed. R 319. 3 * Eddy v. Lafayette, 163 U. a 456, 464. § 251.] LIABILITY OF A EECEIVEE. 563 on account of personal injuries caused by the negligent oper- ation of the railroad by the employees of the receiver before his discharge. 85 A Circuit Court of the United States will rarely, if ever, enjoin a proceeding in admiralty in a Federal District Court against property in the hands of one of its re- ceivers. 36 A judgment in a suit thus prosecuted can only be collected out of the property in the hands of the receiver in his official capacity. 87 A receiver appointed under a creditor's bill is not a proper party to an ancillary foreclosure suit. 38 An independent suit to recover a simple contract debt in- curred by him cannot be maintained in equity. 39 The cred- itor must sue at law or bring a petition of intervention in the original suit. 40 A suit begun before the appointment of a re- ceiver may subsequently be prosecuted to judgment, and the judgment so obtained establishes, as against the receiver, the rightful amount of the demand. 41 A party who, pending such a suit, files his claim against the receiver in the suit in which the receiver was appointed, does not. thereby make an election of remedies and lose his right to prosecute the suit. 42 In such a case it was held that the claimant thereby lost his right to costs in the original action. 43 It has been held that leave from a State court need not be obtained before suing a receiver ap- pointed by it for the infringement of a patent. 44 A receiver is personally liable to strangers for trespass, 45 fraud, 46 or other "Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, S'Nash v. Ingalls, 79 Fed. R 510. 151 U. S. 81. Where the receivers "Ibid. remained in possession a few days 41 Pine Lake Iron Co. v. Lafayette after the delivery of the deed to the Car Works, 53 Fed. R 853. purchaser, a cause of action for neg- 42 Ibid. See Zacher v. Fidelity Tr. ligence then arising is a liability of & S. D. Co. (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. R 593. the receivership enforceable under 43 Ibid. such a clause of the decree. Fidelity 44 Hupfeld v. Automatic Piano Co., L, Tr. & S. D. Co. v. Norfolk & W. R 66 Fed. R. 788. Cf. Curran v. Craig, Co., 88 Fed. R 815. 22 Fed. R. 101. 86 Paxson v. Cunningham, 63 Fed. 45 In re Young, 7 Fed. R 855 ; Olney R 132. Cf. The St. Nicholas, 49 Fed, v. Tanner, 10 Fed. R 101; Barton v. R. 671. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126, 134. For a 37 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Central case where a receiver was held not R Co. of Iowa, 2 McCrary, 181; s. c, liable for malicious prosecution, see 7 Fed. R 537; Barton v. Barbour, 104 Widmeyer v. Felton, 95 Fed. R 926. U. S. 126: Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas 46 Bank of Montreal v. Thayer, 7 Pac. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R 310. Fed. R 622. 38 Continental Tr. Co. v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R. Co., 82 Fed. R 642. ' 564 KECEIVEKS. [§ 252. willful act, although performed under color of his office. So, if he by mistake, though honestly, takes possession of the prop- erty of another, he is personally liable. 47 The fact that he does- so under authority of an order of the court will not justify him as against a person who was not a party to the suit or proceed- ing in which the order was granted. 48 In all of such cases it seems that he can, independently of the statute, be sued with- out leave of the court which appointed him. 49 A person who,, without having been lawfully appointed, assumes to act as a receiver, has ail the liabilities of one duly appointed. 50 It has been held that an action will not lie against a receiver for a personal injury sustained before his appointment. 61 The dis- charge of a receiver until revoked relieves him from all liability to those who had an opportunity to be heard upon the motion for his discharge. 52 § 252. Manner of applying for the appointment of a re- ceiver. — It has been held that a court has no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver, unless a cause is pending; 1 and that, there- fore, one will never be appointed upon petition 2 when no suit has been begun, except in the case of lunatics. 3 The grounds of the exception and the reasons why it does not extend to in- fants 4 are not very clear. After a suit has been begun, how- ever, ai receiver may be appointed at any stage of it when a necessity is shown, — before appearance, 5 between appearance and answer, 6 between answer and decree, 7 at the decree, 8 or afterwards, if the cause is still' open. 9 But a case of pressing « Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126, 1 Atk. 578; Ex parte Whitfield, 2 Atk„ 134; Curran v. Craig, 22 Fed. R 101. 315; Merchants' & M. Nat. Bank v. « Curran v. Craig, 22 Fed. R. 101. Kent Circuit Judge, 43 Mich. 292. « Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126, 3 Ex parte Radcliffe, 1J. & W. 639 ; 134; In re Young, 7 Fed. R 855; Anon., 1 Atk. 578; Ex parte Warren, Bank of Montreal v. Thayer, 7 Fed. 10 Ves. 622. R 622; Curran v. Craig, 22 Fed. R 4 Ex parte Whitfield, 2 Atk. 315. 101. But see Aston v. Heron, 2 Myl. 6 Tanfield v. Irvine, 2 Russ. 149. &K.390; Chaliev. Pickering, lKqen, 6 Vann v. Barnett, 2 Brown Ch. C. 749. 158; Metcalfe v. Pulvertoft, 1 V. & »« Wood v. Wood, 4 Russ. 558. B. 180. si Finance Co. of Pa. v. Charleston 7 Kershaw v. Mathews, 1 Russ. 361. C. & C. R Co., 46 Fed. R 508. 8 Osborne v. Harvey, 1 Y. & C. N. « Lehman v. McQuown, 31 Fed. R. R 116. 138; Davis v. Duncan, 19 Fed. R 477. 9 Cooke v. Gwyn, 3 Atk. 689; Atty. § 252. 1 In re Brant, 96 Fed. R. 257; Gen. v. Mayor of Gal way, 1 Molloy, Anon., 1 Atk. 578. See g 260. 95; Bowman v. Bell, 14 Sim. 392. s In re Brant, 96 Fed. R. 257 ; Anon., i § 252.] MANNER OF APPLYING FOE RECEIVES. 565 I necessity must exist to justify the appointment of a receiver before answer. 10 An objection to the bill on account of multi- fariousness or a misjoinder of parties will not prevent the ap- pointment of a receiver; nor will the pendency of a motion for leave to amend the bill, 11 unless indeed the proposed amend- ment would change materially the allegations showing the necessity for a receiver. The bill should lay the foundation for the appointment by stating the facts which show its neces- sity and propriety, 12 and should contain a prayer for a receiver. 13 If, however, a state of facts subsequently arise making the ap- pointment necessary, it may probably be made without an amendment of the original or the filing of a supplemental bill. 14 The application for a receiver should be supported by evidence showing that the appointment is necessary. 15 If the application is made before decree, the affidavits should be founded upon the allegations in the bill. 16 If statements not founded on allegations in the bill and alleging facts which ex- isted and were known before the bill was filed, are introduced into the affidavits, it seems that the court will not consider them ; 17 and even if, where the case made by the bill fails, suf- ficient ground for a receiver is confessed in the answer, it seems that a receiver should be denied the plaintiff, at least until he had amended his bill. 18 After an application for a receiver has been once denied, a second application supported by the same papers will rarely be granted. 19 The former rule was that, after answer, a plaintiff when moving for a receiver could 10 Latham v. Chaffee, 7 Fed. R. 525. that a bill praying for a receiver, See Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Union sworn to "as being true to the best Mills P. Co., 37 Fed R. 287. of affiant's knowledge and belief," is n Barnard v. Darling, 1 Barb. Ch. not sufficiently verified. Smith-Dim- (N. Y.) 76. mick Lumber Co. v. Teague, 24 S. E. 4. 12 Tomlinson v. Ward, 2 Conn. 396; " Dawson v. Yates, 1 Beav. 301, 306; Verplanck v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 2 Cremen v. Hawkes, 2 Jones & La T. Paige (N. Y.), 438. But see Hotten- 674; Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), stein v. Conrad, 9 Kan. 435. 154 1 3 Rule 21. But see Osborne v. Har- "Dawson v. Yates, 1 Beav. 301, 306; vey, 1 Y. & C. N. R 116. Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 154. 14 Malcolm v. Montgomery, 2 Mol- 18 Cremen v. Hawkes, 2 Jones & loy, 500; Hottenstein v. Conrad, 9 La T. 674; Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. Kan. 435. ed.), 154. is Middleton v. Dodswell, 13 Ves. 19 Fenton v. Lumberman's Bank, 266; Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), Clarke Ch. (N. Y.) 360. 154. It was held in a State court 566 BECEIVEBS. [§ 252. only rely upon the admissions in the answer; 20 but now a sworn answer is given upon such a motion little more effect than an ordinary affidavit, and may be contradicted by affidavits in support of the bill. 21 The appointment is usually only made upon notice, and is very rarely granted exjparteP Less than one day's notice has been held to be insufficient. 23 A receiver may, however, be appointed ex parte, if that is the only way to preserve the property from destruction or serious injury, or removal beyond the jurisdiction of the court. 24 It has been said that a receiver of the assets of a railroad company will rarely be appointed in a suit to which no stockholders or bond- holders are actually parties. 25 "Where the officer of a corpora- tion who had been served with notice of a motion for the appointment of a receiver fraudulently concealed that fact from his associates, and did not oppose the motion, although no collusion with the plaintiff was shown, a motion to vacate the appointment was entertained. 26 A delay of one month after knowledge of the appointment of a receiver, who had ex- pended in the improvement of the property money furnished him by others, was held such acquiescence as to estop a party from moving to vacate the order of appointment for irregular- ity because granted without notice to him. 27 Except in an extraordinary case, a receiver will not be appointed over prop- erty in the possession of a stranger to the suit. 28 20 Darnell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) D. C. 421, 437. In Buchanan v. Bay 1976. See Goodman v. Whitoomb, 1 State Gas Co., 17. S. C. C. D., Del., J. & W. 589; Kershaw v. Mathews, Oct. 15. 1896, Judge Wales appointed 1 Russ. 361. a receiver ex parte upon document- 21 Allen v. Dallas & W. R Co., 3 ary evidence. In a later case Judge Woods, 316, 332. Kirkpatrick in U. S. C. C. D, N. J., 22 Blondheim v. Moore, 11 Md. 365; appointed a receiver ex parte. Brady People v. Norton, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 17; v. Bay State Gas Co., 106 Fed. R. 584. Sandford v. Sinclair, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 25 Overton v. Memphis & L. R Co., 373; Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. 10 Fed. R 866. But see Central T. Co., 106 U. S. 286. Co. v. Texas & St. L. Ry. Co., 24 Fed. a>St Louis, K. C. & C. Ry. Co. v. R 153. Dewees, 23 Fed. R. 691. ™ Allen v. Dallas & W. R. Co., 3 M Gibson v. Martin, 8 Paige (N. Y.), Woods, 316. 481; Johns v. Johns, 23 Ga. 31; Trie- "Ibid. bert v. Burgess, 11 Md. 452; Gibbons 28 Searles v. Jacksonville, P. & M. v. Main waring, 9 Sim. 77; Milten- R. Co., 2 Woods, 621. See also Davis berger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 21& U. S. 286; Barley v. Gittings, 15 App. §§ 253-255.J who should be appointed eeceiveb. 567 § 253. Who may apply for the appointment of a receiver. A receiver is usually appointed upon the application of the plaintiff. Before a decree it seems that one defendant cannot move for a receiver, 1 unless he has filed a cross-bill praying for one. 2 After a decree, however, he may, in a proper case, ob- tain a receiver of the property of a co-defendant upon petition, 9 but not usually over the property of the plaintiff without a cross-bill. 4 § 254. Manner of the appointment of a receiver. — Ey the , English practice, which was followed in New York before the passage of statutes altering it, when an application for the ap- pointment of a receiver was granted, the selection of the re- ceiver was referred to a master in chancery, whose action was subject to the confirmation of the court. 1 The same master usually exercised supervision over contracts made by the re- ceiver and the adjustment of his compensation. 2 In the Fed- eral courts, however, it is the customary practice for the judge to appoint and often to supervise a receiver himself, without the aid of a master, except when the accounts are passed. 3 §255. Who should be appointed receiver. — As a general rule no one should be appointed receiver of property who has any interest therein, 1 or is in any way connected with the liti- §253. 1 Robinson v. Hadley, 11 2 Thornhill v. Thornhill, 14 Simons, Beav. 614; Leddel's Ex'r v. Starr, 19 600. N. J. Eq. (4 C. E Green), 159. But see 3 Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. Sargant v. Read, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 600; Co., 106 U. S. 286; Buck v. Piedmont Henshaw v. Wells, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) & A. L. Ins. Co., 4 Fed. R. 849; Frank 568. v. Denver & R. G. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R. 2Grote v. Bury, 1 W. R. 92; Robin- 757. But see Taylor v. Phila. & R. R. son v. Hadley, 11 Beav. 614; Kerr on Co., 7 Fed. R. 379; s. C., 9 Fed. R. 1; Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 153, 154. Cowdrey v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, s Barlow v. Gains, 8 Beav. 329; 331,341. Hiles v. Moore, 15 Beav. 175; Kerr on § 255. l Wiswell v. Starr, 48 Me. 401. Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 154. Thus, a stockholder, Wiswell v. Starr, «Grote v. Bury, 1 W. R. 92; Robin- 48 Me. 401; Atkins v. Wabash, St L. son v. Hadley, 11 Beav. 614; Kerr on & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R. 161; but see Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 153, 154. People v. Illinois B. & L. Ass'n, 56 111. § 254. iCreuze v. Bishop of Lon- App. 642; officer or director of a don, Dick. 687; Thomas v. Dawkin, 1 corporation should rarely be ap- Ves. Jr. 452; In re Eagle Iron Works, pointed a receiver of its assets, Atty. 8 Paige (N. Y.), 385; High on Re- Gen. v. Bank of Columbia, 1 Paige ceivers, § 90; Daniell's Ch, Pr. (2d (N. Y.), 511; Buck v. Piedmont & A. Am. ed.) 1976. L. Ins. Co., 4 Fed. R. 849; Atkins v. 568 RECEIVERS. [§ 255. gation in the course of which the appointment is made, 2 or is nearly related to, 3 or is in the employ of, any of the parties thereto, 4 or who, if he should receive the appointment, would occupy two inconsistent positions; 6 nor a person who is not familiar with the management of similar property, 6 and able Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R. 161; Baker v. Backus, 32111. 79; Finance Co. of Pa. v. Charleston, C. & S. C. R. Co., 45 Fed. R 436; Olmstead v. Distilling & C. F. Co., 67 Fed. R. 24: but see Farness L. & Tr. Co. v. No. Pac. R. Co., 61 Fed. R 546; but see People v. Illinois B. & L. Ass'n, 56 111. App. 642; State Tr. Co. v. Nat. Land Imp. & Mfg. Co., 72 Fed. R. 575; or the son or brother of a party to a cause, Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland (Md.),418; Taylorv. Oldham, Jac. 527; but see Shainwald v. Lewis, 8 Fed. R. 878; over property which is the subject of the litigation. Nor should the next friend of an infant, whose duty it is to protect his interest, be appointed receiver over his estate, Stone v. Wishart, 2 Madd. 64; nor an active trustee over the trust estate, Sutton v. Jones, 15 Ves. 584; v. Jolland, 8 Ves. 72; although a mere dry trustee may be thus appointed, Sutton v. Jones, 15 Ves. 584; nor should a master in chancery, whose duty it is to pass receivers' accounts, be appointed a receiver, Ex parte Fletcher, 6 Ves. 427. It has also been said in England, "that the receiver- general of taxes for a county cannot be appointed a receiver; for having given, as such, security to the crown, if he were to become indebted to the crown and to the estate, the crown might, by its prerogative process, sweep away all his property." Dan- iell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1973. See Atty. Gen. v. Day, 2 Madd. 246, 254. And Lord Eldon held that a peer could not be a receiver, because, "in many instances, a receiver may be committed." Atty. Gen. v. Gee, 2 V. & B. 208. It was held improper to ap- point as assignee in bankruptcy of a corporation one who had been ap- pointed by a State court receiver of its assets. In re Stuy vesant Bank, 5 Ben. 566; s. a, 6 N. B. R. 272. But it was subsequently held eminently proper to appoint as receiver of the assets of an insolvent corporation one who by the laws of the State that chartered it was the official custo- dian of its assets in case of its in- solvency, even though that State was in another circuit from the one in which the suit for a receiver was brought, and the officer did not re- side within the jurisdiction of the court. In this case it was made a condition of the appointment that the receiver should pay into the registry of the court the proceeds of all assets collected within its juris- diction, but he was allowed to give sureties who were residents of the State where he dwelt. Taylor v. Life Ass'n of Am., 3 Fed. R. 465. 2 Baker v. Backus, 32 I1L 79; Gar- land v. Garland, 2 Ves. Jr. 137; State Tr. Co. v. Nat. Land & Mfg. Co., 72 Fed. R. 575; Wood v. Oregon Dev. Co., 55 Fed. R. 901. 8 Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland (Md.), 418. 4 Baker v. Backus, 32 HL 79; Atty. Gen. v. Bank of Columbia, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 511; Buck v. Piedmont & A. L. Ins. Co., 4 Fed. R. 849. 5 Stone v. Wishart, 2 Madd. 64; Ex parte Fletcher, 6 Ves. 427. 6 Lupton v. Stephenson, 11 Ir. Eq. 484. But it was held that a person was not disqualified from appoint- ment as receiver of a railroad because § 255.] WHO SHOULD BE APPOINTED EEOEIVEE. 569 to give sufficient attention to the management of his trust. 7 The court may, however, under special circumstances appoint as receiver a trustee, 8 a person interested in the subject of the suit, 9 or even a party to the suit, 10 or his near relation. 11 This, however, should rarely be done unless by consent, or possibly when it clearly appears to be for the interest of all concerned; 12 and in such a case by the English practice the receiver was usually obliged to act without compensation if he accepted the trust. 13 "When a party to the cause is appointed receiver in it, he does not thereby lose his privilege of acting as party. 14 It has been held in Tennessee, that no one, not even a clerk of . the court, can be made a receiver against his will. 18 Recent statutes provide that no clerk or deputy clerk of a Federal court shall be appointed receiver except for special reasons which must be assigned in the order of appointment; 16 and that " no person related to any justice or judge of any court of the United States by affinity or consanguinity, within the degree of first cousin, shall hereafter be appointed by such court or judge to or employed by such Tcourt or judge in any office or duty in any court of which such justice or judge may he was not a citizen of the State 9 Hoffman v. Duncan, 18 Jur. 69; where the railroad was chartered and Powys v. Blagrave, 18 Jur. 462; Kerr situated; nor because he was not a on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 136. railroad expert and was unacquainted 10 Wilson v. Greenwood, 1 Swanst. with the mechanical details of the 471; Blakeney v. Dufaur, 15' Beav. railroad. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. 40; Robinson v. Taylor, 42 Fed. R. Cape Fear & Y. VaL R Co., 62 Fed. 803, 812. R. 675. Contra, Wynne v. Lord New- " Shainwald v. Lewis, 8 Fed. R 878. borough, 15 Ves. 283. Non-residents 12 Atkins v. Wabash, St. L. & P. are often appointed ancillary re- Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R. 161 ; Kerr on Re- ceivers. Bayne v. Brewer Pottery ceivers (2d Am. ed.), 136-139. Co., 82 Fed. R 391. "Wilson v. Greenwood, 1 Swanst, 1 Wynne v. Lord Newborough, 15 471, 483; Blakeney v. Dufaur, 15 Ves. 283; Gibbs v. David, L. R 20 Eq. Beav. 40; Hoffman v. Duncan, 18 373. Jur. 69; Powys v. Blagrave, 18 Jur. «Sykes v. Hastings, 11 Ves. 363; 463. But see Newport v. Bury, 23 Sutton v. Jones, 15 Ves. 584; Gard- Beav. 30. ner v. Blane, 1 Hare, 331; Powys v. "Scott v. Platel, 2 Phil. 229; Cow- Blagrave, 18 Jur. 463; Ames v. Bir- drey v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 331, kenhead Docks, 20 Beav. 332; Potts 350. v. Warwick & B. C. N. Co., Kay, 143 ; W Waters v. Carroll, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 136- 102. 139. W20 St. at L. 415. 570 EECEIVEES. [§ 256. be a member." " An order may provide for the appointment of a receiver in the alternative to other relief. 18 § 256. The receiver's security. — As a general rule, the order for the appointment of a receiver provides that he shall give good and sufficient security for the faithful performance of his duties. 1 This, by the English practice, was usually a recognizance entered into by the receiver and two or more sureties, whereby they, the cognizors, acknowledged "them- selves to be indebted to the cognizees (usually the Master of the Eolls and the senior Master of the Court) in certain sums of money to be paid on certain days therein mentioned ; in de- fault of which they will and agree that the said sums shall be levied and recovered of them, their heirs, executors, and ad- ministrators, and of all and singular their lands and heredita- ments, goods and chattels." 2 The recognizance, however, was subject to a condition making it void if the receiver should duly account for the rents and profits of the estate over which he was appointed. 3 In the Federal courts no fixed rule pre- vails, the security required from a receiver being whatever the judge who orders his appointment thinks proper. 4 When a re- ceiver is appointed by consent, the court may appoint him with- out requiring security, or upon his own recognizance only.* The sureties, when individuals, should usually be residents of the district; but under peculiar circumstances sureties residing elsewhere have been accepted. 6 The sureties of a receiver cannot be discharged at their own request, 7 except under spe- cial circumstances, " as where underhand practice is proved, and the person secured shown to be connected with such prac- tice." 8 " For if people voluntarily make themselves bail or sureties for another, they know the terms, and will be held « 25 St at L. 554. 5 Hibbert v. Hibbert, 3 Meriv. 681 ; 18 Curling v. Townshend, 19 Ves. Countess of Carlisle v. Lord Berkley, 628. Amb. 599; Eidout v. Earl of Ply- § 256. 1 Daniell's Ch.Pr. (2d Am. ed.) mouth, 1 Dickens, 68. 1977 ; Mead v. Lord Orrery, 3 Atk. 235 ; 6 Taylor v. Life Ass'n of Am., 3 Fed. Tomlinson v. Ward, 2 Conn. 396. R. 465. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1977 ; 7 Griffith v. Griffith, 2 Ves. Sen. 400 ; Mead v. Lord Orrery, 3 Atk. 235; Gordon v. Calvert, 2 Sim. 253. Tomlinson v. Ward, 2 Conn. 396. 8 Hamilton v. Brewster, 2 Molloy, a Daniell's Ch. Br. (2d Am. ed.) 1999. 407. * Taylor v. Life Ass'n of Am., 3 Fed. R. 465. § 256.] THE BEOEIVEB's SEOtrBITT. 571 very hard to their recognizance, and not discharged at their request to have new sureties appointed, for then there would be no end of it." 9 If a surety should procure his discharge during the continuance of the receivership, the receiver must enter into a fresh recognizance. 10 In law, a surety is liable to the full amount of the penalty of the recognizance, bond, or undertaking by which he is bound. 11 In equity, however, he is only liable to the full amount, including interest as well as principal, which the receiver is liable in equity to pay, 12 unless that exceeds the amount of the penalty, which fixes the extreme limit of his lia- bility." It has been held in England that a surety who has undertaken to be responsible for whatever a receiver "should receive or become liable to pay " as such receiver, is liable for funds received by the receiver before the security was given. 14 Where the parties interested have been guilty of gross delay in compelling the receiver to pass his accounts, the court may excuse the surety from the payment of the whole or part of the interest. 14 According to Daniell, "When an action is brought against a receiver's surety upon the recognizance, the proper course for him to pursue appears to be to apply to the court by motion to stay the proceedings on the recognizance, offering at the same time to pay the amount due from the re- ceiver, so as the same does not exceed the amount of the recog- nizance, into court; and upon such motion, the order will be made, upon the surety's paying the cost of the application, and of the proceedings consequent upon it. When the receiver's account has not been taken, the motion should also pray a ref- erence to the master to see what is due from the receiver; and it seems that upon such application the court will indulge the surety by allowing him to pay the balance by instal- ments." 16 When a surety has been obliged to pay anything on account of the receiver, he will be entitled to a lien for his reimbursement upon anything which may subsequently be due to the receiver from the suit. 17 The sureties may be liable for 9 Lord Hardwicke in Griffith v. " Smart v. Flood, 49 L. T. 467. Griffith 2 Ves. Sen. 400. 15 Dawson v. Eaynes, 2 Russ. 466. w Vaughan v. Vaughan, 1 Dick. 90; " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 2005, Blois v. Betts, 1 Dick. 336. 2006, citing Walker v. Wild, 1 Madd. "Dawson v. Raynes, 2 Russ. 466, 528. 468. 17 Glossop v. Harrison, Cooper, 61; 12 Dawson v. Raynes, 2 Russ. 466. s. C, 3 V. & B. 134, w Walker v. Wild, 1 Madd. 52*8. 572 , . beceiveks. . [§ 257. the malfeasance of the receiver, although the bill under which the appointment was made has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 18 In the absence of a rule of court, or of a stipu- lation in the bond, the liability of the surety should be en- forced in an independent action. 19 § 257. Receiver's accounts. — A receiver should account annually to the court unless accounts at shorter intervals are required of him. 1 His accounts are filed and passed in the office of the master to whom matters pertaining to the receiver- ship are referred. 2 A receiver's account should describe the situation of the estate at the time when he received it, and any changes that have since taken place. He should then state his receipts and disbursements, which should be set forth in schedules as specifically as possible. 3 He should also state such indebtedness as he has incurred; and, in general, give as full a description of the estate in his hands, and of his actions concerning the same, as is practicable. 4 If a person has not been paid for services rendered to the estate, but has agreed with the receiver to be content with what the court allows him, that fact should be stated in .the account together with a description of the services thus performed. 5 Allowances for counsel fees will usually be small, until the final accounting of the receiver, when the full amount earned will be ordered paid. 6 Such allowances are the property of the receiver, not is Baltimore B. & L. Ass'n v. Al- Co. .v. Hopkins ( C. 0. A.), 87 Fed. R derson (C. C. A.), 99 Fed. R. 489. 805. i» Kirker v. Owings (C. C. A), 98 4 Daniell's Gh. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1996, Fed. R 499. 1997; Hooper v. Winston, 24 BL 353; § 257. * Potts v. Leighton, 15 Ves. Hinoklpy v. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. 273; General Order, 15 Ves. 278; 153; Atty. Gen. v. N. A. L. I. Co., 89 Lowe v. Lowe, 1 Tenn. Ch. 515. N. Y. 94, 107; Bourne v. Maybin, 3 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1996, Woods, 724, 741 ; Equity Rule 79. X997. 6 Adams v. Woods, 8 Cal. 306. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1996, 6 Central Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. 1997. But see Lafayette Co. v. Neely, & P. Ry. Co.. 23 Fed. R 675; Bound 21 Fed. R 738. He has a lien upon v. S. Carolina Ry. Co., 43 Fed. R 404; the estate for the repayment of his Maxwell v. Wilmington Mfg. Co.. 82 individual funds advanced to ex- Fed. R 314; Central Tr. Co. v. Wa- ecute orders of the court. Union bash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R Tr. Co. v. Illinois Midland Ry. Co., 675; Boston S. D. & Tr. Co. v. Cham- 117 U. S. 434 For a case where the berlain (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R 847. Cf. receiver's expenses on a journey to Sowles v. Nat, Union Bank, 82 Fed. Europe were allowed: N. Ala. Ry. R 139; Am. Loan & Tr. Co. v. S. AtL § 258.] COMPENSATION OF EECEIVEES. 573 of his counsel. 7 Where before his appointment a receiver had received rent paid to him in his individual capacity in advance, he was obliged to apportion the rent, and to account for so much of it as was paid for the time during which he acted as receiver of the property, for the use of which the rent was paid. 8 Exceptions should not be taken after a master's report upon a receiver's accounting has been filed, the master acting in the place of the court in a judicial and not in a ministerial capacity. 9 Should the receiver 'or any other party to the ac- counting feel aggrieved at a ruling of the master, he should take an exception at the time, 10 and subsequently petition the court to refer the matter back to the master for correction. 11 The court's duty upon such a petition consists in reviewing the principles and rules adopted and followed by the master in allowing the receiver's accounts, rather than in examining the items of the account in detail, or the evidence upon which those items are severally founded ; the latter duty belonging more especially to the province of the master acting in his, judicial capacity, analogous to the province and duty of a jury on questions of fact. 12 "Where the receiver claimed in his ac- counts a balance as due him, and it was found that he was in- debted to the estate, he was charged personally with the costs of the accounting. 18 In a proper case, the receiver, as well as any other party interested, may appeal to the Supreme Court from the final decree entered after his accounting. 14 §258. Compensation of receivers. — The compensation of a receiver is usually fixed in the first instance by the master, 1 with whose determination the court will not ordinarily inter- & O. K. Co., 81 Fed. R 62: Kernochan « Ibid. v. Ballance, 56 N. Y. Supp. 132; s. C "Ibid. 26 N. Y. Misc. 435. It has been held " Grain v. Ewan, 93 Fed. R. 80. in New York that a receiver's part- 14 Cake v. Mohun, 164 U. S. 311 ; ner may be paid for, legal services Petersburg S. & I Co. v. Dellatorre rendered to him when it is proved (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 643. 1;hat the receiver is not to share in l 5 Hinckley v. Gilman C. & S. E. the compensation. In re Simpson, Co., 94 U. S. 467; Hinckley v. Rail- 36 App. Div. 563. road Co., 100 U. S. 153; Hovey v. Mc- 7 Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U. S. 78. Donald, 109 U. S. 150. « In re Allin, 8 Fed. R. 753. § 258. i Cowdrey v. Railroad Co., 1 » Cowdrey v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, Woods, 331, 341 ; Central Trust Co. v. 331, 334. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. i«Ibid. R.187. 574 EECEIVEKS. [§ 258. fere. 2 The compensation will rarely, if ever, be increased upon appeal. 3 "Where the court has fixed a receiver's compensation in advance, it has the power to award him an additional sum for extraordinary labors. 4 In cases of moderate amount, a commission of five per cent upon the receipts and disburse- ments is not unusual. 5 "Where the amounts received and dis- bursed are large, it is customary to pay the receiver a salary or a lump sum graduated according to the amount of his time employed, the value of the property, the difficulty of his task, and the success of his administration. 6 It has been said that the peculiar duties and responsibilities and accountability of a receiver of a railroad entitle him to a larger amount than would be demanded by the head officer of a railroad, of the same size and business. 7 The receiver's right to compensation 2 Cowdrey v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 331, 341; Central Trust Co. v. Wa- bash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. R. 187. 3 Hinckley v. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. 153; Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U. S. 78. « Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Central R R of Iowa, 8 Fed. R 60. 5 Cowdrey v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 331, 346; Day v. Croft, 2 Beav. 488. Ten per cent, upon the receipts and five per cent, upon the disburse- ments was allowed in Cake v. Mo- hun, 164 U. S. 311. 6 Cowdrey v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 331, 346; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Central R R of Iowa, 8 Fed. R 60; Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R 187. 7 Bradley, J., in Cowdrey v. Rail- road Co., 1 Woods, 331, 347. Ap- proved by Brewer, J., in Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. R 187, 188. See also Williams v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684. Receivers of railroads have been fre- quently allowed as much as $10,000 a year. Hinckley v. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. 153; Cowdrey v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 331, 347. But see Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Central R. R. of Iowa, 8 Fed. R. 60. In one re- ported case two receivers were each aUowed $70,000 for three and a half years' work. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R 187. In a few cases not reported larger fees have been allowed. In other cases annual salaries of $6,000, Boston S. D. & Tr. Co. v. Am. R. TeL Co., 67 Fed. R 165, 168; Boston S. D. & Tr. Co. v. Chamberlain (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R. 847, where, for winding up the estate after the railroad was sold, only $1,750 wasallowed for seven months; $4,500, Easton v. H. & T. C. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R 189; and $2,500, Central Tr. Co. v. Cincinnati, J. & N. Ry. Co., 58 Fed. R. 500, 512. In street-railroad cases much less is al- lowed. Montgomery v. Petersburg S. & I. Co. (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R 746. For a case where the Federal court refused to allow its receiver to set off the amount of compensation awarded him by a State court, for compensation for services as a re- ceiver of the same property in an- other suit, against the sum he was directed to pay by a decree of the Federal court, see Hinckley v. Rail- road Co., 100 U. S. 153; In re Hinck- ley, 3 Fed. R 556. For a case of es- § 259.] BEMOVAL OF EECEIVEES. 575 passes to his personal representatives upon his death, 8 and has precedence of the claims of holders of receiver's certificates.' § 259. Removal of receivers. — A receiver may be removed for misconduct in office, 1 or because his original appointment was obtained by collusion or fraud, 2 or was improper on ac- count of his interest in the subject of the receivership or con- nection with the parties in interest.' A receiver will not be removed or discharged at his own request except for good cause shown, nor ordinarily for a reason which he knew or had ground to anticipate when he accepted the receivership. 4 Ordinarily, a receiver can only be removed by the court which appointed him, 5 upon an application made in the suit in which toppel against objecting to the amount of compensation, see Dil- lingham v. Moran (C. C. A.), 81 Fed. E.759. s Cake v. Mohun, 164 U. S. 811. 9 Petersburg S. & L Co. v. Dele- torre (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 643. § 259. i Handy v. Cleveland* Mari- etta R. Co., 31 Fed. R 689; Atkins v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 39 Fed. R. 161; Clarke v. Central R. R. & B. Co., 66 Fed. R. 16. Instances of such misconduct as will be a cause for the removal of a receiver are: unlawful •discrimination in charges between •different shippers upon a ralroad; Handy v. Cleveland & M. R Co., 31 Fed. R 689; Atkins v. Wabash, StL. A P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R 161; but see Central Tr. Co. v. Ohio Cent. R. Co., 23 Fed. 306; the purchase of sup- plies for the purpose of the receiver- ship from a firm or corporation in which he is largely interested, At- kins v. Wabash, St L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R. 161; and in the case of two receivers, where they are unable to act in harmony, and the interests •of the estate suffer from their dis- cord. Meier v. Kansas Pac. R Co., 5 DilL 476. But see Conner v. Belden, 8 Daly (N. Y. C. P.), 257. In the Eastern District of Georgia, the court refused to remove a receiver, who had con- tinued in good faith reports of the condition of the property similar to those issued by the corporation be- fore his appointment, who had aided in a scheme for reorganizing the property, who had in good faith al- lowed a special rate to a shipper, and whose agents had been guilty of fraud. Clarke v. Central R R. & B. Co., 66 Fed. R. 16. But in the Sec- ond Circuit a receiver very properly is not allowed to become a member of a reorganization committee. 2 0'Mahoney v. Belmont, 62 N. Y. 133: S. C, 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 223. s Atkins v. Wabash, St L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R 161. * Richardson v. Ward, 6 Madd. 266; In re Lytle, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 251 ; Smith v. Vaughan, Ridg. temp. Hardw. 251; Beach on Receivers, § 782. Thus the court refused to re- move, at his own request, a receiver upon the sole ground that the duties of his office interfere with his private business. Beers v. Chelsea Bank, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 277. But see Purdy v. Rapalye (N. Y. Ch. 1835); Edwards on Receivers, 661. A receiver may be removed at his own request when by reason of blindness he has become physically incapable of performing the duties of his receivership. Rich- ardson v. Ward, 6 Madd. 266. 8 Young v. Montgomery & E. R Co., 2 Woods, 606, 618; Alabama & 576 RECEIVERS. [§ 260. his appointment was made. 8 A Federal court may, however, after the removal of a suit, remove a receiver therein appointed by a State court. 7 And it has been held ( that when a Circuit Court of the United States has appointed a receiver of a line of railroads running through another circuit, as well as through that wherein the appointment is made, his authority in the other circuit is recognized merely by judicial comity, and he may be removed from all control over property therein by the Federal court there held, upon a bill there filed. 8 When a re- ceiver is removed, the court may appoint another in his place. A delay of ten months after knowledge of the facts upon which the motion is founded, in moving for the discharge of a receiv- ership and the removal of a receiver, has been held a sufficient reason for denying the application. 9 Upon an application for the removal of a receiver of a mine, the court ordered that the agent of the applicant be permitted to inspect the mine. 10 The successor to a receiver can usually enforce, at least in equity, contracts made with his predecessor in his official capacity, 11 and is usually responsible in his official capacity for liabilities incurred by his predecessor in the same manner as if he were a corporation sole. 12 Whether a receiver who is not a party to a suit can appeal from an order for his removal is doubtful. 13 § 260. Discharge of a receiver. — The discharge of a re- ceiver is a termination of the receivership, and no successor to him is then appointed. 1 It will be ordered when the court is satisfied either that no occasion for a receivership existed when C. E. Co. v. Jones, 7KRR 145, 169; Jones, 7 Nat. B. Reg. 145, 169; supra, Beach on Receivers, §§ 777, 778. § 242. » Davis v. Michelbacher (S. C. Wis.), 9 Brown v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 31 N. W. R 168; Beach on Receivers, 134 U. S. 530. 8§ 777, 778. 10 Henszey v. Langdon-Henszey 7 Texas & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Rust, Coal Min. Co., 80 Fed. R 178. 17 Fed. R 275. See infra, §§ 260, » Thompson v. Phenix Ins. Co., 136 391. U. S. 287. » Atkins v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. 12 McNulta v. Lochridge, 141 TJ. S. Co., 29 Fed. R. 161; Farmers' L. & Tr. 327. Co. v. No. Pac. R. Co., 69 Fed. R. 871. " See Conner v. Belden, 8 Daly But see Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, (N. Y. C. P.), 257; Wilson v. Barney, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R. 618; 5 Hun (N. Y.), 257; Connolly v. Kretz, Muller v. Dows, 94 TJ. S. 444; Young 78 N. Y. 620. v. Montgomery & E. R. Co., 2 Woods, § 260. l Beach on Receivers, § 791. 606, 618; Alabama & C. R Co. v. § 260.] DISCHAEGE OF A EEOEIVEB. 577 the appointment was made, 2 or that in the course of subsequent events the necessity for the receivership has ceased. 3 Ordina- rily, a receiver can be discharged only by the court that ap- pointed him. 4 After the removal of a case from a State to a Federal court, the Federal court may discharge a receiver therein appointed. 5 Any person injured by the appointment of a receiver can move for his discharge although not a party to the suit in which he was appointed. 6 The motion should be made on notice to all parties interested. 7 A motion for the discharge of a receiver may be denied on account of the laches of the moving party. 8 A receiver of the estate of an infant will not be discharged until a year after the infant's majority, unless the ward after majority consents to his discharge. 9 The receiver will not be discharged, as of course, at the motion of the party who procured his appointment, if other parties who have acquired an interest in the receivership object. 10 The entry of a final decree which does not provide for the continu- ance of a receivership supersedes the appointment of a receiver. 11 "Where a receivership had been extended so as to cover the property of a corporation not a party to the bill, an order di- recting the receiver to return its property to such corporation was held to be equivalent to a revocation of the receivership 2 Lavender v. Lavender, Irish R 9 Swanst. 108, 168; Bainbrigge v. Blair, Eq. 593; Furlong v. Edwards, 3 Md. 3 Beav. 421, 423. 99; Sage v. Memphis & L R Co., 18 8 Allen v. Dallas & W. R. Co., 3 Fed. E. 571; S. C, 125 U. S. 361. Woods, 316, 331; National M. B. Ass'n 'Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 v. Mariposa Co., 60 Barb. (N. Y.) 423; Swanst 108, 168; Bainbrigge v. Blair, Hazard v. Credit Mobilier of Amer- 3 Beav. 421. ica, 38 Fed. E 195: Brown v. Lake 4 Young v. Montgomery & B. R. Superior Iron Co., 134 U. S. 530. Co., 2 Woods, 606; Beach on Receiv- 9 Matter of Van Home, 7 Paige Ch. ers, § 791. (N. Y.) 346; Wildridge v. MoKane, 2 6 Texas & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Rust, 17 Molloy, 545. See also Bainbrigge v. Fed. R. 275; Mahoney Mining Co. v. Blair, 3 Beav. 421. Bennett, 4 Shaw, 287. As to the dis- 10 Bainbrigge v. Blair, 3 Beav. 421 ; position of the money in the hands People v. Globe M. L. Ins. Co., 57 of a receiver thus discharged, see How. Pr. (N. Y.) 481; Fay v. Erie & Mack v. Jones, 31 Fed. E 189, 196. K. E R Bank, Harring. (Mich.) 194. 6 Thomas v. Brigstocke, 4 Russ. 64; See, however, Davis v. Duke of Marl- Grenfell v. Dean of Windsor, 2 Beav. borough, 2 Swanst. 108, 168; White- 544; Milwaukee & M. E Co. v. Sout- side v. Prendergast, 2 Barb. Ch, (N. ter, 2 Wall. 510. Y.) 471. 1 Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am.'ed.) 1765. 37 578 RECEIVERS. [§ 260. as to that company. 12 A receiver may be discharged from the control of real estate, and the rents and profits which he has collected be continued in his control until the termination of the litigation. 13 It has been held that the discharge of a re- ceiver by a decree cannot be set aside upon a motion entered after the term at which it was made. 14 The discharge of a re- ceiver terminates his liability for acts done in his official ca- pacity. 15 After a receiver's discharge damages to the estate resulting from his mismanagement cannot be recovered from the sureties upon an injunction bond concurrent with his ap- pointment. 16 Where a decree discharged a receiver upon con- dition that he should file a release from the person to whom the property was given by the decree, it was held that his omission to file the release did not make him liable to stran- gers for former injuries by his employees." Upon the discharge of a receiver and the return of the property to the original owner, who did not oppose the receiver's appointment, the owner is liable for all contracts by the receiver entered into by the authority of the court, and also for the damages caused by the negligence or other torts of the receiver's agents which are incidental to the ordinary management of the property. 18 An order discharging a receiver and directing him to deliver the property to a person from whom he had taken it was held not to be an adjudication that the latter was entitled to the same. 19 It was held where a receiver was discharged because his appointment was not justified, that the expenses of his admin- istration, including his compensation, should be charged against the funds in his hands, and that the party who moved for his appointment should not be obliged to pay them. 20 12 Hook v. Bosworth, 64 Fed. R 443. 2 » Elk Fork O. & G. Co. v. Jennings, 13 Jones v. Smith, 40 Fed. R 314. 90 Fed. R. 767; New Birmingham L " Davis v. Duncan, 19 Fed. R. 477. & L. Co. v. Blevins (Tex. Civ. App.), is Davis v. Duncan, 19 Fed. R. 477; 34 S. W. R 828. But see Industrial & "White v. Keokuk & D. M. Ry. Co., 53 Min. G. Co. v. El. Supply Co., 58 Fed. Iowa, 97. R. 733, 734; Ogden City v. Bear L. & "Lehman v. M'Quown, 31 Fed. R. W. & Imp. Co., 55 Fed. R 385; Farm- 138. ers' Nat. Bank v. Backus, 77 N. W. "Davis v. Duncan, 18 Fed. R. 477. R 143; Northern Ala. Ry. Co. v. Hop- "Texas&Pac. Ry. Co. v. Huron, kins,31C. C. A.94;s. C.,87Fed.R.505; 164 U. S. 636, 640; Texas & Pac. Ry. Gallagher v, Gingrich, 105 Iowa, 237; Co. v. Johnson, 151 U. S. 81, 89. Cutter v. Pollock, 4 N. D. 205. w Marshall v.Otto,59Fed. R.249,255. CHAPTEE XYIII. THE WRIT OP NE EXEAT REPUBLICA. § 261. Definition of the writ of ne exeat republica, and when it will issue. — The writ of ne exeat republica is a writ which issues from a "Federal court of equity to restrain a de- fendant to a suit therein from departing from the United States without the leave of the court. 1 In England it was called ne exeat regno, and was considered a writ of high prerogative. It was originally applicable to purposes of state only, but after- wards extended to private transactions. 2 In the United States the writ has hitherto been issued only at the request of a pri- vate party. The Eevised Statutes provide that " writs of ne exeat may be granted by any justice of the Supreme Court, in cases where they might be granted by the Supreme Court; and by any circuit justice or circuit judge, in cases where they might be granted by the Circuit Court of which he is a judge. , But no writ of ne exeat shall be granted unless a suit in equity is commenced, and satisfactory proof is made to the court or judge granting the same that the defendant designs quickly to depart from the United States." s It is unsettled whether the writ can now issue from a Federal court held in a State which has abolished imprisonment for debt. 4 It has been held that the writ cannot be granted by a judge of the District Court, 5 except when holding a court of equity. 6 The intention of the defendant to depart from the judicial district is not enough to authorize the issue of the writ. 7 The claim of the party applying for the writ must be one enforceable by a suit in a court of equity; 8 except where a decree for permanent § 261. i Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am, » Gernon v. Boecaline, 2 Wash. 130. ed.) 1925. 6 Lewis v. Shainwald, 7 Saw. 403, 2 Jackson v. Petrie, 10 Ves. 164; 417,418. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1925; 'Loewenstein v. Biernbaum, 8 W. Beames on Ne Exeat, 1-21. N. C. (Pa.) 163. !U. S. R. S., g 717. spearne v. Lisle, Amb. 75; Sey- * Of. U. S. R S., § 990; Mallory Mfg. mour v. Hazard, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 1. Co. v. Fox, 20 Fed. R 409; and infra, § 370. See also 24 Am. Law Rev. 535. 580 WBIT OF NE EXEAT REPUBLIOA. [§ 262. alimony has been entered and no appeal therefrom is pending, in which case the English rule was that the writ might issue to compel obedience to the same. 9 The claim must be tor the payment of a certain fixed sum of money. 10 A claim for un- liquidated damages is insufficient. 11 Thus, the writ cannot issue under a bill to set aside a bill of sale of a vessel, for a return of the vessel or her value, and for an account of her earnings. 12 The debt must be already due. 13 A debt which is contingent, 14 or certain but future, 15 is insufficient. The motives for the de- fendant's departure, no matter how innocent they may be, — as, for example, that he is about to sail upon a ship of which he is captain, 16 — will not prevent the issue of the writ. 17 § 262. Against whom the writ will issue. — The writ was originally confined to subjects of the King of England. 1 It has been extended, however, so as to apply to foreigners as well as subjects of the country from the courts of which the writ issues; 2 and where the court has jurisdiction, the writ may be issued at the suit of one foreigner against another. 3 It seems that the writ may be issued against a married woman in a suit affecting her separate estate. 4 The writ will not issue against a defendant who is under arrest or held to bail in an action at law. 5 The Constitution provides that Senators and Eepresenta- tives* shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, arid in going to and re- turning from the same. 6 And the Ee vised Statutes, that when- 9 Pearne v. Lisle, Amb. 75; Bead v. *" Stewart v. Graham, 19 Ves. 318; Read, 1 Ch. Cas. 115; Ex parte Whit- Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1934, more, 1 Dick. 143; Shaftoe v. Shaftoe, 1935. 7 Ves. 171; Street v. Street, 1 T. & R. § 262. 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. 322; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) ed.)1933; Beames on Ne Exeat, 1-20. 1926, 1927. 2 Flack v. Holm, 1 J. & W. 405; >° Graham v. Stucken, 4 Blatchf. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1933, 50 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1931. 1934. 11 Graham v. Stucken, 4 Blatchf. 50. 3 De Carriere v. De Calonne, 4 Ves. I21bid. 577; Mitchellv.Bunch,2Paige(N.Y), wWhitehouse v. Partridge, 3 606. Swanst. 365, 377; Seymour v. Hazard, 4 Moore v. Hudson, Mad. & Geld. 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.)l. 218; Moore v. Meynell, 1 Dick. 30; W Anon., 1 Atk. 521. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 191. WWhitehouse v. Partridge, 3 6 Raynes v. Wyse, 2 Meriv. 472; Swanst. 365, 377; Seymour v. Hazard, Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1930, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 1. 1931. i« Dick v. Swinton, 1 V. & B. 871. 6 Const., art. L § 6. § 263.] PRACTICE IN OBTAINING THE WRIT OF NE EXEAT. 581 ever any writ or process is sued out or prosecuted by any person in any court of the United States, or of a State, or by any judge or justice, whereby the person of any public minister of any foreign prince or state, authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such minister, is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are distrained, seized, or attached, such writ or process shall be deemed void. 7 Whenever any writ or process is sued out in violation of this statute, every person by whom the same is ob- tained or prosecuted, whether as party or as attorney or solic- itor, and every officer concerned in executing it, is deemed a violator of the laws of nations and a disturber of the public repose, and is liable to imprisonment for not more than three years, and a fine at the discretion of the court. 8 These regu- lations do not apply to any case where the person against whom' the process is issued is a citizen or inhabitant of the United States in the service of a public minister, and the pro- cess is founded upon a debt contracted before he entered upon such service ; nor to any case where the person against whom the process issued is a domestic servant of a public minister, unless the name of the servant has, before the issuing thereof, been registered in the Department of State, and transmitted by the Secretary of State to the marshal of the District of Columbia, who is v required, upon the receipt thereof, to post the same in some public place in his office. 9 All persons may have access to the list of names so posted in the marshal's office, and may take copies without a fee. 10 § 263. Practice in obtaining the writ of ne exeat. — The application for a writ of ne exeat republica may be made ex parte, even after the defendant has appeared. 1 The reason for allowing this is, that notice might frustrate the object of the motion by giving the party an opportunity of removing him- self out of the jurisdiction. 2 It has been held in England that the writ cannot be obtained until a bill has been filed. 8 The 7U. S. R. S., § 4063. See Ex parte § 363. iCollinson v. , 18 Ves. Cabrera, 1 Wash. C. C. 232; U. S. v. 353; Elliot v. Sinclair, Jacob, 545. Benner, 1 Baldw. 234; U. S. v. Lafon- 2 Elliot v. Sinclair, Jacob> 545. taine, 4 Cranch, C. C. 173. 3 Ex parte Brunker, 3 P. Wms. 312; «U. S. R. S., § 4064 Mattocks v. Tremain, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 9 U. S. E. S., § 4065. 75. But see Loyd v. Cardy, Prec. in io U. S. R.S., §4066. Ch.171. 582 WKIT OF NE EXEAT KEPUBLIOA. [§ 263. equity rules provide that the writ shall be asked for in the bill, when it is required " pending the suit." 4 But it has been held that the writ may be granted at or after the decree, although the bill contains no such prayer. 5 And by the English prac- tice, no prayer in the bill was required. 6 The writ must be supported by an affidavit made by the complainant himself, or. some person acquainted with the facts. 7 The affidavit must be positive as to the facts, not merely upon information and be- lief, 8 except in the case of an account, when the plaintiff may swear that, to the best of his belief, the sum named will be due to him on the balance of the account. 9 A writ was dis- charged when it appeared from the affidavit that the affiant could not have had personal knowledge of the transaction to which he swore positively. 10 The affidavit must be positive as to the intention of the defendant to go abroad, or to his threats or declarations, or those of members of his family or his agents, showing such an intention on his part. 11 An affidavit stating information from a stranger will ordinarily be insufficient. 1 * It is prudent to state in the affidavit, that the debt will be en- dangered by the defendant's quitting the country. 13 Deficien- cies in the affidavit may be supplied by admissions in the answer. 14 The court may require as a condition for the issue of the writ that the complainant give an undertaking to re- spond in damages should the writ be afterwards discharged. 15 The writ is directed to the marshal, and is in substantially the following form: — 4 Rule 21. But see the language of 10 Eoddam v. Hetherington, 5 Ves. Lord Eldon in Collinson v. , 18 91. Ves. 353. u Oldham v. Oldham, 7 Ves. 410; 5 Lewis v. Shainwald, 7 Saw. 403, Collinson v. , 18 Ves. 353; Knight 417. v. Watts, 2 C. P. Cooper temp. Cot- « Collinson v. , 18 Ves. 353; tenham, 257. Lewis v. Shainwald, 7 Saw. 403, 416, « Oldham v. Oldham, 7 Ves. 410. 417, 1S Mattocks v. Tremain, 3 J. Ch. 'Collinson v. , 18 Ves. 353; (N. Y.) 75, 76; Baker v.Haily, 2 Dick. Mattocks v. Tremain, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 632; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 75. 1708, and cases cited. But see Mc- 8 Eico v. Gualtier, 3 Atk. 501 ; Jack- Gehee v. Polk, 24 Ga. 406, 412. son v. Petrie, 10 Ves. 164; Mattocks "Eoddam v. Hetherington, 5 Ves. v. Tremain, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 75. 91, 95. 9 Eico v. Gualtier, 3 Atk. 501; Jack- « Daniell's Ch, Pr. (5th Am. ed.) son v. Petrie, 10 Ves. 164. 1708. § 263.] peaotice in obtaining the wbit of ne exeat. 583 The Peesident of the United States of Ameeica to the Maeshal of the Southeen Disteiot of New Yoek: Gbeeting, — "Whereas it is represented to us in our Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New- York in equity, on the part of John Abee, complainant, against Chaeles Dutton, defendant (among other things), that he, the said defendant, is greatly indebted to the said complainant and designs quickly to go into parts without the United States (as by oath made on that behalf appears), which tends to the great prejudice and damage of the said complainant. Therefore, in order to prevent this injustice, we do hereby command' you, that you do, without delay, cause the said Chaeles Dutton personally to appear before you, and give sufficient bail or se- curity in the sum of $ that the said Chaeles Dutton will not go, or attempt to go, into parts without the United States without leave of our said Court; and in case the said Chaeles Dutton shall refuse to give such Eail or Security, then you are to commit the said Chaeles Dutton to our next prison, there to be kept in safe custody, until he shall do it of his own ac- cord ; and, when you shall have taken such security, you are forthwith to make and return a certificate thereof to us in our said Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Dis- trict of New York distinctly and plainly under your hand, to- gether with this "Writ. Witness, the Honorable Melville W. Fulleb, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the City of New. York, in the County and State of New York, the thirteenth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and eighty- nine. 16 The writ should be endorsed with the amount of the sum demanded written out in words at length. 17 "When it is issued against a personal representative by a person claiming a share of the residuary estate, it should be endorsed with the whole amount due from the defendant, not only to the plaintiff, but to all persons interested in the estate. 18 "When the writ is en- dorsed for a larger sum than is due, the court will ordinarily refuse to quash it, but will require the defendant to give secu- rity only for so much as is really due. 19 The writ, upon its i« Beames on Ne Exeat, 23, 24» I 8 Pannell v. Tayler, T. & R. 96, 100. 1? Beames on Ne Exeat, 93. w Ibid. 584 WEIT OF NE EXEAT EEPUBLIOA. [§ 263. issue, must be delivered to the marshal. It is his duty there- upon to execute it by arresting the defendant named in it, and bringing him before the court. 20 He has no* power to break open doors under the writ. 81 The defendant may be released upon giving sufficient security to satisfy the marshal. 22 After executing the writ, the marshal should make a return of what he has done. 23 The defendant may move at any time to dis- charge the writ, either for irregularity or upon the merits, by disproving the charges in the complainant's affidavits. 24 But it has been said by Lord Eldon, that where the plaintiff has sworn positively to the debt and to the defendant's declara- tions of his intention to go abroad, the defendant's unsupported affidavit will be insufficient to contradict this. 25 . If the writ is discharged, another writ may issue upon a new affidavit. 26 Upon payment into court of enough to satisfy the plaintiff's claim, the writ will always be discharged. 27 The writ may be discharged if the defendant gives sufficient security to satisfy the court. 28 The security usually required is conditioned that the defendant abide by the process and decree of the court; 29 but security that the defendant abide by and perform the pro- cess and decree of the court may be required. 30 The discharg- ing order usually enjoins the defendant from bringing an action of. false imprisonment; 31 and the prosecution of such an action may be restrained by a subsequent order. 32 If the court con- siders the writ improperly issued, it may direct a reference to a master to ascertain the damages sustained by the defendant, and direct the payment to him of the amount found due by the sureties upon the plaintiff's undertaking. 38 An amendment of the bill which does not materially alter the case does not discharge the writ. 34 2 °Daniell's Ch. Pr. (3d Am. ed.) 1943. 28 Eoddam v. Hetherington, 6 Ves. 21 Beames on Ne Exeat, 95. 91, 95; Boon v. Collingwood, 1 Dick. 22 Beames on Ne Exeat, 96; Boehm 115; Beames on Ne Exeat, 98, 99. v. Wood, T. & R. 332,340; Daniell's 29 Griswold v. Hazard, 141 U. S. Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1943. 260, 281. 2 3Daniell'sCh. Pr. (2d Am.ed.)1945; so For defenses to such a bond, see Impey on Sheriffs (2d ed.), 532. Ibid. 24 Gernon v. Boeoaline, 2 Wash. 31 Darley v. Nicholson, 2 Dr. & 130; Grant v. Grant, 3 Russ. 598, 603. War. 86. 25Amsinck v. Barklay, 8 Ves. 594, 82 ibid. 597; Jones v. Alephsin, 16 Ves. 470, 471. 3 3Sichel v. Raphael, 4 L. T. (N. S.) 26 Gernon v. Boecaline, 2 Wash. 130. 114 « Evans v. Evans, 1 Ves. Jr. 96. u Grant v. Grant, 5 Russ. 189. CHAPTEE XIX. EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. § 264. Evidence in general. — The Revised Statutes provide that " the mode of proof in the trial of actions at common law- shall be by oral testimony and examination of witnesses, in open court, except as hereinafter provided ; " 1 and " the mode of proof in causes of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction shall be according to rules now or hereafter pre- scribed by the Supreme Court, except as herein specially pro- vided for." 2 Evidence consists of admissions upon the record, documents, and the testimony of witnesses. No objection can be taken, on an appeal to the Supreme Court, to the admissi- bility in evidence of any deposition, deed, grant, or other ex- hibit found in the record, unless the record shows that objection was taken thereto in the court below. 3 The Federal courts take judicial notice of all public statutes, whether State 4 or § 264 1U. S. R. S., § 861. See Beardsley v. Littell, 14 Blatchf. 102; Ex parte Fisk, 113 V:S. 713: «U. S. R a, § 862. See Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1. 'S.C. Rule 13. * Owings v. Hull. 9 Pet. 607; Gorm- ley v.Bunyan, 138U. S. 623, 635; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651; Fourth Nat. Bank v. Franoklyn, 120 17. S. 747. Acts which provide for the construc- tion, operation and lease of railroads are public acts of which the courts take judicial notice. Western & A R. Co. v. Roberson (C. C. A.), 61 Fed. R 592. The Federal courts will fol- low a State statute providing that judicial notice shall be taken of every act of the legislature whether public or private. Case v. Kelly, 133 U. S. 21. They may take judicial notice of the State statutes which were in force before the adoption of the Federal Constitution. Loree v. Abner (C. C. A), 57 Fed. R. 159. They will also take judicial notice of any rule of law established by the de- cisions of the State courts. Lamar v. Micou, 114 TJ. S. 218. But, it has been held, not always of a rule of practice. Yarnell v. Felton, 104 Fed. R 161. They may take notice of a foreign statute regulating naviga- tion. The New York, 175 U. S. 187. And of public statutes of a foreign nation while exercising jurisdiction over territory since acquired by the United States. U. S. v.' Perot, 98 U. S. 438; U. S. v. Chaves. 159 U. S. 452; Bouldin v. Phelps, 30 Fed. R. 547. Otherwise they do not take judicial notice of foreign statutes. Liverpool & G. W. Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397; Coghlan v. South Carolina R. Co., 142 U. S. 101. The courts take judicial notice of the seals of State 586 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 264. Federal; 5 of treaties of the United Siates, 6 and of executive regulations authorized by acts of Congress which have the force of statute, 7 and in general of all facts of which judicial notice is taken by other courts. 8 of foreign nations, but not of their in- ferior departments, officers and their seals. Schoerken v. Swift & C. & B. Co., 7 Fed. E. 469, 471. Nor of the local laws of the various tribes in the Indian Territory. Wilson v. Owens (C. C. A.), 86 Fed. R 571. Cf. Davison v. Gibson (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. E. 443. Nor, it has been held, of the local rules and regulations of mines even when they are recognized by the mining laws of the UnitedStates. Meyer v. Stevens, 78 Fed. B. 787. 5 Such as an act of Congress au- thorizing the construction of a bridge. Pennsylvania Ey. Co. v. Bal- timore & N. Y. Ry. Co., 37 Fed. R. 139. 6 Lacroix Fils v. Sarrazin, 15 Fed. E.489. 'Caha v. U. S., 153 U. S. 211, 823; U. S. v. Williams, 6 Mont. 379. 8 It has been held that judicial no- tice will be taken of a public procla- mation of general pardon and am- nesty. Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U. S. 546. Of the acts of the Executive Department in relation to a guano island. Jones v. U. S., 137 U. S. 202. Of proclamations concerning a block- ade and of the practice in the Navy Department in regard to captures. The Paqueta Habana, 175 U. S. 677. Of the custom of issuing and dating land patents several years after the payment of the purchase-money and the issue of the certificates of entry. Bigelow v. Chatterton (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. B. 614. Of correspondence be- tween State and Federal officers con- cerning swamp lands. Kirby v. Lewis, 39 Fed. E. 66. And of an or- der of the Secretary of the Interior withdrawing from sale or other dis- position certain public land. So. Pao. R. Co. v. Groeck, 68 Fed. E. .609. But not, it has been held, of the filing of the map of a railroad route in the Interior Department. McKeoin v. No. Pac. E. Co., 45 Fed. R. 464. Nor of the regulations of the light-house board. Smith v. Hakopee (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. E. 974 Nor of the issue of letters-patent for inventions. Bottle Seal Co. v. De La Vergne B. & S. Co., 47 Fed. R. 59. Nor of the facts stated in reports and messages of Governors to State legislatures. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Texas, 177 TJ. S. 66, 94. But see Coeur d' Alene C. & M. Co. v. Miners' Union, 51 Fed. E. 260. Nor of a report of a State auditor concern- ing the amounts of the various kinds- of property sub j ect to taxation. First Nat. Bank v. Chapman, 173 U. S. 205. It has been held, however, that a court may take judicial notice of an established custom of State officers to assess property for taxation at less- than its actual value. Eailroad & Tel. Cos. v. Board of Equalizers, 85' Fed. E. 302; contra, New York v. Barker, 179 U. S. 279. The courts will take judicial notice of histor- ical facts such as the existence of civil war in a foreign State. Un- derbill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250. That the Dominion of Canada is a British possession. Ex parte Lane, 6 Fed. E 34; Lumley v. Wabash Ey. Co., 71 Fed. E. 21; but see S. C. (C. C. A.), 76 Fed. E. 66, 69. That the lands, surrounding Seattle harbor have for years been selected and known as the site of a city. Ex parte David- son, 57 Fed. E. 883. But not, it has been held, of the fact that during the civil war the courts of a county were closed. Cross v. Sabin, 13 Fed. E. 308. The courts will take judicial notice of the boundaries of the State § 265.] ADMISSIONS. 587 § 265. Admissions. — Admissions upon the record are either actual or constructive. Actual admissions are made either in the pleadings or by agreement. Every statement of a fact or county where they hold their ses- sions, of the judicial districts and of the municipal subdivisions within such State, and of the distance from the State capital to any State subdi- vision when estimated by a public survey. Hoyt v. Russell, 117 U. S. 401. Of the boundaries of all the States. Thorson v. Peterson, 9 Fed. R 517. Of the boundaries of coun- ties within the district. Ross v. Fort Wayne (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R 466, 469; Bluefield W. & Imp. Co. v. Sanders (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 333. That Ashe- ville, N. C, is distant more than one hundred miles from Dubuque, Iowa. Mut. B. L. I. Co. v. Robinson (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R. 723. Of the States in which a railroad chartered by companies is situated. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. No. Pac R Co., 69 Fed. R 871, 881. That a river is navigable between two important cities. Lands v. A Cargo of 237 Tons of Coal, 4 Fed. R 478. But not, it seems, that a river is non-navigable at a certain point. U. S. v. Rio Grande D. & L Co., 174 U. S. 690, 698. It has been held that the Federal courts will take judicial notice in collateral proceedings of their own orders appointing receiv- ers. Pitkin v. Cowen, 91 Fed. R 559. And of the proceedings in the suit in which such an appointment was made. Louisville Tr. Co. v. Cincin- nati (C. C. A), 76 Fed. R. 296, 318. Even, it has been held upon an appli- cation for a habeas corpus, of the affirmance of a previous order deny- ing the writ to the same petitioner. InreDurant, 84 Fed. R 314 But not in general of the pending of other proceedings in the same court. In re Manderson (C. C. A), 51 Fed. R 501. Nor of the decisions upon the facts in other cases. Stewart v. Mas- terson, 131 IT. S. 151. And upon an appeal from an allowance of a claim in a foreclosure suit in which the ap- pellant described himself as " the per- son having trustee of defendant's property," the court of review re- fused to take judicial notice of the orders of the court below in the same suit directing the sale of the property or- of the proceedings thereunder. Fitzgerald v. Evans (C. C. A), 49 Fed. R. 426. The court may take judicial notice of the history and state of an art or process of manufacture when that is generally known. Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37; Heaton P. B. F. Co. v. Schlochtmeyer, 69 Fed. R 592} S. C. (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R. 520. Es- pecially when that is disclosed by the court's own records in another case. Cushman P. B. Maeh. Co. v. Gol- lard (C. C. A.), 95 Fed. R 664. But see supra, % 106. The courts will take judicial notice of the general facts of natural history. For example, that the imported native sheep of all countries produce fleeces the value of which is depreciated by an excess of hair. Lyon v. Marine (C. C. A), 55 Fed. R 964 That a "whiskey cocktail" is an intoxicating drink. U. S. v. Ash, 75 Fed. R 651. That the pasturage upon uninclosed west- ern lands is very slight evidence of possession. Whitney v. U. S., 167 U. S. 529. But not that there is any substantial difference between lead or other soft metal when wrought or drawn. McCloskey v. Du Bois, 8 Fed. R 710, 712. Nor of statements in encyclopaedias, dic- tionaries and text-books which are not matters of common knowledge. Kaolatype Eng. Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. R 444 588 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 265. material to the issues made in the pleadings, 1 affidavits, 2 or other documents used in support of the claim of any party to a suit, who is of full age, whether sworn to or not, 8 may be used as evidence against him upon the hearing. The filing of the general replication does not waive the right to rely on admissions in an answer or plea. 4 The statement by a defend- ant that he believes, or is informed and believes, that a certain fact occurred, is treated as an admission, unless coupled with some clause to prevent its being so considered. 8 For it is a rule in equity that what the defendant believes, the court will believe. 6 This>rule, however, does not apply to the statement of a defendant that he believes that a will was executed as charged in the bill. 7 Admissions in an answer made on behalf of an infant cannot be used against him, 8 unless he adopts the answer after he has reached his majority. 9 An admission of one defendant, whether in his answer or otherwise, is not evidence against any of his co-defendants, 10f who is not his partner, 11 or who does not derive his title from him. 12 An admission of facts by a demurrer is of no effect after the demurrer has been § 265. i No. Pac. E. Co. v. Paine, 119 U. S. 561. But see Smith v. Davison, 41 Fed. R, 172. An admission in an unverified pleading in another suit which was signed only by an attor- ney cannot be admitted in evidence. Delaware Co. Com'rs v. Diebold S. & L. Co., 133 U. S. 399. Statements in a verified pleading, verified by a party in another suit, are admissi- ble in evidence, Balloch v. Hooper, 146 U. S. 363; Pope v. Allis, 115 U. S. 363; except in a criminal prosecu- tion or in an action to enforce a pen- alty or forfeiture. U. S. R. S., § 860; Daly v. Brady, 69 Fed. R 285. An admission that a town made a con- tract admits that it had power to make it. Plankington v. Gray (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. K. 415. 2 Hyman v. Wheeler, 29 Fed. R 347; Tugman v. National S. S. Co., 30 Fed. R. 802; Nat S. S. Co. v. Tugman, 143 U. S. 28. Cf. Carey v. Williams, 79 Fed. R 906. 'Smith v. Potter, 3 Wis. 433. 4 Cavender v. Cavender, 8 Fed. R. 641. , 5 Potter v. Potter, 1 Ves. Sen. 274; Hill v. Binney, 6 Ves. 738. 6 Potter v. Potter, 1 Ves. Sen. 274; Hill v. Binney, 6 Ves. 738. 'Potter v. Potter, 1 Ves. Sen. 274; Da vies v. Davies, 3 DeG. & Sm. 698. s Leigh v. Ward, 2 Vent. 72; Eccles- ton v. Petty, Carth. 79; Savage v. Carroll, 1 B. & B. 548, 553; Wrotes- ley v. Bendish, 3 P. Wms. 235. See Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650, 680. ^Hinde'sCh. Pr. 422. 10 Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Wheat. 880; Clark's Ex'rs v. Van Riemsdyk, 9Cranch, 153. 11 Crosse v. Bedingfield, 12 Simons, 35; Clark's Ex'rs v. Van Riemsdyk, 9 Cranch, 153, 156. "Field v. Holland, 6 Cranoh, 8; Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat 738. § 266.] CONSTRUCTIVE ADMISSIONS. 589 withdrawn or overruled. 13 The parties to a suit may, by an agreement signed by themselves or their solicitors or made in open court by their counsel, admit any fact as proven, or allow testimony to be taken in any manner, unless they thus com- mit an act repugnant to public policy. 14 Where it had been stipulated that certain evidence should be treated as if taken and afterwards a commission was issued, which it was claimed was inconsistent with the stipulation, it was held that the stip- ulated evidence would only be expunged by a motion before the hearing, and that an objection to it at the hearing should be overruled. 15 No agreement between counsel will ordinarily be enforced unless reduced to writing or made in open court. 16 A stipulation made by a party who is represented by an attor- ney may be disregarded." § 266. Constructive admissions. — Constructive admissions are those which are implied by law from a party's act. A constructive admission is made by the plaintiff when he files no general replication, but sets the cause down for a hearing upon bill and answer only ; or when, in his bill, he does not expressly waive an answer Under oath. In the former case, he admits for the purposes of the suit that all the allegations in the answer are true; 1 in the latter, that all are true which he cannot contradict by the testimony of two witnesses, or of a single witness with corroborating circumstances. 2 This rule does not apply, however, unless the allegations in the answer are made positively. 3 Thus, a denial according to the defend- 13 Anheuser-Busch B. Co. Ass'n v. 15 Dickerson v. Matheson, 50 Fed. Bond, 66 Fed. B. 653. E. 73, 75. 14 Barker v. Dixie, Reports temp. 16 Evans v. State Nat. Bank, 19 Fed. Hardwicke, 252; Owen v. Thomas, 3 R. 676; Lee v. Simpson, 42 Fed. R. 434 M. & K. 353, 357; Nixon v. Albion " Bonifleld v. Thorp (D. C), 71 Fed. Ins. Co., L. R 2 Ex. 38 ; Lyman v. Kan- R. 924. sas C. & A. R. Co., 101 Fed. R 636. For § 266. 1 U. S. v. Scott, 3 Woods, 334; a case where the court refused to re- Kennedy v. Baylor, 1 Wash. (Va.) 162. lieve a party from a stipulation, see 2 Clark's Ex'rs v. Van Riemsdyk, 9 McNeill v. Andes, 40 Fed. R.45. As to Cranch, 153, 160; Union Bank of G. the power of the next friend of an v. Geary, 5 Pet. 99, 110; Seitz v. Mitch- infant to stipulate, see Kingsbury v. ell, 94 U. S. 580, 582; Vigel v. Hopp, Buckner, 134 U. S. 650, 680. As to 104 U. S. 441. the power of a receiver to bind the 3 Carpenter v. .Providence Wash- estate by a stipulation, or admission, ington Ins. Co., 4 How. 185; Taylor see Bosworth v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n v. Luther, 2 Sumn. 228; Berry v. of St, Louis, 174 U. S. 182 ; supra, § 249. Sawyer, 19 Fed. R 286. 590 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 267. ant's recollection and belief is insufficient for this purpose. 4 So is an allegation upon information and belief. 5 By setting down a plea for argument the plaintiff admits the truth of the allegations of fact therein contained. 6 Constructive admis- sions are also made by a demurrer, a plea, or a default in plead- ing. A demurrer admits the truth of the allegations in the bill, 7 but not of conclusions of law therein set forth. 8 A plea admits the truth of so much of the bill as it does not deny. 9 A default by the defendant's failing to file a demurrer, plea, or answer to the bill within the time allowed for that purpose entitles the plaintiff to enter an order taking the bill as con- fessed by him , wnereupon the defendant is deemed to admit the truth of the allegations in the bill. 10 Formerly in England no extra-judicial admissions of a defendant could be given in evidence unless they had been charged in the bill ; but that rule probably would not now be followed here. 11 Other testi- mony also, which was of a kind likely to take a party by sur- prise, was formerly often excluded unless the pleadings called attention to it. 12 §267. Documentary evidence in general, — Documentary evidence consists of all those matters not contained in deposi- tions or affidavits, which are submitted to the court in the shape of written documents. The rules regulating its admis- sion are substantially the same in equity as at common law. 1 In equity, however, such documents as merely require proof of their execution or of the handwriting contained in them may be admitted in evidence at the hearing of the cause if accom- panied by an affidavit of these facts, provided that an order, which is granted as of course, has been obtained and served upon the opposite side at least two days before. 2 In some cases, the courts have permitted the proof of such documents by word 4 Taylor v. Luther, 2 Sumn. 228. «> Rules 18, 19. See §§ 103-104, 6 Berry v. Sawyer, 19 Fed. R. 286. ch. vii. 6 Burrell v. Haokley, 35 Fed. R. 833 ; " See § 59, and Smith v. Burnham, Burrell v. Pratt, 35 Fed. R. 834; Beals 2 Sumn. 612; Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 v. Illinois M. & T. R. Co., 133 U. S. Story, 181; Story's Eq. PL, § 265a. 290. 12 See § 69, and Langdell's Eq. PL, 7 Pac. R Co. of Mo. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. § 60. Co., Ill U. S. 505, 522. See § 106. § 267. 1 Lake v. Philips, 1 Ch. R. 8 Dillon v. Barnard, 21 WalL 430. 110; Stevens v. Cooper, 1 J. Ch. (tf. Y.) See g 106. v 425, 429, and cases cited. 9 Farley v. Kittson, 120 U. a 303. z Clare v. Wood, 1 Hare, 314 § 267.] DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN GENERAL. 591 of mouth under oath at the hearing, when their existence and ex- ecution was not denied by the answer. 3 Telegrams do not prove themselves, and are ordinarily inadmissible without evidence that they were sent by the persons whose names are signed to the copies delivered.* According to the old English practice, the adverse party had no right, in the absence of special circum- stances, to compel before the hearing the production of any exhibit, however it had been proved, — except, perhaps, when the deposition proving it had set it out verbatim; nor even to inspect it, it being considered that a party should not before the hearing see the strength of the cause, or any deed, to pick holes in it. 5 The practice in the Federal courts is otherwise. There, both in equity and at common law, either party may upon motion supported by affidavit, which affidavit may be controverted, compel the other party to produce for his inspec- tion on the trial or hearing any books or other documents ma- terial to the issues, which are in his opponent's possession or under his opponent's control. 6 It has been held that such an order will not be granted when the production of the papers can be compelled by a subpoena duces tecum which has been served. 7 When a party inspects a document which he has com- pelled his adversary to produce under a subpoena duces tecum, and then fails to offer it in evidence, his adversary may put it in evidence. 8 A party may be compelled to produce an applica- tion for a patent which has not been issued and correspondence with the Patent Office upon the subject, although he claims that the result will be to disclose confidential communications 8 Wood v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 316; Ne- For the English practice of adm it- smith v. Calvert, 1 W. & M. 34; Atty. ting exhibits upon the hearing, see Gen. v. Pearson, 7 Sim. 290, 303. Wood v. Strickland, 2 Mer. 461. * Drexel v. True (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R 6 Coit v. N. C. Gold Am. Co., 9 Fed. 12. See Dunbar v. TJ. S., 156 U. S. R 577. Of. U. S. E. S., § 724; Kirk- 185; s. C., 60 Fed. E. 75. A subpoena patrick v. Pope Mfg. Co., 61 Fed. E. duces tecum, directed to the superin- 46, and infra, § 372. But see Guyot tendent of a telegraph company, to v. Hilton, 32 Fed. R 743; Colgate v. produce telegrams between a num- Compagnie Francaise, 23 Fed. R 82; ber of parties, was held to be suffi- Eyder v. Bateman, 93 Fed. E 81. cient, although it did not describe 7 Edison El. L. Co. v. U. S. EL L. the messages by date, or identify the Co., 44 Fed. E. 294, 300. particular ones required. In re Star- 8 Edison EL L. Co. v. U. S. El. L. ror, 63 Fed. E, 564. Co., 45 Fed. E 55. But see Treadwell s Davers v. Davers, 2 P. Wms. 410. v. Lennig, 50 Fed. E 872. 592 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 267. with his attorneys. 9 When a party had filed an exhibit drawn in pencil, a motion requiring him to refile it drawn in ink was denied. 10 A party is not entitled to a general inspection of books and papers in his adversary's possession. In the case of an inspection of books, the usual practice is to have all except the pages containing the material matter sealed up, and to have the inspection take place under the supervision of a master or commissioner. 11 In an action to recover a penalty, whether brought by a private individual or by the United States, and in a proceeding to enforce a forfeiture of property, the defend- ant or owner of the property seized cannot be compelled to produce his books or papers or other articles of personal prop- erty for the inspection of the opposite party, and should such an inspection be compelled, the judgment may be reversed upon that ground alone. 12 It has been held that, under, a subpoena duces tecum, a witness cannot be compelled to produce patterns of the casting of a stove, or anything except books and papers ; 18 that the production of drawings but not of models may be thus compelled ; u and that inspection of a mine may be al- lowed in a proceeding to remove a receiver. 15 It has been held that an attorney cannot be compelled by a subpoena duces tecum to produce a document upon which he has a lien ; 16 that a Fed- eral collector of internal revenue cannot be thus compelled to produce in a State court official papers which a regulation of the Treasury Department forbids him to show to any one ; " and that an officer or agent of a private corporation that is not 9 Ibid.; and s. C, 44 Fed. R 294 statute empowering the courts to But see Rule 15 of Patent Office ; U. S. compel the inspection and survey of R. S., § 4902. a mine is constitutional. Montana i° Tubman v. Wason Mfg. Co., 44 Co. v. St. Louis Min. & Mfg. Co.. 152 Fed. R. 429. U. S. 160. Of. infra, § 372. H Robbins v. Denis, 1 Blatchf. 238, « Davis v. Davis, 90 Fed. R. 791. 243. "Boske v. Comengore, 177 U. S. 12 Johnson V.Donaldson, 18 Blatchf. 459. When a party needs to use in a 287; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616. See State court papers on file in the U. S. v. Denicke, 35 Fed. R. 407, 410. clerk's office of a Federal court, the 13 In re Sheppard, 3 Fed. R 12. safer practice is to apply to the Fed- 14 Johnson Steel S. R. Co. v. N. B. S. eral court for permission to serve a Co., 48 Fed. R 191; Diamond Match subpoena duces tecum upon its clerk. Co. v. Oshkosh M. Works, 63 Fed. R Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148, 984 153; s. C. as Wadley v. Blount, 65 is Henszey v. Langdon-Henszey Fed. R 667. Coal Min. Co., 80 Fed. R 778. A State § 268.] ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 593 a party to a suit cannot be compelled to bring into court the books of the corporation and to open them for examination there. 18 The English rule was that in a suit against the heir- at-law to establish the validity of a will, all the witnesses to the will who are alive, sane, and within the jurisdiction of the court, must be examined ; 19 and the testator's sanity must be proved affirmatively. 20 This rule does not, however, apply to suits to establish the trusts of a will, or to appoint a new trustee, or in any other case when the validity of the will is not directly in issue. 21 It has been said that a party who has fraudulently altered documents which he offers in evidence is thereby debarred from all relief in equity. 22 § 268. Federal statutes regulating admission of document- ary evidence. — The Eevised Statutes of the United States provide as follows concerning the admission of documentary evidence : " Copies of any books, records, papers, or documents in any of the Executive Departments, authenticated under the seals of such Departments, respectively, shall be admitted in evidence equally with the originals thereof." ' The mode of authentication prescribed by the statute must be strictly fol- lowed. 2 The words, " papers or documents," mean only such as are made by an officer and an agent of the government in "Southern Ry. Co. v. North Caro- "Bootle v. Blundell, 19 Ves. 4946, Una Corp. Com'rs, 104 Fed. R 700. 505. Contra, Wertheim v. Continental Ry. 20 Harris v. Ingledew, 3 P. Wms. 91 ; & Tr. Co., 15 Fed. R 716; U. S. v. Wallis v. Hodgeson, 2 Atk. 56. Baboook, Fed. Cas. No. 14,484. Cf. » Bootle v. Blundell, 19 Ves. 4946, Russell v. McLennan, Fed. Cas. No. 505; Concannon v. Cruise, 2 Molloy, 12,158; In re Hirsch, 74 Fed. R 928; 332. McMullen v. Ritchie, 57 Fed. R. 104. ^Harton v. McKee, 73 Fed. R. 556. As to the right of a stockholder to § 268. HT. S. R S., § 882. See Bar- inspect the books of the corporation, ney v. Schneider, 9 Wall. 248; Chad- see Ranger v. Champion C. P. Co., 51 wick v. TJ. S., 3 Fed. R 750; Block v. Fed. R 61. U. S., 7 Ct. CI. 406; U. S. v. Liddle, 2 It has been held that entries in the Wash 205; U. S. v. Benner, 1 Bald, books of a corporation showing a 234; White v. St. Guirons, Minor transfer of stock to a person and pay- (Ala.), 331; Catlett v. Pac. Ins. Co., ment by him of instalments of the 1 Paine, 594; Bleecker v. Bond, 3 subscription thereto are not prima Wash. 529; Thompson v. Smith, 2 facie evidence that he is a stock- Bond, 320; Wetmore v. U. S., 10 Pet. holder. Carey v. Williams (C. C. A), 647; Wickliffe v. Hill, 8 Litt. (Ky.) 79 Fed. R 906. But see Turnbull v. 330. Payson, 95 U. S. 418; Liggett v. 2 Smith v. TJ. S., 5 Pet. 291, 300; Glenn (C. C. A), 51 Fed. R 381. Block v. U. S., 7 Ct. CL 406; Bleecker 38 594 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 268. the discharge of his official duty ; and copies of such are not competent evidence unless it was the duty of the officer to file the originals. 3 In cases described in section 886 of the Ee- vised Statutes, proof must be given in accordance with the provisions of that section. 4 The original papers may also be put in evidence. 5 In cases where the government is a party, duly authenticated copies should be procured and the fees therefor paid, and a mere notice to produce the original is not sufficient. 6 Papers which were a part of the archives of the late so-called " Confederate Government " must be proved by proper testimony. 7 The certificate of the Secretary of the v. Bond, 3 Wash. 531; TJ. S. v. Har- rill, McAU. 243; Wickliffe v. Hill, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 330. If the officer having charge of the paper certifies that the copy is correct, and the head of a department certifies to the officer's character, the paper is sufficiently authenticated, provided that the seal from the department is attached thereto. Ballew v. U. S., 160 U. S. 187. In the case of documents filed in the Treasury Department, an authentica- tion under the seal of that depart- ment and the signature of the Secre- tary and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury is sufficient. Chad- wicke v. U. S., 3 Fed. R 750. The original canceled register of a lost vessel has been held to come within the statute. Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co., 1 Paine, 612. See Bleecker v. Bond, 3 Wash. 29. Statements in the manifests of vessels concerning the occupation and nationality of pas- sengers are not evidence of those facts. TJ. S. v. Wilson, 60 Fed. R. 890, 896. Accounts and papers filed in the office of the Quartermaster-General may thus be proved. Thompson v. Smith, 2 Bond, 320. See Crowell v. Hopkinson, 45 N. H. 9. Entries in a ship's log are strong evidence against the party making them. The New- foundland, 89 Fed. R. 510. " The design and meaning of this rule is not to con- vert incompetent and irrelevant evi- dence into competent and relevant evidence simply because it is con- tained in an official communication. Had the officer been testifying under oath, such an assertion would have been excluded as inadmissible, upon the ground that the statement itself implied the existence of primary and more original and explicit sources of information. The courts hold this rule which has been invoked to be limited to only such a statement in official documents as the officers are bound to make in the regular course of official duty. The statement of extraneous or independent circum- stances, however naturally they may be deemed to have a place in the narrative, is no proof of such cir- cumstances, and is therefore re- jected." U. S. v. Corwin, 129 U. S. 381, 386. Of. The Ship Parkman, 35 Ct. CI. 406. 3 Block v. TJ. S., 7 Ct. CL 406. * Chadwicke v. TJ. S., 3 Fed. R. 750; White v. St. Guirons, Minor (Ala.), 331; TJ. S. v. Humason, 8 Fed. R 71. 6 Bruce v. Manchester & K. R Co., 19 'Fed. R. 342. 6 Barney v. Schneider, 9 WalL 248; Chad wick v. TJ. S., 3 Fed. R. 750; U. S. v. Scott, 25 Fed. R 470; U. S. v. Benner, 1 Bald. 234; TJ. S. v. Perch- man, 7 Pet. 51; Winn v. Patterson, '9 Pet. 663; James v. Gordon, 1 Wash. 333. i Chorbin v. U. S., 6 Ct. CI. 430. § 268.] ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTABY EVIDENCE. 595 Spanish Governor of Florida is prima facie evidence of the existence of a grant of land. 8 " The volume of public docu- ments, printed by authority of the Senate of the United States, containing letters to and from various officers of state, com- municated by the President of the United States to the Sen- ate, is as competent evidence as the original documents them- selves." 9 " Copies of any documents, records, books, or papers in the office of the Solicitor of the Treasury, certified by him under the seal'of his office, or, when his office is vacant, by the officer acting as Solicitor for the time, shall be evidence equally with the originals." 10 "Every certificate, assignment, and conveyance executed by the Comptroller of the Currency, in pursuance of law, and sealed with his seal of office, shall be received in evidence in all places and courts; and all copies of papers in his office certified by him and authenticated by the said seal, shall in all cases be evidence equally with the orig- inals. An impression of such seal directly on the paper shall be as valid as if made on wax or wafer." " " Copies of the organization certificate of any national banking association, duly certified by the Comptroller of the Currency, and authen- ticated by his seal of office, shall be evidence in all courts and places within the jurisdiction of the United States of the ex- istence of the association, and of every matter which could be proved by the production of the original certificate." 12 " When suit is brought in any case of delinquency of a revenue officer, or other person accountable for public money, a tran- script from the books and proceedings of the Treasury Depart- ment certified by the " Secretary and Assistant Secretary " and authenticated under the seal of the Department, or, when the suit involves the accounts of the "War or Navy Departments, certified by the " Secretary or an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, " and authenticated under the seal of the Treasury Department, shall be admitted as evidence, and the court try- 8 U. S. v. Wiggins, 14 Pet. 334; U. S. Co. Nat. Bank v. Lee, 112 Mass. 531 ; v. Acosta, 1 How.24. ' Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Glendon 9Whiton v. Albany Ins. Co., 109 Co., 120 Mass. 97. A certificate is Mass. 30. Of. Doe v. Epe, 13 Fla. 602. sufficient in the absence of any evi- 10 U. S. R. S., § 883. dence that there is any other na- 11 U. S. R S., § 884. tional bank of the same name at the 12 I7. S. R S., § 885; First Nat. Bank same place. Washington Co. Nat v. Kidd, 20 Minn. 234; Washington Bank v. Lee, 112 Mass. 521. 596 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY, [§ 268. ing the cause shall be authorized to grant judgment and award execution accordingly. And all copies of bonds, contracts, or other papers relating to, or connected with, the settlement of any account between the United States and an individual, when certified by the -" Secretary or an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury " to be true copies of the original on file, and authen- ticated under the seal of the Department, may be annexed to such transcripts, and shall have equal validity, and be entitled to the same degree of credit which would be due to the orig- inal papers if produced and authenticated in court : provided, that where suit is brought upon a bond or other sealed instru- ment, and the defendant pleads i non est factum] or makes his motion to the court, verifying such plea or motion by his oath, the court may take the same into consideration, and, if it ap- pears to be necessary for the attainment of justice, may require the production of the original bond, contract, or other paper specified in such affidavit." 13 "U.&R S., § 886, as amended by 28 Stat. 764; Bechtel v. U. S., 101 U. S. 597; U. a v. Bell, 111 U. S. 477; TJ. a v. Stone, 106 U. S. 525; Moses v. U. S., 166 U. S. 571, 598. This sec- tion applies to sureties as well as to principals. U. S. v. Gaussen, 19 Wall. 198. It applies only to suits against persons accountable for public mon- eys as such. U. S. v. Eadowitz, 8 Rep. 263. See U. S. v. Griffith, 2 Cranch, C. C. 666. It does not apply to an action on the official bond of a super- intendent of the mint for failure to safely keep property intrusted to his care. TJ. S. v. Bosbyshell (D. CO, 73 Fed. E. 616. " There are two kinds of tran- scripts which the statute authorizes the proper officer to certify. First, a transcript from the ' books and pro- ceedings of the treasury; ' and sec- ond, ' copies of bonds, contracts, and other papers, etc., which remain on file, and relate to the settlement.' Under the first head are included charges of moneys advanced or paid by the department to the agent, and an entry of items suspended, re- jected, or placed to his credit. These all appear upon the books of the de- partment. The decision made on the vouchers exhibited, and the state- ment of the amount, constitute, in part, the proceedings of the treasury. Under the second head, copies of papers which remain on file, and which have a relation to the settle- ment, may be certified. In this case it is essential that the officer certify that the transcripts ' are true copies of the originals which remain on file.' *' Smith v. U. S., 5 Pet. 291, 300, 301, per Mr. Justice M'Lean. "An account stated at the Treasury De- partment which does not arise in the ordinary mode of doing business in that department can derive no additional validity from being certi- fied under the act of Congress. Such a statement can only be regarded as establishing items for moneys dis- bursed through the ordinary chan- nels of the department, where the transactions are shown by its books. In these cases, the officers may well certify, for they must have official knowledge of the facts stated. But § 268.] ADMISSION OF DOOUMENTAET EVIDENCE. 597 " Upon the trial of any indictment against any person for embezzling public moneys, it shall be sufficient evidence, for the purpose of showing a balance against such person, to pro- duce a transcript from the books and proceedings of the Treas- where moneys come into the hands of an individual, as in the case under consideration, the books of the treas- ury do not exhibit the facts, nor can they be officially known to the officers of the department. In this case, therefore, the claim must be established not by the treasury state- ment, but by the evidence on which that statement was made." U. S. v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12, 29, per Mr. Justice M'Lean. A copy of a bond certified by the Secretary of the Treasury without the certificate of the regis- ter and auditor is insufficient. TJ. S. v. Humason, 8 Fed. R. 71. The cer- tificate should show that the tran- script exhibits the final adjustment of the debits, as shown not by mere copies of original papers on the files, but upon the b6oks and records of the department. U. S. v. Pinson, 102 U. S. 548; Tiernan v. Jackson, 5 Pet. 592; TJ. S. v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12; Cox v. U. S., 6 Pet. 172; 17. S. v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375; Gratton v. U. S., 15 Pet. 336; Hoyt v. U. S., 10 How. 109; Bruce v. U. S., 17 How. 437. It seems that the balances struck by the treasury and charged as such are not evi- dence, but that the items should be stated. TJ. S. v. Edwards, 1 McLean, 347; U. S. v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375; Gra- tiot v. U. S., 15 Pet. 336; Hoyt v. U. S., 10 How. 109; TJ. S. v. Martin, 2 Paine, 68; TJ. S. v. Gaussen, 19 Wall. 198; U. S. v. Smith, 35 Fed. R. 490; U. S. v. Van Zandt, 2 Cranch C. C. 338; TJ. S. v. Kuhn, 4 Cranch C. C. 401. A transcript from the books may be evidence of charges for moneys ad- vanced or paid by the department to the agent, and claims, suspended, re- jected, or placed to his credit; but not of moneys received by him for 1 the benefit of the United States from other sources than the department. U. S. v. Buford, 3 Pet 12; U. S. v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375. A transcript show- ing the money expended by the offi- cers in supplying the default of the contractor to carry out his contract is competent evidence. TJ. S. v. Grif- fith, 2 Cranch C. C. 666. * The govern- ment need not show that the "fcarty had notice of the adjustment or of the balance against him in the tran- script. Watkins v. TJ. S., 9 WalL 759. " The statute says that a tran- script from the books shall be ad- mitted as evidence. A transcript or a transcribing is substantially a copy. A copy from the books, and not of the books, shall be admissible in evi- dence. An extract from the books, a portion of the books, when authen- ticated to be a copy, may be given in evidence. While a garbled state- • ment is not evidence, or a mutilated statement, wherein the debits shall be presented and the credits sup- pressed, or perhaps a statement of results only, it still seems to be clear that it is not necessary that every account with an individual, and all of every account, shall be transcribed as a condition of the admissibility of any one account. The statement presented should be complete in itself, perfect for what it purports to represent, and give both sides of the account as the same stands upon the books." TJ. S. v. Gaussen, 19 Wall. 212, 214, per Justice Hunt. Treasury statements are only prima facie evi- dence of the correctness of the bal- ance. The accounting officer may correct mistakes and restate* bal- ances. Soule v. U. S., 100 TJ. S. 8, 11; TJ. S. v. Ecksford, 1 How. 250, 263; 598 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY, [§ 268. ury Department, as provided by the preceding section." " " A copy of any return of a contract returned and filed in the re- turns-office of the Department of the Interior, as provided by law, when certified by the clerk of said office to be full, and complete, and when authenticated by the seal of the Depart- ment, shall be evidence in any prosecution against any officer for falsely and corruptly swearing to the affidavit required by law to be made by such officer in making his return of any contract as required by law, to said returns-office." 15 , " Copies of the quarterly returns of postmasters and of any papers pertaining to the accounts in the office of the sixth auditor, and transcripts from the money-order account-books of the Post-Office Department, when certified by the sixth audi- tor under the seal of his office, shall be admitted as evidence in the courts of the United States, in civil suits and criminal prosecutions ; and in any civil suit, in case of delinquency of any postmaster or contractor, a statement of the account, cer- tified as aforesaid, shall be admitted in evidence, and the court shall be authorized thereupon to give judgment and award exe- cution, subject to the provisions of law as to proceedings in such civil suits." 16 "In all suits for the recovery of balances due from post- masters, a copy, duly certified under the seal of the sixth auditor, of the statement of any postmaster, special agent, or other per- son, employed by the Postmaster-General, or the auditor for that purpose, that he has mailed a letter to such delinquent postmaster, at the postoffice where the indebtedness accrued, or at his last usual place of abode; that a sufficient time has elapsed for said letter to have reached its destination in the U. S. v. Egglespn, 4 Saw. 201; U. S. "U. S. R. S., § 887. See U. S. v. v. Hunt, 105 U. S. 183, 187. But see Gaussen, 19 Wall. 198. U. S. v. Collier, 3 Blatchf. 325; Ex " U. S. R S., § 888. See U. S. R S., parte Randolph, 2 Brook. 44. The §3744. errors made in striking the balance 16 U. S. R. S., § 889; U. S. v. Dumas, may be proved by the defendant by 149 U. S. 278; U. S. v. Carlowitz (C. the procuring of the original vouch- C. A.), 80 Fed. R 852; Soule v. U. S., ers, or otherwise. Soule v. U. S., 100 100 U. S. 8, 11 ; U. S. v. Harrill, McAll. U. S. 8; Bruce v. U. S., 17 How. 437; 243; U. S. v. Hodge, 13 How. 478; U. S. v. Stone, 106 U. S. 525. The de- U. S. v. Hilliard, 3 McLean, 324; U. S. fendant by accepting the credits v. Wilkinson, 12 How. 246; Post- given him does not waive the objec- master-General v. Rice, Gilp. 554; tion to the items on the debit side. Lawrence v. U. S., 2 McLean, 581 ; U. S. v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375. U. S. v. Snyder. 14 Fed. R 554. § 268.] ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 599 ordinary course of the mail, and the payment of such balance has not been received, within the time designated in his in- structions, shall be received as sufficient evidence in the courts of the United States or other courts, that a demand has been made upon the delinquent postmaster; but when the account of a late postmaster has been once adjusted and settled, and a demand has been made for the balance appearing to be due, and afterward allowances are made on credits entered, it shall not be necessary to make a further demand for the new bal- ance found to be due." " " Copies of any records, books, or papers in the general land office, authenticated by the seal and certified by the commis- sioner thereof, or, when his office is vacant, by the principal clerk, shall be evidence equally with the originals thereof. And literal exemplifications of any such records shall be held, when so introduced in evidence, to be of the same validity as if the names of the officers signing and countersigning the same had been fully inserted in such record." 18 "IX. S. R.S., §890. is U. S. R. S., § 891. This section only applies to official documents. Block v. U. S., 7 Ct. CL 406. The words, "evidence equally with the originals," do not mean that in all cases the copy shall have the same probative force as the original, and that on a question as to some particu- lar word or figure, the copy shall be as convincing as the original; it merely requires the copy to be regarded as of the same class in the grades of evidence, as to written and parol, and primary and secondary. Camp- bell v. Laclede Gas Co., 119 U. S. 445, 449. See Gait v. Galloway, 4 Pet. 331. A party is not deprived of his title because of a defective record, if he has a perfect patent. A perfect rec- ord of a perfect patent proves the grant; but a perfect record of an im- perfect patent, or an imperfect record of a perfect patent, has no such ef- fect. In such a case, if a perfect patent has in fact issued, it must be proved in some other way than by the record. McGarrahan v. Mining Co., 96 U. S. 316, 323; Campbell v. Laclede Gas Co., 119 U. S. 445, 449. The defective record in the general land office does not deprive a party of his rights, and the contents of the original may be shown if the record or transcript is not a true copy. Mc- Garrahan v. Mining Co., 96 U. S. 316, 3^3; Campbell v. Laclede Gas Co., 119 U. S. 445. " The names need not be fully inserted in the record, but it must appear in some form that the names were actually signed to the patent when it issued." McGarrahan v. Mining Co., 96 U. S. 316, 323. A perfect record of a perfect patent is presumptive evidence of its delivery to and acceptance by the grantea Ibid. An entry in the books of the land office, that the balance of the purchase-money was paid by the per- son "to whom the patent had is- sued," is some evidence that a patent issued, although no patent is pro- duced. Willis v. Bucher, 3 Wash. C. C. 369. A certificate by a receiver 600 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 268. " Written or printed copies of any records, books, papers, or drawings belonging to the patent office, and of letters-patent authenticated by the seal and certified by the commissioner or acting commissioner thereof, shall be evidence in all cases wherein the originals could be evidence; and any person mak- ing application therefor, and paying the fee required by law, shall have certified copies thereof." 19 that a party has made full payment is evidence that such party has taken the steps necessary for a pre-emption. McDonald v. Edmonds, 44 Cal. 328. A copy of a plat and description duly authenticated is admissible. Harris v. Barnett,,4 Blatohf. 369. A con- nected plat of sundry tracts of land made and put together by an officer of the land office, which is not the copy of any record in such office, is not competent evidence, Griffith v. Truckhomer, Pet. C. C. 166. Under this statute a certified copy of the records of the land office at Wash- ington, concerning the location of a land warrant containing a descrip- tion of the various acts of the register and receiver at the land office at Chicago, and of the locator in regard to the location, showing that the land was subject to location at the time, and that the land warrant was properly delivered up and deposited with the commissioner of the land office, is admissible in evidence. Culver v. Uthe, 133 U. S. 655. i»U. S. R S., § 892. Cf. Edison E. L. Co. v. U. S. E. L. Co., 44 Fed. R. 294. A transcript of certain docu- ments on file is competent, although not a transcript of the whole pro- ceedings. Toohey v. Harding, 1 Fed. R. 174. Proof that there is no rec- ord must be made by deposition or attendance in court of the proper officer; and a mere certificate that diligent search has been made is not sufficient. Stoner v. Ellis, 6 Ind. 152; Bullock v. Wallingford, 55 N. H. 619; Am. Depot Co. v. Sheldon, 17 Blatch. 210; Stone v. Palmer, 28 Mo. 539. It seems that the court will presume that a person who signs as " Acting Commissioner " holds such office, in the absence of evidence to the con- trary. Woodworth v. Hall, 1 Wood. & M. 248. Letters written by an ap- plicant for a patent, when properly certified as papers remaining in the department, are admissible in evi- dence. Pettibone v. Derringer, 4 Wash. C. C. 215, 219. The documents which make up the original papers belong to the public archives, and a duly certified copy thereof is com- petent evidence, although some of these documents may contain pri- vate stipulations between the par- ties concerned. Hanrick v. Barton, 16 Wall. 166. Putting in evidence the file wrapper of a patent for which priority of invention is claimed, for the purpose of contradicting testi- mony of the inventor as to the date of the invention, does not make the depositions contained therein evi- dence in the case for all purposes. Richardson v. Campbell, 72 Fed. R. 525. A certified copy of a patent surrendered and canceled is admissi- ble to show that an improvement subsequently patented is not orig- inal, although the certificate does not show when it was canceled, or how, or for what defect. Delano v. Scott, Gilp. 489. A certified copy of an assignment has been held to be not even prima facie evidence of the genuineness of the original and of the correctness of the copy of the record. Mayor, etc. City of New § 268.] ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 601 " Copies of the specifications and drawings of foreign letters- patent, certified as provided in the preceding secction, shall be jyrirna facie evidence of the fact of the granting of such letters-patent, and of the date and contents thereof." 20 " The printed copies of specifications and drawings of patents, which the Commissioner of Patents is authorized to print for gratuitous distribution, and to deposit in the capitols of the States and Territories, and in the clerk's offices of the District Courts, shall, when certified by him and authenticated by the seal of his office, be received in all courts as evidence of all matters therein contained." 21 " Extracts from the journals of the Senate, or of the House of Representatives, and of the executive journal of the Senate when the injunction of secrecy is removed, certified by the sec- retary of the Senate or by the clerk of the House of Repre- sentatives, shall be admitted as evidence in the courts of the United States, and shall have the same force and effect as the originals would have if produced and authenticated in court." M " Copies of all official documents and papers in the office of any consul, vice-consul, or commercial agent of the United States, and of all official entries in the books or records of any such office, certified under the hand and seal of such officer, shall be admitted in evidence in the courts of the United States." 23 York v. American Cable By. Co. (C. C. A.), 60 Fed. R 1016; Paine v. Trask (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 233; Lee v. Blandy, 1 Bond, 361; Brooks v. Jen- kins, 3 McLean, 432; Parker v. Ha- worth, 4 McLean, 370. A certified copy of a transfer not required by law to be recorded is not proof of the transfer. Sherman v. Champlain Trans. Co., 31 Vt. 162. He who de- sires a copy of papers filed in the patent office must make demand therefor in a proper manner, without insulting or abusing the officers; but if a second demand is properly made, the commissioner cannot refuse to comply because of the applicant's previous improper conduct Boyden v. Burke, 14 How. 575. 2" U. S. R S., § 893. A copy of a French patent certified by the di- rector of the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers of France, under the seal of that department, verified by the minister of agriculture and commerce, and the ministerof foreign affairs, under their seals, but not by the great seal of France, may be ad- mitted in evidence. Schoerken v. Swift C. & B. Co., 7 Fed. R 469, 471. See Deflorz v. Reynolds, 17 Blatchf. 436. 21 U. S. E. S., § 894. 22 U. S. R a, § 895. See Field v. Clark. 143 U. S. 649, 679; U. S. v. Burr, 159 U. S. 78, 85. 23 U. S. R S., § 896; The Atlantic, Abbott's Adm. 451. The certificate 602 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 268. " The transcripts into new books, made by the clerks of the District Courts in the several districts of Texas, Florida, Wis- consin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Kansas, in pursuance of the act of June twenty-seven, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, chap- ter one hundred and sixty-five, from the records and journals transferred by them respectively, under the said act, to the clerks of the Circuit Courts in the said districts, when certified by the clerks respectively, making the same to be full and true copies from the original books, shall have the same force and effect as records as the originals. And the certificates of the clerks of said Circuit Courts, respectively, of transcripts of any of the books or papers so transferred to them, shall be received in evidence with the like effect as if made by the clerk of the court in which the proceedings were had." 24 " The transcripts into new books made by the clerks of the Circuit and District Courts for the western district of North Carolina, in pursuance of the act of June four, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, chapter two hundred and eighty-two, when certified by the clerks respectively, making the same to be full and true copies from the original books, shall have the same force and effect as records as the originals. And the certificates of the clerks of said Circuit and District Courts respectively, of transcripts of a consul is competent evidence olanus, Crabbe, 239. Cf. The W. F. to prove his official acts, but not acts Baboock (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R 978. ■which are not official or not within Nor to authenticate the record of the his personal knowledge. Brown v. condemnation of a vessel in a court The Independence, Crabbe, 54. The of vice-admiralty, Catlett v. Pacific consul's certificate is competent to Ins. Co., 1 Paine, 594; nor to prove a prove that the ship's papers were foreign law or the correctness of a lodged with him, U. S. v. Mitchell, translation, Church v. Hubbard, 2 2 Wash. 478; that a seaman was dis- ' Cranch, 187; nor to prove any fact charged in a foreign court with his between third persons, unless made so own consent, Lamb v. Briard, Abb. by statute, U. S. v. Mitchell, 2 Wash. Adm. 367; and when it sets out all 478; The Alice, 12 Fed. R 923; Stein the essential facts it is prima facie v. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209; Levy v. Bur- evidence that a master violated the ley, 2 Sumn. 355; nor to prove a copy law in refusing to receive a dis- of a bill of lading in another's pos- charged seaman in a foreign port, session, The Alice, 12 Fed. R. 923. A Matthews v. Offley, 3 Sumn. 115. A certificate with an undecipherable consular certificate is not competent seal and signature is not admissible to prove facts to justify imprison- in evidence. The Atlantic, Abb. Adm. ment of a seaman by the master in 451. a foreign port, Johnson v. The Cari- *> U.S. R S., § 897. § 268.] ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTAKY EVIDENCE. 603 of any of the said transcribed records, shall also be received in evidence with the like effect as if made by the proper clerk from the originals from which such records were transcribed." M " When the record of any judgment, decree, or other proceed- ing of any court of the United States is lost or destroyed, any party or person interested therein may, on application to such court, and on showing to its satisfaction that the same was lost or destroyed without his fault, obtain from it an order author- izing such defect to be supplied by a duly certified copy of the original record, where the same can be obtained; and such certified copy shall thereafter have, in all respects, the same effect as the original record would have had." 26 " When any such record is lost or destroyed, and the defect cannot be sup- plied as provided in the preceding section, any party or person interested therein may make a written application to the court to which the record belonged, verified by affidavit, showing such loss or destruction; that the same occurred without his fault or neglect; that certified copies of such record cannot be obtained by him; and showing also the substance of the record so lost or destroyed, and that the loss or destruction thereof, unless supplied, will or may result in damage to him. The court shall cause said application to be entered of record, and a copy of it shall be served personally upon every person in- terested therein, together with a written notice that on a day therein stated, which shall not be less than sixty days after such service, said application will be heard; and if, upon such hearing, the court is satisfied that the statements contained in the application are true, it shall make and cause to be entered of record an order reciting the substance and effect of said lost or destroyed record. Said order shall have the same effect, so far as concerns the party or person making such application and the persons served as above provided, but subject to inter- vening rights, which the original record would have had, if the same had not been lost or destroyed." '■" " When any cause has been removed to the Supreme Court, and the original rec- ord thereof is afterward lost, a duly certified copy of the rec- ord remaining in said court may be filed in the court from 25 T7. S. R S., § 898. « U. S. R. S., § 900. * U. S. R S., § 899; Cornett v. Will- iams, 20 Wall. 226. 604: , EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. ' [§ 288. tvhich the cause was removed, on motion of any party or per- son claiming to be interested therein; and the copy so filed shall have the same effect as the original record would have had if the same had not been lost or destroyed." 28 " In any proceedings in conformity with law to restore the records of any court of the United States which have been or may be hereafter lost or destroyed, the notice required may be served on any non-resident of the district in which such court is held anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States, or in any foreign country ; the proof of service of such notice, if made in a foreign country, to be certified by a minister or consul of the United States in such country, under his official seal." 29 " A certified copy of the official return, or any other official paper of the United States attorney, marshal, or clerk, or other certifying or recording officer of any court of the United States, made in pursuance of law, and on file in any department of the government, relating to any cause or mat- ter to which the United States was a party in any such court, the record of which has been or may be lost or destroyed, may be filed in the court to which it appertains, and shall have the same force and effect as if it were an original report, return paper^ or other document made to or filed in such court; and in any case in which the names of the parties and the date and amount of judgment or decree shall appear from such return paper, or document, it shall be lawful for the court in which they are filed to issue the proper process to enforce such decree or judgment, in the same manner as if the original rec- ord remained in said court. And in all cases where any of the files, papers, or records of any court of the United States have been or shall be lost or destroyed, the files, records, and papers which, pursuant to law, may have been or may be restored or supplied in place of such records, files, and papers, shall have the same force and effect to all intents and purposes, as the originals thereof would have been entitled to." 30 " "Whenever any of the records or files in which the United States are in- terested of any court of the United States have been or may be lost or destroyed, it shall be the duty of the attorney Of the 28 U. S. E. S., § 901. f U. S. R. a, § 903, as amended by 29 U. a R. a, § 902, as amended by 20 St. at L. 277. 20 St. at L. 277. § 268.] ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 605 United States for the district or court to which such files and records belong, so far as the judges of such courts respectively shall deem it essential to the interests of the United States that such records and files be restored or supplied, to take such steps, under the direction of said judges, as may be necessary to effect such restoration or substitution, including such dock- ets, indices, and other books and papers as said judges shall think proper. Said judges may direct the performance, by clerks of said courts respectively and by the United States at- torneys, of any duties incident thereto; and said clerks and attorneys shall be allowed such compensation, for services in the matter and for lawful disbursements, as may be approved by the Attorney-General of the United States, upon a certifi- cate by the judges of said courts stating that such claim for services and disbursements is just and reasonable ; and the sum so allowed shall be paid out of the judiciary fund." 31 " The acts of the legislature of any State or Territory, or of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be authenticated by having the seals of such State, Terri- tory, or country affixed thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any State or Territory, or of any such country, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken." 32 81 TJ. S. R. S., § 904, as amended by that the seal of a State was annexed 20 St. at L. 277. to a paper by the proper officer under S2 U. S. E. S., § 905. The cases con- due authority. United States v. struing this section of the Revised Johns. 4 Dall. 412; s. C, 1 Wash. C. C. Statutes are very numerous, and may 363; U. S. v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392. be found collected in Greenleaf on The certificate must show that the Evidence, §§ 504-506. This statute person who signed it as judge was, applies to the Federal courts as well when he signed it, the judge, chief as to the State courts. Gormley v. justice, or presiding magistrate of Bunyan, 138 U. S. 623, 635; Mills v. the court in which the judgment is Duryee, ' 7 Cranch, 481 ; Galpin v. of record. Stewart v. Gray, Hemps. Page, 3 Saw. 93. It will be presumed, 94; U. S. v. Biebusch, 1 McCrary, 42, 606 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 268. "All records and exemplifications of books, which may be kept in any public office of any State or Territory, or of any country subject to t;he jurisdiction of the United States, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State or Territory, or in any such country, by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the court of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State or Territory, or coun- try, that the said attestation is in due form, and by the proper officers. If the said certificate is given by the presiding justice of a court, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or pro- thonotary of the said court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if given by such governor, secretary, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State, Territory, or country afore- said in which it is made. And the said records and exemplifi- cations, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court and office within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the State, 1 Fed. R. 213. If the laws of a State record of proceedings of his court, show that the court in which the and if the judge, chief justice, or judgment was rendered consisted of presiding magistrate certifies that but a single judge, it is not material such attestation of the clerk is in in a Federal court that the certificate due form of law, it is to be presumed to the attestation of the clerk did that the paper so certified is in due not show that the certifying ofHcer form, and is a full copy of the pro- was the sole judge, chief justice, or ceedings in the case, and is admissi- presiding magistrate. Bennett v. ble in evidence; but if it proves to Bennett, Deady, 299. The certificate be a mere transcript of minutes taken of the judge that he is "one of the from the docket of the court, it is judges " of the court is insufficient, not admissible. Ferguson v. Har- Stewart v. Gray, Hemps. 94; Gard- wood, 7 Cranch, 408. Cf. Wood- ner v. Lindo, 1 Cranch C. C. 78. The bridge & T. Eng. Co. v. Ritter, 70 Fed. judge should certify that the' attes- R 677. If a judgment has been re- tation is in due form according to covered against a corporation by a the laws of the State. Craig v. wrong name, there may be a recov- Brown, Pet. C. C. 352. If a clerk of eiy in a suit on such judgment in a court certifies at the foot of a paper another State brought against it by which purports to be a record that the proper name. La Fayette Ins. the foregoing is truly taken from the Co. v. French, 18 How. 404. § 268.] ADMISSION OF DOOUMENTAKY EVIDENCE. 607 Territory, or country, as aforesaid, from which they are taken." 3S " It shall be lawful for any keeper or person having the cus- tody of laws, judgments, orders, decrees, journals, correspond- ence, or othei public documents of any foreign government or its agents, relating to the title to lands claimed by or under the United States, on the application of the head of one of the De- partments, the Solicitor of the Treasury, or the Commissioner of the General Land Office, to authenticate copies thereof under his hand and seal, and to certify them to be correct and true copies of such laws, judgments, orders, decrees, journals, corre- spondence, or other public documents, respectively ; and when such copies are certified by an American minister or consul, under his hand and seal of office, to be true copies of the orig- inals, they shall be sealed up by him and returned to the Solic- itor of the Treasury, who shall file them in his office, and cause them to be recorded in a book kept for that purpose. A copy of any such law, judgment, order, decree, journal, correspond- «a S. R. S., § 906. See also Sny- der v. Wise, 10 Pa. St. 157; Lawrence v. Gaultney, Cheves Law (S. C), 7; King v. Dale, 2 111. 513; Henthorn v. Doe, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 157; Russell v. Kearney, 27 Ga. 96; Paca v. Dutton, 4 Mo. 371; Karr v. Jackson, 28 Mo. 316; Grant v. Henry Clay Coal Co., 80 Pa. St. 208; and authorities cited in Bump's Fed. Proa, 617-619. This section does not impart to the au- thenticated State record anything more than "faith and credit," and does not extend the effect of a decis- ion against a State to the United States, nor make an award or judg- ment which might be final against a State either obligatory in law or conclusive against the United States. Williams v. U. S., 137 U. S. 113, 186. Where a deed of land in Texas had been executed in accordance with the civil laws in Louisiana, and a copy furnished to the grantee as a second original, this copy was ad- mitted in evidence, upon proof by the witness that he had examined the originals on file in the notary's book; that the copy was a true one; that the notary before whom the conveyance was executed was dead; that the witness knew the handwrit- ing, which was genuine; that the witness knew the handwriting of one of the subscribing witnesses; that such witness was dead; and that the signature of such subscrib- ing witness was genuine. White v. -Bromley, 20 How. 235, 250. A par- don certified under the great seal of the State was admitted in evidence. U. S. v. Wilson, Baldw. 78. A copy of a survey certified by the register, by the judge, and by the Secretary of State under the great seal, was admitted in evidence. Smith v. Red- den, 5 Harr. (Del.) 321. The clerk's certificate^ should show that the judge is the presiding judge, or that he is the presiding judge for the dis- trict. Paca v. Dutton, 4 Mo. 370. This statute does not apply to court records. Tarlton v. Briscoe, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 67; U. S. R. S., § 905; Snyder v. Wise, 10 Pa. St 157; Law v. Gaultney, Cheves (S. C.) Law, 7. ♦308 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 269. ence, or other public document, so filed, or of the same so re- corded in said book, may be read in evidence in any court, where the title to land claimed under or by the United States may come into question, equally with the originals." M " The edition of the laws and treaties of the United States, published by Little & Brown, shall be competent evidence of the several public and private acts of Congress, and of the sev- eral treaties therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof." 3 * The publication by the government printing office of the supplements to the Kevised Statutes axe prima facie evidence, and the publication by that office of the pamphlet copies of the statutes and the bound copies of the acts of each Congress are " legal evidence of the laws and treaties therein contained in all courts of the United States and of the several States therein." M " In suits or informations brought, where any seizure is made pursuant to an act providing for or regulating the collection of duties on imports or tonnage, if the property is claimed by any person, the burden of proof shall lie upon such claimant: pro- vided that probable cause is shown for such prosecution, to be judged of by the coui*t." " § 269. Definition and use of au affidavit. — An affidavit is a declaration upon oath or affirmation before some persons hav- ing competent and lawful power and authority to administer the same. Affidavits are used in a suit in equity in three ways. In certain cases they must be annexed to a bill before it can be properly filed ; 1 certain documents may be proved by them at the hearing; 2 and they are used in support of interlocutory applications. 8 The manner of their use has been alread} 7 de- M U. S. R. S., § 907; Ten Cases v. Pet. 342; The John Griffin, 15 Wall. U. S., 84 Fed. R. 101; Chadwick v. 29; Clifton v. XJ. S.,4 How. 242; Tay- U. S., 3 Fed. R 753; Williams v. U. S„ lor v. U. S., 3 How. 197; Buckley v. 137 U. S. 113, 186. U. &, 4 How. 251; Cliquot's Cham- 85 U. a R. a, § 908. pagne, 3 Wall. 114; U. a v. Walla 3628 St. at L. 601; 26 St at L. 50; Walla, 44 Fed. R. 796; The Coquit- 21 St. at L. 308. lam, 57 Fed. R. 706, 714, «U.S.R.S.,§909. See also Locke § 269. l See § 87. v. TJ. S., 7 Cranch, 339; The Lumi- 2 See § 269. nary, 8 Wheat 407 ; Wood v. U. S.,16 » See oh. XV §§ 270, 271.J TITLE OF AN AFFIDAVIT. 609 scribed. 4 It is unsettled whether the court has power to com- pel any one to have his affidavit taken, 5 or to cross-examine an affiant, 8 except, possiblyj by means of a feigned issue. § 270. Manner of verifying an affidavit. — An affidavit must be sworn to; unless the affiant is conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, when he may, in lieu thereof, make solemn affirmation of the truth of the facts stated by him. 1 If the de- ponent be blind or unable to read, the affidavit must be read over to him by the officer before whom he swears to its truth. 2 An affidavit, if made within the United States, must be veri- fied before a judge of the court in which it is to be used, or a .[United States commissioner, or a notary public. 3 If made with- out the United States, it may be verified before any secretary of legation, or consular officer within the' limits of his legation, consulate, or commercial agency; 4 or, perhaps, before any per- son who, by the laws of the country in which the affidavit is made, is authorized to administer an oath or affirmation. 5 It has been said to be irregular to have an affidavit entitled in a suit in equity sworn to before the bill is filed. 6 § 271. Title of" an affidavit. — An affidavit should be cor- rectly entitled in the cause or matter in which it is made. 1 For, otherwise, it is said that the affiant cannot be convicted of per- jury if his statements are false. 2 But, it seems that, if there are several parties on either side, or both sides, it will be sufficient * Supra, §§ 198, 332. ris Aq., 4 Wash. C. C. 601. Cf. 27 5 See Hammersohlag Mfg. Co. v. St. at L. 7. Judd, 26 Fed. R. 292; Bacon v. Magee, « U. S. R. S., § 1750. 7 Cowen (N. Y.), 515; Day v. Boston «Pinkerton v. Barnsley C. Co., 3 B. Co., 6 Law E. (N. S.) 329. As to Y. & J. 277, n. the right to compel a party to file an 6 Baldwin v. Bernard, 9 Blatchf., affidavit which he has read upon note; s. C, Fed. Cas. No. 797. 'See a motion, see Sinnot v. First Nat. ' Blake Cr. Co. v. Ward, Fed. Cas. No. Bank, 34App. Div. 161. 1,505, « See Day v. Boston B. Co., 6 Law § 271. *Hawley v. Donnelly, 8 Paige R. (N. S.) 329; Hammersohlag Mfg. (N. Y.), 415; Stafford v. Brown, 4 Co. v. Judd, 26 Fed. R. 292. Paige (N. Y), 360; Goldstein v. § 370. i Equity Rule 91; TJ. S. R. S., Whelan, 62 Fed. R. 124. But see Bow- §§ 1, 5013. Cf. Loney v. Bailey, 43 man v. Sheldon, 5 Sand. (N. Y.) 657; Md. 10. . Shook v. Rankin, 6 BJss. 477; s. c 2 Matter of Christie, 5 Paige (N. Y), Fed. Cas. 12,804. Cf. supra, § 270. 243. 2 Hawley v. Donnelly, 8 Paige » U. S. R S., §§ 735, 945; L. 1876, ch. (N. Y.), 415. 304; 19 St. at L. 306; Haight v. Mor- 39 610 EVIDENCE' AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 272. to entitle it in the name of a single plaintiff and defendant, and after each to insert the word " others " or " another," according to the circumstances of the case. 3 The omission of a party's christian name will not be a fatal defect. 4 If the affidavit is correctly entitled when made, it can still be used after the title of the cause has been subsequently changed. 5 If an affidavit of service be attached to papers which are themselves correctly entitled, it needs no separate title. 6 An affidavit made or en- titled in one cause cannot, it has been held, be used in another; 7 unless, perhaps, when the affiant is dead, insane, imbecile, or beyond the jurisdiction of the court. § 272. Form of an affidavit. — Every affidavit should begin with the venire, — that is, the name of the county, 1 and in a Federal court the name of the judicial district; 2 and if sworn to elsewhere than in that where the court is held, with the name of the State where it is taken ; which is usually followed by the abbreviation Ss. for scilicet, or the English words to wit. Other- wise, it has been held, though not by a Federal court, that it may be disregarded as a nullity, even though the residence of an officer before whom it is sworn appear in the jurat. 8 The English rule was that in all affidavits the true place of resi- dence, description, and addition of every person swearing to the same, must be inserted; unless the affidavits were made by parties to the cause, who might describe themselves, in the affidavit, as the above-named plaintiff, or defendant, without specifying any residence, or addition, or other description. 4 * White v. Hess, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 544; 2 Sterrick v. Pugsley, 11 Flipp. 350. Seymour v. Bailey, 66 I1L 288. But 3 Cook v. Staats, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) see Arnold v. Nye, 11 Mich. 456. 407; Lane v. Morse, 6 How. Pr. * Maury v. Van Arnum, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 894; Burns v. Doyle, 28 Wis. (N. Y.), 370. 460; Smith v. Richardson, 1 Utah, ' Hawes v. Bamford, 9 Sim. 653. 194; Barhydt v. Alexander, 59 Mo. «Anon., 4 Hill (N. Y.), 597. 189. But see Mosher v. Heydrick, 'Lumbrozo v. White, 1 Dick. 150; 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 549; s. C, 30 How. Daniell's Ch. Pr. 1774; Milliken v. Pr. (N. Y.) 161; Stone v. Williamson, Selye, 3 Denio (N. Y.), 54; Stacy v. 17 I1L App. 175; Young v. Young, Farnham, 2 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 26. But 18 Minn. 90; State v. Henning, 3 S. D. see Barnard v. Heydrick, 49 Barb. 492. (N. Y.) 62, 72; s. C, 2 Abbott's Pr. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1775. N. S. (N. Y.) 47; Langston v. Wether- See also Hinde's Pr. 451; Crockett v. ell, 14 Mees. & W. 104, Bishton, 2 Madd. 446. § 272. i Belden v. Devoe, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 22a ■§ 273.] EXECUTION OF AN AFFIDAVIT. 611 This rule, however, is not always adhered to or insisted upon by practitioners in the courts of the United States. The Eng- lish rule was that the stating part of the affidavit must be pre- ceded by the statement that the deponent was duly sworn. 9 The affidavit should state " sufficient to sustain the case made by the motion or petition of which it is the groundwork." 6 Its statements must be made with sufficient certainty, and with all necessary circumstances of time, place, manner, and other material incidents. 7 When, however, the affiant deposes to words spoken, the addition " or to that effect " is not improper. 8 Special fullness is required of affidavits of service. 9 When the affidavit states matters not necessarily within the deponent's knowledge, it should show how he knows them to be true. 10 An affidavit should state facts and not conclusions of law; n and must be pertinent, material, and not scandalous. 12 The court may, upon examination of the paper, order such matter, ex- punged with costs, to be paid by the party or solicitor seeking to use the same ; 13 or a reference may be ordered to determine whether the statements in it are proper. 14 A reference can only be demanded upon exceptions in writing similar to those to a pleading; 15 and the filing or reading of affidavits in oppo- sition to such parts of his opponent's affidavits as are excepted to may be construed as a waiver of the exceptions. 16 Pending a reference concerning it, an affidavit cannot be used except by leave of the court, which is usually granted only upon terms. 17 § 273. Execution of an affidavit. — It is usual, though it seems not indispensable, for the affiant to subscribe his chris- 5 Phillips v. Prentice, 2 Hare, 543; one is a creditor is a conclusion of Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1776. law. Wallace v. Chicago & a S. Co., « Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1776 ; 46 111. App. 571. Hinde's Pr. 451; Van Wyck v. Eeid, 12 Powell v. Kane, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 366. 265. 7 Sea Insurance Co. v. Stebbins, 8 ls Powell v. Kane, 5 Paige (N. Y.), Paige (N. Y.), 565; Meach v. Chap- 265; Ex parte Smith, 1 Atk. 139. pell, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 135. "Daniell's Ch. Pr..(2d Am. ed.) 1777. s Ayliffe v. Murray, 2 Atk. 58, 60. See § 68. » Hinde's Pr. 453. ^Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1777. io U. S. v. Moore, 2 Low. 232. Cf. See § 68. Crowns v. Vail, 51 Hun (N. Y.), 204; "Bickford v. Skewes, 8 Sim. 206; Cook v. de la Garza, 13 Tex. 431. Daniell's Ch. Pr. 1777. ii Powell v. Kane, 5 Paige (N. Y.), " Pearse v. Brook, 3 Beav. 337; Dan- 265. Cf. Spies v. Munroe, 35 App. iell's Ch. Pr. 1777. Div. 527, 528. An allegation that 612 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 274:. tian name and surname at the foot of the affidavit. 1 In Eng- land the signature had to be on the left side of the page ; 2 but in this country it is usually at the right. In one case where a marksman had signed with his name at length, his hand hav- ing been guided for that purpose, the affidavit was ordered taken off the file. 3 The jurat, which is indispensable, is placed upon the opposite side from the signature. It is usually in sub- stantially the following form: " Sworn to before me this day of , 19 — ." If the affiant be blind or a marksman, the jurat should be in substance thus: "Sworn," &c, "the whole of the above affidavit having been first read over and explained to the said A. B., who appeared perfectly to understand the same, he made his mark in my presence." 4 If the affiant have been previously found by the inquisition of a jury to be an idiot, a lunatic, or imbecile, the officer before whom the affi- davit is sworn should state in the jurat that he has examined the deponent for the purpose of ascertaining the state of his mind, and that the latter was apparently of sound mind and capable of understanding the nature and contents of the affi- davit. 5 The omission of the addition to the officer's signature of his title, 6 and even the omission of his signature, will 'not, it seems, be a fatal defect. 7 It is usual and more prudent, even if not absolutely essential, for the officer to mark with his ini- tials all interlineations and erasures in the body of the affidavit. 8 § 274. Competency of witnesses. — The testimony of wit- nesses may be taken either solely for use in the court taking the same or for use in other courts as well. The same rules as to competency prevail at law and in equity. 1 The Revised § 273. 1 Noble v. U. S., Dev. (0. C. 8 v. Christopher, 11 Sim. 409. A.) 83; HafE v. Spicer, 3 Caines (N. Y.), * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1776; 190; Jackson ex dem. Kenyon v. Matter of Christie, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 242. Virgil, 3 J. E. (N. Y.) 540; Soule v. 6 Matter of Christie, 5 Paige (N. Y.), Chase, 1 Rob. (N. Y.) 222; Hitsman 242. v. Garrard, 1 Harr. (N. J.) 124; Shel- « Hunter v. Le Conte, 6 Cowen ton v. Berry, 19 Tex. 154; Watts v< (N. Y.),728; People v. Rensselaer C. P., Womaok, 44 Ala. 605; Alford v. Mo- 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 543. Carmac, 90 N. C. 151; Gill v. Ward, ' Chase v. Edwards, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 23 Ark. 16; Redus v. Wofford, 4 Sm. 283. ■ / & M. (Miss.) 579; Bates v. Robinson, * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1777; 8 Iowa, 318. But see Laimbeer v. Didier v. Warner, 1 Code R. (N. Y.) 42. Allen, 2 Sand. (N. Y.) 648; Hatha- § 274. iNash v. Williams, 20 Wall way v. Scott, 11 Paige, 173. 226. 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1778. § 274.] COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 613 Statutes provide that, " in the courts of the United States, no witness shall be excluded 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 -ren- dered for or against them, neither party shall be allowed to testify against the other, as to any transaction with, or state- ment by, the testator, 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 rules of decision as to the com- petency of witnesses in the courts of the United States in trials at common law, and in equity and admiralty." 2 This statute has been said to be remedial, and to deserve, therefore, a liberal construction. 3 It applies as well to causes to which the United States is a party, as to those between private persons. 4 It does not apply to criminal cases. 5 It allows a party to be examined de bene esse by his adversary in case where a stranger could be so examined. 6 It allows a party to testify in his own behalf, as well as when called upon by the other. 7 It does not prevent a person, not a party but interested in the result of a suit, from testifying against an executor in a case when, if a party, he could not do so; although the State law would exclude such testimony. 8 Where an administratrix had commenced a suit and subsequently resigned, and the suit was continued by her successor, it was held that she who began the suit was a com- petent witness as to transactions with the testator. 9 This statute 2 IT. S. R S., § 858; James v. Atlan- 6 Lowrey v. Kusworm, 66 Fed. E. tic D. Co., 3 Cliff. 614; Monongahela 539. A deposition as to transactions Nat. Bank v. Jacobus, 109 U. S. 275; with one, taken while the latter was Whitney v. Fox, 166 IT. S. 637; Hobbs alive, was admitted in evidence, al- v. McLean, 117 IT. S. 567; Jackson- though the latter died without giv- ville M. P. Py. & N. Co. v. Hooper, 160 ing his deposition, and the suit IT. S. 514; Slavens v. No. Pac. Ey. was revived in the name of the Co. (C. C. A.), 97 Fed. R 255; McMul- executors. McMullen v. Ritchie, 64 len v. Ritchie, 64 Fed. R, 253. See Fed. R. 253; Steiner v. Eppinger infra, § 372. (C. C. A), 61 Fed. R. 253. a Texas v. Chiles, 21 Wall 488. ' Stevens v. Bernays, 42 Fed. R 488 ; * Green v. U. S., 9 Wall 655. ■ Con- Potter v. Third Nat. Bank, 102 U. S. tra, Jones v. U. S., 1 Ct. CL 383. 163. * U. S. v. Reid, 12 How. 361 ; Logan « Snyder v. Fiedler, 139 U. S. 478. v. U. S., 144 IT. S. 263; U. S. v. Hall, 9 Lucas v. Brooks, 18 Wall. 436; 53 Fed. R. 352; S. C., C. C. A; S. a, Bassett v. IT. S., 137 U. S. 496, 505. U. S. App. She cannot testify in the District of 614 ' EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 274. does not allow a wife to testify in behalf of, or against, her husband, unless the laws of the State permit her so to do. For her incompetency by the common law was due not to interest, but to grounds of public policy. 10 It has been held that letters from a husband to his wife, whether competent evidence or not, must, if called for by subpoena, be produced and made a part of the record in equity for use in case of a review by ap- peal on the ruling as to their admissibility. 11 The cases where the court will require a party to testify, when otherwise he would not be obliged or allowed so to do, are rare. The court will usually only do so upon its own motion, and, if upon his suggestion, only after hearing the other party, if the latter ob- ject. 13 The court will do so, however, when a party has died after his testimony has been taken and before trial, and his administrator insists upon reading or submitting his- testimony at the hearing. 13 The court will, it seems, not require such testimony to be taken, if by so doing it would adopt a rule of decision for a Federal court different from that prescribed by the legislature for courts of the State wherein it is held. 14 If there are several defendants, one of whom has a similar inter- est in the result to that of the complainant, such defendant can- not, by requiring the complainant to testify, obviate the effect of the proviso in this statute. 15 It seems that the admissions of a party are competent evidence against him, even though, upon his cross-examination, when testifying in his own behalf, he was not asked if he made them. 16 In the Federal courts, no matter what the decisions of the State courts may be, a verbal collateral agreement cannot be proven to vary, qualify, contradict, add to, or subtract from the absolute terms of a written instrument, in the absence of fraud, accident, or mis- take; 17 nor to show by parol that payment was to be made in some other way than that specified in the written instrument. 18 Columbia. Hopkins v. Grimshaw, le The Stranger, 1 Brown's Adm. 165 U. S. 342, 349. 281. io Lucas v. Brooks, 18 Wall. 436. "Brown v. Spofford, 95 U. S. 474; " Lloyd v. Pennie, 50 Fed. E. 4, 11. Am. El. C. Co. v. Consumers' Gas Co., See infra, §§ 277, 284. 47 Fed. R. 43, 46. i 2 Eslava v. Mazange, 1 Woods, 623. ls Richardson v. Hard wick, 106 U. S. w Mumm v. Owens, 2 Dill. 475. 252; Bast v. First Nat. Bank, 101 U. S. " Robinson v. Mandell, 3 Cliff. 169. 93. is Eslava v. Mazange, 1 Woods, 623. § 274. J COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES. 615 It has been held, iri actions at common law, that the testimony of a physician as to information acquired while attending a patient in a professional capacity, when forbidden by the stat- utes of the State, should not be admitted in the Federal court there held ; w that when a State statute authorized the admis- sibility in evidence of a notarial certificate of a form inadmis- sible at common law, 20 or of the indorsement of negotiable paper without proof of handwriting, 21 or of experts who based their opinion upon a comparison of writing in question with other writings treated as genuine by the adverse party, 22 the Federal court there held should follow such statutes ; but that a State statute excluding the testimony of a witness on account of his interest in the controversy should be disregarded. 23 "By statute, on the trial of all indictments, informations, complaints, and other proceedings against persons charged with the com- mission of crimes, offenses, and misdemeanors in the United States courts, Territorial courts, and courts-martial, and courts of inquiry, in any State or Territory, including the District of Columbia, the person so charged shall, at his own request, but not otherwise, be a competent witness. 24 The Eevised Statutes provide that " no pleading of a party, nor any discovery or evi- dence obtained from a party or witness by means of a judicial w Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Union ® Potter v. National Bank, 102 U. Tr. Co., 112 U. S. 250; Mutual Ben. S. 163; Goodwin v. Fox, 129 U. S. 601, Life Ins. Co. v. Robison, 58 Fed. B, 631. In civil actions at common law 723. It was held that a State stat- the Federal courts follow the rulings ute permitting confidential commu- of the State courts as to the compe- nications to an attorney to be put in tency of evidence in the Fifth, Sixth evidence will not be followed at com- and Seventh circuits. Hinds v. Keith mon law in a Federal court. Conn. (C. C. A.), 57 Fed. R 10; Baltimore Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U. S. & O. R, Co. v. Rambo (C. C. A.), 59 457; Liggett v. Glenn (C. C. A.), 51 Fed. R. 75; Stewart v. Morris (C. C. Fed. R 381. And that a contract be- A), 88 Fed. R 461. Contra in the tween an attorney and his client is Eighth circuit. Union Pac. Ry. Co. privileged and cannot be put in evi- v. Yates (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R. 584. dence, although on file in a court of 24 20 St. atL 30; Allison v. U. S., 160 probate. Liggett v. GlenD (C. C. A), U. S. 203; "Wolf son v. U. S. (C. C. A), 51 Fed. R. 381. Cf. Mutual L. Ins. 101 Fed. R. 430 ;S. c.,102Fed.R134. It Co. v. Selby (C. C. A), 72 Fed. R 980; has been held that this does not ren- Edison El. L. Co. v. U. S. EL L. Co., der competent a defendant who, by a 44 Fed. R. 294, 297, 299. previous conviction of an infamous 20 Sims v. Hundley, 6 How. 1. crime, had lost the privilege of testi- MM'Niel v. Holbrook, 12 Pet. 84 fying. U. & v. Hollis, 43 Fed. R 22 Green v. Terwilliger, 56 Fed. R 248. 884, 393. 616 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 274. proceeding in this or any foreign country, shall be given in evidence, or in any manner used against him or his property or estate, in any court of the United States, in any criminal proceeding, or for the enforcement of any penalty or forfeiture ; provided that this section shall not exempt any party or wit- ness from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in discovering or testifying as aforesaid." 25 This does not de- prive a witness of the right to refuse to give testimony that might tend to criminate him. 26 The Kevised Statutes further provide that: "No testimony given by a witness before either House, or before any committee of either House of Congress, shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court, except in a prosecution for perjury committed in giving such testimony. But an official paper or record pro- duced by him is not within the said privilege." 27 "No wit- ness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous." 28 The rules regulating the production of docu- ments by a subpoena duces tecum or otherwise have been pre- viously explained. 29 25 U. S. R. S., § 860. Contra, Celluloid Co. v. Crane Co., 3d 26 Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. Circuit. It has been held that the S. 547; 17. S. v. James, 60 Fed. R 257. defendant cannot be compelled to See Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591; disclose the names of confidential Ex parte Irvine, 74 Fed. R 954; U. S. customers to whom he has furnished v. Price, 96 Fed. R. 960. A witness, at articles covered by the patent, at least if not a party to the suit, may least before an accounting has been be compelled to testify as to an in- ordered. Roberts v. Walley, 14 Fed. fringement of a patenfrhimself, when R. 167. As to the admissibility of relevant, and is not shielded by the evidence illegally obtained, see U. S. Constitution because he may thereby v. Wong Quong, 94 Fed. R. 832; criti- prove his own liability to treble dam- cised N. Y. L. J., Sept. 22, 1899. ages. Masseth v. Johnston, 59 Fed. 27 U. S. R. S., § 859. R. 613. A defendant when called by 28 U. S. R S., § 103. the complainant as a witness may be 29 Supra, § 267. It was held that a compelled to state whether he has in witness compelled to testify before a his possession a machine claimed to pension examiner without notice or be an infringement of the plaintiff's knowledge of his constitutional priv- patent, although the plaintiff has not ilege cannot be indicted for perjury previously made out a prima facie thereupon. U. S. v. Bell, 81 Fed. R. case of infringement. Delamater v. 830. Reinhardt, 43 Fed. R. 76, S. D. N. Y. § 275.] SUBPOENAS AD TESTIFICANDUM. 617 § 275. Subpoenas ad testificandum. — The attendance of a witness is usually compelled in equity as in law by the service of a subpoena ad testificandum, and the payment of his fees and ' mileage. 1 A subpoena ad testificandum is substantially in the same form in equity as in law. "When issued from a court of the United States, it must be under the seal of the court, and signed by the clerk ; and is usually also signed by the .solicitors of the party at whose request it issues. Those issued from the Supreme Court or a Circuit-Court must bear teste from the day of such issue of the Chief Justice of the United States, or, when that office is vacant, of the associate justice next in precedence. 2 Those issuing from a District Court must bear teste of the judge, or, when that office is vacant, of the clerk thereof. 3 By the common law, the names of but four witnesses could be in- cluded in one subpoena. 4 The Revised Statutes, however, pro- vide that, " to save unnecessary expense, it shall be the duty of the clerk to insert the names of as many witnesses in a cause in such subpoena as convenience iD serving the same will per- mit." 5 If the witness can be served within the jurisdiction of the court where the suit is pending, or within a hundred miles of the place of holding that court, the subpoena may be issued from its clerk's office. 6 If he cannot, and it is desired to take his testimony de bene esse under the acts of Congress, 7 applica- tion for the 1 issue of the subpoena must be made to the court of the district in which the examination is to be made. 8 It has been held that Congress has no power to authorize or compel the courts of the United States to issue subpoenas or punish for contempt witnesses before a Congressional Commission, such as the Pacific Railway Commission, 9 or the Interstate Commerce Commission, 10 or an executive officer. 11 "Witnesses ' §275. *For the amount of his fees etts, 1 Cranoh, 0. C. 580; Ex parte and mileage, see § 333. Peck, 3 Blatchf. 113. See infra, § 276. 2 U. S. R. S., §§911, 912. » In re Pac. Ey. Com., 32 Fed. R. 241. s U. S. R. S., §§ 911, 912. i» In re Interstate Commerce Com- 4 Erwin v. U. S., 37 Fed. R. 470, 490. mission, 53 Fed. R. 476. iU. S. R. S., § 829; Erwin v. U. S., "In re McLean, 37 Fed. R 648. 37 Fed. R 470, 490. Cf. TJ. S. R. S., § 4906; Ex parte 6 U. S. R. S., § 876. Moses, 53 Fed. R. 346. General courts- 7 See infra, §§ 286, 287. martial are authorized by statute to 8 U. S. R. S., § 863; U. S. v. Tilden, issue subpoenas to witnesses within 25 Int. Rev. R 352; Ex parte Hum- the judicial district. 31 St. atL. — * phrey, 2 Blatch. 228; Henry v. Rick- 618 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 276. who are required to attend any term of a Circuit or District Court on the part of the United States, shall be subpoenaed to attend to testify generally on their behalf, and not to depart the court without leave thereof, or of the district attorney ; and under such process they shall appear before the grand or petit jury, or both, as they may be required by the court or district attorney." 12 It has been held that a witness cannot be com- pelled by subpoena to produce the patterns of the castings of a stove, which are in his possession. 13 § 276. Service of a subpoena ad testificandum. — A sub- poena to appear and testify may be served by the marshal of the court, or by any other person acting as the agent of the party calling the witness.' ' The Eevised Statutes provide that " subpoenas for witnesses who are required to attend a court of the United States, in any district, may run into any other district; provided, that in civil causes the witnesses living out of the district in which the court is held do not live at a greater distance than one hundred miles from the place of holding the same." 2 A witness' attendance at a court more than one hun- dred miles from the place where he lives cannot be compelled by the service of a subpoena upon him within the district, when he has been enticed there by false pretenses; 3 or while there to attend either as a party, a witness, an attorney, or a coun- sel during a suit or other judicial proceeding ' in a State 4 or Federal court; 6 or, while traveling upon his way to or from Congress, if he be a member thereof; 6 or if there in the course of the performance of any public duty. 7 12 U. S. R S., § 877. 2 TJ. S. R. S., § 876; Ex parte Bee- win re Shephard, 3 Fed. R. 12. A bee, 2 Wall. Jr. 127; Henry v. Rick- court of equity will not, even if it etts, 1 Crancli, C. C. 580; TJ. S. v. has the power, on complainant's mo- Williams, 4 Cranch, C. C. 372. tion, require respondent to repeat s Union S. R. Co. v. Mathiesson, 3 certain experiments under an alleged Cliff. 304; Steiger v. Bonn, 4 Fed. R anticipating patent, in the presence 17. of plaintiff's witnesses, except when * Juneau Bank v. M'Spedan, 5 Biss. so extraordinary a course is plainly 64; Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 568. necessary. Simonds R M. Co. v. But see Blight v. Fisher, Pet. C. C. 41. Hathorn Mfg. Co., 83 Fed. R 490. 'Parker v. Hotchkiss, 1 Wall. Jr. § 276. * Schwabacker v. Reilly, 2 269; Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 568. Dill. 127; Cummings v. Akron C. & Contra, Blight v. Fisher, Pet. C. C. 41. P. Co., 6 Blatchf. 509; Miller v. Scott, 6 Const, art. 1, § 6; Miner v. Mark- 6 Phila. (Pa.) 484; Power v. Semnies, ham, 28 Fed. R 387. 1 Cranch, C. C. 247. 7 See § 98. § 276.] SEKVIOE OF A SUBFCENA AD TESTIFICANDUM. 619 " When a commission has been issued by any court of the United States for taking the testimony of a witness named therein at any place within any district or Territory, the clerk of any court of the United States for such district or Territory shall, on the application of either party to the suit, or of his agent, issue a subpoena for such witness, commanding him to appear and testify before the commissioner named in the com- mission, at any time and place stated in the subpoena; and if any witness, after being duly served with subpoena, re- fuses or neglects to appear, or, after appearing, refuses to tes- tify, not being privileged from giving testimony, and such refusal or neglect is proven to the satisfaction of any judge of the court whose clerk issues such subpoena, such judge may proceed to enforce obedience to the process, or punish the dis- obedience, as any court of the United States may proceed in case of disobedience to process of subpoena to testify issued by such court." 8 " When either party in such suit applies to any judge of a United States court in such district or Territory for a subpoena commanding the witness, therein to be named, to appear and testify before said commissioner, at the time and place to be stated in the subpoena, and to bring with him and produce to such commissioner any paper or writing or written instrument or book or other document supposed to be in the possession or power of such witness, and to be described in the subpoena, such judge, on being satisfied, by the affidavit of the person applying, or otherwise, that there is reason to believe that such paper, writing, written instrument, book, or other document is in the possession or power of the witness, and that the same, if produced, would be competent and material evidence for the party applying therefor, may order the clerk of said court to issue such subpoena accordingly. And if the witness, after being served with such subpoena, fails to produce to the com- missioner, at the, time and place stated in the subpoena, any such paper, writing, written instrument, book, or other docu- ment, being in his possession or power, and described in the subpoena, and such failure is proved to the satisfaction of said judge, he may proceed to enforce obedience to said process of subpoena, or punish the disobedience, in like manner as any «U. S. R.S.,§868. 620 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 276. Court of the United States may proceed in case of disobedience to like process issued by such court. When any such paper, writing, written instrument, book, or other document is pro- duced to such commissioner, he shall, at the cost of the party requiring the same, cause to be made a correct copy thereof, or of so much thereof as shall be required by either of the parties." 9 " No witness shall be required, under the provisions of either of the two preceding sections, to attend at any place out of the county where he resides, nor more than forty miles from the place of his residence, to give his deposition ; nor shall any witness be deemed guilty of contempt for disobeying any sub- poena directed to him by virtue of either of the said sections, unless his fee for going to, returning from, and one day's at- tendance at the place of examination are paid or tendered to him at the time of the service of the subpoena." 10 »U. S. B. a, §869. m U. S. E. a, §870. TJ. a R. a, § 871. "When a com- mission to take the testimony of any witness found within the District of Columbia, to be used in a suit de- pending in any State or Territorial or foreign court, is issued from such court, or a notice to the same effect is given according to its rules of practice, and such commission or no- tice is produced to a justice of the Supreme Court of said District, and due proof is made to him that the testimony of such witness is mate- rial to the party desiring the same, the said justice shall issue a sum- mons to the witness, requiring him to appear before the commissioners named in the commission or notice, to testify in such suit, at a time and at a place within said District therein specified." U. S. R S., § 873. " When it satis- factorily appears by affidavit to any justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, or to any com- missioner for taking depositions ap- pointed by said court: first, that any person within said District is a ma- terial witness for either party in a suit pending in any State or Terri- torial or foreign court; second, that no commission nor notice to take the testimony of such witness has been issued or given; and, third, that, ac- cording to the practice of the court in which the suit is pending, the deposition of a witness taken with- out the presence and consent of both parties will be received on the trial or hearing thereof, — such officer shall issue his summons, requiring the witness to appear before him at a place within the District, at some reasonable time, to be stated therein, to testify in such suit." U". S. R. S., § 873. "Testimony ob- tained under the two preceding sec- tions shall be taken down in writing by the officer before whom the wit- ness appears, and shall be certified and transmitted by him to the court in which the suit is pending, in such manner as the practice of that court may require. If any person refuses or neglects to appear at the time and place mentioned in the sum- mons, or, on his appearance, refuses to testify, he shall be liable to the § 277.] COMPELLING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY. 621 The courts of the United States have no power to compel the attendance of persons to an examination in a foreign country. Such testimony, therefore, can only be taken against the will of a witness by the aid of, and by means of, the rem- edies administered by a foreign court.* 1 § 277. Compelling a witness to testify. — When a witness, who has been properly served with, a subpoena, refuses to at- tend, or when upon his examination he refuses to answer a relevant and proper question, against answering which he is not protected by his privilege, by the old rules he was liable " to be proceeded against in three ways: first, by attachment for contempt of the process of the court; secondly, by a special action on the case for damages at common law ; and thirdly ,- by action on the statute 5 Eliz., c. 9, § 12, for the further rec- ompense given by that statute, if it has been previously as- sessed by the court out of which the process issued." x In the Federal courts, a witness, if contumacious, may be punished for contempt, 2 and is also probably liable to an action for the dam- ages sustained by his refusal. Upon an application to punish a witness for refusing to answer a question, the power of the officer before whom he is examined and the materiality of the question may both be considered. 3 Such an application must be made to the court which issued the subpoena. 4 Upon an application to punish a witness for contempt for failure to pro- duce a paper in obedience to a subpoena duces tecum, it has been said that the materiality of the paper required will not be de- termined unless it is produced; 6 and if there is color for the claim that the paper is material, its production will be com- pelled, and the decision as to the admission of the paper in evidence postponed to the final hearing. 6 The rules concern- ing the privileges of witnesses and the materiality and rele- same penalties as would be incurred n Infra, § 290. for a like offense on the trial of a § 277. ! Tidd's Pr. 738. suit." 2 U. S.E. a, §725. 17. S. R. a, § 874. ? Every witness s Ex parte Peck, 3 Blatchf. 113; appearing and testifying under the Ex parte Judson, 3 Blatchf. 89. said provisions relating to the Dis- 4 In re Allis, 44 Fed. R. 216. trict of Columbia shall be entitled to 5 Edison El. L. Co. v. U. S. EL L. receive for each day's attendance, Co., 44 Fed. E. 294, from the party at whose instance 6 Edison EL L. Co. v. U. a EL L. he is summoned, the fees now pro- Co., 45 Fed. K. 55, 59. vided by law for each day, he shall give attendance." ■622 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§§ 278, 279. vancy of evidence are substantially the same in equity as at- law. 7 Care will be taken not to compel a witness to needlessly disclose his business secrets 8 and private papers. 9 Orders pun- ishing for contempt witnesses who, in order to raise jurisdic- tional questions, have refused to be sworn or to answer cer- tain questions, have been stayed their review by the Circuit Courts of Appeal. 10 § 278. Testimony taken in equity which may be used in other courts. — Testimony may be taken in a court of equity for use in other courts, as well as for its own use, by bills to perpetuate testimony J and bills to take testimony de bene esse; 2 and formerly, at least, testimony could be taken in a court of equity for use in another court by a bill of discovery. 3 § 279. Bills to perpetuate testimony. — " In any case where it is necessary in order to prevent a failure or delay of justice, any of the courts of the United States may grant a dedimus jpotestatem to take depositions according to common usage; and any Circuit Court, upon application to it as a court of equity, may, according to the usages of chancery, direct depo- sitions to be taken in jperjpetuam rei memoriam, if they re- late to any matters that may be cognizable in any court of the United States." ' In order to obtain such a direc- tion, the party wishing the testimony taken should file a bill to perpetuate testimony. 2 A bill to perpetuate testi- mony must contain all the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction. It must state with reasonable certainty the sub- ject-matter touching which the plaintiff is desirous of taking testimony, 3 and show that it is a matter which may be cogni- zable in a court of the United States. 4 It should also show that 7 Stevens v. Cooper, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) mony may thus be taken before a 425. Circuit Court while a case is pending 8 Robinson v. Phila. etc. R. Co., 28 in the Supreme Court or Circuit Fed. R. 340, 343. Court of Appeals on appeal from a 9 Henry v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 35 decree sustaining a demurrer. Rich- Ted. R 15. But see Lloyd v. Pennie, ter v. Union T. Co., 115 U. S. 55. 50 Fed. R. 4, 11. 2 N. Y. & B. C. P. Co. v. N. Y. C. P. m In re SpoflEord, 62 Fed. R. 443; Co., 9 Fed. R. 578. \ Butler v. Fayerweather (C. C. A.), 91 3 Story's Eq. PL, §§ 300, 305. Fed. B, 458. 4 U. S. R. &., § 868; N. Y. & B. C. P. § 278. i § 279. Co. v. N. Y. C. P. Co., 9 Fed. R. 578. 2 s 280. But see Morris v. Morris, 2 Phill. 205, 8 §281. §279. J U. S. R. S., § 866. Testi- 208. § 279.] BILLS TO PERPETUATE TESTIMOMT. 623 the plaintiff has some interest in the subject-matter, which may be endangered if the testimony in support of it is lost. A mere expectancy, however strong and well-founded, is not sufficient. It has been said, "Put the case as high as possible; that the party seeking to perpetuate the testimony is the next of kin of a lunatic; that the lunatic is intestate; that he is in the most helpless state, a moral and physical impossibility (though the law would not so regard it) that he should ever recover; even if he were m articulo mortis, and the bill was filed at that in- stant ; still, the plaintiff could not qualify himself to maintain it, as having any interest in the subject of the suit." 5 If, more- over,, the interest be such a one as may be immediately barred by the party against whom the bill is brought, it has been said that the court will withhold its assistance, for it would be a fruitless exercise of power. 6 Such a bill must also show that the defendant has, or claims to have, a title or interest in op- position to that of the plaintiff in the subject-matter of the proposed testimony, 7 as, for example, that the defendant claims an exclusive right to the use of a process which the plaintiff is using, and rests his claim upon letters-patent which the pro- posed testimony will show to be invalid ; 8 and some ground of necessity for perpetuating the evidence, as that the facts to which the testimony of the witnesses proposed to be examined relate, cannot be immediately investigated in a court of law or equity, — or, if they can be immediately investigated, that the right to commence such a suit or action belongs exclusively to the defendant; or that the defendant has interposed some im- pediment, such as an injunction, to an immediate trial of the matter in a court of law ; or that, before the investigation can take place, the evidence of a material witness is likely to be lost by his threatened death, illness, or departure from the jurisdiction of the court ; 9 but the fact that, in the case re- cently cited, the Attorney-General might institute a proceed- ing to annul a patent, did not prevent the granting of the prayer of the bill. 10 The prayer should be for leave to exam- 's Dursley v. Fitzhardinge, 6 Ves. 'Angell v. Angell, 1 Sim. & S. 83; 260. N. Y. & B. C. P. Co. v. N. T. C. P. Co., «Dursley v. Fitzhardinge, 6 Ves. 9 Fed. E. 578; Story's Eq. PI., § 303; 261-263. Daniell's Ch. Pr. 1573, 1573. ' Story's Eq. PL, § 302. , i» N. Y. & B. C. P. Co. v. N. Y. C. P. « N. Y. & B. C. P. Co. v. N. Y. C. P. Co., 9 Fed. R. 578. Co., 9 Fed. E. 578. 624 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 279. ine the witnesses touching the matter stated, to the end that their testimony may be preserved and perpetuated, and for the proper process of subpoena." It has been held that if it adds thereto a prayer for other, or for general relief, it will be de- murrable for that reason, 12 although the court may allow an amendment omitting that part of the prayer. 13 An affidavit of the circumstances by which the evidence intended to be perpetuated is in danger of being lost, must be filed with the bill. 14 Otherwise, the bill should conform substantially to the requirements of original bills praying relief. Such a bill, it has been held, cannot by amendment be converted into a bill of discovery. 15 It is of itself a bill of discovery only to the extent of enabling the plaintiff to obtain the relief prayed for in it, and he can, therefore, only require an answer from the defendant as to the facts alleged in the bill as entitling him to examine the witnesses. 16 An omission of any of the foregoing statements in, or requirements of, the bill will make it demur- rable; and if any of the necessary allegations are false, or there is another objection not apparent upon the face of the bill, that may be taken by plea or answer. 17 If the defendant answer denying the plaintiff's case, witnesses may be examined as to the point in issue by either party. 18 Otherwise, such a bill should not be brought to a hearing, and if the plaintiff do so it will be dismissed with costs, but without prejudice to the use of the testimony taken in pursuance of its prayer. 19 It is said that " If "the plaintiff neglects to proceed with the suit, the defendant cannot move to dismiss for want of prosecution ; but may move that the plaintiff be ordered to take the next step, within a limited time, or to pay him the costs of the suit. If "Story's Eq. PI., §306. WEllicev. Roupell, 32 Beav. 299; 12 Rose v. Gannel, 8 Atk. 439; S. C, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 530. Vaughan v. Fitzgerald, 1 Sch. & Lef. ^Ellice v. Roupell, 32 Beav. 308; 316; JEtna Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 73 S. 0., 9 Jur. (N. S.) 533. Fed. R. 318; Dalton v. Thompson, 1 "story's Eq. PI., § 306a. Dickens, 97. But see Equity Rule 21 ; 18 Brigstocke v. Roch, 7 Jur. (N. S.) Cleland v. Casgrain, 92 Mioh. 139; 63. a C, 52 N. W. R. 460. is Hall v. Hoddesdon, 2 P. Wms. "Vaughan v. Fitzgerald, 1 S. &L. 162; Anon., Amb. 237; S. C, 2 Ves. 316. Sen. 497; Vaughan v. Fitzgerald, 1 WEaTl of Suffolk v. Green, 1 Atk. Sch. & Lef. 316; Morrison v. Arnold, 450; Philips v. Carew, IP. Wms. 117; 19 Ves. 670; Ellioe v. Roupell, 32 Shirley v. Earl Ferrers, 3 P. Wms. 77. Beav. 308. §§ 280-81.] BILLS TO TAKE TESTIMONY DE BENE ESSE. 625 the defendant neglects to take the steps proper to be taken by him within the prescribed time, the court will, it seems, order the examination of the witnesses to proceed." 20 If no valid objection is made, the court will order the testimony to be taken. Both parties may examine witnesses under the order, 21 and either party must be allowed to cross-examine those whom his opponent examines in chief. 22 After the witnesses have been examined, the cause is at an end, 23 and if the defendant have examined no witnesses in chief he will be entitled to his costs; but by receiving costs he waives any objection he might otherwise be entitled to make on the ground that he has had no sufficient opportunity of cross-examination. 24 The testimony thus taken is filed in the clerk's office, and can be used in a subsequent case at law or in equity in the same court, uuder an order, which must be obtained by motion upon no- tice, and supported by proof of the witness's death, or that he cannot be then compelled to attend and testify. 25 § 280. Bills to take testimony de bene esse. — Bills to take testimony de "bene esse were formerly filed after a suit or action had been begun, in order to take the testimony of such wit- nesses as, on account of their age, infirmity, or intention to de- part from the jurisdiction of the court, it was feared could not be taken in its regular method of proceeding. 1 Such bills must substantially comply with the rules regulating bills to perpet- uate testimony, with which, indeed, they have been often conr founded. 2 Now that the same relief can be afforded under the statutes both of most of the individual States and of the United States, 3 it is rarely, if ever, that an occasion for their use arises. § 281. Bills of discovery. — Every bill may seek discovery, but the kind of bill called a bill of discovery is a bill filed for 2«Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 2S Morrison v. Arnold, 19 Ves. 670; 1573; Wright v. Tatham, 2 Sim. 459; Vaughan v. Fitzgerald, 1 Sch. & Lef. Beavan v. Carpenter, 11 Sim. 22; 316. Coveny v. Athill, 1 Dick. 355; Lan- 24 Watkins v. Atchison, 10 Hare, caster v. Lancaster, 6 Sim. 439. Ap. xlvi. aiShewardv. Sheward, 2 V. & B. 25 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 116; Earl of Abergavenny v. Powell, 1574, 1575. 1 Meriv. 434; Skrine v. Powell, 15 §280. i Story's Eq. PL, § 307. Sim. 81 ; S. a, 9 Jur. 1054. 2 Story's Eq. PL, § 307. "Darnell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 3 TJ. S. R. S., §§ 863-865; Equity 1573, 1574. Rule 70; supra, §§ 109, 134. 40 626 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 281. the sole purpose of obtaining a discovery of facts resting in the. defendant's knowledge, or of deeds, writings, or other things in his custody or power; and seeking no relief in consequence of the discovery, except possibly a stay of proceedings till the discovery is made." A bill of discovery is usually filed in aid of the jurisdiction of another court. 2 It will not be allowed, if it seek a discovery of matters concerning which a party, if called as a witness, would be excused from testifying ; s nor, it has been said, if the discovery is sought in aid of an action for a mere personal tort. 4 A bill of discovery can only be filed in aid of a judicial proceeding already commenced or immediately contemplated. 5 If filed in aid of proceedings already begun, no person may be made a party to it who is not a party to such proceedings, 6 except possibly the officer of a corporation. 7 A bill of discovery must state the matter touching which discov- ery is sought, show that both the plaintiff and the defendant have or claim an interest therein, state the facts and circum- stances upon which the plaintiff's right to compel discovery from the defendant is founded, and pray that the defendant may make a full discovery of the matters therein stated. 8 A bill of discovery may also pray any equitable assistance of the court which is merely consequential upon the prayer for dis- covery; 9 but if it should pray any other or general relief, it will thereby become a bill for relief. 10 It seems that a bill of discovery need not allege that the facts of which a discovery is sought are within the exclusive knowledge of the defendant ; u but they must be matters essential to a plaintiff's cause of ac- tion, or if he be defendant in another suit or action, to his §281. 'Darnell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. pock, 1 Stew. Eq. (N. J.) 261; Dan ed.) 1556. iell's Ch. Pr. 1558. 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (oth Am.ed.) 1556. « Queen of Portugal v. Glyn, 7 CL 3 Glynn v. Houston, 1 Keen, 329; & F. 466; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. Langdell's Eq. PL, § 69; Wigram on ed.) 1558. Discovery, §§ 130-138; Daniell's Ch. ? See §43. • Pr. (2d Am. ed. ) 563-569. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1557. * Glynn v. Houston, 1 Keen, 329. "Mitford's Eq. PL, ch, i, § 2; Loker For discovery of an unlawful com- v. Poll, 3 Ves. 4. bination, see Evans v. Lancaster City 10 Angell v. Westcombe, 6 Sim. 30. St. Ry. Co., 64 Fed. R. 626. "Metier v. Metier, 4 C. E. Green 'Mayor of London v. Levy, 8 Ves. (19 N. J. Eq.), 457. But see Bell v. 398; United N. J. R. & C. Co. v. Hop- Pomeroy, 41 McLean, 57. § 281.} BILLS OF DISCOVERY. 627 affirmative defense, and the bill must not seek discovery of the evidence of a part of what belongs solely to the defendant's case. 12 The defendant may oppose a bill of discovery by a de- murrer, 13 or plea, or in his answer, in the same manner as he might oppose a bill for relief. The English rule, as finally es- tablished, was that, if a demurrer were interposed to a bill praying both discovery and relief, and the bill were held not to show a -proper case for relief, it could not be maintained for discovery merely. 14 The rule in the Federal courts is uncer- tain. 15 A defense founded upon the statute of limitations or laches may be interposed to a bill of discovery by plea, 18 or, if it appear upon the face of the bill, by demurrer." A material amendment of a bill of discovery will very rarely be allowed. 18 A bill of discovery is never brought to a hearing; but, after the defendant has put in a full answer thereto, he is entitled to costs of the suit, 19 less any costs allowed the plaintiff upon exceptions to a previous answer as insufficient. 20 It has been held in the district of Wisconsin that a bill of discovery can- not be maintained in a Circuit Court of the United States held within a State under whose statutes a party can be compelled to testify, 21 but the preponderance of authority is otherwise. 22 "Wigram on Discovery, § 372; » Atty. Gen. v. Burch, 4 Madd. 17a Langdell's Eq. PL, § 172; Ingilby v. 2 » Hughes v. Clerk, 6 Hare, 195. See Shafto, 33 Beav. 31. also Bryant v. Leland, 6 Fed. R. 125, 13 Evans v. Lancaster City St. Ry. U. S. C. C. D. Mass. ; Easton v. Co., 64 Fed. R. 626. Hodges, 7 Bissell, 324, IT. S. C. C, D. "Fry v. Penn, 2 Bro. C. C. 280; Illinois; Paton v. Majors, 46 Fed. R Lokerv. Rolle, 3 Ves. 4; Langdell's 210, U. S. C. C.,E. D. La., Billings, J.; Eq. PL, § 152. Washburn & M. Mfg. Co. v. Freeman is It seems that the rule is the same Wire Co., 41 Fed. R 410, U. S. C. C, as in England. Markey v. Mut. Ben. E. D. Mo., Thayer, J. ; Washburn & L. Ins. Co., 6 Ins. L J. 537; Cecil Nat. M. Mfg. Co. v. Cincinnati B. W. F. Bank v. Thurber (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. R. Co., 42 Fed. R. 675, U. S. C. C, S. D. 913. But see Livingston v. Story, 9 Ohio. Pet. 632; Wright v. Dame, 1 Met. 2 iRindskopf v. Plato, 20 Fed. R. (Mass.) 237; Higginbotham v. Bur- 130. So in the district of Louisiana, net, 5 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 184; Story's Eq. Paton v. Majors, 46 Fed. R. 210; See PL, § 412. also Heath v. Erie R. Co., 9 Blatchf. "Beames on Pleas, 275; Gaitv.Os- 316; Brown v. Swann, 10 Pet. 497; baldeston, 1 Russ. 158. Manchester F. A. Co. v. Stockton, C. "Wooster v. Sidenbergh, S. D. H. & A. Works, 38 Fed. R 378. N. Y., Nov. 6, 1889. 22 Continental Nat. Bank v. Heil- 18 Marquis Cholmondeley v. Lord man, 66 Fed. R 184; Kelly v. Boett- Clinton, 2 Meriv. 71. cher, 85 Fed. R 55, 66; National H. 628 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§§ 282, 283. § 282. Testimony taken before a cause is at issue. — Testi- mony for use in a court of law or equity of the United States may be taken either before or after it is at issue. Testimony taken before a cause is at issue may be taken either before or after it has been begun. " Any court of the United States may, in its discretion, admit in evidence in any cause before it any deposition taken in jperpetuam rei memoriam, which would be so admissible in a court of the State wherein such cause is pend- ing, according to the laws thereof." l Evidence taken by means of a bill to perpetuate testimony may also be admitted in a sub- sequent suit in equity. 2 " After any bill filed and before the defendant hath answered the same, upon affidavit made, that any of the plaintiff's witnesses are aged and infirm, or going out of the country, or that any one of them is a single witness to a material fact, the clerk of the court shall, as of course, upon the application of the plaintiff, issue a commission to such commissioner or commissioners as a judge of the court may direct, to take the examination of such witness or witnesses de bene esse, upon giving due notice to the adverse party of the time and place of taking his testimony." 3 Such testimony is then taken in the same manner as testimony taken after issue has been joined. § 283. The time for taking testimony in equity. — The Equity Rules provide : " 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; and no testimony taken after such period shall be allowed to be read in evidence at the hearing." ' " Where the evidence to be adduced in a B. B. Co. v. Interchangeable B. B. the defendant may examine plaintiff Co. (C. C. A.), 83 Fed. R 26, 30; Bry- de bene esse before issue joined, ant v. Leyland, 6 Fed. E. 125; Indi- where the latter resides out of the anapolis Gas Co. v. Indianapolis, 90 district, and more than one hundred Fed. R. 196; Colgate v v Compagnie miles from the place of trial. Lowrey Francaise, 23 Fed. R. 82. See also v. Kusworm (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R 9; Paine v. Warren, 33 Fed. R 357. infra, § 256. See also 27 St. at L. 17; § 282. 1 U. S. R S., § 867. infra, § 284, notes 10, 11. 2 N. Y. & B. C. P. Co. v. N. Y. C. P. § 283. 1 Equity Rule 67. This rule Co., 9 Fed. R 578. does not apply to a reference of an 3 Equity Rule 70. See Eslava v. interlocutory matter to a master. Mazange, 1 Woods, 623. It has been Coosaw Min. Co. v. Farmers' Min. Co., held that under U. a R S., g§ 858, 863, 67 Fed. R 31. Except in a very un- § 284:.] TESTIMONY TAKEN OEALLT IN JUEISDIOTION. 629 cause is to be taken orally, as provided in the order passed at the December term, 1861, amending the 67th General Eule, the court may, on motion of either party, assign a time within which the complainant shall take his evidence in support of the bill, and a time thereafter within which the defendant shall take his evidence in defense, and a time thereafter within which the complainant shall take his evidence in reply; and no further evidence shall be taken in the cause, unless by agree- ment of the parties, or by leave of the court first obtained, on motion, for cause shown" 2 Upon due notice, given as pre- scribed by previous order, the court may, at its discretion, per- mit the whole or any specific part of the evidence to be adduced orally in open court on final hearing." 3 Testimony taken after the time has expired may by leave of the court be filed nunc pro tunc* § 284. Testimony taken within the jurisdiction of the court after a cause is at issue. — Testimony taken after a cause is at issue is taken differently when taken within than when taken without the jurisdiction of the court. Originally, - the only manner of examining witnesses within the jurisdiction of a court of chancery was by means of written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories, which were prepared by the solicitors and counsel of the respective parties, or by the court, and then submitted to an examiner or one or more commissioners ap- pointed by the court, who examined the witnesses privately by means of them. The testimony thus obtained was kept secret until all the testimony in the cause had been taken. The time when it could first be inspected was called the time of publica- tion. 1 This method of taking testimony was, like many other usual case the appellate court will order should be obtained on notice not review the action of the lower and the testimony taken down in court in giving or refusing time in writing. Mears v. Lockbart (C. C. A.), which to take testimony. Ingle v. 94 Fed. R. 274. ' Jones, 9 Wall. 486; Grant v. Phoenix 4 Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 76; M. L. Ins. Co., 121 U. S. 105. See Streat s. a, 19 Blatchf. 25; Coon v. Abbot, v. Steinam, 38 Fed. R. 548; Wooster 37 Fed. R 98; Wenham v. Switzer, 48 v. Clark, 9 Fed. R. 854. Fed. R. 612; Emerson Co. v. Nimorus, 2 Amendment of 1869 to Rule 67. 88 Fed. R. 280. See Rule 108, U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y; § 284. i Langdell's Eq. PL, §§ 56-58. infra, § 284, note 4. See Eillert v. Craps, 44 Fed. R. 792; 'Amendment of May 15, 1893, to Wood v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 316. The Equity Rule 67, 149 U. S. 793. The Federal Equity Rules upon the sub- 630 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 284. parts of equity practice, borrowed from the canon law; with this difference, however, that whereas by the canon law each party before the examination of witnesses was obliged to fur- nish his adversary and the court with articles containing a spe- ject are as follows: " After the cause is at issue, commissions to take testi- mony may be taken out in vacation as well as in term, jointly by both par- ties, or severally by either party, upon interrogatories filed by the party taking out the same in the clerk's office, ten days' notice thereof being given to the adverse party to file cross-interrogatories before the issu- ing of the commission; and if no cross-interrogatories are filed at the expiration of the time, the commis- sion may issue ex parte. In all cases, the commissioner or commissioners shall be named by the court, or by a judge thereof. If the parties shall so agree, the testimony may be taken upon oral interrogatories by the par- ties or their agents, without filing any written interrogatories." Equity Rule 67. In 1861 the last paragraph of this rule was repealed. In 1854 it was "ordered, that the sixty-seventh rule governing equity practice be so amended as to allow the presiding judge of any court exercising juris- diction, either in term time or in va- cation, to vest in the clerk of said court general power to name com- missioners to take testimony in like manner that the court or judge thereof can now do by the said sixty- seventh rule." " Immediately upon the return of the commissions and depositions containing the testimony into the clerk's office, publication thereof may be ordered in the clerk's office, by any judge of the court, upon due notice to the parties, or it may be enlarged as he may deem reasonable under the circumstances; but, by consent of the parties, publication of the testimony may at any time pass into the clerk's office, such con- sent being in writing, and a copy thereof entered in the order books, or indorsed upon the deposition or testimony." Equity Rule 69; Eillert v. Craps, 44 Fed. R 792. Where there is a dispute as to the relevancy of an interrogatory or cross-interrogatory, the usual practice is to allow it to be answered in a doubtful case, and to determine the objections to it at the hearing, or by a motion to suppress the deposition. Zunkel v. Litchfield, 21 Fed. R. 196, 197; Giles v. Paxson, 36 Fed. R. 882; Appleton v. Ecaubert, 45 Fed. R. 281; Edison El. L. Co. v. U. S. El. L. Co., 44 Fed. R 294; s. C, 45 Fed. R. 55; Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1. The court may refer the interrogatories to a master to inquire into their relevancy. Zunkel v. Litch- field, 21 Fed. R 196. It has been said that, as a general rule, after the pub- lication of testimony, no more can be taken unless the judge himself, upon or after the hearing, entertains a doubt, or the proof of some addi- tional fact is indispensable to enable him to make a satisfactory decree; but that exhibits in a cause may be proved after publication, and even viva voce at the hearing, when they have not been proved in due season; and that a witness may be examined after publication as to the credit of other witnesses; and that the time may be enlarged after publication is passed, but not in fact made accord- ing to rules of court, upon good cause, as surprise, accident, or some other circumstances repelling imputations of laches, proved by affidavit, which, unless the other party has practiced fraud, is indispensable. Wood v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 316. See Eillert v. Craps, 44 Fed. R. 793. § 284.] TESTIMONY TAKEN OEALLT IN JURISDICTION. 631 ciiio statement of the facts which he expected to prove by them ; in equity, on the other hand, except in a few rare instances, facts, not evidence, are required to be pleaded. So, originally, each party was before publication very much in the dark as to the facts which his antagonist intended to attempt to establish. " It is not surprising, therefore, that the mode of taking testi- mony in equity fell into disrepute, and finally broke down." 2 Testimony in equity is now, therefore, almost universally al- lowed to be taken orally in the presence of counsel. The rules regulating the practice of the courts of the United States upon the subject are as follows : " Either party may give notice to the other that he desires the evidence to be adduced in the cause to be taken orally, and thereupon all the witnesses to be examined shall be examined before one of the examiners of the court, or before an examiner to be specially appointed by the court, the examiner to be furnished with a copy of the bill and ' answer, if any; and such examination shall take place in the presence of the parties or their agents, by their counsel or so- licitors, and the witnesses shall be subject to cross-examination and re-examination, and which shall be conducted as near as may be in the mode now used in the common-law courts. The depositions taken upon such oral examinations shall be taken down in writing by the examiner in the form of a narrative unless he determines the examination shall be by question and answer in special instances ; in which instances it shall be taken down by a stenographer and be put into typewriting or other' writing, and, when completed, shall be read over to the witness and signed by him in the presence of the parties or counsel, or such of them as may attend ; provided, if the witness shall re- fuse to sign the said deposition, then the examiner shall sign the same ; and the examiner may, upon all examinations, state any special matter to the court as he shall see fit; and any question or questions which may be objected to shall be noted by the examiner upon the deposition, but he shall not have power to decide on the competency, materiality, or relevancy of the questions ; and the court shall have power to deal with the costs of incompetent, immaterial, or irrelevant deposi- tions, or parts of them, as may be just." " The expense of the taking down of depositions by a stenographer and of putting ZLangdell's Eq. PL, § 56. See also Langdell's Eq. PL, §§ 14^19. 632 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 284. them into typewriting or other writing, shall be paid in the first instance by the party who makes the examination or the cross-examination, as the case may be, and shall be imposed by the court, as part of the costs, upon such party as the court shall adjudge shall ultimately bear them." " In case of refusal of witnesses to attend, to be sworn, or to answer any question put by the examiner, or by counsel or so- licitor, the same practice shall be adopted as is now practiced with respect to witnesses to be produced on examination before an examiner of said court on written interrogatories. Notice shall be given by the respective counsel or solicitors, to the op- posite counsel or solicitors, or parties, of, the time and place of the examination, for such reasonable time as the examiner may fix by order in each cause. When the examination of witnesses before the examiner is concluded^ the original deposition, au- thenticated by the signature of the examiner, shall be trans- mitted by him to the clerk of the court, to be there filed of record, in the same mode as prescribed in the thirtieth section of Act of Congress, September 24, 1789. 3 Testimony may be taken on commission in the usual way, by written interroga- tories and cross-interrogatories, or motion to the court in term time, or to a judge in vacation, for special reasons satisfactory to the court or judge." 4 The examiner must note all objec- 8 U. S. E. S., § 865. See infra, §§ 286, and answer, number the questions 287. put to each witness continuously, * Amendment of 1861 to Rule 67. from the commencement of his di- In the Circuit Court of the United rect examination to the final close of States 'for the Southern District of his examination, direct and cross." , New York, the following rules regu- (Rule of November 10, 1868.) "When- late the subject: "If a general com- ever it is intended to offer oral proof mission is not issued, pursuant to the in open court, the party proposing it 25th Rule of the Supreme Court, shall give due notice to the opposite within ten days after replication party of the names of the witnesses, filed, either party may give notice the matters to which they are to be of the examination of witnesses be- examined, and of the reasons upon fore the standing examiner of this which he will move for an examina- Court; and three months from the tion." (Rule 110.) " A master or ex- time of the replication shall be al- aminer, in taking proofs, or in mat- lowed the parties for taking their ters of reference, shall not, without depositions before the examiner." the written consent of all parties, (Rule 108.) " In taking testimony, all or the authorization of one of the Masters, Examiners, Referees, and judges, adjourn proceedings pending Commissioners shall, where testi- before him, for a longer time than mony is written down by question ten days." (Rule 115.) "No rule or § 284.] TESTIMONY TAKEN OEALLT IN JURISDICTION. 633 tions and exceptions to questions and answers, and take the testimony subject to them, but cannot decide on their validity.' It has been held that the court will not interfere to prevent irrelevant questions. 6 Irrelevant evidence may be stricken out, and the costs of taking the same imposed upon the party who took it. 7 Upon due notice given as prescribed by previous order, the court may, in its discretion, permit the whole or any specific part of the evidence to be adduced orally in open court on final hearing. 8 The act of March 9, 1892, provides that in order need be entered for the publi- cation of testimony; but so soon as the commissioner or examiner shall have completed the testimony of- fered, the party taking it shall cause the deposition to be filed in the clerk's office, and forthwith give no- tice thereof to the adverse party. Either party may thereupon enter a rule of course, that the clerk open the commission, or deposition, and file the same!" (Rule 112.) "Within four days after the clerk shall have prepared copies of the depositions (provided the same were applied for in two days after the notice of the filing thereof), the adverse party may give notice of exception, before a judge at chambers, to the proofs or any part of them, on account of any irregularity in taking the deposi- tions, or executing the commissions; and, if no such notice of exception is given, all objections to the form or manner in which the proofs were taken shall be deemed waived." (Rule 113.) "Whenever it is in- tended to offer oral proof in open court, the party proposing it shall give due notice to the opposite party of the names of the witnesses, the matters to which they are to be ex- amined, and of the reasons upon which he will move for an examina- tion." (Rule 110.) » Appleton v. Ecaubert, 45 Fed. R. 281. The action of an examiner in adjourning the hearing after a wit- ness is tendered for cross-examina- tion is final, and if the party who offered the witness refuses to pro- duce him for cross-examination his testimony in chief will be sup- pressed. Shapleigh v. Chester EL L. & P. Co., 47 Fed. R 848. The court may, after a deposition has been con- cluded, allow further cross-examina- tion. La Normandie (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R 427; a C, 40 Fed. R 590. For a case where a deposition was ad- mitted when the witness had died before his cross-examination, which had been adjourned at the request of the cross-examiner, see Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Arlington Mfg. Co., 47 Fed. R 4. For a case where a deposition was taken by consent in the absence of the examiner, and a dispute arose, see Ballard v. McCluskey, 52 Fed. R. 677. It has been held that when the parties stipulate that testimony may be taken before any officer or magistrate qualified to administer oaths without special appointment by the court as an examiner, the deposition thus taken must be filed on record, as required by Equity Rule 67, in cases where an examiner is regularly appointed; and the party in whose behalf the testimony was taken has no right to suppress it. T. L. Mott Iron Works v. Standard Mfg. Co. (C. C), 48 Fed. R 345. •SBlease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, 4-8; Lloyd v. Pennie, 50 Fed. R. 4, 11; supra, § 267. 1 Griffith v. Shaw, 89 Fed. R 313. « Amendment of May 15, 1893, to 634: EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§§ 285, 286. addition to the mode of taking the depositions of witnesses in cases pending at law or equity in the District and Circuit Courts .of the United States, it shall be lawful to take the depositions of witnesses in the mode prescribed by the laws of the State in which the courts are held. 9 It has been said that this merely provides an additional method of taking testimony, and does not confer any additional rights, such as an examination of a party to an action at law before trial, 10 or before issue joined. 11 § 285. Testimony taken after a cause is at issue and be- yond the jurisdiction of the court. — It often happens that a witness, whose testimony is needed by either party to a suit in equity, is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. In such a case, his testimony can be taken in six ways, — by deposition, ac- cording to the acts of Congress; 1 by a commission under a dedimus jpotestatem;* and by letters rogatory, 3 in the method prescribed by the laws of the State where the court is held ; * and by a special master or examiner, 5 or master 6 appointed by the court where the suit is pending to take testimony in an- other district, or even in a foreign country. 7 § 286. Depositions de bene esse under the acts of Congress. The equity rules say that " testimony may also be taken in the cause, after it is at issue, by deposition, according to the acts of Congress. But in such case, if no notice is given to the ad- verse party of the time and place of taking the deposition, he shall, upon motion and affidavit of the fact, be entitled to a Equity Rule 67, 149 U. a 793; Mears 2 Infra, §§ 288, 289. v. Lockhart (C. C. A.), 94 Fed. R 274; s Infra, § 290. Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, 8. 4 27 St. at L. 17; supra, § 284, notes For the practice when testimony is 10, 11. taken in a foreign language, see 5 White v. Toledo B. Co. (C. C. A.), Euberweg v. LaCompagnie Generale 79 Fed. R 183; North Carolina R Co. Transatlantique, 35 Fed. R 530; The v. Drew, 3 Woods, 691 ; In re Steward, Jacob Brandon, 33 Fed. R 160. 29 Fed. R. 813; Johnson Steel Street »27 St. at L. 17. Rail Co. v. North Branch Steel Co., w Nat. Cash Reg. Co. v. Leland (C. 48 Fed. R 191; In re Allis, 44 Fed. R. C. A), 94 Fed. R 502; s. C, 77 Fed. R 217; In re Spofford, 62 Fed. R. 443. 242. But see Arnold v. Chesebrough, 35 11 Shellebarger v. Oliver, 64 Fed. R. Fed. R. 16, and Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. 806; Texas & Pac Ry. Co. v. Wilder Russell, 35 Fed. R 17. (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R 953; Despeaux 6 Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Co- v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 81 Fed. R lumbian B. & T. Co., 85 Fed. R 54. 897. 7 Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillette, § 285. i Infra, §§ 286, 287. 28 Fed. R 673. § 286.] DEPOSITIONS DE BENE ESSE. 635 cross-examination of the witness either under a commission or by a new deposition taken under the act of Congress, if a court or judge thereof shall, under all the circumstances, deem it reasonable." 1 The acts of Congress on the subject apply to cases at common law and in equity. 2 They are as follows: " The testimony of any witness may be taken in any civil cause depending in a District or Circuit Court by deposition de bene esse, when the witness lives at a greater distance from the place of trial than one hundred miles, or is bound on a voyage to sea, or is about to go out of the United States, or out of the district in which the case is to be tried, and to a greater distance than one hundred miles from the place of trial, before the time of trial, or when he is ancient and infirm. The deposition may be taken before any judge of any court of the United States, or any commissioner of a Circuit Court, or any clerk of a Dis- trict or Circuit Court, or any chancellor, justice, or judge of a Supreme or Superior Court, mayor or chief magistrate of a city, judge of a County Court or Court of Common Pleas of any of the United States, or any notary public, not being of coun- sel or attorney to either of the parties, nor interested in the event of the cause. Reasonable notice must first be given in writing by the party or his attorney proposing to take such deposition, to the opposite party or his attorney of record, as either may be nearest, which notice shall state the name of the witness, and the time and place of the taking of his deposition ; and in all cases in rem, the person having the agency or pos- session of the property at the time of seizure shall be deemed the adverse party, until a claim shall have been put in ; and whenever, by reason of the absence from the district and want of an attorney of record or other reason, the giving of the no- tice therein required shall be impracticable, it shall be lawful to take such depositions as there shall be urgent necessity for taking, upon such notice as any judge authorized to hold courts in such circuit or district shall think reasonable and direct. Any person may be compelled to appear and depose as pro- vided by this section, in the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify in court." 3 " Every person §286. 1 Equity Rule 68. See Steg- a U. S. R. S., § 863. It has been held ner v. Blake, 36 Fed. E. 183. that the deposition may be taken be- 2 Stegner v. Blake, 36 Fed. B. 183; fore a judge of probate if his court U. S. R S., § 863. is a court of record, Merrill v. Daw- 636 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 286. deposing as provided in the preceding section, shall be cau- tioned and sworn to tell the whole truth, and carefully exam- ined. His testimony shall be reduced to writing, or typewrit- ing, by the officer taking the deposition, or by some other person under his personal supervision, or by the deponent him- self in the officer's presence, and by no other person, and shall, after it has been reduced to writing or typewriting, be sub- scribed by the deponent." 4 " Every deposition taken under the two preceding sections shall be retained by the magistrate taking it, until he delivers it with his own hand into the court for which it was taken; or it shall, together with a certificate of the reasons as aforesaid of taking it, and of the notice, if any, given to the adverse party, be by him sealed up and directed to such court, and re- main under his seal until opened in court. But unless it ap- pears to the satisfaction of the court that the witness is then dead, or gone out of the United States, or to a greater distance than one hundred miles from the place where the court is sit- ting, or that by reason of age, sickness, bodily infirmity, or imprisonment, he is unable to travel and appear at court, such deposition shall not be used in the cause." 5 These sections do not apply to the taking of depositions in foreign countries. 6 A deposition cannot be taken under these statutory provisions after an appeal to the Supreme Court or the'Circuit Court of Appeals has been perfected; for the case is then no longer " depending " in a Circuit Court. 7 This prac- tice has no application to cases pending in the Supreme Court. 8 It has been held that an adverse party may be examined under this statute de bene esse before issue joined, when he resides son, Hempst. 563; s. C. sub nom. Fow- e U. S. R S., § 865. ler v. Merrill, 11 How. 375; or any 6 Cortes Co. v. Tannhauser, 18 Fed. county judge, Voce v. Lawrence, 4 R667; Stein v. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209; McLean, 203. It has been held that The Alexandra, 104 Fed. R 904. But the deposition cannot be taken be- see Bischoffsheim v. Baltzer, 10 Fed. fore a township justice, Schutte v. E. 1. Thompson, 15 Wall. 152; or a judge 7 Richterv. Jerome, 25 Fed. R679, of a county commissioner's court, 681; Slaughter-House Cases, 10 Wall. Garey v. Union Bank, 3 Cranch, C. C. 273. 91; or a judge of a city court, Free- 8 The Argo, 2 Wheat. 287; Richter man v. Holmead, 5 Cranch, C. C. 162. v. Jerome, 25 Fed. R 679, 681. *U. S. R S.,§ 864, as amended May 13, 1900. § 286.] DEPOSITIONS DE BENE ESSE. 637 more than one hundred miles from the place of trial. 9 The magistrate should write down and return to the court any species of evidence offered before him, and cannot exclude evi- dence on the ground that it is not pertinent. It belongs to the court, on the return of the deposition, to determine whether the evidence is pertinent or not. 10 The relevancy of a question and the right to have the deposition taken will be tested, if the witness refuses to answer, and an application is made to punish him for contempt. 11 These statutory provisions, being in derogation of the common law, are strictly construed. 12 Consequently, before depositions thus taken can be read in evidence, the party that offers them must prove that compli- ance was made with all the requirements of the statutes, or else that these requirements were waived by the opposite party. 13 There is no presumption that a deposition was prop- erly taken. 14 The certificate of the magistrate is prima facie evidence of such a compliance. 15 His certificate that the wit- ness lives more than one hundred miles from the place of trial is prima facie evidence of that fact. 16 When the distance is great the court may take judicial notice of the fact." A wit- ness lives, within the meaning of the statute, at a place " where he can be found and is sojourning, residing or abiding for any lawful purpose." 18 It has been held that he lives at a place where he has gone for his health to remain for an uncertain time. 19 If the witness does not live more than one hundred miles from the place of trial, the party who has taken his depo- 'Lowrey y. Kusworm, 66 Fed. R »Harrisv.Wall,7How.693; Thorpe 539; supra, § 283. Contra, Stevens v. Simmons, 2Cranch, C. C. 195. v. Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co., 104 Fed. R " Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 5 934 Pet. 604; Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst 10 Ex parte Judson, 3 Blatchf. 89; 563; s. c. sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, Adee v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, 46 11 How. 375; Tooker v. Thompson, 3 Fed. R 39. See Thomson-Houston McLean, 92. El. Co. v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 83 Fed. R « Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Robi- 614 son, 58 Fe'd. R 72a "Ex parte Peck, 3 Blatchf. 113; "ibid. Ex parte Judson, 3 Blatchf. 89. See 19 Ibid. The fact that a witness is supra, § 284, note 17. a seaman on a gunboat stationed in 12 Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351. a harbor, but liable to be ordered to i' Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351; Har- some other place, is, it seems, not ris v. Wall, 7 How. 693. sufficient to authorize the taking of 14 Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351; Banks his testimony de bene esse in this v. Miller, 1 Cranch, C. C. 543. manner. The Samuel, 1 Wheat, 9. 638 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 286. sition must prove that his disability to attend still continues, and that due diligence was used in seeking to procure his at- tendance, before the deposition can be read in evidence. 20 The previous issue of a subpoena is not essential if proof of the ina- bility of the witness is otherwise given. 21 If it appears that at the time when the deposition was taken the witness lived more than one hundred miles from the place of trial, the opposite party, upon whom the burden then rests, may prove that at the time of trial he lives within one hundred miles. 22 "Whether a witness resides more than one hundred miles from the place of trial is to be determined by the actual distance by usual routes. 23 It has been held that parol evidence is inadmissible to show a sufficient reason, where the magistrate's certificate gives an insufficient reason. 24 No order or rule of the court is necessary in order to take depositions in this manner. 25 Although one deposition has been already taken, yet a second deposition of the same witness may be taken without an order of the court. 26 It is customary to file the notice or a copy thereof in the *> Patapsoo Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 5 Pet. 604, 612; The Samuel, 1 Wheat. 9; Weed v. Kellogg, 6 McLean, 44; Jones v. Greenolds, 1 Cranch, C. C. 339; Penn v. Ingraham, 2 Wash. C. C. 487; Bannert v. Day, 3 Wash. C. C. 343; Pettibone v. Derringer, 4 Wash. C. C. 215; Read v. Bertrand, 4 Wash C. C. 558; Brown v. Gallo- way, Pet. C. C. 291. 21 Park v. Willis, 1 Cranch, C. C. 357; Leatherberry v. Radcliffe, 5 Cranch, C. C. 550. 22 Penn v. Ingraham, 2 Wash C. C. 487; Brown v. Galloway, Pet. C. C. 291; Pettibone v. Derringer, 4 Wash 215; Eussell v. Ashley, Hempst. 546, 549; Weed v. Kellogg, 6 McLean, 44; Whitford v. Clark Co., 119 U. S. 522; Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 5 Pet. 604. 23 Ex parte Beebee, 2 Wall. Jr. 127. 24 Wheaton v. Love, 1 Cranch, C. C. 451. But see Dunkle v. Worces- ter, 5 Biss. 102. It is the proper prac- tice for the magistrate to state in his certificate that he was not of counsel for either party nor inter- ested in the event of the cause. Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 20 Fed. R. 187; Donohue v. Roberts, 19 Fed. R. 863. But see Miller v. Young, 2 Cranch, C. C. 53; Peyton v. Veitch, 2 Cranch, C. C. 123; Stewart v. Townsend, 41 Fed. R. 121. It has been held that the magistrate's cer- tificate need not state the witness was "sworn to testify the whole truth," if it states that the witness was sworn. Bussard v. Catalino, 2 Cranch, C. C. 421. But see Rainer v. Haynes, Hempst. 689; Garrett v. Woodward, 2 Cranch, C. C. 190. Nor, perhaps, that the witness is not a resident of the district where the case is pending. Sage v. Taiiszky, 6 Cent. L. J. 7. 25 Pettibone v. Derringer, 4 Wash. 215; Buckingham v. Burgess, 3 Mc- Lean, 368. But see Walker v. Par- ker, 5 Cranch, C. C. 639. 26 Nash, tenant of Connett, v. Will- iams, 20 Wall. 226. See U. S. v. Til- den, Fed. Cas. No. 16,522. § 286.] DEPOSITIONS DB BENE ESSE. 639 clerk's office, who may then issue a subpoena. 27 Any one, even a party to the suit, may serve the notice. 28 If the United States be a party, it seems that service should be made upon the nearest district attorney. 29 It has been held that if an at- torney has been employed" in a case and is still employed therein, notice should be given to him, although he has never formally appeared on the record. 30 The service must be per- sonal, unless otherwise expressly authorized as provided for in the statute. 31 The notice must be served a reasonable time be- fore the taking of the deposition. 32 The notice must show on its face that the contingency has happened which confers juris- diction on the magistrate, and gives the party serving it a right to have the deposition taken; so that the party upon whom it is served may be able to judge whether it is necessary for him to attend. 33 It seems insufficient to swear the witness 27 Davis v. Davis, 90 Fed. R 791; Ex parte Judson, 3 Blatchf. 89. 28 Young v. Davidson, 5 Cranch, C. G 515. »The Argo, 2 GalL 314 «• Allen v. Blunt, 2 M. & W. 121. sl Carrington v. Stimson, 1 Curt. 437. Contra, Merrill v. DawsoD, Hempst. 563; s. C. sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 How. 375. 32 Jamieson v. Willis, 1 Cranch, C. C. 566; Renner v. Howland, 2 Cranch, C. C. 441; Barrell v. Simonton, 3 Cranch, C. C. 681; Am. Ex. Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.), 82 Fed. R. 961. An hour's notice has been held to be reasonable. Lei- per- v. Bickley, 1 Cranch, C. C. 29; Bowie v. Talbot, 1 Cranch, C. C. 247; Atkinson v. Glenn, 4 Cranch, C. C. 134 But see Renner v. Howland, 2 Cranch, C. C. 441 ; Irving v. Sutton, 1 Cranch, C. C. 567. It seems that it is not proper to serve a notice for the taking of a deposition during a term at which the cause could be tried, Allen v. Blunt, 2 W. & M. 121; Bell v. Nimmon, 4 McLean, 539. Contra, Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Reese (C. C. A.), 56 Fed. R 288; or so short a time before as not to allow an at- torney, if he attend, to reach the court before the commencement of that term. Bell v. Nimmon, 4 Mc- Lean, 539. Where the parties and their attorneys lived in the place where the deposition was taken, a notice that the deposition would be taken "before William G. Peckham, Esq., Notary Public, or some other officer authorized by law to take depositions," etc., was held sufficient when the deposition was taken be- fore another notary. Gormley v. Bunyan, 138 IT. S. 623, 632. 33 Aldrich v. Nye, U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y., Lacombe, J., Oct. 31, 1891; Har- ris v. Wall, 7 How. 693. Contra, Debutts v. McCulloch, 1 Cranch, C. C. 28; Sage v. Tauszky, 6 Cent. L J. 7. If the witnesses' Christian names are unknown, the inclusion of their sur- names in the notice will be sufficient. Claxton v. Adams, 1 MacAr. (D. C.) 496. See Carrington v. Stimson, 1 Curt 437. If the notice state that the taking of depositions will be ad- journed from day to day, it seems that depositions taken upon an ad- journed day will be received. Knode v. Williamson, 17 Wall. 586; Sage v. Tauszky, 6 Cent. L. J. 7. But see Kirkpatrick v. B. & O. R Co., 24 Pittsb. L. J. 51. A notice that a party 640 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 286. to tell the whole truth concerning such interrogatories as may be put to him. He should be sworn or should affirm to tell the whole truth as far as he knows concerning the matter in controversy between the parties. 34 It seems that if the witness is properly sworn, it is not necessary that he be also cautioned to testify the whole truth ; M and that the oath may be admin- istered after the deposition has been reduced to writing, as well as before. 36 If the witness has conscientious scruples about taking an oath, he may affirm. 37 The certificate of the magistrate that the witness has such conscientious scruples is sufficient evidence thereof. 38 It has been held that a witness may be compelled to attend for the purpose of having his deposition taken de bene esse, either by a subpoena, a subpoena duces tecum, or the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, but that a commissioner cannot issue a writ of habeas corpus to take a person from jail for the purpose of giving his deposition before such a commissioner. 39 A party cannot be compelled by a subpoena to produce papers, books, &c, which would not be material or competent as evidence, merely for the purpose of refreshing his memory, 40 but the production of papers which are material may be thus compelled, 41 not, however, it has been held, by the client from an attorney, who has a lien upon the same. 42 It has been held that after a party has examined a witness in chief under the statutory provisions and demanded an adjournment, he has no right to withdraw the proceedings, will on the same day take deposi- Hughes, 295; 17. S. v. Smith, 4 Day, tions of witnesses in different cities 121. is unreasonable, and such depositions 35D e d. Moore v. Nelson, 3 Mo- will be suppressed; even, it has been Lean, 383; Brown v. Piatt, 2 Cranoh, held, if the opposite party appeared C. C. 253. Contra, Luther v. The at each by counsel and cross-ex- Merritt Hunt, 1 Newb. Adm. 4. amined, provided that before the 36 Tooker v. Thompson, 3 McLean, direct examination the objection was 92. specifically stated, and although such s7 U. S. R S., § 1. party had served similar notices of S8 Elliot v. Hayman, 2 Cranch, C. C. the taking of depositions at other 678. times and places on his own behalf. 39 Ex parte Peck, 3 Blatchf. 113; Uhle v. Burnham, 44 Fed. R. 729. U. S. v. Tilden, 10 Ben. 566; infra, 3* Shutte v. Thompson, 15 Wall. 152; § 366. Pendleton v. Forbes, 1 Cranch, C. C. "Ibid. 507 ; Garrett v. Woodward, 2 Cranch, « Davis v. Davis, 90 Fed. R. 791. C. C. 190; Rainer v. Haynes, Hempst. * 2 Ibid, 689; Wilson S. M A. v. Jackson, 1 § 287.] FORM OF DEPOSITION. 641 and that any party in interest may compel such witness to ap- pear and submit to cross-examination. 43 Either party may obtain an order compelling the return of a deposition thus taken. 44 After the deposition is complete, the court may allow a further cross-examination on newly-discovered facts. 46 The court has the power to compel the opening of such a deposition before the trial upon the motion of either party against the objection of the other. 46 It is the safer practice to have the witness sign his deposition. 47 No notice of filing a deposition need be given to a party who knows it has been taken. 48 A State statute requiring depositions to be filed a certain num- ber of days before trial was not followed by the Federal court. 49 § 287. Form of deposition under acts of Congress. — The deposition should state, either in its body or in its caption, the name of the court where the cause is pending, 1 the title of the cause, 2 and the place where the deposition is taken. 3 If the deponent reduces the deposition to writing, the' magistrate must certify that it was reduced to writing by the deponent in his 43 Ex parte Barnes, 1 Sprague, 133; Re Rindskopf, 34 Fed. R. 543. 44 First Nat Bank v. Forest, 44 Fed. R246. « The Normandie, 40 Fed. R. 590. ««U. S. v. Tilden, 10 Ben. 170. 47 Thorpe v. Simmons, 2 Cranch, C. C. 195. « Nelson, v. Woodruff, 1 Black, 156; Leatherberry v. Radcliffe, 5 Cranch, C. C. 550. For practice when a deposi- tion is destroyed, see Stebbins v. Dun- can, 108 U. a 33. « Walker v. Collins, 59 Fed. R. 70. §287. JVan Ness v. Heineke, 2 Cranch, C. C. 259. 2 Peyton v. Veitch, 2 Cranch, C. C. 123; Smith v. Coleman, 2 Cranch, C. C. 237; Centre v. Keene, 2 Cranch, C. C. 198; Waskern v. Diamond, Hempst. 701; Allen v. Blunt, 2 W. & M. 121. But see Voce v. Lawrence. 4 McLean, 203; Buckingham v. Bur- gess, 3 McLean, 368; Pannill v. Elia- son, 3 Cranch, C. C. 358; Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst. 563; s. C. sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 How. 375. 41 'Pendleton v. Forbes, 1 Cranch, C. C. 507; Tooker v. Thompson, 3 Mc- Lean, 92. A slight error in the cap- tion, such as a mistake in spelling the name of a party, Van Ness v. Heineke, 3 Cranch, C. C. 259; or the omission from the title of the cause of the name'of one of several plaint- iffs or defendants, is not a ground of suppressing the deposition. Pamill v. Eliason, 3 Cranch, C. O. 358; Egbert v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 7 Fed. R 47; Mer- rill v. Dawson, Hempst. 563; s. C. sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 How. 375. See also Voce v. Lawrence, 4 McLean, 203. The heading of the notice: " United States of America, State of Illinois, County of Cook, ss. In the Circuit Court of the United States," was held not sufficiently irregular to avoid the deposition. Gormley v. Bunyan, 138 U. S. 623, 634. The omis- sion of the name of the county from the caption is not a fatal defect. Van Ness v. Heineke, 2 Cranch, C. C. 359. 642 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 287. presence. 4 Consent may waive objection to the person who takes down the deposition. 5 The objection that the magis- trate does not certify that the deposition was signed by the witness in his presence, is not fatal. 6 The certificate should state whether the parties were or were not present or represented, 7 and show the reasons for whicb the deposition was taken. 8 The notice need not be attached to the deposition. 9 If the deposi- tion is sent by mail, the magistrate should certify that it was retained by him until sealed up and directed to the court. 10 The deposition need not state that the deposition has been sealed, provided that it appears by the envelope that the depo- *Edmonscm v. Barrel, 2 Cranoh, C. 0. 228; Rainer v. Haynes, Hempst. 689; Pettibone v. Derringer, 4 Wash. 215. Before the amendment of May 13, 1900, it was held that the certificate should show that the magistrate re- duced the testimony to writing him- self, or that it was done by the witness in his presence. Cook v. Burnley, 11 Wall. 659; U. S. v. Smith, 4 Day (Conn.), 121 ; Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351, 355; Bussard v. Catalino, 2 Cranch, C. C. 421; Donahue v. Rob- erts, 19 Fed. R. 863. Contra, Vasse v. Smith, 2 Cranch, C. C. 81; Van Ness v. Heineke, 2 Cranch, C. C. 259; Centre v. Keen, 2 Cranch, C. G. 198; Elliott v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 335; Cook v. Burnley, 11 Wall. 659. But see Vasse v. Smith, 2 Cranch, C. C. 31; U. S. v. Smith, 4 Day (Conn.), 121; Marstin v. McRae, Hempst. 688; Rainer v. Haynes, Hempst. 689. In one case, a deposition was rejected because the magistrate certified that "the form," an evident slip of the pen for "the same," which were the words of the statute then in force, "was reduced to writing." Voce v. Lawrence, 4 McLean, 203; Burton v. Simmons, 2 Cranch, C. C. 195. 6 Stewart v. Townsend, 41 Fed. R 121. 6 Van Ness v. Heineke, 2 Cranch, C. C. 259; Centre v. Keen, 2 Cranch, C. C. 198. If the deposition bears the witness' signature and appears to have been reduced to writing by the magistrate, it is sufficient, although the certificate does not say that it was signed by the witness. Bussard v. Catalino, 2 Cranch, C. p. 421. But see Cook v. Burnley, 11 Wall. 659; Dona- hue v. Roberts, 19 Fed. R 863. 7 Curtis v. Railway Co., 6 McLean, 401. sshutte v. Thompson, 15 Wall. 152; Sage v. Tauszky, 6 Cent. L. J. 7; Har- ris v. Wall, 7 How. 693; Woodward v. Hall, 2 Cranch, C. C. 235; Wheaton v. Love, 1 Cranch, C. C. 451; Jones v. Knowles, 1 Cranch, C. C. 523. See supra, §286. It has been held that a certificate sufficiently shows the rea- son for making depositions, if the cap- tion of the deposition states where the depositions were taken, without giving the distance from the place of taking to the place of trial; if the distance is in fact, and is well known by all parties to be, more than one hundred miles from the place of trial. Egbert v. Citizens' Ins. Co. of Mo., 7 Fed. R. 47. 9 Stewart v. Townsend, 41 Fed. R. 121. 10 Shankwiker v. Reading, 4 Mc- Lean, 240; Jones v. Neale, 1 Hughes, 268. But see Stewart v. Townsend, 41 Fed. R 121. § 287.] FOBM OF DEPOSITION. 643 sition was sealed." If the magistrate have an official seal under which he usually certifies his acts, it seems that this certificate should be under that seal. 12 It seems that it will be presumed " that he occupies the official position 'which he assumes in his •certificate; 13 certainly so if he be a notary public and certifies under his notarial seal ; 14 and this may always be proved by ■oral testimony like any other material fact. 15 The deposition may be directed to either the judge or the clerk of the court. 16 It cannot be read in evidence if intentionally opened anywhere but in court, 17 except by consent, which it will be well to have appear by writing duly signed and filed with or indorsed on the deposition. 18 Where the certificate fails to state certain material facts, by leave of the court the deposition may be withdrawn from the clerk's office, the certificate amended, and the deposition then refiled. 19 If an attorney appear and cross- examine a witness without objection, he thereby waives any lack of notice, or irregularity in the notice, 20 or in the form and manner of the proceedings, 21 or, it seems, an incompetency in the witness then known to him, 22 or any other formal defect. His presence, however, if he declines to take any part in the proceedings, does not. 23 It is the safer and the usual practice for the counsel present to note on the record all objections to « Egbert v. Citizens' Ins. Co. of Mo., 335 ; Whitney v. Huntt, 5 Cranch, C. 7 Fed. E. 47, 50. If the deposition is C. 120. sealed up with the seal of a corpora- 17 Beale v, Thompson, 8 Cranch, 70; tion, across which are written the The Roscius, 1 Brown, Adm. 442; In name or the names of the person or re Thomas, 35 Fed. B. 337. The acci- persons who took the deposition, it is dental opening in the mail of an en- sufficient. Re Thomas, 35 Fed. R. 337. velope containing a deposition taken 12 Paul v. Lowry, 2 Cranch, C. C. by a commission under Rule 67 does .628. But see Price v. Morris, 5 Mc- not authorize the suppression of the Lean, 4. deposition. Eillert v. Craps, 44 Fed. " Buggies v. Bucknor, 1 Paine, 358; R. 164. Price v. Morris, 5 McLean, 4; Vasse 18 The Roscius, 1 Brown, Adm. 442. •v. Smith, 2 Cranch, C. C. 31; Whit- ^Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 20 ney v. Huntt, 5 Cranch, C. C. 120. Fed. R. 187; Donahue v. Roberts, 19 But see Tooker v. Thompson, 3 Mc- Fed. R. 863; Leatherberry v. Rad- Lean, 92. cliffe, 5 Cranchj C. C. 550. 14 Dinsmore v. Maroney, 4 Blatchf. w Dinsmore v. Maroney, 4 Blatchf. 416. 416. is Paul v. Lowry, 2 Cranch, C. C. ^iShutte v. Thompson, 15 Wall ■628; Dunlop v. Munroe, 1 Cranch, C. 152: In re Thomas, 35 Fed. R. 822. C. 536. 2 2 U. S. v. One Case, 1 Paine, 400. i« Thorp v. Orr, 2 Cranch, C. C. ™ Harris v. Wall, 7 How. 693. 641 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 288. the form of questions; and to the admission of an exhibit; and a failure to note such an objection might be held to be a waiver 24 by a party who was present or represented at the examination. Irregularities are waived by consent to open depositions " with- out prejudice to any objections to the inclosed deposition other than relating to publication and opening, which is hereby waived." ffl An objection to the failure of a witness to produce a paper to which he referred, or which was called for, can only be made by a motion to suppress the deposition. 26 In general, all defects in form w or to the competency or relevancy of evi- dence 28 can only be raised by a motion to suppress the deposi- tion, and seasonably made before the case is called for trial; 29 and the court may, and usually will, when such a motion is granted, allow an adjournment of the hearing in order tha,t the testimony may be taken again, provided that the objection can then be obviated. 30 The denial of such a motion is no ground for the reversal of a judgment at common law, unless upon the trial an objection is duly made to the admission of the evidence and an exception taken. 81 § 288. Commissions issued under a dedimus potestatem. The Kevised Statutes provide that " in any case where it is necessary, in order to prevent a failure or delay of justice, any of the courts of the United States may grant a dedimus potes- tatem to take depositions according to common usage." " And the provisions of sections eight hundred and sixty-three, eight hundred and sixty-four, and eight hundred and sixty-five shall not apply to any depositions to be taken under the authority of this section." * This statute applies to criminal prosecutions, 2 2« Cf. Equity Rule 67; S. C. Rule 13. M. Co., 139 U. S. 199; Bibb v. Allen, 25 Stewart v. Townsend, 41 Fed. R. 149 U. S. 481, 488. See Dickerson v. 121. Matheson, 50 Fed. R 73, 75. 26 Blackburn v. Crawford, 3 Wall. 2b Ward v. Cochran (C. C. A.), 71 175; Winans v. N. Y. E. R Co., 21 Fed. R. 127. How. 88. As to the transmission-and 2» Bibb v. Allen, 149 U. S. 481, 488. identification of exhibits, see Giles v. 30 Luther v. The Merritt Hunt, 1 Paxson, 36 Fed. R. 882; Bird v. Halsy, Newb. 4; Doe d. Moore v. Nelson, 3 87 Fed. R 671; U. S. v. Fifty Boxes, McLean, 383. 92 Fed. R. 601. 31 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Reece (C. 27 Claxton v. Adams, 1 MacA (D. C. A.), 56 Fed. R. 288. C.) 496; Bank of Danville v. Travers, g 288. 1 U. S. R S., § 866; Jones v. 4 Biss. 507; Brooks v. Jenkins, 3 Mo Oregon C. R Co., 3 Sawyer, 523. Lean, 432 ; Uhle v. Burnham, 44 Fed. 2 U. S. v. Fifty Boxes and Packages R 729, 730; Howard v. Stillwell B. of Lace, 92 Fed. R. 601. § 288.] DEDIMUS FOTESTATEM. 645 informations for forfeitures, 3 actions at law, 4 and cases in equity. 5 The words " common usage," when applied to a suit in equity, signify the ordinary practice of courts of equity. 6 It has been held that the usage referred to is the common usage at the time of the revision of the Statutes of the United States in 1874; 7 that it does not direct the Federal courts to adopt all subsequent laws of the States wherein they sit; 8 that where, prior to 1874, the Federal courts within a district had adopted a practice of their own, such practice may be continued ; 9 that accordingly in the Southern District of New York, those courts, even when sitting at common law, are not bound by the sections of the State Code of Civil Procedure regulating the execution of commissions to take testimony in foreign countries, but may take them in accordance with the old practice in the district upon written direct and cross-interrogatories; and when the answers of the witness are in a foreign language, they may be translated 'by the commissioner or under his direction, and only the answer, as thus interpreted be returned; 10 but that in districts where there is no settled practice the State practice should be followed. 11 In a case of doubtful authority, the condition that a safe con- duct be furnished to the plaintiff was inserted in an order for a commission to examine witnesses on the part of the defend- ant in a foreign country, 12 but a commission to prove docu- ments was allowed without such a condition. 13 Depositions may be taken under this section of the Revised Statutes, even though the witness live within one hundred miles of the court where the cause is pending; u or in a country with which the United States are at war. 15 Such a commission is not granted as of course, but only upon good cause shown. 16 The applica- » U. S. v. Cameron, 15 Fed. R. 794; " Hollander v. Baiz, 40 Fed. R. 659. tT. S. v. Wilder, 14 Fed. R. 393. For a case where a commission was 4 Peters v. Provost, 1 Paine, 64 issued to examine an expert in a 5 BischofEheimv.Baltzer,10Fed.Rl. foreign country, see Holliday v. « U. S. v. Parrott, 1 McAlL 447. Schultzeberge, 57 Fed. R. 660. i U. S. v. Fifty Boxes and Packages 13 Hollander v. Baiz, 43 Fed. R. 35. of Lace, 93 Fed. R, 601. " Wellford v. Miller, 1 Cranch, C. s Ibid. C. 485; Russell v. M'Lellan, 3 W. & "Ibid. M. 157. io Ibid. 16 Peters v. Provost, 1 Paine, 64 " Ibid.; Buddicum v. Kirk, 3 16 U. S. v. Parrott, 1 McAlL 447. Cranch, 293; Jones v. Railroad Co., 3 Sawyer, 523; s. a, Fed. Cas. No. 7,486. 64:6 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 288. tion must be made in open court, and not to a judge at cham- bers ; " and must be accompanied by an affidavit showing that the testimony which the party desires to take is material. 18 It seem that the commission need not specify the exact place where the depositions are to be taken ; but if it do, the com- missioners should conform to it in that respect. 19 Whether a party will or will not be required before the commission is issued to name the witnesses to be examined under it, depends upon the discretion of the court, to be exercised under the cir- cumstances of each case. 20 Before the issue of the commission, the proposed interrogatories should be filed 21 and served upon the opposite party or his attorney ; B and the latter given a reasonable time, usually fixed by the court, within which to- object to them and to file cross-interrogatories.' 3 If he omit to do so, the commission may be issued without further no- tice. 24 The interrogatories are drawn up substantially as those for the examination of witnesses within the jurisdiction of the court. 25 Objections to interrogatories or cross-interrogatories should be in the form of exceptions to them, and must be filed before the commission issues ; or otherwise will be held waived. 2 * If the parties cannot agree as to their form or substance, a ref- erence may be ordered to a master, whose report will be re- viewed by the court. 27 If there be any doubt as to the relevancy or propriety of an interrogatory, the ultimate decision thereon will be reserved until the hearing, and it will be allowed to stand and be answered. If there be no doubt as to its irrele- vancy or impropriety, it will be stricken out before the com- mission issues. 28 A commission must also name or designate the commissioner or commissioners. 29 A woman may be a 17 Peters v. Provost, 1 Paine, 64 be given. Coates v. Merrick T. Co., 41 18 Sutton v. Mandeville, 1 Cranch, Fed. R. 73. C. 0. 115; U. S. v. Parrott, 1 MoAll. 24 Cocker v. F. H. & B. Co.. 1 Story, 447. 169. is Rhoades v. Selin, 4 Wash. 715. 25 Rhoades v. Selin, 4 Wash. 715. 20 Parker v. Nixon, Baldw. S91. 26 Cocker v. F. H. & B. Co., 1 Story, 21 Cunningham v. Otis, 1 Gall. 166. 169. 22 Rhoades v. Selin, 4 Wash. 715; 2' Cocker v. F. H. & B. Co., 1 Story, Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst. 563; S. a 169; Bondereau v. Montgomery, 4 sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 How. Wash. 186. 375. 28 Cocker v. F. H. & B. Co., 1 Story, 23 Frevall v. Bache, 5 Cranch, C. C. 169. 463; The Norway, 1 Ben. 493. Leave 29Vanstophorst v. Maryland, 2 DalL to cross-examine orally will rarely 401. A slight error in spelling the § 289.] PBOOEEDINGS UNDER A nEDIMETS POTESTATEM. 647 commissioner, even though she be the wife of the witness to be examined. 30 The court may grant an order that exhibits annexed to a deposition already taken may be removed from the file and attached to a commission, provided that copies of them are left in their place. 81 §289. Proceedings under a dedimus potestatem. — If the application does not state when and where the commission is to be executed, the party at whose instance, or the commis- sioner to whom it is issued, should notify the adverse party or his solicitor before the depositions are taken. 1 The notice should name the year as well as the day. 2 When, however, a party, after notice of an opportunity to do so, has neglected to file cross-interrogatories, no further notice to him is necessary. 8 The notice should be served personally, or else left at the house of the person upon whom it is made with a member of his fam- ily of sufficient intelligence. 4 The person with whom it is left, however, need not be informed of its purport. 5 Service by mail, unless actually received in time, is insufficient. 4 An hour's notice of the time of taking a deposition in the place where the attorney to whom it is given dwells, has been held sufficient. 7 The regulation of the proceedings under a commission is a mat- ter in the discretion of the court issuing it. 8 A commissioner is appointed by and represents the court; and is no more than is an arbitrator the representative of the party nominating him. 9 The authority given to a commissioner is special, and must be strictly construed. 10 A commission issued to more than one commissioner's name will not vitiate s. C. sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 proceedings under the commission How. 375. provided it clearly appears that the 4 Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst. 563; adverse party was not misled thereby, s. c. sub worn. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 Bibb v. Allen, 149 U. & 481, 488; How. 375. Keene v. Meade, 3 Peters, 1, & * M'Call v. Towers, 1 Cranch, C. C. 41. so The Norway, 2 Ben. 121. 6 Walker v. Parker, 5 Cranch, C. C. si Daly v. Maguire, 6 Blatchf. 137. 639. § 289. i Rhoades v. Selin, 4 Wash. i Nicholls v. White, 1 Cranch, C. C. 715; Knode v. Williamson, 17 Wall. 59. 586; Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst. 563; 8 Cunningham v. Otis, 1 Gall. 166. s. O. sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 8 Jones v. Oregon C. R. Co., 3 Saw. How. 375; Dunlop v. Monroe, 1 523; Gilpins v. Consequa, Pet. C. C. Cranch, C. C. 536. 85; Guppy v. Brown, 4 Dall. 410. 2 Knode v. Williamson, 17 WalL 586. "Guppy v. Brown, 4 Dall. 410; 3 Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst. 563; Armstrong v. Brown, 1 Wash. 43; 64:8 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 289. commissioner must be executed and returned by all of them," unless it' is otherwise so provided in it; 12 and if any one else, except a judge in a foreign country whose laws do not permit a private individual to take testimony alone, 13 join in its exe- cution or return, the testimony taken under it will also be sup- pressed. 14 A commission must be executed at the time and place named in it, or in the notice. 15 It has been held that the witnesses under such a commission should be examined alone; and the parties are not allowed to be present either in person or by attorney, unless the court otherwise directs. 16 The inter- rogatories may be shown the witness before he is called upon to give his testimony. 17 He must be examined as to each in- terrogatory and cross-interrogatory; and if he improperly omits to answer any one of them ; or if any one of them, an answer to which would be legal evidence, is not put to him, his whole deposition may be suppressed at the instance of the party who might be thereby injured. 18 If, however, the deposition have been issued ex parte, the adverse party having omitted to file cross-interrogatories after an opportunity to do so has been given him, it has been said that as many, or as few, of these interrogatories as the party who filed them thinks proper may be put, provided that the general interrogatory is not omitted. 19 If the cross-interrogatories are put, it makes no difference how soon after the direct interrogatories have been answered the witness is called upon to answer them. 20 No additional inter- Boudereau v. Montgomery, 4 Wash. WalL 586; Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst. 186. 563; s. c. sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, "Guppy v. Brown, 4 DalL 410; 11 How. 375. Armstrong v. Brown, 1 Wash. 43; I7 North Carolina R, Co. v. Drew, 3 Munns v. Dupont, 3 Wash. C. C. 31. Woods, 691. 12 The Griffin, 4 Blatohf. 203 ; Lons- " Ketland v. Bissett, 1 Wash. 144; dale v. Brown, 3 Wash. 404. Nelson v. U. S., Pet. C. C. 235; Win- "Winthrop v. Union Ins. Co., 2 throp v. Union Ins. Co., 2 Wash. 7; Wash. 7. " Bell v. Davidson, 3 Wash. C. C. 328; i* Willings v. Consequa, Pet. C. C. Kiohardson v. Golden, 3 Wash. C. C. 301; Barnet v. Day, 3 Wash. 243. 109; Dodge v. Israel, 4 Wash. 323; isRhoades v. Selin, 4 Wash. 715; Gilpins v. Consequa, Pet. C. C. 85; Boudereau v. Montgomery, 4 Wash. s. C, 3 Wash. 184 But see Gass v. 186; Knode v. Williamson, 17 Wall. Stinson, 3 Sumn. 98. 586; Buddicum v. Kirk, 3 Cranoh, 293. 19 Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst. 563; As to waiver, see Gartside Coal Co. & C. sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 v. Maxwell, 20 Fed. E. 187. How. 375. is Cunningham v. Otis, 1 Gall. 166. 20 Gilpins v. Consequa, Pet. p. C. 85; But see Knode v. Williamson, 17 8. a, 3 Wash. 184 § 289.] PROCEEDINGS UNDER A DEDIMUS POTESTATEM. 649 rogatories, however, can be filed with or put by or before the commissioner. 21 Under extraordinary circumstances the ex- amination of a witness not named in the commission might be permitted. 22 The deposition may be taken down in writing either by the magistrate or by the deponent in the presence of the magistrate; a but not by the counsel for either of the par- ties. 24 If exhibits are referred to by the witness, they should be annexed to the deposition or identified by marks or refer- ence. 25 A paper referred to by a witness, but which is neither in his own power nor in that of the party making the objec- tion, need not, however, be included in the deposition or thus identified. 26 It has been held that the deposition need not be signed by the witness. 27 A deposition prepared and signed some time before the oath is administered is improper and will be suppressed. 28 The depositions should be attached to the commission, and, with them, a certificate by all the commis- sioners that they have complied with the requirements above described. The commission should then be sent or delivered to the clerk's office of the court unopened, and must there re- main so till publication is allowed by order or consent. 29 The fact that it was forwarded through the embassy mail-bag first to Washington, and thence to the clerk, does not invalidate the proceedings. 30 The return, or certificate, of the commis- sioners should state that they were sworn, unless that cere- mony has been waived, or they are officers qualified to admin- ister an oath. 31 The return should also state the time and place of taking the depositions ; 32 that each witness was sworn or 21 Cunningham v. Otis, 1 GalL 166; . "Ketland v. Bissett, 1 Wash. 144 Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst. 563; S. C. 28 Dodge v. Israel, 4 "Wash. 323; sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 How. North Carolina E. Co. v. Drew, 3 375. Woods, 691. 22 The Infanta, Abbott's Adm. 263. 29 Boudereau v. Montgomery, 4 23Stookwell v. U. S., 3 Cliff. 284; Wash. 186; Frevall v. Bach, 5 Cranch, Keene v. Meade, 3 Pet. 1; s. c. sub C. C. 463; 17. S. v. Price, 2 Wash. 356. nom. Meade v. Keane, 3 Cranch, C. C. 80 U. S. v. Fifty Boxes and Packages 51. of Lace, 92 Fed. R. 601. 24 U. S. v. Kngs, 4 Fed. R. 714 But 31 Frevall v. Bach, 5 Cranch, C. C. see Nicholls v. White, 1 Cranch, C. C. 463 ; Hoy t v. Hammekin, 14 How. 346. 59 ; Atkinson v. Glenn, 4 Cranch, C. C. But see Gilpins v. Consequa, Pet. C. C. 134. 85; s. C, 4 Wash. 184. 25 Dodge v. Israel, 4 Wash. 323. ^Rhoades v. Selin, 4 Wash. 715; 2« Winans v. New York & Erie R. Boudereau v. Montgomery, 4 Wash, Co., 21 How. 88. 186. 650 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 290. affirmed, but not that he was cautioned ; nor need it state the form of the oath. 33 The return need not state in whose hand- writing the depositions were taken down; 34 nor, if the witness was an alien, whether or not he was examined by means of an interpreter; 35 nor that it was subscribed by a sworn inter- preter, when it states that the interpreter was sworn and every page is subscribed by a signature purporting to be that of the interpreter; 36 nor, it has been held, need the answers, when an interpreter was used, be transmitted in the foreign language of the witness as well as in the translation. 37 The certificate will be presumptive evidence of the facts therein stated in re- lation to the execution of the commission. 38 Otherwise, pro- ceedings under these commissions should conform substantially to those under commissions to examine witnesses within the jurisdiction of the court. 39 Any objection to the form or man- ner of the proceedings can only be raised by a motion to sup- press the deposition, 40 which should be seasonably made before the case is called for trial ; 41 provided that sufficient time within which to make such a motion remains between the return of the commission and the hearing. 43 Should a foreign plaintiff refuse to testify before a commission when required so to do, the court may deny him relief in the suit. 43 § 290. Letters rogatory. — "When the witnesses whose testi- mony is desired are in a country whose laws do not permit of the execution of a commission issued from a foreign court, 83 Jones v. Oregon C. R. Co., 3 Saw. 89 Jones v. Oregon 0. E. Co., 3 Saw. 523; Keene v. Meade, 3 Pet 1; S. C. 523; U. S. v. Parrott, 1 MoAlL 447. sub nom. Meade v. Keane, 3 Cranoh, See § 284 C. C. 51. 40 Blackburn v. Crawfords, 3 Wall. 8* Keene v. Meade, 3 Pet. 1; s. C. 175; Winans v. New York & Erie R sub nom. Meade v. Keane, 3 Cranoh, Co., 21 How. 88; Doane v. Glenn, 21 C. C. 51; Jones v. Oregon C. R. Co., Wall 33; York Co, v. Central R Co., 3 Saw. 523. 3 WalL 107; Walker v. Parker, 5 85 Gilpins v. Consequa, Pet. C. C. Cranch, C. C. 639. 85; S. C, 3 Wash. 184 « Bibb v. Allen, 149 U. a 481, 488. 86 U. S. v. Fifty Boxes and Packages See Dickerson v. Matheson, 50 Fed. R. of Lace, 92 Fed. R. 601, 603, 604 73, 75; supra, § 287. 37 ibid. 42 Sergeant v. Biddle, 4 Wheat. 508 ; 38 Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst. 563; Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 299; S. C. sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 Buddicum v. Kirk, 3 Cranch, 293; How. 375; Boudereau V.Montgomery, Alsop v. Com. Ins. Co., 1 Sumn. 451. 4 Wash. 186; Winter v. Simonton, "Heath v. Erie R. Co., 9 Blatchf. 3 Cranch, C. C. 104 316. Of. infra, § 290, note 2. § 290.] LETTEKS K0GAT0KY. 651 their testimony can only be taken by means of letters roga- tory. " This method of obtaining testimony from witnesses in a foreign country has always been familiar in the Courts of Admiralty; but it is also deemed to be within the inherent powers of all courts of justice. For, by the law of Nations, courts of Justice, of different countries, are bound mutually to aid and assist each other, for the furtherance of justice; and hence, when the testimony of a foreign witness is necessary, the Court before which the action is pending, may send to the Court within whose jurisdiction the witness resides, a writ, either patent or close, usually called a letter rogatory, or a com- mission sub mutuae vicissitudinis obtentu, ac injuria subsidium, from those words contained in it. By this instrument the court abroad is informed of the pendency of the cause, and the names of the foreign witnesses, and is requested to cause the deposi- tions to be taken, in due course of law, for the furtherance of justice ; with an offer, on the part of the tribunal making the request, to do the like for the other in a similar case. The writ or commission is usually accompanied by interrogatories, filed by the parties, on each side, to which the answers of the wit- nesses 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 depo- nent, and properly authenticated," or duly authenticated copies of the same, " are returned with the commission to the Court from which it issued. The Court of Chancery has always freely exercised 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 pecul- iar nature of its jurisdiction and proceedings enables it to in- duce the parties to adopt by consent, where any doubt exists as to its inherent authority." 1 A special application for an § 290. » Greenleaf's Ev., § 320. See 55, 60; Clerke's Praxis, tit. 27; 1 Roll for a good form, Nelson v. U. S., 1 Abr. 530, pL 15; Oughton's Ordo Judi- Pet C. C. 236, note. See also Cun- oiorum, vol. 1, pp. 150,152, tit 95, 96; ningham v. Otis, 1 GalL 166; Hall's Wharton's Int. Law Dig., voL IIL Adm. Pr., part 2, tit. 19, voL 1, cum § 413. odd., and tit 27, cum add., pp. 37, 38, C52 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [§ 290. order' for letters rogatory may be made to the court, and will be granted in the first instance without issuing a commission, upon satisfactory proof that the authorities abroad will not allow the testimony to be taken in any other manner. 2 " When any commission or letter rogatory, issued to take the testi- mony of any witness in a foreign country, in any suit in which the United States are parties or have any interest, is executed by the court or the commissioner to whom it is directed, it shall be returned by such court or commissioner to the minis- ter or consul of the United States nearest the place where it is executed. On receiving the same, the said minister or consul shall indorse thereon a certificate, stating when and where the same was received, and that the said deposition is in the same condition as when he received it ; and he shall thereupon trans- mit the said letter or commission so executed and certified by mail, to the clerk of the court from which the same issued, in the manner in' which his official dispatches are transmitted to the government. And the testimony of witnesses so taken .and returned shall be read as evidence on the trial of the suit in which it was taken, without objection as to the method of returning the same." 3 The statutes further provide for the taking of testimony under a commission or in pursuance of letters rogatory issued from a court in a foreign country, with which the United States are at peace, to take the testimony of a witness residing within the United States, in any suit for the recovery of money or property depending in such foreign court in which the government of such foreign country is a party or has an interest, as follows : — ■ " The testimony of any witness residing within the United States, to be used in any suit for the recovery of money or property depending in any court in any foreign country with which the United States are at peace, and in which the gov- ernment of such foreign country shall be a party or shall have an interest, may be obtained, to be used in such suit. If a commission or letters rogatory to take such testimony, together with specific written interrogatories, accompanying the same 2 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. 482; Daniell'a 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 475; Gross v. Palmer, Ch, Pr. (3d Am. ed. by Judge Perkins), 105 Fed. R. 833. voL II, p. 953; Gason v. Wordsworth, » U. S. R. S., § 875. 2 Ves. Sen. 336; Lincoln v. Battelle, § 290.] LETTERS EOGATOET. 653 and addressed to such witness, shall have been issued from the court in which such suit is pending, on producing the same be- fore the district judge of any district where the witness resides or shall be found, and on due proof being made to such judge that the testimony of any witness is material to the party de- siring the same, such judge shall issue a summons to such wit- ness requiring him to appear before the officer or commissioner , named in such commission or letters rogatory, to testify in such suit. And no witness shall be compelled to appear or to testify under this section except for the purpose of answering such in- terrogatories so issued and accompanying such commission or letters : Provided, That when counsel for all the parties attend the examination, they may consent that questions in addition to those accompanying the commission or letters rogatory may be put to the witness, unless the commission or letter rogatory exclude such additional, interrogatories. The summons shall specify the time and place at which the witness is required to attend, which place shall be within one hundred miles of the place where the witness resides or shall be served with such summons." 4 It has been held that criminal proceedings, 5 and "proceedings relating to the investigation as to the smuggling of some cases of cotton," 6 do not come within this statute. "No witness shall be required, on such examination or any other under letters rogatory, to make any disclosure or discov- ery which shall tend to criminate him either under the laws of the State or Territory within which such examination is had, or any other, or any foreign State." 7 " If any person shall refuse or neglect to appear at the time and place mentioned in the summons issued in accordance with section forty hundred and seventy-one, or, if upon his appear- ance he shall refuse to testify, he shall be liable to the same penalties as would be incurred for a like offense on the trial of a suit in the District Court of the United States." 8 " Every witness who shall so appear and testify shall be al- lowed, and shall receive from the party at whose instance he shall have been summoned, the same fees and mileage as are Marks v. Fox, 18 Fed. R 71& ing exception was held to be insuffi- 10 Rule 83. cient according to the practice in n Rule 83. the Second Circuit, and was conse- 12 Medsker v. Bonebrake, 108 U. S. quently disregarded: "For that the 66; Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. master has found contrary to the 136; Callaghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. preliminary requisitions and objec- 617, 666; Kimberly v. Arms, 129 tions of defendant to his proposed U. S. 512, 524. draft report, and which requisitions 13 Welling v. La Bau, 34 Fed. R 40; and objections he here repeats, and Mason v. Crosby, 3 W. & M. 258; Gott- contends that fresh evidence should fried v. Crescent Brg. Co., 22 Fed. R be taken thereon." " All that is nee- 433; Jaffrey v. Brown, 29 Fed. R 476; essary is that the exception should Central Tr. Co. v. T. & St. L. Ry. Co., distinctly point out the finding and 32 Fed. R 448. the conclusion of the master which 14 Davis v. Schwartz, 155 TJ. S. 631. it seeks to reverse." Foster v. God- 15 Shipman v. Ohio Coal Exchange § 315.} EXCEPTIONS TO MASTEEs' EEPOETS. 691 filed a judgment finding facts opposite to those found by the master had been entered in a State court, in a suit between the same parties, it was, held that the judgment of the State court must be followed on the hearing of the exceptions to the report of the master. 16 Trifling errors in a master's statement of an account will be disregarded. 17 Where upon an account- ing the court sustained an exception by one of several persons having a common interest in the fund, and thus surcharged the account, it was held by two State courts that all persons interested took the benefit of the exception and of the increase of the fund, and that the decree should not merely add to the share of the exceptor his proportion of the amount surcharged. 18 Exceptions to a master's report are only proper when he has made an erroneous decision upon the matters referred to him. 19 An irregularity in his appointment cannot thus be questioned. 20 The remedy for an irregularity in his proceeding, or for his neglect to report upon all the matters referred to him, is a motion to set aside the report, or to refer the same back to the master. 21 A report of a master may be corrected without a re-reference, from facts appearing in the case aside from the evidence taken before him. 22 Where exceptions to the report of a master are sustained, the court has discretionary power to order a re-reference for further testimony or to enter a final decree upon the facts appearing in the case; and an appellate court will not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of such discretion. 23 It has been held in the Second Circuit that if the master errs by an improper rejection of evidence, his error should/be corrected by an immediate motion to compel him to receive the evidence, and is not the proper subject of an ex- ception to his report. 24 The party who files exceptions is {C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R 652; Farrar v. 20 Seaman v. N. W. M. L. Ins. Co., Bernheim (C. C. A.),' 75 Fed. R. 136. 86 Fed. R. 493, 497; N. Y. M. L. Ins. ifSDuden v. Maloy, 43 Fed. R. 407. Co. v. Seaman, 80 Fed. R. 357. "Taylor v. Robertson, 27 Fed. R. "Tyler v. Simmons, 6 Paige Ch. 537. . (N. Y.)127. . is Martin's Appeal, 33 Pa. St. 395; 22 Witters v. Soule, 43 Fed. R 405; Landis v. Soott, 32 Pa. St 495; Es- Kelsey v. Hobby, 16 Pet. 269; Parks tate of Chalmers, N. Y. L. J. of April v. Booth, 102 U. S. 96. ' 8, 1897. 28 Mosher v. Joyce, 51 Fed. R. 441. "Taylor v. Robertson, 27 Fed. R 2« Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Cellonite 537. Mfg. Co., 40 Fed. R. 476, 478. 692 PEOCEEDINGS IN A. MASTEE's OFFICE. [§ 316. obliged to pay costs for each exception overruled, and is en- titled to costs for each exception allowed. 28 The amount of costs is fixed by the court in accordance with a standing rule in each circuit. 26 By leave of the court exceptions may be amended. 27 An objection to a master's report not raised below will ordinarily be considered upon an appeal. 28 The review of a master's report upon a receiver's account is de- scribed in a preceding section. 29 § 316. Sales by masters. — In a proper case, a court of equity, having the possession by a receiver of the property of an insolvent railway company, may make an interlocutory decree or order for the sale of the property by a master before the rights of the parties under the several mortgages have been fully ascertained and determined. 1 In such a case an appeal may be taken at once from the order for the sale, provided the sale is to take place immediately ; 2 but not if any subsequent proceedings and order must precede the sale. 8 Pending an appeal, the court which ordered the sale may postpone the same, although no supersedeas has been obtained and the term at which the decree was entered has expired. 4 A foreclosure sale should not be ordered until the amount due from the mortgagor has been judicially determined so that he and junior incumbrancers may be able to intelligently decide whether to redeem. 6 A substantial error in such an adjudication will ne- M Rule 84 4 Bound v. South Carolina Ry. Co., 2« Rule 81 55 Fed. R 186. As to laches which 2? Jones v. Lamar, 89 Fed. R. 585. will defeat an application for ail in- 28 Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, junction to stay a sale, see Duncan 173. v. Atlantic M. & O. R Co., 88 Fed. R. 29 Supra, % 256. 840; Foley v. Guaranty Tr. & S. D. § 316. i Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Al- Co. (C. C. A), 74 Fed. R. 759. legheny V. R. Co., 42 Fed. R 82, 85; 6 Chicago, D. & V. R Co. v. Fos- First Nat. Bank v. Schedd, 121 U. S. diok, 106 U. S. 47. It has been said 74. The fact that the title to land is that a decree is not defective where being litigated in another court is it fails to adjudicate before the sale not an insuperable objection to its the amount of costs, counsel fees and judicial sale. Fidelity L, Tr. & S. compensation to the trustee which D. Co. v. Roanoke Iron Co., 84 Fed. R it requires the mortgagor to pay in 752. order to redeem the property. Grape 2 First Nat Bank v. Schedd, 121 . C. C. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. XJ. S. 74. A), 63 Fed. R 891, 896. See Alabama 'Burlington, C. R & N. Ry. Co. v. & G. Mfg. Co. v. Robinson (C. C. A), Simmons, 123 U. S. 52, 55. 72 Fed. R 708, 712. It is customary § 316.] SALES BT MASTEBS. 693 cessitate a reversal of the decree. 6 A sale of real estate beyond the jurisdiction of the court is void unless confirmed by the owner. 7 A court of equity will not make an interlocutory order for an immediate sale of mortgaged property upon terms discharging the lien of a mortgage not yet due, unless it clearly appears tha,t in the end there must be not only a sale of the property, but a sale upon those terms. 8 When property is or- dered to be sold by a master, it must be sold at public auction, unless the court otherwise directs. 9 Such a sale is conducted under the superintendence of the solicitor for the party at whose prayer the sale is made, and in all questions which sub- sequently arise between the buyer and the seller it is said that he is considered as the agent of all the parties to the suit. 10 The particulars, conditions and notices of the sale are prepared by him, subject to the approval of the master, when not pre- scribed in the order for the sale. 11 They should be entitled in the cause, and should contain a general description of the nature and situation of the property ; and if land is sold, the notices should state in whose possession it is or has lately been. 13 The conditions of the sale should be in general similar to those an- nexed to ordinary sales of similar property in the vicinity. 13 A sale by a receiver is not invalidated by his announcement at the sale that the purchaser will have the option also to buy other property not covered by the order of sale but acquired by him to order a reference to a master to been held that in a suit in equity by determine the amount due, but the an assignee in bankruptcy to recover court may make the computation assets of the bankrupt, a District ■without a master's aid. Brown v. Court may order the real property Grove (C. C. A), 80 Fed. R. 564 sold free of all incumbrances. In re « James v. Milwaukee & M. E. Co., Mead, 58 Fed. R 312. 6 WalL 752; Chicago, D. & V. R. Co. ^Daniell's Ch. Pr., ch. xxvi; Hut- v. Fosdick, 106 U. S. 47; Alabama son v. Sadler, 31 W. Va. 358; Bound & G. M. Ry. Co. v. Robinson (C. C. A.), v. South Carolina Ry Co., 46 Fed. R 56 Fed. R. 690; Grape C. C. Co. v. 315. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. (C. G A.), 63 i» Dalby v. Pullen, 1 R. & M. 296. Fed. R 891. But see Blossom v. Railroad Co., 3 7 Lynde v. Columbus, C. & L C. Ry. Wall. 196, 207. Co., 57 Fed. R. 993. See Carpenter » Daniell's Ch. Pr., ch. xxvi v. Strange, 141 U. S. 87, 106; Muller "Ibid. v. Dows, 94 U. a 444, 449; infra, is Ibid. See Baoon v. N. W. M. L. § 319. I. Co., 131 U. S. 258; Treadwell v. s Pennsylvania R Co. v. Allegheny United V. C. Co., 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) V. R Co., 42 Fed. R 83, 86. It has 613. 69i PBOCEEDINGS IN A MASTER'S OFFICE. [§ 316. in the due course of his receivership. 14 The sale should be ad- vertised at least twice, and the advertisement should give such a description of the property as clearly to indicate and iden- tify it. 15 A recent statute provides : "That hereafter no sale' of any real estate under any order, judgment or decree of any United States court shall be had without previous publication of no- tices of such proposed sale being ordered and had once a week for at least four weeks prior to such sale, in at least one news- paper printed, regularly issued and having a general circula- tion in the county and State where the real estate proposed to be sold is situated, if such there be." 16 The master has power to adjourn the sale, even after the auction has begun and bids, have been made. 17 The sale is conducted in substantially the following manner: The master, his clerk, or a person ap- pointed by him, is present with a paper upon which the bid- dings for the different lots are to be marked. 18 The lots are successively put up at a price offered by any person present; such person, according to the English practice, signing his name to the sum which he offers on the paper. 19 If the prop- erty to be sold consists of a railroad and its appurtenances, it 14 Lake 8. L Co. v. Brown, Bonnell held that where a sale is adjourned & Co., 44 Fed. R. 539. no advertisement of the adjournment isKauffman v. "Walker, 9 Md. 229; is required. White v. Zust, 28 N. J. Merwin v. Smith, 1 Green Ch. (N. J.) Eq. 107. It has been held that a 182; Daniell's Ch. Pr., ch. xxvi. See party waives any objection founded Bay v. Oliver, 6 Paige (N. Y.), 489; upon a failure to comply with this Treadwell v. United V. C. Co., 47 statute, by not opposing a motion to App. Div. (N. Y.) 613. confirm the sale, of which notice has 16 27 St. at L. 754. It has been held been served upon his attorney in the that such an advertisement once a suit. Nevada Nickel Syndicate v. week for only twenty-seven days be- National N. Co., 103 Fed. R. 391. fore the sale is not a compliance with 17 Blossom v. Railroad Co., 3 Wall, the statute, Wilson v. N. Y. Mut. L. 196. L Co., 65 Fed. R. 38 ; and that a fore- 18 Daniell's Ch. Pr., ch. xxvi. The closure sale cannot be collaterally decree for the sale need not name attacked in another suit filed by the master who is to conduct it; and creditors against the mortgagees and incase of such an omission the sale others because of the failure of the can be conducted by any master in decree to comply with a State stat- whose hands plaintiff places a certi- ute regulating the time allowed for tied copy of the decree. Seaman v. a redemption before a sale. Andrews N. W. M. L. L Co., 86 Fed. R. 493, 497. v. National F. & P. Works (C. C. A.), 19 Daniell's Ch. Pr., ch. xxvi. 77 Fed. R. 774 A State court has , § 316.] SALES BY MASTERS. , 695 is usually sold as a single thing. 20 It has been said that rail- road property cannot be thus sold piecemeal except by the con- sent of all the parties expressed in open court or in writing. 21 The court may make a condition of the sale that no bid shall be considered unless each bidder first deposit a specified sum in cash,— in one instance $25,000 ; M in another $50,000, 23 — and that no bid be considered unless it exceed a specified amount. 24 Every subsequent bidder must do like the first until no person will advance on the last bid, when the latter is declared the purchaser ; 25 unless there has been a reserved bidding fixed, when if the last bidding does not reaeh the reserved one, the person conducting the sale declares that the lot has not been sold, but has been bought in by the persons interested in the estate. 26 The court may authorize payment of a bid in bonds secured by the mortgage which is foreclosed. 27 It seems that the court may direct that the sale be made for cash, in a suit under a railroad mortgage which provides that the purchase- money may be paid in bonds. 28 In general, the courts are prone to construe provisions in a trust deed regulating the time and manner of the sale as applicable only to a sale under the power without an application to the court; and unless '» Bound v. South Carolina Ry. Co., 23 Turner v. I, B. & W. Ry. Co., 8 46 Fed. R 315; Compton v. Jesup (C. Biss. 315. C. A.), 68 Fed. R. 263. This was done 24 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Houston where a mortgage secured three se- & T. C. R Co., Pardee and Sabin, JJ., ries of bonds, each of which had a May, 1888; Hervey v. Illinois Mid. prior lien upon one of three divisions Ry. Co., U. S. C. C, S. D. 111., June of the railroad and a subordinate lien 10, 1886; Roosevelt v. Coflimbus, C. upon the other two. Farmers' L. & & I C. Ry. Co., U. S. C. C, N. D. I1L, Tr. Co. v. Cape F. & V. V. Ry. Co., 82 Drummond, J., Nov. 15, 1882; Jesup Fed. R 344. The ordinary rule that v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., TJ. S. mortgaged premises must be sold in C. C, N. D. 111., Gresham and Jaok- the inverse order of their alienation son, JJ., 1889, and many other fore- is not strictly applied when it would closure cases, produce an inequitable result. Phila. 2S Daniell's Ch. Pr., ch. xxvi M. & Tr. Co. v. Needham, 71 Fed. R. » Ibid. 597. See Riggs v. Clark, 71 Fed. R " Ketchum v. Duncan, 96 TJ. S. 659. 560; Central Tr. Co. v. Sheffield & B. As to payment in stock, see Tread- C. L & Ry. Co., 60 Fed. R 9. well v. United V. C. Co., 47 App. Div. 21 Bound v. South Carolina Ry. Co., 613, 619. 46 Fed. R. 315, 316. » Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. G. B. & 82 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. G. B. & M. R Co., 10 Biss. 203; S. C., 6 Fed. R M. R Co., 10 Biss. 20a 100. 696 PROCEEDINGS IN A MASTEE's OFFICE. [§ 316. they create substantial rights they are not always followed in a judicial foreclosure sale. 29 A bid may be revoked any time before the hammer falls. 81 ' . A party to the suit who is not a trustee has the right to buy at the sale without expressing leave in the order or decree, al- though it is usual to grant such permission expressly. 81 A sale does not take effect until it has been confirmed by the court. 82 The proper practice in order to obtain a confirmation of a sale is to obtain an order nisi, unless cause to the contrary be shown within a specified time, that the sale shall be confirmed, and, after service of the same upon the parties to the cause or their solicitors, to apply to the court for an order of confirmation absolute confirming upon the production of an affidavit of the service of the order nisi and proof that no cause has been shown. 33 The court may confirm the sale in vacation as well as term time. 34 Before the confirmation of the sale any person interested, whether a party or a stranger, may intervene and have the sale set aside upon payment of the purchaser's expenses and the offer of a sufficient advance in price. 85 Before the confirma- » Low v. Blackford (C. C. A.), 87 also Cooley v. Cooley's Heirs (Tenn. Fed. E. 392; Toler v. East Tenn., V. & Ch. App.), 37 S. W. R 1028. G. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. R 168. 82 Mayhew v. West Va. 0. & O. L. so Blossom v. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. Co., 24 Fed. R. 205, 215; Pewabic M. 196. See Mayhew v. West Va. O. & Co. v. Mason, 145 U. S. 349, 364: Ten- O.L. Co., 24 Fed. R 205, 215. nessee v. Quintard (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. si Smith v. Black, 115 U. S. 308 ; Pe- R 829, 835. wabio Mining Co. v. Mason, 145 U. S. 33 Pewabio M. Co. v. Mason, 145 349, 363. "Such a provision is in- U. S. 349, 363, 364; Daniell's Ch. Pr.i sorted merely to obviate the tech- (1st Am. ed.) 1461. The English prac- nical rule that parties to the action tice, which has been followed in the cannot buy, and is not intended to District of Michigan, is to provide in determine equities between the par- the order nisi that cause be shown ties to the action, or between such within eight days. Ibid. In railroad parties and others." Scholle v. foreclosures and other cases where Scholia, 101 N. Y. 167, 172. Where a the persons interested live at a dis- trustee has an interest which he tance from the place or sale, more wishes to protect by bidding at the time should be allowed, sale, he may obtain leave to bid upon M Central T. Co. of New York v. a special application to the court Sheffield & B. C. L & Ry. Co., 60 Fed. upon notice to all parties interested. R 9. Scholle v. Scholle, 101 N. Y. 167, 172; 85 Blackburn v. Selma R. Co., 3 Fed. Merkle's Estate, 182 Pa. St. 378. See R 689; Central Tr. Co. v. Sheffield & B. C. L & Ry. Co., 60 Fed. R. 9. § 316.] SALES BY MASTERS. 697 tion, any person may intervene and obtain an order establish- ing a lien upon the property. 38 The confirmation may be upon terms, 37 or subject to such claims against the property as may thereafter be asserted. 38 As a condition of the confirmation of the sale, the purchaser may be required to assume responsibility for obligations of the receiver or for the payment of claims entitled to a preference over the mortgage. 39 Such provisions in the decree for a sale or for a confirmation of a sale are con- sidered to be equivalent to the reservation of a lien for the payment of purchase-money y and they may be enforced by the court upon a summary application at any time. 40 Should the pur- chaser fail to pay any part of the amount promised, a resale will be ordered either before or after the confirmation of the original sale, provided that the rights of third persons have not 36 Tennessee v. Quintard (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R 829. « Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. G. B. & M. R Co., 10 Biss. 203; s. C, 6 Fed. R. 100; F. L. & Tr. Co. v. Central R Co. of Iowa, 17 Fed. R. 758. 88 Tennessee v. Quintard, 80 Fed. R. 829. 39 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Central R of Iowa, 17 Fed. R. 758. Where an appeal has been taken from so much of a bill as grants a preference, the confirmation may be conditioned upon the payment to a surety upon a supersedeas bond of the amount paid by such surety to the preferred creditor. upon an affirmance; or a lien upon the property may be given to such surety. Continental Tr. Co. v. American Surety Co. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 180. Where a decree of sale directs that the purchaser pay cer- tain preferential claims, he cannot upon such payment be subrogated to the rights of the original claimants and prove the claims against the fund in the hands of the receiver for distribution. Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Moran, 91 Fed. R, 22. Cf. Southern Ry. Co. v. Bouknight, 70 Fed. R 442. It has been said that the assignee of a purchaser cannot set up against such claims a title acquired at a subsequent sale by an- other court. Baltimore Tr. & G-. Co. v. Hofstetter (C. C. A.), 85 Fed. R 75. It has been held that a decree di- recting the sale of railroad property upon foreclosure, "subject only to the liens, in respect to the portions of property enumerated, to the burden of which such sales were specified herein directed to be made," by im- plication releases the purchaser from liability to pay taxes which accrued before or during the receivership; and that he can insist upon the pay- ment of such taxes from the earn- ings of the receivership or out of the purchase money. The same case holds that, in the absence of a pro- vision in the decree to the contrary, the purchaser of railroad property at foreclosure sale takes the same sub- ject to any existing defects in its title, and that he cannot insist that claims for unpaid rights of way shall be paid from the proceeds of the sale. First Nat. Bank v. Ewing, 103 Fed. R. 168. See infra, § 325. 40 Continental Tr. Co. v. American S. Co. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R. 180. See Dubuque & S. C. R. Co. v. Pierson (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 303. 698 PBOCBEDINGS IN A MASTEB's OFFICE. [§ 316. intervened. 41 He may be compelled by attachment issued upon a rule, or order to show cause without a new suit, to pay the difference between his bid and the amount realized from the second sale, even though the sale has not been confirmed. 42 Such a resale may be ordered by a summary proceeding upon the return of an order to show cause served upon the purchaser, 43 and upon the parties at whose suit the sale was made. 44 A judicial sale may be set aside for fraud, 45 mistake, 46 acci- dent or other unconscionable circumstances. 47 It seems that the stockholders of a corporation hold their voting power and control over the officers subject to a quasi-trust for the benefit of its creditors; that consequently when they or their officers waive a defense or take other proceedings which shorten a foreclosure suit, an arrangement made orally or in writing be- fore the sale under which the purchasers reorganize the assets and convey them to a new corporation, the bonds and stock of which are divided among the bond and stockholders of the mortgagor, excluding any other creditors from an interest in the same, even when stockholders have to pay for the right to participate in the reorganization, is fraudulent, and that for that reason the foreclosure will be set aside. 48 A sale will not « Stuart v. Gay, 127 TJ. S. 518. A "Terbell v. Lee, 40 Fed. R 40. purchaser who has delayed payment "Louisville Tr. Co. v. Louisville, of his bid for some time after the N. A. & C. Ey. Co., 174 U. S. 674; confirmation of the sale will not be James v. Milwaukee & M. B. Co., 6 allowed the earnings of the property Wall. 752. in the intervening time. Boyle v. 46 Whitney v. Nat. Ex. Bank, 84 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 80 Fed. R 377. Fed. E930. The court will not re- "Schroeder v. Young, 161 U. a fuse to confirm a sale upon the 334; Seaman v. Riggins, 2 N. J. Eq. ground that the purchaser has not 214; Chamberlain v. Larned, 32 N.J. made the full cash payment reqixired, Eq. 295; Woodward v. Bullock, 27 when he has paid a substantial sum, N. J. Eq. 507; Wetzler v. Schaumann, and there is no reason to suppose 24 N. J. Eq. 60; Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. that he will not pay the balance Goddard, 33 N. J. Eq. 482. See Gard- upon the entry of the order of con- ner v. Schermerhorn, Clarke's Ch. firmation. Fidelity I., Tr. & S. D. Co. (N. Y.) 101. v. Eoanoke Iron Co., 84 Fed. E 752. is Louisville Tr. Co. v. Louisville, « Stuart v. Gay, 127 U. S. 518; N. A. & C. Ey. Co., 174 U. S. 674; Camden v. Mayhew, 129 U. S. 73; C, E L & P. E. Co. v. Ho ward, 7 Wall. Central Tr. Co. v. Cincinnati, J. & 392. This salutary decision of the M. R Co., 58 Fed. R 500. Supreme Court, in 174 U. S., was se- 43 Stuart v. Gay, 127 U. S. 518. See verely criticised by Judge Wood in Jaffrey v. Brown, 29 Fed. E. 476. the same case, Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. § 316.] SALES BY MASTERS. 699 be set aside after the confirmation for inadequacy of price, un- less the inadequacy is so gross as to shock the conscience. 49 The court may impose as a condition for setting aside a sale that the moving parties first tender to the purchasers repayment of the purchase-money 50 or file a bond with a sufficient surety to pay the costs and expenses of the new sale. 61 So long as the court keeps control of the case an application to set aside a judicial sale must be made in the foreclosure suit, and an original bill for that purpose will be dismissed unless the circumstances are extraordinary. 52 How long after con- firmation such relief can be granted upon motion is a matter which rests largely in the discretion of the court and depends upon the circumstances of the litigation. 53 Where the original suit has been finally determined without leave reserved to move at the foot of the decree, and the next term after the entry of the final decree has expired, relief can only be granted upon a v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 103 Fed. E. 110. See pp. 129, 130, where he cites a number of authorities in support of the validity of such a re- organization. It is believed, how- ever, that the decision will stand, and will be a means of preventing many frauds. In the absence of fraud or insolv- ency, it seems that the failure of the purchaser at a foreclosure sale to perform a promise to allow second- mortgage bondholders to participate in the reorganization is not a reason for setting aside the sale, but that the only remedy is a suit to enforce the agreement. Robinson v. Iron E. Co., 135 U. S. 523. The court refused to sustain an objection to a bid that it was the intention of the purchasers to form a corporation to create a monopoly. Olmstead v. Distilling & C. F. Co., 73 Fed. E. 44. For a case where a failure to assess the stock in order to prevent a foreclosure was held to be no ground for setting aside a foreclosure sale, see Symmes v. Union Tr. Co., 60 Fed. R 830. A judgment of foreclosure is not col- lusive or fraudulent simply because the mortgagor who has no valid de- fense enters an appearance or files an answer failing to defend the suit before his time to appear expires. Dickerman v. Northern Tr. Co., 176 U. S. 181. Nor is it a ground for set- ting aside a foreclosure sale that the same persons were interested as offi- cers of corporations or otherwise upon both sides of the suit, where there was no defense and there is no proof of fraud. Leavenworth County v. Chicago, R L & P. R Co., 134 U. S. 688. « Fidelity I, Tr. & S. D. Co. v. Roanoke Iron Co., 84 Fed. R. 752. For a case where the amount of the price was considered and held ade- quate, see Lake S v L Co. v. Brown, B. & Co., 44 Fed. R. 539. 60 Cunningham v. Macon & B. R Co., 156 U. a 400. "Chase v. Driver (C. C. A.), 92 Fed. R. 780. 62 Sayre v. Elyton Land Co., 73 Ala. 87, 96. m Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Bankers' & M. T. Co., 148 N. Y. 315; Brown v. Frost, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 243; Camp- bell v. Gardner, 11 N. J. Eq. 423. TOO PROCEEDINGS IN A MASTER'S OFFICE. [§ 316. bill. 54 Where a sale is set aside, a purchaser to whom the prop- erty has been delivered is in the position of a mortgagee in possession. 55 The purchaser at the sale and those who purchase from him take the property subject to the right of the court to modify the decree or the terms of the sale, on appeal, or at the same or the succeeding term of the court. 56 A material change of the terms may be a ground of relieving them from the pur- chaser. 57 A party bidding at a foreclosure sale makes himself thereby a party to the suit, and subject to the jurisdiction of the court for all orders necessary to compel the perfecting of his purchase. 58 He has the right to be heard on all questions thereafter arising affecting his bid, 59 which are not foreclosed by the terms of the decree of sale, or expressly reserved to him by such decree. 60 Where not concluded by the terms of the decree, any subsequent proceedings to determine in what se- curities, of diverse value, his bid shall be made good are mat- ters affecting his interests on which he has the right to be heard. 61 From the rulings thereupon, and upon all matters whereby his interests are injuriously affected, he has the right to appeal after the final decree ; 63 and he is estopped by them 54 Sayre v. Elyton Land Co., 73 Ala. 60 Kneeland v. Am. L. & Tr. Co., 85, 96: infra, § 352. 136 XJ. S. 89, 95; Swann v. Wright's 85 Compton v. Jesup, 167 U. S. 1, 36; Ex'rs, 110 U. S. 590. Thus, when the Huguley Mfg. Co. v. Galeton Cotton rights of the claimants are not adju- Mills, 94 Fed. R 269. dioated in the decree of sale, which M 01cott v. Headrick, 141 U. S. 543, directs that the purchaser pay all re- 547; infra, § 352. ceiver's debts or claims adjudged or 87 Olcott v. Headrick, 141 U. S. 543, to be adjudged as prior in lien or 547. Where purchaser at a foreclos- equity to the mortgage, he can oon- ure sale had paid his bid in full, it test the rights of such claimants, was held that the court could not provided that they have not been compel payment of a judgment ren- previously adjudicated; and he can dered against the receiver after the appeal from the order directing him sale had been confirmed. Chicago & to pay such a claim. Southern Ry. O. R Co. v. McCammon (C. C. A.), 61 Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co., 176 IT. & Fed. R 772. But see Southern Ry. 257; Lackawanna L &C. Co. v. Farm- Co. v. Bouknight (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R ers' L. & Tr. Co., 176 U. S. 298. 442. 61 Kneeland v. Am. L & Tr. Co., MKneeland v. Am. L. & Tr. Co., 136 U. & 89, 95. 136 U. S. 89, 95; Stuart v. Gay, 127 «2Kneeland v. Am. L. & Tr. Co., U. S. 518. 136 U. S. 89, 95; Blossom v. Milwau- »9Kneeland v. Am. L. & Tr. Co., kee&C.R Co., lWalL 655; Williams 136 U. S. 89, 95; Williams v. Morgan, v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684. Ill U. S. 681 § 316.] SALES BY MASTERS. 701 in collateral litigation. 68 He cannot appeal from so much of the decree under which he bought as provides that he shall pay a specified claim to which a preference is then or has been subsequently awarded. 64 Where the decree is reversed upon appeal subsequent to the sale, even although no supersedeas has been obtained, the court will usually order restitution by the purchaser or his assignee, 65 who is treated as a mortgagor in possession. 66 It has been held that after a decree has been re- versed by a court of review for want of jurisdiction and the Circuit Court has been directed to remand the cause, the latter court cannot confirm a sale previously made under its orders by a receiver. 67 63 Grape Cr. 0. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 80 Fed. E. 200. See also State of Tennessee v. Quintard, 80 Fed. R. 829, 835. 64 Swann v. Wright's Ex'rs, 110 U. S. 590; St Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Stark, 55 Fed. R. 758. See supra, § 243; infra, § 482. 65 Robinson v. Alabama & G. Mfg. Co., 67 Fed. R. 189; S. a, 72 Fed. R. 708; s. c. as Huguley Mfg. Co. v. Gale- ton Cotton Mills, 94 Fed. R 269. In that case the court overruled the con- tention that certain actions of the counsel for the mortgagor at the sale estopped his client. But see Phelps v. Elliott, 35 Fed. R. 455, 460; Shultz v. Sanders, 38 N. J. Eq. 154; Watson v. Ulbrich, 18 Neb. 186; Dick- inson v. City of Trenton, 33 N. J. Eq. 63; Bailey v. Fanning Orphan School (Ky.), 14 S. W. R. 90a For the meas- ure of damages where the purchaser so far destroyed the property that it could not be returned, see Central Tr. Co. v. Hubinger, 87 Fed. R. 3. 6« Huguley Mfg. Co. v. Galetort Lot- ton Mills, 94 Fed. R. 269. "Colburn ▼. Hill (C. a A.), 103 Fed, R. 340. CHAPTEK XXIY. DECREES. § 317. Definition and classification of decrees. — A decree is a sentence or order of a court of equity pronounced after a hearing of the points of issue, and corresponds to a judg- ment of a court of law. A decree should be distinguished from a decretal order. A decretal order is an order in the nature of a decree, made upon motion or petition, either be- fore or after the hearing, or in an independent proceeding. 1 According to the different standpoints from which they may be regarded, decrees are classified, as final or interlocutory; as in personam or in rem; as absolute, conditional, decrees nisi, or decrees in the nature of decrees nisi. § 318. Final and interlocutory decrees. — Decrees are either final or interlocutory. These terms are used with different meanings in the English practice and in that in the courts of the United States. A final decree in the English Chancery was a complete determination of every question arising in a cause. 1 An interlocutory decree was one which reserved the further consideration of any question arising in a cause till a future hearing. 2 In strictness, moreover, every decree was said to be interlocutory until it was signed and enrolled.' In England, an appeal lay from an interlocutory as well as from a final decree; 4 but, under the Judiciary Acts, before that of March 3, 1891, only final decrees of a Federal court" could be brought to a court of appeal for revision. 5 On account of the inconvenience which would have followed, had the old defini- tion been applied to the term used in this statute, the Federal courts have refused to follow the English Chancery in this re- spect. As far as appeals are concerned, a decree is considered fina,l which decides the right to property, and orders that it be sold or delivered to a party ; or creates a lien upon prop- § 317. l Barb. Ch. Pr. 337. 'Forum Eomanum, 183; Seton's § 318. 1 Seton's Decrees (4th ed.), 2. Decrees (4th ed.), 2. 2 Seton's Decrees (4th ed.), 2; Eich- 4 Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 205. mond v. Atwood (C. C. A.), 52 Fed. «U. S. R. S., §§ 631, 692. R 10, 21. § 318.] FINAL AND INTERLOCUTORY DECREES. 703 erty by the issue of receiver's certificates or otherwise ; or di- rects a specific sum of money to be paid to a party either by another person or out of a fund in court, provided that the suc-r cessful party is entitled to compel its immediate execution," even though the consideration of other matters arising upon the pleadings is reserved " for further consideration " in it. 7 A decree is final which settles all the rights of the parties in- volved in the pleadings, though it gives leave to either one of them to apply at the foot of the decree " in relation to any matter not finally determined by. it." 8 A decree dismissing a bill with costs to be subsequently taxed was held to be a final decree, although a judgment for the costs was subse- quently entered after their taxation. 9 A decree dismissing a bill as to all matters except one severable from the rest was held to be a final decree as regards the matters which it then determined. 10 All other decrees which reserve any ques- tion for the court's further decision, even though they di- rect money to be paid into court. 11 or property to be deliv- ered to a new trustee appointed by the court, 12 or dissolve an injunction, 13 or punish a party for contempt, 14 or direct 6 Taney, C. J., in Forgay v. Conrad, 8 French v. Shoemaker, 12 WalL 86. 6 How. 201, 204; Michoud v. Girod, 9 Fowler v. Hamill, 139 U. S. 549. 4 How. 508: Ray v. Law, 3 Cranch, "Hill v. Chicago & E. R. Co., 140 179; Whitingv. Bank IT. S., 13 Pet, fi; IT. S. 52. But see" Keystone Iron Co. "Wabash &.E. C. Co. v. Beers, 1 Black, v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91. 54; Bronson v. Railroad Co., 2 Black, "Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201; 524; Milwaukee & M. R Co. v. Sout- Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283; Louis- ter, 2 WalL 440; Thomson v. Dean, 7 iana Bank v. Whitney, 121 U. S. 284. Wall 342; Railroad Co. v. Bradleys, But see Wabash & E. C. Co. v. Beers, 7 Wall. 575; Stovall v. Banks, 10 1 Black, 54. Wall. 583; French v. Shoemaker, 12 12 Pulliam v. Christian, 6 How. 209. "WalL 86; Marin v. Lalley, 17 Wall. As to receiverships before 31 St. at 14; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. L. 660, see Tornanses v. Melsing (C. 527; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., Petitioner, C. A.), 106 Fed. R. 775; Re McKenzie, 129 U. S. 206; Lewisburg Bank v. 180 U. S. 536; Forgay v. Conrad, 6 Sheffey, 140 TJ. S. 445. So is a decree How. 201; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. directing the payment of a claim out 283; Hentig v. Page, 102 U.S. 219;' of the proceeds of a future sale. Cen- but see Wabash & E. C. Co. v. Beers, tral Tr. Co. v. Grant Locomotive 1 Black, 54 Works, 135 U. S. 207. See final chap- "Young v. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51; ter on Writs of Error and Appeals. Moses v. Mayor, 15 Wall. 387;- Ver- * St. Louis, L M. & S. R. Co. v. South- den v. Coleman, 18 How. 86; Knox era Ex. Co., 108 U. S. 24; Mo., K. & T. County v. Harshman, 132 U. S. 14. R. Co. v. Dinsmore, 108 U. S. 30; Lew- » Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U. S. 121. isburg Bank v. Sheffey, 140 U. S. 445. ,704 DECREES. [§ 319. a sale, but do not sufficiently specifically determine the prop- erty to be sold to warrant an immediate sale, 18 or direct a sale, but do not appoint the time of sale, 16 or confirm a re- port of commissioners to locate boundaries and direct them to determine and make the boundary lines in accordance with such report and then to make a further report of their findings, 17 are, it seems, interlocutory decrees from which no appeal can be taken under the Judiciary Acts; although, if the decision of the court in making them was erroneous, the final decree may be reversed on that account upon an appeal by a party who was thereby injured, 18 or on the entry of the final decree the court which made them may correct the error. 19 It has been held that the Federal court should not enjoin from acting under or otherwise interfere with the interlocutory decree of another court, and that the proper remedy is an application to the court which made the decree for a modification of the same, 20 at least when such decree is not a contempt of the Federal court. § 319. Decrees in personam. — Decrees are either in per- sonam or in rem. Decrees in personam are those which con- tain a com mand to one of the parties to a suit in equity. Decrees in rem are such as, without containing a command to either of the parties, transfer the title to property. Decrees in personam may direct the performance of, or the abstention from, an act or acts. The ordinary decree of a court of equity is a decree in personam. Such a decree may be made even though it di- rects the performance of or abstention from an act, or directs a transfer, or otherwise affects the title to property beyond the jurisdiction of the court. 1 Where in order to obtain the relief 1* Railroad Co. v. Swasey, 23 Wall. Vern. 75; Carron L Co. v. Maclaren, 405. See McGourkey v. Toledo & L 5 H. L C. 416; Muller v. Dows, 94 C. Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 536. U. a 444; Wheeler v. MoCormaok, 4 i« Parsons v. Robinson, 133 U. S. Fish. Pat Cas. 433; s. C, 8 Blatchf. 113; Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co. v. 267; Lynda v. Columbus, C. & L C. Simmons, 123 U. & 52. Ry. Co., 57 Fed. R 993, 996. For an i' Iowa v. Illinois, 151 U. S. 238. excellent review of the authorities, w Buckingham v. McLean, 13 How. see the learned opinion of Davies, J., 150. in Gardner v. Ogden, 22 N. Y. 327. w Iowa v. Illinois, 151 U. S. 238; See also Carpenter v. Strange, 141 infra, § 350. U. S. 87. A statute provides that 20 Furnald v. Glenn (C. C. A.), 64 " the original jurisdiction of the Cir- Fed. R 49. cuit Court for the Southern District § 319. * Arglasse ▼. Muschamp, 1 of New York shall not be construed § 319.] DECREES IN PERSONAM. 705 sought it would be necessary for the court to take possession by its officers of land beyond its territorial jurisdiction, it has been said that such a decree should not be granted. 2 Thus, it seems that the court will not decree a partition of land beyond the jurisdiction, since no commission appointed by it could have authority to act there; 3 but it may decree specific performance of a contract, or the foreclosure of a mortgage affecting land no matter where it may be situated. 4 It seems that it cannot direct a sale in another State. 5 It has been held in England that the court will make no decree in a suit between two for- eigners not residents of the country concerning a contract made or land situated elsewhere. 6 And a Georgia case holds that a court of equity will not compel a corporation to perform a con- tract to open ditches and keep fences in repair in a State where it has no corporate existence. 7 It often happens, however, that the court can do a thing itself more easily and effectively than it can compel it to be done by the party concerned, as, for example, when it wishes to sell property or to cancel an instrument in writing, and it then will perform that duty by means of a master or receiver. 8 When all the defendants are within the jurisdic- tion, such a decree is usually accompanied by a command to them to confirm the sale or other action of the court, or to as- sist in the transaction directed by the decree. "When a defend- ant is beyond the jurisdiction, the court sometimes acts by a decree in rem. to extend to causes of action arising 148; Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444; within the Northern District of said McElrath v. Pittsburg & S. E. Co., 5 State," U. S. R. S., § 657; Hodge v. Pa. St. 189. Hudson Eiver R Co., 3 Fish. Pat. Cas. 5 Lynde v. Columbus, C. & L C. Ry. 410; s. c, 6 Blatchf. 85; Locomotive Co., 57 Fed. R. 993; Farmers' L. & Tr. E. S. T. Co. v. Erie R. Co., 10 Blatchf. Co. v. Postal TeL Co., 55 Conn. 334; 292; 'Black v. Thorne, 10 Blatchf. 66; s. a, 11 AtL R. 184; Carpenter v. supra, § 23. Strange, 141 U. S. 87, 106; Mercantile 2 Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 449; Tr. Co. v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co., 39 Macgregor y. Macgregor, 9 Iowa, 65; Fed. R. 337; In re Anderson, 94 Fed. Glen v. Gibson, 9 Barb. (N.-Y.) 634; R. 487; supra, § 316. Story's Eq. Jur., § 1292; 2 Spence, 8, « Matthaei v. Galitzin, L. R. 18 Eq. n. (d); Smith's Eq. 30; Bispham's Eq., 340; Blake v. Blake, 18 W. R. 944. § 47. 7 Port Royal R Co. v. Hammond, 58 » 2 Spence, 8, n. (d) ; Story's Eq. Jur., Ga. 523. § 1292; Smith's Eq. 30; Bispham's 8 Deck v. Whitman, 96 Fed. R.873; Eq., § 47. Langdell's Eq. PL, § 44. See infra, 4 Penn v. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. § 349. Sen. 444; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 45 706 , decrees. [§§ 320, 321. § 320. Decrees in rem , — A decree in rem in a court of equity- is one that determines the title to or an interest in real or per- sonal property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, without having any other effect upon a defendant who dwells beyond that jurisdiction and has not been served with process within it. Such an equitable decree must be distinguished from the decrees in rem of a court of admiralty, which establish a title conclusively against all the world; whereas it is only bind- ing upon the parties to the action in which it is rendered. Such decrees were formerly very rare. 1 In the Federal courts of equity they are purely statutory, and the power of those courts to make them depends entirely upon a, strict compliance with the provisions of the statute. 2 Whether or not, under this stat- ute or otherwise, a decree can be made and enforced which re- quires the specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of property within the court's jurisdiction against a person not served there with process, has never been decided. 3 Where the State statute authorized such a decree it was followed by the Federal court. 4 § 321. Absolute and conditional decrees. — Decrees are either absolute, conditional, nisi, or in the nature of decrees nisi. An absolute decree is one that takes effect immediately upon its entry and is dependent for its enforcement upon no condition, and is not subject to be defeated by the occurrence of any subsequent event. A conditional decree is one that by its terms is not to take effect unless something shall be done by the part} 7 to whom relief is given by it. Under the present state of the authorities, it would be rash to attempt to lay down a rule as to when a conditional decree will be granted, and when the plaintiff will be denied relief unless he has made a specific offer or waiver in his bill. 1 The following are a few of the cases where a conditional decree has been granted. An express company has been granted a decree compelling a rail- road company to carry freight for it, upon condition that it § 320. • But see Anon., 1 Atk. 18. Eourke v. McLaughlin, 38 CaL 196; 2TJ. S. R.S.,§738; Act of March 3, Matteson v. Scofield, 27 Wis. 671; 1875, ch. 137, § 8 (18 St. at L. 472). Story's Eq. Jur., § 744, n. & See Grove v. Grove, 93 Fed. R. 855; * Single v. Scott P. Mfg. Co., 55 supra, % 97. Fed. R. 553. 3 See Ward v. Arredondo, Hopk. § 321. i See Moore v. Crawford, 130 Ch. (N. Y.) E. 213; Anon., 1 Atk. 18; U. S. 122, 140. § 322.] DEOBEES NISI. 707 should give the latter a bond to pay such charges as the court should subsequently consider reasonable. 8 A decree for the redemption of a mortgage is upon condition that the plaintiff pay the balance reported due from him within six months, which it seems must be lunar not calendar months, after the report, in default whereof the plaintiff's bill against the defend- ant is from thenceforth to stand dismissed out of court with costs. 3 Upon default, a final order, which will be granted as of course, is necessary to dismiss the bill. 4 A decree allowing a junior incumbrancer to redeem may be upon condition that he pay off a prior incumbrance, and repay to its holder money paid by him in discharging still prior incumbrances, and for taxes, repairs, and insurance upon the mortgaged premises. 5 Similarly, a decree upon a bill by a purchaser for the specific performance of an agreement for the sale of an estate may ap- point a time and place for the payment of the purchase-money, with interest if any be due, and direct that in default of pay- ment the bill be dismissed with costs. 6 A decree for an ac- counting should always contain a submission by the plaintiff to account. 7 It has been made a condition precedent to the entry of a decree to enjoin the infringement of a patent, that the complainant first file in the Patent Office a disclaimer of those of the claims in the patent to which he is not entitled. 8 For conditions of sale in suits to foreclose railway mortgages see the preceding section upon sales by masters. 9 § 322. Decrees nisi. — A decree nisi is one giving a defend- ant a certain specified time within which to show cause against a decree or to perform some other act in relation thereto, in default whereof it shall be absolute against him. Such a de- cree is made against an infant or a mortgagor, or the latter's assigns. According to the English rule, every decree against an infant defendant which requires some act to be performed by him, 1 or which directs a conveyance or a foreclosure of his * Southern Exp. Co. v. St. Louis, ? Fowler v. Wyatt, 34 Beav. 232; L M. & S. R. Co., 10 Fed. R. 210; re- Seton on Decrees (4th ed.). 775. versed Express Cases, 117 U. S. 1. e Sessions v. Romadka, 21 Fed. R. 3 Seton on Decrees, 140; Waller v. 124, 133; Hake v. Brown, 37 Fed. R. Harris, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 167. 783; Electrical Ace. Co. v. Julien EL * Seton on Decrees, 178. Co., 38 Fed. R. 117. s McCormick v. Knox, 105 U. S. 122. 9 Supra, § 316. « Lowther v. Andover, 1 Bro. C. C. §322. i Walsh v. Trevannion, 16 396. Simons, 178; Eyre v. Countess of 708 DECREES. [§ 322. interest in any real estate, must contain a clause giving him an opportunity to show cause against it after he has come of age. 8 "Where a sale of land is directed by such a decree, it usually contains a direction that, in the mean time, a purchaser under the sale shall hold and enjoy the estate against the infant until he attains full age; 3 and the court so far protects a purchaser that it will not permit his title to be affected by a mere irreg- ularity in the decree. 4 "Where a decree directed a conveyance by both adult and infant parties, as in a partition suit, by the English practice it would not direct a conveyance by any till the infant was of age and had had an opportunity to show cause against the decree, and, in the mean time, the decree would only extend so far as to give possession in accordance with the court's decision, and to order enjoyment accordingly until ef- fectual conveyances could be made. 5 It seems that in no other instances will a decree nisi be entered against an infant defend- ant, although there is some doubt upon this point. 6 In a few ex- ceptional cases, when an infant plaintiff in his bill exercised an election between two conflicting claims, the court has allowed him a day after he became of age in which to show cause against it. 7 The usual form of the nisi clause in such a decree is as follows : "And this decree is to be binding on the defend- ant, the infant, unless on being served, after he shall have at- tained the age of twenty-one years, with subpoena to show cause against this decree, he shall within six months from the service of such subpoena show unto this court good cause to the contrary." 8 Such a clause should be inserted in the order for making a decree of foreclosure absolute, as well as in the decree. 9 The omission of a similar clause in such a decree is Shaftsbury, 2 P. Wms. 102; Sheffield * Agar v. Fairfax, 17 Ves. 533, 554; v. Duchess of Buckingham, 1 West, Atty. Gen. v. Hamilton, 1 Madd. 214. 682; Thoroton v. Blackborne, 2 W. 6 Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 714; KeL 7; Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 712, Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury, 2 P. 713. Wms. 102; Sheffield v. Duchess of 2 Williamson v. Gordon, 19 Vess Buckingham, 1 West, 682. See Kings- 114; Mallack v. Galton, 3 P. Wms. bury v. Buokner, 134 U. S. 650. 352; Newbury v. Marten, 15 Jur. 166 ; 7 Gregory v. Molesworth, 3 Atk. 626 ; Mills v. Dennis, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 367; Sir John Napier v. Lady Effingham, Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 714. But 2 P. Wms. 401; Lord Brook v. Lord see Croxon v. Lever, 12 W. E. 237. . Hertford, 2 P. Wms. 518; Taylor v. 3 Powell v. Powell, Mad. & Geld. 53. Philips, 2 Ves. Sen. 23. 4 Bennet v. Hamill, 2 Sch. & Let 8 Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 711. 566. 9 Williamson v. Gordon, 19 Ves. 114. § 322.] DEOEEES NISI. 709 error. 10 The six months after the service of process within which cause must be shown must be, it seems, lunar not calen- dar months. 11 At the expiration of them and upon proof of the requisite facts, an order making the original decree absolute should be entered. 12 A decree for a foreclosure should also be nisi, providing for either a strict foreclosure or a foreclosure sale, unless the whole amount due shall be paid within a rea- sonable time, usually six lunar months, from the time of the conclusion of the accounting and the certificate of what is due under the mortgage. 13 An omission of such clause is error. 14 At the expiration of the allotted time, if the debt be still un- paid, the plaintiff should obtain an order confirming the fore- closure or directing the sale. 15 The time for payment may always, even after a peremptory order for a sale, 16 be enlarged, upon terms, which usually are that the defendant give good security to pay the amount due, with interest and costs in full. 17 . A decree of foreclosure absolute may also be reopened; 18 but it has been said that this can only be done when it has been obtained by fraud or under circumstances of oppression. 19 The Supreme Court has held that " what is indispensable to such a decree is, that there should be declared the fact, nature, and extent of the default which constituted the breach of the con- dition of the mortgage, and which justified the complainant in filing his bill to foreclose it, and the amount due on account thereof, which, with any further sums subsequently accruing, 10 Coffin v. Heath, 6 Met. (Mass.) 76. » Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 1091; u Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 711. Chicago & V. R. Co. v. Fosdick, 106 12 Ibid. U. S. 47, 71; Sheriff v. Sparks, West, 13 Clark v. Eeyburn, 8 Wall. 318; 180; Senhouse v. Earl, 2 Ves. Sen. Howell v. Western R Co., 94 U. S. 450; Whiting v. Bank of U. S., 13 463; Chicago & V. R. Co. v. Fosdick, Pet. 6. 106 U. S. 47; Perine v. Dunn, 4 J. Chi. i 6 Edwards v. Cunliffe, 1 Madd. 287; (N. Y.) 140. Twenty days has been Seton on Decrees (4th ed.) t 1088. held insufficient. Chicago & V. R. " Monkhouse v. Corp. of Bedford, Co. v. Fosdick, 106 U. S. 47. In one 17 Ves. 380; Geldard v. Hornby, 1 case it was held that eighteen months Hare, 251 ; Holf ord v. Yate, 1K.&J. should be allowed. American L. & 677; Coombe v. Stewart, 13 Beav. 11. Tr. Co. v. Union Depot Co., 80 Fed. « Campbell v. Holyland, L. R 7 Ch. R. 36. In another, four months was D. 166; Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), held to be sufficient. Columbia F. 1088. & Tr. Co. v. Kentucky Union Ry. Co. 19 Patch v. Ward, L. R 3 Ch. 203, (0. C. A.), 60 Fed. R. 794. 212; Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 1098. "Clark v. Reyburn, 8 Wall. 318. 710 DECREES. [§ 322, and having become due, according to the terms of the security, the mortgagor is required to pay within a reasonable time, to be fixed by the court, and which if not paid, a sale of the mort- gaged premises is directed. 20 By rule, " in suits in equity for the foreclosure of mortgages in the Circuit Courts of the United States, or in any court of the Territories having jurisdiction of the same, a decree may be rendered for any balance that may be found due to the complainant over and above the proceeds of the sale or sales, and execution may issue for the collection of the same, as is provided in the eighth rule of the Supreme Court regulating the equity practice, when the decree is solely for the payment of money." 2l It has been held that this rule obviates the necessity of a prayer in the bill for such relief, although it is the better practice to pray for it specifically. 2 * 2» Chicago & V. R. Co. v. Fosdiok, 106 U. S. 47, 70, per Matthews, J. But see Grape C. C. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 63 Fed. JR. 893, 986; supra, § 316, note 4, 21 Equity Rule 92; Northwestern M. L. L Co. v. Keith (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R. 374 22 Seattle, L. S. &E. Ry. Co. v. Union Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 79 Fed. R. 179. The court may, however, where the mort- gage does not provide that the prin- cipal shall become due upon a de- fault in interest, direct that the property be sold as an entirety and that the principal as well as the in- terest be paid out of the proceeds. In such a case it is a fatal error to de- clare in the decree of foreclosure that the whole debt is due. The power to treat the principal as due upon a default in interest is not im- plied by a provision giving the trustee the right to take possession upon such a default, to apply the income on account of principal after payment of overdue interest, and to cause the property to be sold as an entirety; where the mortgage also provides for the surrender by the trustee of possession upon payment of arrears of interest, costs and expenses at any time before the sale. Grape C. C. Co. v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), 63 Fed. R. 891. A mortgage and the bonds secured thereby are to be con- strued together, and a provision in a mortgage concerning the method of distribution in case of a foreclosure, , which is not contained in the bonds, will control. Low v. Blackford (C. C. A.), 87 Fed. R. 392. It has been said that if the trustee improvi- dently declares the principal due. the court may set that declaration aside. Mercantile T. Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 89 Fed. R 606, 610. A decree directing that the surplus upon a foreclosure sale after pay- ment of preferential claims should be divided equally among the bond- holders was held not to deprive the coupon holders of a preference given them in the mortgage. Burke v. Short, 79 Fed. R. 6. A provision that the mortgagor shall remain in pos- session for six months after default in interest was held not to preclude him from bringing a foreclosure suit immediately upon the default. Farm- ers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Winona S. W. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. R. 957. Such and simi- lar provisions are usually construed as cumulative to the ordinary remedy §§ 323, 324.J TIME OF ENTBY OF DECKEE. 711 f The rule does not authorize the entry of a decree for the bal- ance of principal not due 23 on the foreclosure of a mortgage for the failure to pay interest, unless the mortgage so provides. A State statute giving mortgagors a right of redemption within a certain time after a mortgage sale, will in all cases be fol- lowed by the Federal courts, since it establishes a rule of prop- erty. 24 In the absence of such a statute there is no right of redemption after the sale under a decree of foreclosure has been confirmed. 25 § 323. Decrees in the nature of decrees nisi. — Decrees in the nature of decrees nisi are decrees taking a bill against a defendant as confessed, and decrees under the statute affect- ing property within, and against a defendant without, the ju- risdiction of the court. Decrees taking bills as confessed are described in chapter VII. The cases where a decree against a defendant not served with process can be entered under the act of March 3, 1875, have been already described. 1 Any de- fendant or defendants to such a statutory decree " not actually personally notified " of the suit, in accordance with the pro- visions of the statute, may, at any time within one year after final decree, enter his appearance in said suit, and thereupon the court must make an order setting aside the decree therein, and permitting such defendant to plead on payment of such costs as the court shall deem just; and thereupon the suit is proceeded with to final judgment according to law. 2 § 324. Time of entry of decree. — A decree can regularly be entered only during a term of the court. 1 The court has of a foreclosure suit upon a breach interest remain due and unpaid. of the condition of the trust deed or American L. & Tr. Co. v. Union mortgage. Central Tr. Co. v. Wor- Depot Co., 80 Fed. R. 36. cester C. Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.), 93 Fed. 2 3 0hid Cent. R. Co. v. Central Tr. R 712; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chi- Co., 133 U. S. 83. cago & N. P. R. Co., 61 Fed. R. 543; 2 * Brine v. Insurance Co.,~96 TJ. S. Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Chicago, P. & 627; Orvis v. Powell, 98 U. S. 176; St. L. Ry. Co., 61 Fed. R 372; Penn- Hammock v. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., sylvania Co. for Ins. etc. v. Phila- 105 U. S. 77; Mason v. N. W. Ins. Co., delphia & R. R. Co., 69 Fed. R. 482. 106 U. S. 163; Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co. It has been held that the acceptance v. Cushman, 108 U. S. 51. by the mortgagee of interest paid 25 Parker v. Dacres, 130 U. S. 43, by the receiver of the property ap- § 323. ' Supra, § 97. pointed in his suit for foreclosure is 2 TJ. S. R. S., § 738; 18 St. at L. 472. not a waiver of his right to continue § 324. 1 Griswold v. Hill, 1 Paine, the suit when other instalments of 483. 712 DECREES. [§ 325. power to allow a decree to be entered even in vacation as of a previous term, nunc pro tunc? Such leave will always be granted when the delay was caused by the action of the court.' §325. Frame of decree. — Decrees originally always con- sisted of three, and sometimes of four, parts. These were : the date and title; the recitals; the declaratory part,' if that were required; and the ordering part. 1 A decree usually begins with a recital of the day of the month and year when it was pronounced, 2 and of the title of the cause, in which the parties should have the same designations that were given them in the bill. 3 Next always followed, formerly, a recital of the plead- ings, evidence, and former proceedings in the cause. 4 The equity rules, however, provide that "in drawing up decrees and orders, neither the bill nor answer, nor other pleadings, nor any part thereof, nor the report of any master, nor any other prior proceeding, shall be recited or stated in the decree or order; but the decree and order shall begin, in substance, as follows: 'This cause came on to be heard (or to be further heard, as the case may be) at this term, and was argued by counsel; and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, it was or- dered, adjudged, and decreed as follows, viz.' " 5 When a decree is entered by consent, the fact that consent was given should be stated. The proper place for such a statement is ordinarily in the recitals, unless consent be only given to certain direc- tions, when the statement of the consent should immediately precede such directions. 6 It has been said also that it should appear affirmatively upon the face of the decree, that the de- fendant was properly served with process. 7 The declaratory part of a decree, which if desired at all should be next in- serted, contains a declaration of matters of fact, or of the rights of one or more of the parties to the cause, or a statement of the reason for the decree or any part thereof. This statement of reasons is not usual, 8 although its utility has been noticed, 9 2 Gray v. Brignardello, 1 Wall. 627; s Rule 86. Griswold v. Hill, 1 Paine, 483. * Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 1535; » Gray v. Brignardello, 1 Wall 627. Bartlett v. Wood, 9 W. R. 817. § 325. i Daniell's Cb, Pr., oh. xxv. ' Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatohf. C. C. 2 Whitney v. Belden, 4 Paige (N. 480. Y.), 140; Barclay v. Brown, 7 Paige 8 Ex parte Earl of Ilchester, 7 Ves. (N. Y.), 245. 348, 373; Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), » Daniell's Ch. Pr., ch. xxv. 19. *Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 9-19. » Bax v. Whitbread, 16 Ves. 15, 24; § 325.] FRAME 0E DECREE. 713 and it is sometimes adopted. 10 Instances of declarations of matters of fact are the existence and validity of a will or other instrument, 11 and the validity of a patent. 12 So, whenever there are interfering patents, and a suit is brought by any per- son interested in any one of them, or in the working of any one of them; to obtain relief against the interfering patentee, the court, on notice to adverse parties, and other due proceed- ings had according to the course of equity, may adjudge and declare either of the patents void in whole or in part, or in- operative, or invalid in any particular part of the United States, according to the interest of the parties in the patent or the invention patented; but no such judgment or adjudication can affect the right of any person, except the parties to the suit and those deriving title under them subsequent to the ren- dition of such decree. 13 Where a party establishes his right to property, the direction to transfer it to him is often pre- ceded by a declaration of his title. 14 The court will not thus decide rights as between co-defendants unless a cross-bill has been filed for that purpose, 15 or it be necessary in order to determine the rights of the plaintiff, or possibly when the evi- dence is clear and the case between them ripe for decision; 16 and language in a decree broad enough to determine such rights, will usually be construed as merely determining rights as between the plaintiff and the defendants, if no controversy between the defendants appears upon the pleadings. 17 The court will not make a declaration of mere future rights, 18 nor as to the rights of parties upon a contingency that has not ■• Gordon v. Gordon, 3 Swanst. 400, 478. Pentlarge, 19 Fed. R. 817; S. a, 22 Recitals in a decree of foreclosure of Fed. R. 412. previous proceedings in the suit are 14 Jenour v. Jenour, 10 Ves. 562; sufficient prima facie evidence of Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 20. such proceedings. Koons v. Beyson 15 Thomas v. Lloyd, 25 Beav. 620; Fechheimer v. Baum, 43 Fed. R. 62 Fed. R 375. 719, 734; infra, % 335. ButseeHobbs ■'Pennsylvania Co. for Insurance, v. McLean, 117 U. S. 567. etc. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. St. Ry. sMillington v. Fox, 3 M. & C. 338, Co. (C. C. A.), 66 Fed. R 421; Tesla 352; Loveridge v. Lamed, 7 Fed. R. EL Co. v. Scott, 101 Fed. R. 524. 294; Calkins v. Bertrand, 8 Fed. R 6 Barnes v. Omally, 4 McLean, 576; 755. But see Inhabitants of N. B. Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U. S. 567. But Tp. v. Halsey, 117 U. S. 336. see Fechheimer v. Baum, 43 Fed. R. " 9 Millington v. Fox, 3 M. & C. 338, 719, 730, and infra, % 335. Where a 352; Lowell Mfg. Co. v. Whittal, 71 bill to enjoin the infringement of a Fed. R. 515. 720 costs. [§ 327. count, the court may relieve him from paying costs. 10 If a plaintiff charge fraud which he fails to prove, although he es- tablishes his case on other grounds, 11 or, in some cases, if he claims relief more extensive than that to which he is entitled, 12 or if, on account of public policy or otherwise, he is allowed to obtain relief in a matter wherein he himself acted unlaw- fully or dishonorably, 13 or if he have been guilty of laches, 14 which do not bar his claim entirely, — he will be denied costs. A defendant will also be denied costs when successful under similar circumstances ; 15 for instance, when the plaintiff's bill is clearly bad and he answers instead of demurring. 16 Instances where costs have not been given to a successful party, because the situation of his adversary appealed to the sym- pathy of the court, were where the decision of the case involved the decision of a difficult and doubtful question of law, 17 espe- cially in suits brought for the specific performance of a contract affecting the sale of land ; 18 where the court enforced a contract made upon a very inadequate consideration; 19 and other cases of peculiar hardship. 20 A change of the law by a ruling of the Supreme Court subsequent to the filing of the bill has been held 10 Parrot v. Treby, Preo. in Ch. 254; imposed upon him the costs of the Bennett v. Attkins, 1 Y. & C. 247; writ of error and left the question of Ashburnham v. Thompson, 13 Ves. the costs below to be decided by the 402. But see Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Circuit Court. Hunt v. Howes (C. C. Am. ed.), 1396, 1397. A.), 74 Fed. E. 657. Where a bill filed 11 Wright v.Howard, 1 Sim. & S. by trustees was dismissed upon ap- 190; Scott v. Dunbar, 1 Molloy, 442. peal for failure to plead the jurisdic- See Fisher v. Boody, 1 Curt. 206, 223. tional facts to which no objection had i 2 Baldwin v. Ely, 9 How. 580. been made, it was held that the costs 1'Debenham v. Ox, 1 Ves. Sen. 276; should be taxed against the corn- Davis v. Symonds, 1 Cox Eq. 402. plainants as trustees only and not 14 Anon., 2 Atk. 14; Lee v. Brown, against them individually. Tug R. 4 Ves. 362. C. & S. Co. v. Brigel (C. C. A.), 70 15 Atty. Gen. v. Brewers' Co., 1 P. Fed. R. 647. Wms. 376; Bunker v. Stevens, 26 "Grattanv. Appleton, 3 Story, 755; Fed. R. 245. Rose v. Calland, 5 Ves. 186. "Brooks v. Byam, 2 Story, 553; "Rose v. Calland, 5 Ves. 186; White Harland v. Bankers' & M. Tel. Co., v. Foljambe, 11 Ves. 337; Willcox v. 32 Fed. R. 305. Where the defend- Bellaers, T. & R. 491. ant, after an unsuccessful defense w Burrowes v. Lock, 10 Ves. 470. upon the merits, raised for the first 2l >Lillia v. Airey, 1 Ves. Jr. 277; time a fatal jurisdictional objection Shales v. Barrington. 1 P. Wms. 481 ; by a motion to dismiss his own writ Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 2 P. Wms. of error, the Circuit Court of Appeals 127. § 327.], WHO AEE GIVEN COSTS. 721 to be no ground for refusing the defendant costs. 21 Costs are usually included in a decree for a perpetual injunction against the infringement of a trade-mark, although no demand that he cease using the trade-mark was made on the defendant before the suit was brought. 23 The Eevised Statutes provide that when in a Circuit Court a plaintiff in an action at law originally brought there, or a petitioner in equity other than the United States, recovers less than the sum or value of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, in a case which cannot be brought there unless the amount in dispute exclusive of costs exceeds said sum or value, he shall not be allowed costs, and the court may in its discretion award costs against him. 23 This statute applies where by the allow- ance of a counterclaim the amount recovered by the plaintiff is reduced to less than five hundred dollars. 24 The statute does not apply to a suit removed from a State court. 25 If the amount recovered is less than two thousand, but more than five hun- dred dollars, the statute does not apply, although the jurisdic- tional amount is now the former sum. 26 If there was, when the suit was brought, a reasonable expectation of the recovery of more than five hundred dollars, costs will not be awarded against the plaintiff. 27 The English rule seems to be, that it is beneath the dignity of a sovereign to demand costs, and that, therefore, when he is successful in a suit, his counsel will waive all claim for any. 28 In the Federal Circuit and District Courts, however, costs are 81 Fargo v. South Eastern By. Co., damages, it was held that the stat- 28 Fed. R. 906. ute should be applied by the Federal 82 Sawyer v. Kellogg, 9 Fed. R. 601. courts after a removal. Reichter v. 2 »U. S.R.S., §968. For a peculiar Magone, 47 Fed. R 193. case, see National Steamship Co. v. 26 Eastman v. Sherry, 37 Fed. R. Tugman, 67 Fed. R 16. 844; Johnson v. Watkins, 40 Fed. R « Hamilton v. Baldwin, 41 Fed. R. 187. 439. 27 Gibson v. Memphis, eta R Co., 81 as Field v. Schell, 4 Blatchf. 435; Fed. R 553. For the rule under the Ellis v. Jarvis, 3 Mason, 457: Kreager practice at common law in Tennes- v. Judd, 5 Fed. R. 27. Where the see, see Johnson v. Mississippi & T. State statute provided that in cer- R Co., 31 Fed. R. 551. tain cases, if the plaintiff recovered 28 Emperor of Austria v. Day, 3 less than a specified amount of dam- Gift 628; s. a, 3 De G., F. & J. 217. ages, his costs should not exceed his 46 722 costs. [§ 327. awarded to the United States, even when not specifically prayed for in the bill. 29 In suits in the Court of Claims, Circuit or District Courts to adjust claims against the United States, costs cannot be allowed unless the government put in issue the right of the plaintiff to recover; and then only in the discretion of the court. 30 Costs in such a suit include only " what is actually incurred for . witnesses and summoning the same, and fees paid to the clerk of the court." 31 JSTo costs are allowed against the United States in a suit to recover a penalty or forfeiture accruing under any law providing for the internal revenue, when the suit was brought by the government on information received from any person other than a collector, deputy collector, or in- spector of internal revenue, 32 nor upon the dismissal ,of condem- nation proceedings instituted by them. 33 ITo costs are awarded for or against the United States in the Supreme Court, or in the Circuit Court of Appeals, 31 but a Circuit Court of Appeals has awarded costs of the Circuit Court against them upon an appeal from the decision of a board of appraisers. 35 When upon a reference the master reports in favor of the plaintiff for nominal damages, the award of costs is in the dis- cretion of the court, and depends upon the peculiar circum- stances of each case. 36 The successful party to a suit may also be obliged to pay costs to an opponent who has not acted unconscientiously, in three classes of cases: when the successful party has acted un- conscientiously in the suit or in the matters which gave rise to it; 37 when a defendant has been necessarily made a party to a M C S. v. Southern Pac. R Co., 56 37 Wright v. Howard, 1 Sim. & S. Fed. R. 865. 190. For example, where the corn- so 24 St. at L. 508, § 15. plainant obtains only a small part of 31 24 St. at L. 508, § 15. the relief which he prayed and the 82 U. S. R. S., § 969. greater part of the expense of the 33 Carlisle v. Cooper, 64 Fed. R. 472. litigation was caused by his unsuc- 3 * S. C. Rule 24; C. C. A. Rule 81. cessful claims. Thomson-Houston 35 U. S. v. Davis (C. C. A.), 54 Fed. El. Co. v. Elmira & H. R Co., 71 Fed. R. 147. Contra, Marine v. Lyon (C. R. 886. See also Ecaubert v. Apple- C. A.), 62 Fed. R. 153. ton (C. C. A), 67 Fed. R 917. "Where 3 « Calkins v. Bertrand, 8 Fed. R. it was held that a party had improp- 755; Everest v. Buffalo Lubricating erly filed a cross-bill, but relief was Oil Co., 31 Fed. R. 742; Hill v. Smith, given him upon the theory that his 83 Fed. R. 753; Kirk v. DuBois, 46 cross-bill should be considered as a Fed. R 486. petition of intervention, he was re- § 327.] WHO ABB GIVEN COSTS. 723 suit in which he has no direct personal interest, — for example, an heir-at-law, who is a passive defendant to a suit to prove a will ; 38 and when a bill is filed to redeem a pledge or relieve an estate from the burden of a mortgage or other incumbrance. 39 In cases where the finally successful party is obliged without his fault to pay costs to one of the others, if the suit was made necessary by the misconduct of one of the defendants, he is obliged to repay the amount of those costs to the winner. 40 Thus, the costs paid out of the fund to the plaintiff in a suit of interpleader are usually decreed to be repaid by the unsuccess- ful defendant. 41 In suits founded upon letters-patent for in- ventions, when the patentee has claimed in his specification that he was the original inventor of more than he did first in- vent, he cannot recover costs unless he has filed a proper dis- claimer in the Patent Office before the commencement of the suit. 4 ' 2 "Where a suit at law, equity or admiralty is dismissed in the court of first instance for want of jurisdiction over the per- son of defendant or over the subject-matter, or for a lack of the requisite difference of citizenship, no costs are allowed, pro- vided that the complainant's plea does not allege the juris- dictional facts; 43 but where in such a case he has averred facts which would give jurisdiction, costs will be awarded against him. 44 "When a case removed from a State court is remanded for want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, the right to costs is secured by the bond filed with the petition for removal. 4 ' "When cases were begun in State courts and afterwards removed, the costs accrued in the State court before the removal have quired to pay the costs upon the 42 U. S. R S., §4922; Proctor v. cross-bill in the original court and Brill, 16 Fed. R. 791. the court of review. Gregory v. 43 Burn ham v. Rangeley, 2 W. & Pyke, 67 Fed. R 837. M. 417; Pentlarge v. Kirby, 20 Fed. as Crew v. Joliff, Prec. in Ch. 93; R. 898. But see U. S. v. Treadwell, Luxton v. Stephens, 3 P. Wms. 373. 15 Fed. R 532; Cooper v. N. H. S. Co., 89 Taner v. Ivie, 2 Ves. Sen. 466, 468. 18 Fed. R. 588. « Martinius v. Helmuth, 2V.&R, «The City of Florence, 56 Fed. R 412, note. See Brodie v. St. Paul, 1 236; Lowe v. The Benjamin, 1 Wall. Ves. Jr. 326; Badeau v. Rogers, 2 Jr. 187; Thomas v. White, 12 Mass. Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 209. 367; Sawyer v. Williams, 72 Fed. R. « Martinius v. Helmuth, 2 V. & B. 296. 412, note; Badeau v. Rogers, 2' Paige 45 See § 3 of Judiciary Act of 1875, Ch. (N. Y.) 209. But see Ferguson v. as amended in 1887; 24 St. at L., Dent, 46 Fed. R. 88; infra, § 334, ch. 373. 724: costs. [§ 326. been allowed. 48 No costs are usually granted in a case in the Circuit Court where the judges are divided. 47 In an appellate court, when a judgment or decree is reversed for want of juris- diction in the court below, costs are imposed upon the party who sought the jurisdiction of the court below, either by orig- inal process or by removal, whether he is respondent or ap- pellant. 48 When an appeal or writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, costs of the motion, including the clerk's fee for printing and supervising the record, may be taxed. 49 When both parties appeal, and the decree is in all respects affirmed, usually no costs of the appeal are allowed. 60 In a case where the appellant succeeded only in modifying the de- cree, it was held that neither party should have the costs of the appeal. 51 A party who by stipulation took no part in an appeal is not entitled to any costs in the appellate court. 52 The fact that the decree is affirmed upon grounds not stated in the opinion of the court of first instance does not necessarily deprive the respondent of costs. 53 §328. Classification of costs. — Different principles regu- late the amount of costs according as they are decreed to be paid by one party to another, or out of a fund in court. 1 In the former case costs are said to be taxed as between party and party, in the latter as between solicitor and client. 3 « Wolf v. Insurance Co. (D. Mich.), the appeal, it has been held that he 1 Hip. 377; Cleaver v. Traders' Ins. could not recover his costs in the Co. (D. Md.), 40 Fed. R 863. See Cen- latter court, but that the costs below tral T. Co. v. Central Iowa Ry; Co., should be divided, Tug River C. & 88 Fed. R 889. Contra in the Second S. Co. v. Brigel (C. C. A.), 67 Fed. R. Circuit. Chadbourne v. German Am. 625; and in one such case the costs Ins. Co., 31 Fed. R. 625; Clare v. Na- of the writ of error were imposed on tional City Bank, 14 Blatchf. 445. the appellant. Hunt v. Howes (C. C. « Veazie v. Williams, 3 Story, 611, A.), 74 Fed. R. 657. 632. 49 Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 114 "Mansfield, C. & L. M. Ry. Co. v. U. S. 262; Cir. Ct. of App. Rule 23. Swan, 111 U. S. 379; Continental Ins. » The William Cox, 9 Fed. R. 672. Co. v. Rhoads, 119 U. S. 237; Peper «New England R. Co. v. Carnegie v. Fordyce, 119 U. S. 469; Everhart Steel Co. (C. C. A.), 75 Fed. R. 54. v. Hunts ville College, 120 U. a 223; 52 Pollard v. Reardon, 65 Fed. R 84a King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 M Post v. Beacon V. P. & EL Co., U. S. 225; Peninsula Iron Co. v. 89 Fed. R. 1. Stone, 121 U. S. 631; Chapman v. §328. 1 Trustees v. Greenough, 105 Barney, 129 U. a 677. Where the U. S. 527; Central R Co. v. Pettus, defect in jurisdiction was raised by 113 U. S. 116. the appellant for the first time upon 2 Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. §§ 329, 330.] attorney's fees. 725 § 329. Costs as between party and party. — Costs as be- tween party and party are regulated by statute. They are the amount of the " bill of fees of the clerk, marshal, and attorney, and the amount paid printers and witnesses, and lawful fees for exemplifications and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use on trials." l § 330. Attorney's fees. — The Kevised Statutes fix the fol- lowing sums to be taxed as attorney's fees in a bill of costs between party and party: "On a trial before a jury, in civil or criminal causes, or before referees, or on a 'final hearing in equity or admiralty, a docket fee of twenty dollars, provided that in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where the libelant recovers less than fifty dollars, the docket fee of his proctor shall be but ten dollars. In cases at law, when judg- ment is rendered without a jury, ten dollars. In cases at law, when the cause is discontinued, five dollars. For scire facias and other proceedings on recognizances, five dollars. For each deposition taken and admitted in evidence in a cause, two dol- lars and fifty cents. For services rendered in cases removed from a District to a Circuit Court by writ of error or appeal, five dollars." 1 A docket fee is taxed for a hearing upon an appeal.* It has been held that a docket fee can be taxed for each hearing, in- cluding a rehearing, before the court after bill, answer, and replication have been filed, 3 but not for a hearing upon a de- murrer which is overruled, when the defendant has leave to answer and an answer is filed. 4 When a demurrer is sustained, 527; Central R Co. v. Pettus, 113 mon-law side of the court; and suits U. S. 116. in equity, so far as taxation against § 329. > T7. S. R S., § 983. But see the defendant is concerned. Bendey Spaulding v. Tucker, 2 Sawyer, 50. v. Townsend, 109 U. S. 665; Dodge v. § 330. 1 U. S. R. 8., § 824 The same Tolleys, 144 U. S. 451 ; Gray v. Haver- and the three following sections also meyer, 53 Fed. R 174. See also Fow- regulate the fees of district attor- ler v. Equitable Tr. Co., 141 U. S. 384; neys. Besides the. cases elsewhere Robinson v. Alabama & G. Mfg. Co., cited, see Bashaw v. U. S.,'47 Fed. R 51 Fed. R. 268; American F. L. M. 40. A state statute allowing an extra Co. v. Whaley, 63 Fed. R. 743. allowance in a partition suit was fol- 2 Kansas City, Ft. S. & Mo. Ry. Co. lowed by the Federal court. Willard v. McDonald, 60 Fed. R. 522; John v. Serfell, 62 Fed. R 625. The ques- Shillito Co. ▼. McClung, 66 Fed. R 22. tion whether counsel fees stipulated 8 Am. D. R. B. Co. v. Sheldon, 28 for in a note or mortgage can be Fed. R. 217; Peck S.&W. Co. v. Fray, taxed, depends upon the local law of 92 Fed. R 947. the State in both suits on the com- * McLean v. Clark, 23 Fed. R 861. 726 costs. [§ 330. a docket fee is allowed. 8 "When a motion to remand is granted, a docket fee is allowed. 6 To constitute " a final hearing in equity or admiralty," there must be a hearing of the cause upon its merits. 7 No docket fee is allowed for a hearing upon an interlocutory application by a party to the suit. 8 "When a bill is dismissed without a hearing no docket fee is allowed. 9 When a bill is taken as confessed, there must be a hearing before the decree, and consequently the complainant is entitled to tax a docket fee. 10 It has been held that no docket fee will be allowed on the dismissal of a bill for want of prose- cution ; " nor for a reference upon a motion for an interlocutory injunction; 12 nor for a hearing upon a petition for leave to intervene; 13 nor when the complainant has the bill dismissed upon his own motion before a final hearing ; 14 nor for a trial at which the jury disagreed. 15 It has been said that " the fee is taxable whenever the trial is entered upon by the swearing of a jury in a common-law case, or by the introduction of testi- mony or the final opening of the argument upon a final hear- ing in equity or admiralty. The fee is not made by the statute to depend upon a judgment or decree, but is taxable on a trial s Price v. Coleman, 22 Fed. R 694. Ry.Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. 6 Josslyn v. Phillips, 29 Fed. R 481. R. 775. But see U. S. v. Payne, 147 1 Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R. 49; U. S. 687. Cf. U. S. v. King, 147 TJ. S. Goodyear D. V. Co. v. Osgood, 2 B. & 676. A. Pat. Cas. 529; Coy v. Perkins, 13 "Coy v. Perkins, 13 Fed. R 111; Fed. R Ill; Yale Look Mfg. Co. v. Yale Look Mfg. Co. v. Colvin, 14 Fed. Colvin, 14 Fed. R. 269. Contra, Good- R 269; Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R year v. Sawyer, 17 Fed. R 2. 49; Cahn v. Qung Wah Lung, 28 Fed. 8 Doughty v. West B. & C. Mfg. RS96; Ryan v. Gould, 32 Fed. R. 754; Co., 8 Blatchf., 107; Central Tr. Co. v. N. Y. B. & B. Co. v. N. J. C. S. & R Wabash, St. L & P. R Co., 32 Fed. R Co., 32 Fed. R 755. Contra, Good- 634 year v. Sawyer, 17 Fed. R. 2. 9 Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R 49; is Cleaver v . Traders' Ins. Co., 40 Goodyear D. V. Co. v. Osgood, 2 B. & Fed. R 863; Dedekam v. Vose, 3 A. Pat. Cas. 529; Coy v. Perkins, 13 Blatchf. 77, 153; Troy I. & N. Fac- Fed. R 111; Yale L. Mfg. Co. v. Col- tory v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. 16; Strafer ■vin, 14 Fed. R 269. Contra, Good- v. Carr, 6 Fed. R 466; Huntress v. year v. Sawyer, 17 Fed. R. 2. Town of Epsom, 15 Fed. R 732. But w Andrews v. Cole, 20 Fed. R. 410. see Schmieder v. Barney, 19 Blatchf. ii Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R 49; 143; s. C, 7 Fed. R 451; Wooster vl Wighton v. Brainerd, 28 Fed. R 29. Handy, 23 Fed. R 49. It has been 12 Doughty v. W. B. & C. Mfg. Co., held that in such a case a district 8 Blatchf. 107. attorney may collect the docket fee is Central Tr. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. from the United States. "Van Hoore- & P. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R 684; Mo. Pac. beke v. U. S., 46 Fed. R 456. § 330.] , . attorney's fees. 727 or final hearing. As the labor for which the docket fee is sup- posed to be a compensation is performed on or before the trial, equitably the party ought not to lose the benefit of it by a discontinuance entered after the trial or hearing has begun." J s In a case where, after an interlocutory decree requiring the de- fendant to account, the plaintiff moved for a dismissal of his bill, he was obliged to pay the defendant a docket fee as well as other costs. 17 "Where several suits by the same plaintiffs against different defendants were submitted and tried together before referees, a docket fee in each case was allowed. 18 It has been said that no docket fee should be allowed when the at- torney who appeared and acted for the successful party through- out the case was not admitted to practice in the court where the case was pending, nor admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the United States before the filing of the general replication. 19 No docket fee is allowed to a party, not an at- torney, who conducts his own case. 20 The fee for taking a deposition is only allowed for a deposi- tion taken de bene esse for use on the final hearing; 21 not for oral testimony in court; 22 nor, perhaps, for a deposition taken before a master or examiner ; 2S nor for a deposition taken for use upon an interlocutory application, such, it was held, as an application for leave to intervene or a hearing upon the inter- vener's claim, 24 or an application for an interlocutory injunc- tion, 25 or an application to punish a person for a contempt, 26 unless it is subsequently put in evidence at the hearing of the "The Bay City, 3 Fed. R 47, per R 467; Tuck v. Olds, 29 Fed. R 883; Mr. Justice Brown. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. " Goodyear v. Sawyer, 17 Fed. R 2. Co., 38 Fed. R 775. In the Second 18 Switzer v. Home Ins. Co., 46 Fed. and Sixth Circuits such deposition R. 50. fees are taxable. Ingham v. Pierce, is Goodyear D. V. Co. v. Osgood, 13 37 Fed. R 647; Hake v. Brown, 44 Off. Gaz, 325. Fed. R 734; Ferguson v. Dent, 46 20 Gorse v. Parker, 36 Fed. R 840. Fed. R 88. 21 Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R 49, « Central T. Co. v. Wabash, St. L. 57; In re Strauss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. & P. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R 684; Mo. Pac R 467; Tuck v. Olds, 29 Fed. R 883; Ry. Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. Troy I. & N. Factory v. Corning, 7 R 775. Blatchf. 16. 25 Simpson v. Brooks, 3 Blatchf. 22 Troy L & N. Factory v. Corning, 456. 7 Blatchf. 16. 2 « Spill v. Celluloid M. Co., 28 Fed. 23 In re Strauss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. R. 870. 728 costs. [§ 330. cause upon issue joined. 27 The authorities conflict as to whether a party can tax the costs of a deposition taken in good faith which was not offered in evidence upon the trial or hearing. 28 When the testimony of several witnesses is taken by the same officer and returned to court under the same enclosure, the testimony of each witness is considered as a separate deposi- tion. 29 As to the taxation of the fee for taking a deposition which is admitted in evidence in several suits, the decisions are not harmonious. It seems settled that when, by stipulation, a deposition is taken once for use in several suits, in each of which it is entitled, and in each of which the witness is sworn, a depo- sition fee may be taxed in each suit. 30 Where, however, a deposition taken in one suit is by stipulation read in another, the rule, except in the district of Tennessee 31 and perhaps in that of New Jersey, 32 would seem to be that the fee can only be taxed in the first suit. 33 The expenses of taking the deposi- tion cannot be deducted from the attorney's fee. 34 It has been held that the fee cannot be taxed in favor of a party who did not appear by an attorney at the taking of the deposition. 35 The attorney's costs belong to the party, not to his attorney, and proceedings to collect them should be taken in the name of the party. 36 In the absence of a special agreement,- however, the value of the attorney's services to his client will be consid- ered as worth at least the taxable costs. 37 27 Indianapolis W. Co. v. American don, 28 Fed. R 217; "Winegar v. Calm, S. B. Co., 65 Fed. R 534 29 Fed. R 676; Carey v. Lovell Mfg. 28 It was held that he can, in Sloss Co., 39 Fed. R 163. L & S. Co. v. South Carolina & G. R u Broyles v. Buck, 37 Fed. R 137. Co., 75 Fed. R. 106; Hunter v. Inter- ^winegar v. Cahn, 29 Fed. R. 676. national Ry. Imp. Co., 28 Fed. R 842; 36 Broyles v. Buck, 37 Fed. R 137. Neadv.MillersburgH.W.Co.,79Fed. " Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Chandler, R. 129. Contra, Pinson v. Atchison, 27 Fed. R 9. The fees that district. T. & S. F. R Co., 54 Fed. R 464. attorneys can tax against the United 29 Broyles v. Buck, 37 Fed. R. 137. States are not discussed in this edi- 80 Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R 49, tion. 63; Archer v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 31 By the act of May 28, 1896 (29 St. Fed. R. 660; Green v. French, 5 N. J. at L. 180, 181, 186), the compensation L. J. 228. ' of all the district attorneys of the 'I Jerman v. Stewart, 12 Fed. R. United States, except those for the 271; Archer v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., Southern District of New York and 31 Fed. R 660. the District of Columbia, is limited » 2 Green v. French, 5 N. J. L. J. 228. to salaries therein fixed. The dis- ss Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R 49, trict attorney for the Southern Dis- 58; Am. Diamond R B. Co. v. Shel- trict of New York still receives com- § 351.] cleek's fees. 729 § 331. Clerk's fees.— The fees of the clerk of the Supreme Court are fixed by rule as follows: "For docketing a case and filing and indorsing the transcript of the record, five dollars. For entering an appearance, twenty-five cents. For entering a continuance, twenty-five cents. For filing a motion, order, or other paper, twenty-five cents. For entering any rule, or for making or copying any record or other paper, twenty cents per folio of each one hundred words. For transferring each case to a subsequent docket and indexing the same, one dollar. For entering a judgment or decree, one dollar. For every search of the records of the court, one dollar. For a certificate and seal, two dollars. For receiving, keeping, and paying money in pursuance of any statute or order of court, two per cent, on the amount so received, kept, and paid. For an ad- mission to the bar and certificate under seal, ten dollars. For preparing the . record or a transcript thereof for the printer, indexing the same, supervising the printing, and distribut- ing the printed copies to the justices, the reporter, the law library, and the parties or their counsel, fifteen cents per folio. For making a manuscript copy of the record, when required under Kule 10, twenty cents per folio, but nothing in addition for supervising the printing. For issuing a writ of error and accompanying papers, five dollars. For a mandate or other process, five dollars. For filing briefs, five dollars for each party appearing. For every copy of any opinion of the court, or any justice thereof, certified under seal, one dol- lar for every printed page, but not to exceed five dollars in the whole for any copy." 1 Upon moneys paid; into court the clerk is allowed a commission of one per centum. 2 The com- pensation of the clerk of the Supreme Court is limited to six pensation in addition to his salary in also for services under the direction prize cases (U. S. E. 8., §§ 464!i, 4647; of the Secretary of the Treasury and The Anna, Blatchf. Prize Cases, 337), the Commissioner of Internal Reve- and also when he appears by direo nue in suits or proceedings to ra- tion of the Secretary or Solicitor of cover fines, penalties and forfeitures the Treasury on behalf of any officer (U. S. R. S., § 838; Re District Attor- of the revenue in any suit against ney, 23 Fed. R. 26; U. S. v. Bashaw, such officer for any act done by him, 153 U. S. 436), and in other cases. or for the recovery of any money re- § 331. 'Supreme Court Rule 34; 23 ceived by him and paid into the St at L., ch. 443, p. 631. Treasury in the performance of his 2 Florida v. Anderson, 91 U. S. 667. official duties (U. a R S., § 837); and 730 costs. [§331. thousand dollars a year. The balance of his fees and disburse- ments over and above his necessary clerk hire and incidental expenses, as certified by the Supreme Court or a justice" thereof appointed by it for the purpose, must be paid into the Treas- ury. 3 " 1. In all cases the plaintiff in error or appellant, on docket- ing a case and filing the record, shall. enter into an under- taking to the clerk, with surety to his satisfaction, for the pay- ment of his fees, or otherwise satisfy him in that behalf. " 2. The clerk shall cause an estimate to be made of the cost of printing the record, and of his fee for preparing it for the printer and supervising the printing, and shall notify to the party docketing the case the amount of the estimate. If he shall not pay it within a reasonable time, the clerk shall notify the adverse party, and he may pay it. If neither party shall pay it, and for want of such payment the record shall not have been printed when a case is reached in the regular call of the docket, after March 1, 1884, the case shall be dismissed. " 3. Upon payment by either party of the amount estimated by the clerk, twenty-five copies of the record shall be printed, under bis supervision, for the use of the court and of counsel." " 4. In cases of appellate jurisdiction the original transcript on file shall be taken by the clerk to the printer. But the clerk shall cause copies to be made for the printer of such orig- inal papers, sent up under Rule 8, section 4, as are necessary to be printed and of the whole record in cases of original juris- diction. " 5. The clerk shall supervise the printing, and see that the printed copy is properly indexed. He shall distribute the printed copies to the justices and to the reporter, from time to time, as required, and a copy to the counsel for the respective parties. , "6. If the actual cost of printing the record, together with the fee of the clerk, shall be less than the amount estimated and paid, the amount of the difference shall be refunded by the clerk to the party paying it. If the actual cost and clerk's fee shall exceed the estimate, the amount of the excess shall be paid to the clerk before the delivery of a printed copy to either party or his counsel. s 22 St. at L. 603. See U. S. R S., § 844 § 331.] clerk's fees. 731 " 7. In case of reversal, affirmance or dismissal, with costs, the amount of the cost of printing the record, and of the clerk's fee, shall be taxed against the party against whom costs are given, and shall be inserted in the body of the mandate or other proper process. " 8. Upon the clerk's producing satisfactory evidence, by affi- davit or the acknowledgment of the parties or their sureties, of having served a copy of the bill of fees due by them, re- spectively, in this court, on such parties or their sureties, an attachment shall issue against such parties or sureties, respect- ively, to compel payment of the said fees."* In cases of dismissal for want of jurisdiction, such fees are taxed against the party bringing the cause into court, unless the court otherwise directs. 6 When a party has printed the transcript of the record at his own expense, he may docket the case without giving security for the clerk's fees ; but before the printed copies. are delivered to the justices or the parties for use on the final hearing, or on any motion in the progress of the cause, the clerk can require the payment of fifteen cents a folio for attending to the correctness and proper indexing of the printed copies of the record. 7 If the clerk demand the fees in advance, they must be paid. 8 When the clerk has no secu- rity for fees, due to him from a party entitled to a mandate, he may withhold the mandate until his fees are paid, or he is otherwise satisfied in that behalf. 9 The salaries of the clerks of the Circuit Courts of Appeals are three thousand dollars a year, payable in equal quarterly instalments. 10 They must account for and pay to the United States the fees collected by them. 11 It has been held that they may retain for such fees five hundred. dollars a year in addi- tion to their salary. 12 Their fees ,have been fixed by the Supreme Court under statutory authority, 13 as follows: "Dock- eting a case and filing the record, five dollars. Entering an appearance, twenty-five cents. Transferring a case to the * Rule 10. 10 26 St. at L. 826. 8 Re Amendments to Rules, 108 "Ibid. TJ. S. 1, 4 12 Morton v. U. S., 59 Fed. R. 349; o Supreme Court Rule 10. U. S. v. Morton (C. C. A.), 65 Fed. R, 'Bean v. Patterson, 110 U. S. 401. 204 8Steever v. Riokman, 109 U. S. 74 " 29 St. at L. 536. s Osborn v. U. S., 131 U. S. cxxxvii. 732 costs. [§ 331. printed calendar, one dollar. Entering a continuance, twenty- five cents. Filing a motion, order or other paper, twenty-five cents. Entering any rule or making or copying any record or other paper, for each one hundred words, twenty cents. Entering a judgment or decree, one dollar. Every search of the records of the court and certifying the same, one dollar. Affixing a certificate and a seal to any paper, one dollar. Ee- ceiving, keeping and paying money, in pursuance to any stat- ute or order of court, one per cent, on the amount so received, kept and paid. Preparing the record for the printer, indexing same, supervising and printing and distributing the copies, for each printed page of the record and index, twenty-five cents. Making a manuscript copy of the record, when required by the rules, for each one hundred words, but nothing in addition for supervising the printing, twenty cents. Issuing a writ of error and accompanying papers or a mandate or other process, five dollars. Filing briefs for each -party appearing, five dol- lars. Copy of an opinion of the court, certified under seal, for each printed page, but not to exceed five dollars in the whole for any copy, one dollar." u Where a transcript of a record of a Circuit Court has been duly certified by the clerk of that court to a Circuit Court of Appeals, there prepared for the printer, the printing supervised and the printed copies indexed and distributed by the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals; one of those printed copies with a certificate by such clerk stating that it is a transcript of the record there filed, together with a certified copy of the further proceedings there, is a sufficient transcript for the Supreme Court, and there is no need of paying the fees of the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals for a manuscript copy of the record there. 15 In the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits, where the record has been printed in the District or Circuit Court, a circuit judge may order that it be used in the Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case in the Sixth and Seventh Circuits the clerk of the latter court is allowed a fee for supervising the printing, and in the Seventh Circuit he must index it and charge a fee for that service. 16 "168 U. S. 720. 16 TJ. S. C. C. A. Rule 23 of three is Toledo, St. L. & K. C. Ry. Co. v. circuits. Rule 26 of the Fourth Cir- Continental Tr. Co., 176 U. S. 219. cuit also allows this. § 331.] CLERK 8 FEES. 733 In the First, Third and'Fifth Circuits the clerk of the Cir- cuit Court of Appeals must receive from either party and use as parts of the printed record, so far as the same is of proper size and type, any parts of the same which were printed below, and also any printed copies of patents and exhibits, allowing the party furnishing the same such sum as the clerk deems reasonable, which §um thus paid is added to and forms part of the cost of printing. 17 A similar practice prevails in the Sec- ond Circuit. The fees of the clerks of Circuit and District Courts are fixed by statute as follows: " For issuing and entering every process, commission, sum- mons, capias, execution, warrant, attachment or other writ, except a writ of venire, or a summons or subpoena for a wit- ness, one dollar. 18 For issuing a writ of summons or subpoena, twenty-five cents. 19 For filing and entering every declaration, plea, or other paper, ten cents. 20 For administering an oath or affirmation, except to a juror, ten cents. 21 For taking an «TJ. S. C. C. A. Rule 23 of these circuits. WU. S. R a, § 828. See Goodrich v. U. a, 47 Fed. R. 267; Jones v. U. a, 39 Fed. R 410. M U. a R. a, § 828. See Erwin v. U. a, 37 Fed. R 470; U. S. v. Van Duzee, 140 U. a 169, 176; Jones v. U. S., 39 Fed. R 410. 2 »U. S. RS., §828. So far as the clerk's fees are concerned, no paper is considered filed unless it has the proper indorsement by the clerk; and the merely placing a paper in the court papers is no filing. Erwin v. U. a, 37 Fed. R 470, 484; Henry Amy & Co. v. Shelby County, 1 Flip. 104. But the failure of the clerk to mark as filed a paper left in his office for that purpose cannot prejudice the party who has given it to him. Phin- ney v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 178 U. S. 327, 336. When it is necessary to enter on the calendar a note of such filing, an additional fee of fifteen cents is allowed. Erwin v. U. S., 37 Fed. R 470, 484. The clerk is not entitled to a fee for filing vouchers attached to an account U. S. v. Jones, 147 U. S. 672; U. a v. Payne, 147 U. S. 687. See U. a v. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 169; U. S. v. McCandless, 147 U. S. 692; IT. S. v. Taylor, 147 U. a 695; Goodrich v. U. S., 47 Fed. R 267; Dimmick v. U. S., 36 Fed. R 82. If two or more depositions are em- braced in a single paper, or a series of sheets attached together, they form but a single paper, within the meaning of the law. U. S. v. Barber, 140 U. S. 164, 168, per Mr. Justice Brown. It has been held that where the statutes are silent as to what papers shall be filed, that rests in the discretion of the judge of the court of first instance, and his decision will not be reviewed upon appeal. Pennsylvania Co. for Insurance, etc. v. Jacksonville, T: & K. W. Ry. Co., 66 Fed. R 421. 21 U. S. R S., § 828. See U. S. v. Taylor, 147 U. S. 695; U. S. v. Van Duzee, 140 U. a 169; Fuller v. U. a, 58 Fed. R 329. 734 COSTS. [§ 331. acknowledgment, twenty-five cents. 22 For taking and certify- ing depositions to file, twenty cents for each folio of one hun- dred words. 23 For a copy of such deposition furnished to a party on request, ten cents a folio." 24 A party may tax the fee paid for a copy of his own deposition, for use in printing the evidence, as required by a rule. 25 " For entering any return, rule, order, continuance, judgment, decree, or recognizance, or drawing any bond, or making any record, certificate, return, or report, for each folio, fifteen cents." 26 The clerk may charge fees in an equity cause, as to absent defendants, as to whom the cause is continued. 27 Where a cause, after being referred to an auditor, is, with the sanction of the court, settled by the parties, and entry made, " Dis- 22 U. S. R. S., § 828; U. S. v. Barber, 140 TJ. S. 177. 23 U. a R. S., § 828. Where a suit is voluntarily dismissed by the com- plainant, without a submission or hearing, on a settlement of the case at complainant's costs, with consent of the defendant and the attorneys of both parties, the solicitor's fees for taking depositions are not allow- able; but the clerk's fees are a proper charge under a decree dismissing the case at complainant's costs. Calm v. Qung Wah Lung, 28 Fed. R. 396. 2< U. a R. a, § 828. 25 Brewster v. Shuler, 38 Fed. R. 549. 26 U. a R. a, § 828. See Erwin v. U. a, 37 Fed. R 470. Where the number of words is less than one hundred, they are counted a folio; and as such entry is, in fact, a record, it was held that the departmental construction is the proper one, which gives the clerk ten cents for filing a paper, and fifteen cents for the rec- ord entry in the calendar. Amy v. Shelby County, 1 Flip. 104. But see U. S. v. Kurtz, 164 U. S. 49. A judg- ment is an order of the court within the meaning of the fee bill. Blake v. Hawkins, 19 Fed. R. 204. See Davis v. U. S., 45 Fed. R. 162; Good- rich v. U. S., 42 Fed. R. 392; U. a v. Taylor, 147 U. S. 696; U. S. v. Payne, 147 IT. S. 687; U. S. v. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 169; Marvin v. U. S., 44 Fed. R. 405; Erwin v. U. S., 37 Fed. R. 470; Jones v. U. S.; 39 Fed. R. 410; U. S. v. Converse, 63 Fed. R. 423; Fuller v. U. S., 58 Fed. R. 329. The clerk of the United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey is entitled to collect from the plaint- iff, in an action at law, fees for re- cording the proceedings and judg- ments therein in favor of plaintiff. U. S. R. S., § 914, provides that the pleadings and forms and niode3 of proceedings in civil causes, other than equity and admiralty, in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, shall conform as nearly as may be to the forms and modes of procedure in like causes in the States where such courts are held. Section 76 of the New Jersey General Statutes provides that when any civil action shall have been de- termined, the clerk of the court shall enter all the proceedings, including the judgment, in a book of records to be kept for that purpose. Morri- son v. Bernard's Tp., 35 Fed. R. 400. 27 Ex parte Lee, 4 Cranch, C. C. 197. § 331.] clerk's fees. Y35 missed, at defendant's costs, by consent," the process and plead- ings in the State court, together with 'the proceedings for removal sent up in the transcript, and the proceedings in the Federal court, should be entered upon the final record ; and the clerk may properly charge fifteen cents per folio for each entry. 28 " For a copy of any entry or record, or of any paper on file, for each, folio, ten cents. 29 For making dockets and in- dexes, issuing venire, taxing costs, and all other services, on - the trial or argument of a cause where issue is joined and testi- mony is given, three dollars. 30 For making dockets and in- dexes, taxing costs, and all other services, in a cause where issue is joined, but no testimony is given, two dollars." 31 It has been held in the Ninth Circuit that the petitioner in an application for the writ of habeas corpus may be obliged to pay eleven dollars for all services in the proceeding; but that the court has discretion to allow no costs or fees in such a case. 32 "For making dockets and indexes, taxing costs, and other serv- ices, in a cause which is dismissed or discontinued, or where judgment or decree is made or rendered without issue, one dollar. 33 For making dockets and taxing costs, in cases re- moved by writ of error, or appeal, one dollar. 34 For affix- ing the seal of the court to any instrument, when required, twenty cents. 35 For every search for any particular mortgage, judgment, or other lien, fifteen cents. 86 For searching the 28 Blain v. Home Ins. Co., 80 Fed. 82 ln re Moy Chee Kee, 33 Fed. R R 667. 377. 29 U. S. R S., § 828. The clerk is ssu. S. R S., § 828; XT. S. v. Kurtz, entitled to ten and not to fifteen 164 U. S. 49; IT. S. v. Van Duzee, 140 cents per folio for transcripts of a U. S. 169; Van Duzee v. U. S., 41 Fed. record. A transcript is a copy. Cav- R. 571. ,, ender v. Ca vender, 3 McCrary, 383. »U, S. R S., § 828. The clerk's fee See Erwin v. U. S., 37 Fed. R 470, 490; of one dollar for filing the note of Jones v. U. S., 39 Fed. R 410; U. S. issue when placing an appeal in ad- v. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 169; U. S. v. miralty on the calendar is taxable, McCandless, 147 U. S. 692; U. S. v. and the clerk may charge for includ- Taylor, 147 U. S. 695. ing the evidence in the record on the so IT. S. R S., § 82a See IT. S. v. final decree in admiralty. The Alice Payne, 147 U. S. 687; IT. S. v. King, Tainter, 14 Blatchf. 225, 227. 147 IT. S. 676; IT. S. v. Van Duzee, 140 «» IT. S. R S., g 828. See Taylor v. U. S. 469; IT. S. v. McCandless, 147 IT. S.„ 45 Fed. R 531; U. S. v. Van U. S. 692; Erwin v. IT. S., 37 Fed. R Duzee, 140 U. S. 169; Marvin v. U. S., 470. 44 Fed. R 405; Fuller v. IT. S., 58 Fed. si U. S.RS., §828. R329. as TJ. S. R S. § 828. 736 costs. [§ 331. records of the court for judgments, decrees, or other instru- ments constituting a general lien on real estate, and certifying the result of such search, fifteen cents for each person against whom such search is required to be made." 37 As the statutes do not expressly provide for compensation to the clerk for searching for petitions in bankruptcy, it has been held that a reasonable compensation for such service is fifteen cents for each name against which search is made. 88 The clerk of the Circuit Court, instead of certifying the result of a search for liens on the original requisition delivered to him, may, and perhaps should, file such requisition, and give the certificate of the result of the search on another paper. A charge of ten cents for filing such paper is proper, 39 and so also is a charge of fifteen cents for each person against whom a search is re- quired to be made, as compensation for making the search, and for the act of signing the certificate and certifying the re- sult. 40 A compensation of fifteen cents per folio for making the certificate is proper; but not a charge for affixing the seal of the court to such certificate, unless required. 41 " For receiving, keeping, and paying out money, in pursuance of any statute or order of court, one per centum on the amount so received, kept, and paid. 42 For traveling from the office of clerk where he is required to reside to the place of holding any court required by law to be held, five cents a mile for going, and five cents a mile for returning, and five dollars a day for his attendance on the court while, actually in session." 4S 37 U. S. R. a, § 828; In re Wood- « Ex parte Woodbury, 7 Fed. E. 705; bury, 7 Fed. R. 705; Marvin v. U. S., U. & v. yan Duzee, 140 U. R 169. 44 Fed. R. 405. It has been held that « U. & R. "a, § 828. In California the clerk is liable for the damages two per centum. U. a R. a, §' 840; which are the proximate result of a U. a v. Walters, 51 Fed. R. 896. It negligent search by him. 'Seloverv. has been held that these commis- Sheardown, 73 Minn. 393; s. C., 76 N. sions, when due out of a fund in the W. R. 50. hands of a public officer, must be 38 Matter of Vermeule, 10 Ben. 1. paid in the first instance into the 39 Ex parte Woodbury, 7 Fed. R 705. treasury. U. & v. Wolters, 51 Fed. M Ibid. R 896. Contra, U. a v. Cigars, 2 « U. S. R a, § 828. But see 24 St. Pleasants v. U. R, 35 Fed. R 770'; at L. 253, 541; Erwin v. U. R, 37 Fed. Jones v. U. &, 21 Ct. CI. 1; U. S. v. R. 470; Morrow v. U. &, 44 Fed. R King, 147 U. & 676. See also U. a . 405; U. S. v. Pitman, 147 U. S. 669; R. S., §§ 839-846; 18 St. at L. 333; Goodrich v. U. R, 35 Fed. R 193; U. S. v. Hill, 120 U. a 169. 331.] CLEEK S FEES. ?87 In bankruptcy proceedings clerks shall respectively receive as full compensation for their service to each estate a filing fee of ten dollars, except when a fee is not required from a voluntary bankrupt. 44 "There is no law nor rule of court which causes an officer to lose his fees by not requiring pay- ment in advance." 45 Consequently it has been held that the taxable costs earned by clerks, marshals and commissioners are their individual property, not that of the parties to the cause; and that the parties cannot by an agreement as to set-off, or otherwise, deprive the clerk or other creditors of any lien or right to collect their paid fees. 46 All books in the offices of the clerks of the Circuit and Dis- trict Courts containing the docket or minute of the judgments, or decrees thereof, must during office hours be open to the in- Fed. R. 494 This charge has been held to include money collected by the- marshal on executions. Fagan v. Cullen, 28, Fed. R 843. "Where an assignee in bankruptcy files a bill in the Circuit Court to settle conflict- ing claims to the proceeds of a sale, it is not his duty to pay the proceeds into the registry of the court; and consequently the clerk is not entitled to commissions on such money. Leach v. Kay, 3 Flip. C. C. 590. It has been held that the fact that the money is subject to the decree of the court, it not being in the court's registry, is not enough to give the clerk a right to commissions. Ex parte Plitt, 2 Wall. Jr. 453. But a sub- sequent decision holds that money deposited in a bank, under a decree of the court, and subject to its order, is within the meaning of chapter 20 of the acts of 1793, which provides that the clerk shall be entitled to a percentage on " all money deposited in court." Ex parte Prescott, 2 Gall. 146. The money must either actu- ally or constructively pass through the clerk's hands. Leech v. Kay. 4 Fed. E. 72. Money received by a master in chancery in payment of property sold upon the foreclosure of a mortgage, may, in pursuance of 47 section 995 of the Eevised Statutes, be deposited with a designated de- -positary of the United States, and the clerk is then entitled to his com-, missions thereon. Thomas v. Chi- cago & C. S. Ey. Co., 37 Fed. E. 548. But money paid by a bidder at such a sale as security for his compliance with his bid may- by order of the court be paid in a certified check on a bank, and deposited in a trust com- pany, and then the clerk is not en- titled to a commission thereon. Eas- ton v. H. & T. C. Ey. Co., 44 Fed. E. 718. So a clerk who receives, keeps, and pays out money under a judg- ment is entitled- to a commission of one per cent, on the amount so re- ceived, the same to be paid by the defendant as a part of the costs. Blake v. Hawkins, 19 Fed. E. 204. The court may allow the clerk extra compensation to the amount of one- half of one per cent, for transferring a large fund from the depository of the mint to a trust company. The Advance, 60 Fed. E 422. "30 St. at L. 544, 559, § 52; infra, §492. « Aiken v. Smith (C. C. A.), 57 Fed. E. 423, 425, per Pardee, J. «Ibid. 738 costs. [§ 332. spection of any person desiring to examine the same, without any fees or charges therefor. 47 § 332. Marshal's fees. — "The marshal of the Supreme Court of the United States shall be entitled to receive for the service of any warrant, attachment, summons, capias, or other writ, except execution, venire, or a summons, or subpoena for a witness, one dollar for each person on whom such service may be made. His fees for all other services shall be the same as are herein allowed to other marshals; but he shall pay into the Treasury of the United States all fees received by him, and render a true account thereof at the close of each term to the Attorney-General." * The fees of the other United States marshals, which are paid by private litigants, are fixed by statute as follows : " For service of any warrant, attachment, summons, capias, or other writ, except execution, venire, or a summons or sub- poena for a witness, two dollars for each person on whom serv- ice is made." 2 The marshal has a right to demand in advance the payment of fees for the service of process, 3 and may have an attachment to enforce payment against suitors in the court, 4 or against an indorser on the writ who, by local law, is liable to respond for the costs. 5 " For the keeping of personal prop- erty attached on mesne process, such compensation as the court, on petition setting forth the facts under oath, may allow. 6 For holding a court of inquiry or other proceedings < 7 TJ. S. R. S., § 828; Re McLean, 9 meruit, graduated by the ordinary- Cent. L. J. 425; s. C., 2 Flip. 512; S. a, value of similar services, and depend- Fed. Cas. 8,877. ent upon the circumstances of each § 332. i IT. S. R S., § 832. particular case. Where such fees are 2 U. S. R. S., § 829. not regulated by law, an auditor s Ray v. Knowlton, 11 Biss. C. C. should pass upon them. Bottomley 360 ; Duy v. Knowlton, 14 Fed. R 107. v. U. S., 1 Story (Mass.), 135, 153. The 4 Anonymous, 2 GalL 101. marshal is entitled to be paid his fees 5 ibid. at the time he delivers up the prop- «U. S. R S., § 829. The marshal's erty to the person entitled to receive fees for the custody of goods in cases it. The Georgeanna, 31 Fed. R 405. of seizure, and other proceedings in The court will not allow pay for ex- tern, are not discretionary, but are tra men employed by the marshal to dependent upon the precise regula- prevent the collector of customs from tions of law, or, in the absence of taking by force property from his such regulations, are to be allowed custody. The Perseverance, 22 Fed. upon the principle of a quantum R 462. § 332.] marshal's fees 739 before a jury, including the summoning of a jury, five dollars. 7 For serving a writ of subpoena on si witness, fifty cents; and no further compensation shall be allowed for any copy, sum- mons, or notice for a witness. 8 For serving a writ of posses- sion, partition, execution, or any final process, the same mile- age as is allowed for the service of any other writ; and for making the service, seizing or levying on property, advertising and disposing of the same by sale, set-off, or otherwise accord- ing to law, receiving and paying over the money, the same fees and poundage as are or shall be allowed for similar serv- ices to the sheriffs of the States, respectively, in which the service is rendered. 9 For each bail-bond, fifty cents. 10 For TT. S. RS.,§829. «U. S. R.S., §829. 9 U. S. R. S., § 829; Pomeroy v. Har- ter, 1 McLean (Ind.), 448. Where a marshal who levied the execution has received his half commissions, his successor will be entitled to no more than his half commissions for collecting and paying it over. 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 346. The marshal is not entitled to fees where no prop- erty is sold nor any money received under an execution, Irwin v. Cum- mins, Hempst. 703. Otherwise where money is paid, though no sale is nec- essary. Pomeroy v. Harter, 1 McLean (Ind.), 448. The marshal cannot charge interest on his fees, although he may on his disbursemants. Re Donahue, 8 Bankr. Reg. 453. If the State court compensates services similar to those performed by a marshal, although not performed there by a like officer, the marshal is entitled to the same compensation. Pomeroy v. Harter, 1 McLean (Ind.), 448; The Trial, 1 Blatchf. & H. 94 When an execution against the per- son was issued in the county of New York, the defendant held under ar- rest for some time, and the action subsequently settled by a compro- mise, the defendants paying a smaller sum than that specified in the exe- cution, it was held that the marshal was entitled to poundage on the whole amount for which the execu- tion issued; and that the rate of poundage should be that allowed the sheriffs in the different counties throughout the State, and not the special rate allowed in the county of New York. U. S. v. Haas, 5 Fed. E. 29. In the Southern District of New York, where an execution was stayed and set aside for a defect ap- pearing upon its face, it was held that the marshal who had made a levy was entitled to his fees, but to no poundage. Amato v. Jacobus (C. C. A.), 58 Fed. R 855. When the marshal extends an execution on real estate for the government he is entitled to his fees for the same, though the land is not yet sold or re- deemed, nor in any way converted into money. U. S. v. Smith, 44 Fed. R, 405. The fees for services of a deputy marshal belong legally to the marshal, and he controls them, and his receipt must operate as a dis- charge of the fees. Wintermute v. Smith, 1 Bond, 210. No fee is al- lowed for service of a writ or war- rant unless actually executed. Ex parte Paris, 3W.&M, 227. Mileage io U. S. R.S., §829. 740 costs. [§ 332. summoning appraisers, fifty cents each. 11 For executing a deed by a party or his attorney, one dollar. 12 For drawing and ex- ecuting a deed, five dollars." 13 The marshal cannot object to the purchaser drawing his own deed if he choose. 14 "For copies of writs or papers furnished at the request of any party, ten cents a folio. 15 For every proclamation in admiralty, thirty cents. 16 For serving an attachment in rem or a libel in ad- miralty, two dollars." ll Where process in rem is issued against a vessel, but before process is served the claimant, waiving service, gives a bond under section 941 of the Revised Statutes, and the case proceeds to final decree, no actual seizure having been made by the marshal, he is still entitled to his fees on the settlement of the case. 18 It is not necessary that there should be a sale in order to entitle him to his fees. 19 " For the necessary expenses of keeping boats, vessels, or other property attached or libeled in admiralty, not exceeding two dollars and fifty cents a day." 20 On delivering up the property the marshal may demand his fees of the person en- titled to recover it. 21 He must take actual possession of the vessel, or he is not entitled to fees. 22 He may take such pos- session as to render him liable to the parties, and yet not be entitled to fees. 23 The marshal's actual expenses for ship- keeping must, by vouchers, etc., be established to be necessary to the satisfaction of the court. 24 The approval by the dis- is to be computed from the place Lewis, 3 Cranch, O. C. 367; Swam t where the process is returned to the Ringgold, 4 Cranch, C. C. 238. place of service. The "place of re- U U. S. R. S., § 829. turn " is the place where the process 13 U. S. R. S., § 829. is issued. Matter of Crittenden, 2 " TJ. S. R. S., § 829. Flip. 212. The marshal may charge " The John E. Mulford, 18 Fed. R poundage on the debt, if authorized 455. by State laws, where an insolvent is 15 IT. S. R. S., § 829. discharged from imprisonment by w U. S. R. S., § 829. the Secretary of the Treasury on " U. S. R. S., § 829. payment of costs. Townsend v. 18 The City of Washington, 13 U. a, 1 U. S. L. J. 534&. For cases in Blatchf. 410. which the marshal is entitled to 19 The Captain John, 41 Fed. R. 147. poundage, see U. S. v. Ringgold, 8 2 °U. S. R. S., § 829. Pet. 150; Causin v. Chubb, 1 Cranch, 21 The Georgeanna, 31 Fed. R. 405. C. C. 267; Ringgold v. Glover, 2 2 2The Hibernia, 1 Sprague, 78. Cranch, C. C. 427; U. S. v. Smith, 3 «Ibid. Cranch, C. C. 66; Mason v. Muncas- 24 The Free Trader, 1 Brown, Adm. ter, 3 Cranch, C. C. 403; Ringgold v. 72. § 332.] maeshal's fees. 741 trict attorney of the employment of extra keepers will not be sufficient to establish the right of the marshal to an allow- ance for the employment of such extra keepers. 25 Notwith- standing the limit named in this clause, the marshal will be allowed the extra cost of dockage of a vessel seized while on a marine railway from which she could not be removed without danger of sinking. 26 The libelant must get an order from the court directing the withdrawal of the keeper, if he would not be liable for keeper's fees should he lose the suit. Mere no- tice to the marshal is not enough. 27 If the parties agree that the vessel shall be four months in the marshal's charge, the sum actually paid a watchman by him is taxable as part of the costs, even though the claimant also had a keeper on the vessel. 28 Entry by the marshal into the bonded warehouse where the goods are stored, and levying of process against and affixing a notice of seizure upon such property, is an attach- ment upon the property within the meaning of the statute ; and the custody fees of a keeper who visited the storehouse three times a day, though he did not enter, are taxable as costs. 29 The court will not allow pay for extra men employed by the marshal to prevent the collector of customs from tak- ing by force property from his custody. 30 ISTor will the court allow the marshal five dollars a day on the ground that two men were employed to watch, — one by day and one by night. 81 Eut two' dollars and fifty cents a day is not the absolute limit, and more will be allowed in the case of danger from thieves, and in other emergencies requiring more than one man to guard the property ; since the marshal is bound to protect from damage a vessel in his custody. 32 But when a marshal has done work in a defective manner, and additional labor be- comes necessary in consequence, no compensation for the lat- ter should be allowed. 38 A marshal, being the party served, is not entitled to fees for serving a warrant for the delivery of a vessel to the, claimant issued upon a stipulation of the par- ties; but he is entitled to be reimbursed for any expenses he 28 The Captain John, 41 Fed. E 147, 29 Jorgensen v. Casks of Cement,' 40 149; The Perseverance, 22 Fed. E 462. Fed. E 606. 26 The Novelty, 9 Ben. 195. 3() The Perseverance. 22 Fed. R. 462. 27 The Independent, 9 Ben. 489. « Ibid. 28 The San Jacinto, 30 Fed. B. 266. 32 Ibid. 83 The Nellie Peck, 25 Fed. E. 463. 742 costs. [§ 332. is put to on account of having been served with such warrant, 84 The cost of pumping out a vessel in charge of the marshal is properly allowed against the claimants in admiralty. 35 If, in the estimation of the court, it was, under the circumstances, prudent for the marshal to remove and insure property in his possession, he will be allowed the expenses necessarily in- curred thereby. 36 And he should insure it with reference to its actual market value, irrespective of its original cost. 37 The marshal is also entitled to be reimbursed for his expenses in hiring wharfage for a vessel in his custody, when such a course appears to have been necessary. 38 If several processes are is- sued against one vessel, and the marshal has possession under all the processes, the per diem custody fees should be appor- tioned equally among the claimants, saving to the marshal, in case any party fails to pay his proper proportion, a remedy against the other parties for the amount. 39 "When the debt or claim in admiralty is settled by' the par- ties without a sale of the property, the marshal shall be en- titled to a commission of one per centum on the first five hundred dollars of the claim or decree, and one-half of one per centum on the excess of any sum thereof over five hundred dol- lars: Provided, that, when the value of the property is less than the claim, such commission shall be allowed only on the appraised value thereof." *° The word " claim " as here used applies equally to "a claim of forfeiture to the United States, in a proceeding in rem against a vessel," as well as to cases where the demand or claim is personal in its nature. 41 The sum paid a libelant in settlement of his claim, and not the amount claimed in the libel, is the basis upon which the marshal's com- missions are to be determined. 43 The issuing of a process and the giving of a bond under section 941 of the Eevised Statutes to the marshal will entitle him to his conimissions in a suit in rem against a vessel under this clause, although the service of a* The JeanieLandles,17Fed.R.91. 3 9The Circassian, 6 Ben. 512; The 85 The Captain John, 41 Fed. R 147. John Walls, Jr., 1 Spr. 178. 86 U. S. v. Three Hundred Barrels *» U. & B. S., § 829. of Alcohol, 1 Ben. 72. « The Captain John, 41 Fed. R 147, 87 ibid. 151. 88 The Novelty (Steamboat), 9 Ben. 42 Robinson v. Bags of Sugar, 35 195. But see The F. Mer win, 10 Ben. Fed. R. 603; The Clintonia, 11 Fed. 403. R- 740. § 332.] maeshal's fees. 743 the process be waived and seizure of the vessel be not actually made. If the amount of the final decree is paid before execu- tion, that is such a settlement of the claim as will entitle the marshal to his commissions. 43 So if part of the goods are sold or there is a part-payment in settlement, the marshal will be entitled to his commissions pro rata. u "Where a vessel is sold by a trustee under the limited liability act, the marshal is not entitled to a commission. 45 " For sale of vessels or other property under process in ad- miralty or under the order of a court of admiralty, and for re- ceiving and paying over the money, two and one-half per centum on any sum under five hundred dollars, and one and one-quarter per centum on the excess of any sum over five hundred dollars." 46 The marshal is not authorized by law to employ an auctioneer to make sales under process or decree in admiralty ; and if he employs one, he can make no charge for the services of such auctioneer which he could not otherwise have charged. Nor can he make such charge by a notice prior to the sale, that an auctioneer's fee will be required of the pur- chaser in addition to his bid. 47 "Where a marshal has been paid his fees and commissions on the sale of a vessel under decree, and a claimant files a petition on which monition is issued, ask- ing that the balance of the proceeds be paid to him, and the court so orders, the marshal cannot claim an additional com- mission on the amount paid by the claimant. 48 Upon an inter- locutory sale of prize property, the marshal is entitled to full commission. 49 So if the property is removed to and sold in an- other district. 50 The marshal's title to commissions accrues at the time of the sale, and he is entitled to deduct his fees at the time when he pays the proceeds into court. 51 If, by agreement of parties, the vessel is sold outside of the territorial limits of the marshal's authority, he is, nevertheless, entitled to his fees. 52 "The City of Washington, 13 « U. S. R. S., § 829. Blatohf. 410. Compare Bone v. The «The John C. Mulford, 18 Fed. R Norma, Newb. Adm. 533. . And see 455; Crofut v. Brandt, 13 Abb. Pr. The Clintonia, 11 Fed. R. 740, citing (N. S.) 132. The Russia, 5 Ben. 84; Robinson v. 48 The Colorado, 21 Fed. R 592. Bags of Sugar, 35 Fed. R. 603. 49 The Avery, 2 GalL 308. 44 Swann v. Ringgold, Cranch, C. C. 50 The San Jose Indiano, 2 GalL 311. 246. "The Avery, 2 Gall. 308. « The Vernon, 36 Fed. R 113. «* The San Jose Indiano, 2 Gall. 311. 744 costs. [§333. " For travel, in going only, to serve any process, warrant, at- tachment, or other writ, including writs of subpoena in civil or criminal cases, six cents a mile, to be computed from the place where the process is returned to the place of service, or when more than one person is served therewith, to the place of serv- ice which is most remote, adding thereto the extra travel which is necessary to serve it on the others. 63 But when more than two writs of any kind required to be served in behalf of the same party on the same person might be served at the same time, the marshal shall be entitled to compensation for travel on only two of such writs ; and to save unnecessary expense, it shall be the duty of the clerk to insert the names of as many witnesses in a cause in such subpoena as convenience in serving the same will permit." u " In all cases where mileage is allowed to the marshal he may elect to receive the same or his actual traveling expenses, to be proved on his oath to the satisfaction of the court." 55 § 333. Witnesses' fees. — A witness' fees are, " for each day's attendance in court, or before any officer pursuant to law, one dollar and fifty cents, and five cents a mile for going from his place of residence to the place of trial or hearing, and five 58 U. S. E. S., §829. The marshal of the statutory mileage. The Wave- is allowed mileage for actual travel let, 25 Fed. E. 733. in enabling him to make a return of 65 U. S. R. S., § 829. Generally the nulla bona. Anon., Hempst. 450. marshal should not be allowed any 84 U. S. R. S., § 829. See U. S. v. charges that are not expressly Harmon, 147 U. S. 268; U. S. v. granted by statute. The John E. Fletcher, 147 U. S. 664. He is not Mulford, 18 Fed. R. 455; Crofut v. entitled to constructive mileage, and Brandt, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 132; Bot- his actual traveling expenses must tomley v. U. S., 1 Story, 153; 9 Op. be divided among the causes in his Atty. Gen. 98. "When in an admi- hand to serve at the same time, ralty proceeding a reference is or- Re Donahue, 8 Bankr. 453. Should dered to determine the amount of a the marshal arrest the wrong person, marshal's fees, the expense must be he is not entitled to fees of any kind ; borne by the claimant, even, it has nor will he be allowed additional been held, though the referee awards mileage for transporting a prisoner a sum less than the marshal's claim, to a particular place by any other and one which the claimant was at than the usual route of travel to that all times willing to pay. The Cap- place. Matter of Crittenden, 2 Flip- tain John, 41 Fed. R. 147. By 29 St. pin, 212. He may charge actual ex- at L. 181-183, marshals are paid fixed penses for serving a monition instead salaries in lieu of fees by the United States. § 333.] WITNESSES FEES. 745 cents a mile for returning." 1 "When a witness is subpoenaed in more than one cause between the same parties, at the same court, only one travel fee and one per diem compensation are allowed for attendance. 2 Both are taxed in the case first dis- posed of, after which the per diem attendance fee alone is taxed in the other cases in the order in which they are disposed of. 3 "When a witness is detained in prison for want of security for his appearance, he is entitled, in addition to his subsistence, to a compensation of one dollar a day. 4 A witness can be sub- poenaed, and must be allowed mileage from and to his resi- dence, in any part of a district, to attend a court held within that district, 5 or from another district if he does not reside more than one hundred miles from the place of trial. 6 The authorities conflict upon the question, whether when a witness in a civil case who resides more than one hundred miles from the place of trial voluntarily attends, his mileage for more than one hundred miles can be taxed. 7 The mile is computed upon § 333. 1 U. S. R. a, § 848. By 27 St. at L. 347, additional mileage is al- lowed for journeys not by railroad in some western states. 2U. a RS., §848. *U. aR. a, §848. *T7. aR. a, §848. * The Syracuse, 36 Fed. E. 830; Sims v. Schult, 40 Fed. R 143; Hunter v. Russell, 59 Fed. R. 964. But see Smith v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R. 321; Holmes v. Sheridan, 1 Dill. 421, note. See Manufacturing Co. v. Saliers, 6 Cent. L. J. 82. «TJ. S. R. S., § 876; The Syracuse, 86 Fed. R. 830. 'According to the rulings in the First Circuit, a witness is entitled to mileage from his residence, no mat- . ter how far distant it may be. Prouty v. Draper, 2 Story, 199; Whipple v. Cumberland Cotton Mfg. Co., 3 Story, 84; Hathaway v. Roach, 2 W. & M. 63; U. S. v. Sanborn, 28 Fed. R. 299; The City of Augusta (C. C. A), 80 Fed. R. 297, 303. Even when he has not been served with a subpoena. U. S. v. Sanborn, 28 Fed. R. 399. It was held by the District Court for South Carolina that a witness for the United States, voluntarily com- ing to and attending court on the verbal instructions of the district at- torney, is entitled to the per diem and mileage fees, although his resi- dence is out of the district, and more than one hundred miles from the place at which the court is held. In re Williams, 37 Fed. R. 325. It has been held ■ that, when the witness lives without the district, mileage for only one hundred miles can be taxed in the Second Circuit, Anon., 5 Blatchf. 134; Eastman v. Sherry, 87 Fed. R 844; The Vernon, 36 Fed. R. 113; Haines v. McLaughlin, 29 Fed. R. 70; Buffalo Ins. Co. v. Pro v. & Stonington S. S. Co., 29 Fed. R. 237; Wooster v. Hill, 44 Fed. R 819; the Third Circuit, The Progresso, 48 Fed. R 239; the Fourth Circuit in a civil case, SIoss I. & S. Co. v. South Caro- lina & G. R Co., 75 Fed. R. 106; the Sixth Circuit, The Vernon, 36 Fed. R. 113; Burrow v. Kansas C, Fti S. 6 M. R. Co., 54 Fed. R 278; the 746. costs. [§ 333. the shortest, most practical route, although the witness trav- ersed a longer distance. 8 A witness does not lose his right to his fees merely because he was not subpoenaed, if his attend- ance and examination were procured in good faith. 9 Nor if he attend, but is not examined; 10 nor, it seems, if he is required to attend at the hearing after his deposition has been taken; 11 nor does he suffer any abatement of them, because he is sum- moned to attend at the same time to testify in several suits, whenever some but not all the parties are the same; 12 not even if both suits are tried together and the witness is examined but once, provided no order consolidating the suit has been obtained. In all such cases the fees, if paid, can be taxed, provided the witnesses were in good faith asked to attend. 18 "When the trial is postponed because of the illness of counsel, 14 or delay in the transmission of a deposition taken by the other side, 15 and the witnesses are required to remain during the postponement, they must be paid for the intervening time. So, also, when the witnesses are required to remain after their examination to the end of the hearing. 16 Fees for travel of a witness in going and returning can only be taxed once for each occasion of taking testimony, although each occasion em- Seventh Circuit, where it was held 10 Clark v. Am. Dock & I Co., 25 that in such a case no fees or mile- Fed. R 641; Hathaway v. Roach, S age could be taxed, Dreskill v. Par- W. & M. 63; Sloss I. & S. Co. v. S. C. ish, 5 McLean, 213. See Smith v. & G. R. Co., 75 Fed. R 106. Contra, Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R. Simpkins v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R 321; the Eighth Circuit, Pinson v. Co., 61 Fed. R. 999. Atchison, T. & a F. R. Co., 54 Fed. R " Beckwith v. Easton, 4 Ben. 357; 464; and the Ninth Circuit, Spauld- Anderson v. Moe, 1 Abb. (TJ. S.) 299. ing v. Tucker, 2 Sawyer, 50; Haines 12 Parker v. Bigler, 1 Fish. 285; The v. McLaughlin, 29 Fed. R 70. Vernon, 36 Fed. R 113; Archer v. 8 Hunter v. Russell, 59 Fed. R 964. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 31 Fed. R 660. 9 Anderson v. Moe, 1 Abb. (U. S.) But see Simpkins v. Atchison, T. & 299; U. S. v. Sanborn, 28 Fed. R 299; S. F. Ry. Co., 61 Fed. R. 999. TheVernon,36Fed.R.113; TheSyra- 13 The Vernon, 36 Fed. R 113; cuse, 36 Fed. R 830; Eastman v. Archer v. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 31 Sherry, 37 Fed. R 844; Simpkins v. Fed. R 660. Atchison, T. & S. F. R Co., 61 Fed. R "Whipple v. Cumberland C. Mfg. 999; Sloss L & 8. Co. v. S. C. & G. Co., 3 Story, 84. R Co., 75 Fed. R 106; Hanchett v. 15 Hunter v. Russell, 59 Fed. R Humphrey, 93 Fed. R 895. Contra, 964. Haines v. McLaughlin, 12 Sawyer, w Whipple v. Cumberland C. Mfg. 126; Lilienthal v. Southern CaL Ry. Co., 3 Story, 84 Co., 61 Fed. R 622. § 333.] witnesses' pees. 747 braces a number of days; 17 unless bis second attendance was required by an adjournment caused by the fault of the unsuc- cessful party, when his traveling fees may be taxed for his attendance at such adjourned day if incurred. 13 Witnesses summoned and attending court are entitled to their mileage and per diem fees if the cause was docketed and could have been tried at the term at which the witnesses attended. 19 If a witness is subpoenaed at the place of trial on the day when the subpoena requires him to attend, he is not entitled to any mileage. 20 Where witnesses were subpoenaed to testify to a particular point, though the opposite party admitted the point, mileage and per diem fees up to the time of such admission were allowed ; 21 and a second trial being had, and no stipula- tion or entry made on the record that the point would be ad- mitted at such second trial, such per diem and mileage fees were allowed for attendance at that trial also. 22 But it has been held, on the other hand, that a party may not tax the fees of a witness whom he has subpoenaed, but whose testi- mony is either abandoned or stricken out ; 23 nor may he tax the fees of more than three witnesses to a single fact; 24 nor fees and mileage for himself when he testifies in his own be- half; M not fees which he has not paid. 26 It has been held that "Spill v. Celluloid Mfg. Co., 28 the bill of costs against the losing Fed. R 870. party; and it seems that a party can- 18 Hake v. Brown, 44 Fed. R 734 not have such fees taxed until he 19 Young v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 29 has paid the witness, either before Fed. R 273. or after the service has been ren- 20 The Sunnyside, 5 Ben. 162. dered, and before judgment for 21 Young v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 29 costs. O'Neil v. Kansas City S. & M. Fed. R 27a R. Co., 31 Fed. R 663. But it has 22 Ibid. been held that witnesses do not lose 23 Troy L & N. Factory v. Corning, their right to mileage and per diem 7 Blatchf. 16. fees by not insisting upon prepay- 24 Bussard v. Catalino, 2 Cranch, ment; nor by the fact that they C. C. 521. were in attendance on the court in ^Nichols v. Brunswick, 3 Cliff. 88; another cause between different par- Roundtree v. Rembert, 71 Fed. R 255. ties, and received per diem and mile- Contra, Tuck v. Olds, 29 Fed. R 883, age fees therefor. Young v. Mer- W. D. Mich. chants' Ins. Co., 29 Fed. R 273. It ^Leary v. Miranda, 40 Fed. R 607; has been held that when a person O'Neil v. Kansas City S. & M. R Co., has been served with a subpoena and 31 Fed. R 663. A witness subpoenaed has received money for traveling by the prevailing party to the suit expenses, he cannot refuse to obey cannot upon his own motion have such subpoena because the proper his fees that remain unpaid taxed in amount of mileage has not been 748 costs. [§ 334. fees and mileage may be taxed for the attendance as witnesses of officers of a corporate defendant, 27 but not where a defend- ant corporation was ordered to account before a master in a suit for an infringement of a patent. 28 Only the necessary ex- penses of a government clerk sent away from his place of busi- ness as a witness for the government will be paid, and nothing can be taxed in the bill of costs for his travel or attendance. 29 The same rule applies to deputy-clerks, as they are also officers of the court. 30 But clerks employed by the marshal in his office, keeping his accounts, are not officers of the court, and are entitled to fees and mileage. 31 A deputy-marshal is an officer of the court; but unless he is actually engaged in at- tendance upon the court, he is entitled toper diem fees and mileage, if summoned as a witness by the government. 32 Where a party has paid some witnesses more and some less than the legal fees, he cannot group together the amounts so paid and collect the legal fees for all. 33 § 334. Miscellaneous disbursements. — The Kevised Stat- utes provide that " the bill of fees of the clerk, marshal, and attorney, and the amount paid printers and witnesses, and lawful fees for exemplifications and copies of papers necessarily ob- tained for use on trials in cases where by law costs are recover- able in favor of the prevailing party, shall be taxed by a judge or clerk of the court, and be included in and form a portion of a judg- ment or decree against the losing party. Such taxed bills shall be filed with the papers in the cause." x The Federal courts are not absolutely limited in the taxation of costs to such items as are specifically named in the statute. 2 Disbursements for printing the record, evidence, and other papers in a suit in equity in a Circuit Court, when required by rule, are, at least paid; and that persons subpcenaed 29 U. S. R S., § 850; U. S. R. S., as witnesses in the courts of the § 849; U. S. v. Sanborn, 28 Fed. R.299. United States, if they have the 30 Ex parte Burdell, 32 Fed. R 681. means, are obliged to obey whether 31 Ibid. their fees are advanced or not. Nor- 32 Ibid. ris v. Hassler, 23 Fed. R 581; U. S. 33 Burrow v. Kansas City, F. S. & v. Durling, 4 Biss. 509, 510; Hake v. M. R. Co., 54 Fed. R. 258. Brown, *4 Fed. R 734. § 334. i U. S. R. S., § 983. 37 Wead v. Millersburg H. W. Co., 2 Spaulding v. Tucker, 2 Sawyer, 79 Fed. R. 139. 50; Gunther v. Liverpool, L. & G. 2SAm. Diamond Drill Co. v. Sulli- Ins. Co., 10 Fed. R. 830. van Mach. Co., 32 Fed. R. 552. § 334.] MISCELLANEOUS DISBURSEMENTS. 749 m the First and Second Circuits, taxable as costs.' Disburse- ments for printing testimony and other papers of the court, when not required by rule or special order, cannot be taxed.* The appellant or plaintiff in error, when allowed costs, may tax his disbursements for clerk's fees and for printing the record. 5 Where, upon an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill which was affirmed with costs, the defendant had taken a cross-ap- peal from the dismissal of his cross-bill, which appeal was dis- missed, the cross-appellant was allowed to tax the fees paid for one-half the cost of printing the record. 6 "Where the costs of printing the record on an appeal had been paid by a receiver under an order out of the fund in his hands, the defendant who finally succeeded was allowed to tax these disbursements, 7 but not the receiver's fees and the necessary disbursements inci- dental to the receivership. 8 Disbursements for printing objec- tions to a petition to the Supreme Court in its original juris- diction, for a writ of mandamus, are taxable. 9 Disbursements for printing briefs on appeal, in error, or in original proceed- ings in the Supreme Court or Circuit Courts of Appeals, are not taxable. 10 Disbursements for printing briefs which the rules require to be printed are taxable in the Circuit Courts in the Second Circuit, 11 even when the brief is printed after the argu- ment. 12 If copies of papers, necessarily obtained for use on the trial, are put in evidence, and no order is made rejecting them aS evidence, it is the duty of the clerk to allow, on taxation, the disbursements paid for the various copies put in evidence 'Jordan v. Agawam Woollen Co., 6 Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Marsh, 3 Cliff. 239; Dennis v. Eddy, 12 131 U. S. 401. Blatchf. 195 ; Hake v. Brown, 44 Fed. 7 Ferguson v. Dent, 46 Fed. R 88, 94. E. 734. Contra, Lee v. Simpson, 43 8 Ferguson v. Dent, 46 Fed. R 88, Fed. E. 434. 96; Elk F. O. & G. Co. v. Jennings, * Atwood v. Jaques, 63 Fed. R. 561 ; 90 Fed. R. 767. Spaulding v. Tucker, 2 Saw. 50. 9 Ex parte Hughes; 114 U. S. 548; 6 Supreme Court Rule 10; Circuit Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 Fed. R. Court of Appeals Rule 23. But the 1011. expense of printing superfluous pa- 10 Ibid. pers will be disallowed. B. & S. F. " Hake v. Brown, 44 Fed. R 734; Co. v.. Kraetzer, 150 U. S. Ill; infra, Dennis v. Eddy, 13 Blatchf. 195. Not § 490. E. g., no costs were allowed in the Ninth Circuit, where the rules for printing the record upon a mo- do not direct that briefs be printed, tion for a new trial. Nederland L. L Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 Fed. R. Co. v. Hall, 86 Fed. R. 741. 1011. « Sackett v. Smith, 46 Fed. R. 39. 750 costs. [§ 334. and forming part of the record for final hearings. 13 It has been held that fees paid for certified copies of a party's own muni- ments of title cannot be taxed, since he is presumed to have the originals in his possession, unless he proves the contrary; but that he may tax fees paid for transcripts of records of suits and other papers on which he relied to defeat his adversary's claim of, title. 14 Copies of papers obtained for use on inter- locutory' or preliminary or incidental motions or hearings are not obtained for use on trials, and disbursements in procuring them have been disallowed. 18 Disbursements taxable in a State court may when made be taxed in an action at common law in a Federal Court held in the same State. 16 The legal fees paid to masters, 17 commissioners, 18 and examiners 19 can be taxed. Fees paid an attorney for the examination of a witness before a master or special examiner, 20 payments to an attorney for traveling expenses, 21 payments to messengers, 22 payments to witnesses for services in examining property concerning which they afterwards testified, 23 cannot be taxed. Disbursements for surveys and plans necessitated by an order to make a plead- ing more definite and certain, cannot be, 24 but the cost of maps necessarily used on a trial have been taxed. 25 Disburse- 13 Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R 49. v> Supra, § 331; Tesla EL Ca v. " Ford v. Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry. Scott, 101 Fed. R 524. Co., 45 Fed. R 210. The cost of cop- 19 In the Second Circuit examiner's ies of testimony obtained solely for fees are three dollars a day, and thirty the use of counsel in preparing for cents a folio for typewriting the tes- trial, Tesla El. Ca v. Scott, 101 timony. Edison EL L. Co. v. Mather Fed. R 524; Atwood v. Jaques, 63 Electrio Co., 63 Fed. R 559. Where Fed. R 561; or for use in preparing the Federal court appointed a stenog- a bill of exceptions, Monehan v. rapher a special examiner, he was Godkin, 100 Fed. R 196, were held allowed the fees paid by the State not to be taxable. practice for similar services. In- is Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R 49. dianapolis Water Co. v. American S. In the Second Circuit fees paid for B. Co., 65 Fed. R 534. But see Jer- copies of opinions for use in prepar- man v. Stewart, 12 Fed. R 271. ing orders are usually taxed. In 20 Stratiss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. R 467. the Sixth Circuit . the notarial fees 21 Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R 49. paid for affidavits on a motion are 22 Ibid. taxed, but not the expense of writ- 23 Tuck v. Olds, 29 Fed. R. 883. ing the affidavits in the form of dep- 24 New Hampshire L. Co. v. Tilton, ositions. Atwood v. Jaques, 63 Fed. 29 Fed. R. 764. R. 561. 25 Lilienthal v. Southern CaL Ry. 16 Huntress v. Epsom, 15 Fed. R 732. Co., 61 Fed. R 622. 11 Supra, % 314. § 335.] COSTS OUT OF THE FOTTD. 751 ments for copies of models in the Patent Office used as evi- dence are taxable, 26 but not disbursements for other models. 27 It has been held that notarial fees for presentment and protest of a note, though paid before suit was brought, are considered as costs, not as damages. 28 When the defendant finally pre- vailed, and a decree directing him to account was set aside, he was allowed to include in his bill of costs the fees which he i had been obliged to pay the master. 29 A defendant who finally prevails cannot tax the costs he has paid upon the overruling of his demurrer to the bill. 30 § 335. Costs out Of the fund. — Costs are paid out of a fund or estate in the course of distribution by a court of equity, to trustees who have been obliged to engage in litigation for the benefit of the estate, and to persons who have been successful in suits brought by them on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. 1 The expression " trustees " is used here in the broadest sense of the word, as including not only those ap- pointed by a deed of trust, but also agents, receivers, 2 and per- sonal representatives. 3 All of these, when under a bill for an accounting they account fairly and pay the balance due from them into court, are entitled to their costs, 4 provided that they have not acted unconscientiously in the suit 5 or in the previous administration of their trust. 6 The same is true when a suit is honestly commenced by one of them for the directions of the court concerning his trusteeship. 7 But in suits brought by or against any of them, except possibly receivers, to which a stranger is a party, they are usually, if unsuccessful, liable 26 Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R 49. Curteis v. Candler, Mad. & Geld. « Ibid. 123; Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U. S. 78. MBaker v. Howell, 44 Fed. R 113; 'Rashleigh v.Master.l Ves. Jr.201; supra, § 16. Samuel v. Jones, 2 Hare, 246. 29 American D. D. Co. v. Sullivan 'Atty. Gen. v. City of London, 1 M. Co., 32 Fed. R 552. Ves. Jr. 243; s. c, 3 Bro. C. C. 171; so New York B. & P. Co. v. N. J. Rashleigh v. Master, 1 Ves. Jr. 201; C. S. & R Co., 32 Fed. R 755. For Samuel v. Jones, 2 Hare, 246; Curteis the costs of a receivership, see supra, v. Candler, Mad. & Geld. 123. § — . 'Henley v. Philips, 2 Atk. 48; § 335. i Cowdrey v. Galveston, H. Lloyd v. Spillat, 3 P. Wms. 344, 346. & H R Co., 93 U. S. 352; Trustees v. « Howard v. Rhodes, 1 Keen, 581) Greenough, 105 U. a 527; Central R O'Callahan v. Cooper, 5 Ves. 117, 129; & B. Co. v. Pettus, 113 U. S. 116. Hide v. Haywood, 2 Atk. 126. 2 Atty. Gen. v. City of London, 1 ' Hicks v. Wrench, Mad. & Geld. Ves. Jr. 243; s. a, 3 Bra C. C. 171; 93; Henley v. Philips, 2 Atk. 48. 752 costs. [§ 335. personally to him for the costs as between party and party, 8 which costs, together with the expenses of the suit, will be allowed them upon their accounting, 9 if the suit was prosecuted or defended in good faith for the benefit of their trust. 10 Costs will also be paid out of a fund under the control of a court of equity to persons who have been successful in a suit concern- ing it, brought by them in behalf of themselves and -others similarly situated with them. 11 Instances of this are a suit brought by a single creditor for a general administration of assets, 12 and by a single beneficiary of a trust to prevent a loss to the trust estate. 13 Costs have been allowed in a similar case to a party who by his litigation had benefited the fund, al- though he eventually failed to collect his own claim against it. 14 Such costs are, in the distribution of the fund, paid be- fore all claims against it, except those of trustees who have not been guilty of misconduct. 15 The same rule applies to a suit brought by a single creditor of the estate against an executor or ad ministrator f or the satisfaction of his own claim. 16 In such cases the personal representative can only recover his costs from that part of the estate which remains after the com- plainant has been paid the full amount of his claim with costs, 8 Edwards v. Harvey, G. Cooper, "Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 40; Poole v. Franks, 1 Moiloy, 78; 527; Stewart v. C. & O. C. Co., 5 Fed. Westley v. Williamson, 2 Moiloy, 458. R. 149. See § 251. But see Tug R. C. & S. "Ex parte Plitt, 2 Wall. Jr. 453; Co. v. Brigel (C. C. A.), 70 Fed. R. 647, Fechheimer v. Baum, 43 Fed. R. 719, cited supra, § 327. 730; Central Tr. Co. v. Condon (C. C. sCowdrey v. Galveston, H. & H. A.), 67 Fed. R. 84, 111; D. G. Tomp- R. Co., 93 U. S. 352; Humphrys v. kins Co. v. Chester Mills, 90 Fed. R. Moore, 2 Atk. 108. 37. But see Weed v. Central Ga. Ry. 10 Henley v. Philips, 2 Atk. 48; Co., 100 Fed. R. 162. See U. S. v. Lloyd v. Spillat, 3 P. Wms. 344, 346; Boyd, 79 Fed. R. 858. In such a case, Central Tr. Co. v. Valley R. Co., 55 where the order appointing the re- Fed. R. 903. ceiyer was reversed, the allowance i! Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. of compensation to the solicitor who 527; Central R. & B. Co. v. Pettus, procured the appointment was also 113 U. S. 116; Ex parte Jaff ray, In re set aside. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Waite & Crocker, 1 Low. 321; Ex Ry. Co. v. American Const. Co., 57 parte Plitt, 2 Wall. Jr. 453; Stewart Fed. R 66. v. C. & O. C. Co., 5 Fed. R. 149. 15 Bennet v. Going, 1 Moiloy, 529. i^Bennet v. Going, 1 Moiloy, 527; ie Humphrys v. Moore, 2 Atk. 108; Hare v. Rose, 2 Ves. Sen. 558. See, Davy v. Seys, Moseley, 204. however, Mason v. Codwise, 6 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 183. § 336.] COSTS AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT. „, 753 even though the creditor thus sweeps away the entire estate." Not so, however, when a bill is filed by one creditor in behalf of himself and the rest for a general administration of assets; in which case the personal representative is always entitled to his costs out of the fund unless he has forfeited them by his misconduct. 18 "Where the laches or inaction of the trustee under a mortgage has caused a suit by a bondholder or a junior incumbrancer to preserve the mortgaged property, and his action in the suit has been of no special value to the fund, he may be disallowed compensation from the fund until after sat- isfaction of the beneficiaries who appeared by their own coun- sel in the suit. 19 § 336. Costs as between solicitor and client. — Costs pay- able out of a fund in court are termed costs as between solic- itor and client. 1 Costs as between solicitor and client include all reasonable expenses and counsel fees, and are not, like costs as between party and party, confined to the amount named in the statute. 2 Five per centum of the fund collected was held a reasonable counsel fee in such a case, when the fund was large, — that is, more than seventy-five thousand dollars. 3 Ten per centum of the fund collected was held a reasonable coun- sel fee in such a case, when the fund was less. 4 In no case, "Adair v. Shaw, 1 Soh. & Lef. 243; success, it was held that one-third of 280; Uvedale v. Uvedale, 3 Atk. 117. the fund collected, $91,420, should be WBennet v. Going, 1 Molloy, 529; allowed them. Frink v. McComb, 60 Young v. Everest, l 1 E. & M. 426; Fed. E. 486. Twenty per cent, of Minuse v. Cox. 5 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 441. $25,000 was held to be a reasonable 19 See D. A Tompkins Co. v. Ches- contingent fee when the amount not ter Mills, 90 Fed. R. 37; Bound v. specified in the agreement between South Carolina Ey. Co., 59 Fed. E. client and attorney. St Louis, L M. 509. & S. Ey. Co. v. Clark, 51 Fed. E. 483. § 336. i Trustees v. Greenough, 105 Where an attorney had asked for a U. S. 527. payment on account, it was held that 2 . Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. he had not thereby waived his con- 527; Cowdrey v. G, H. & H. E Co., tract right to a liberal contingent 93 U. S. 352; Ex parte Jaffray, In re fee. Frink v. McComb, 60 Fed. E. Waite & Crocker, 1 Low. 321; Ex 486. parte Plitt, 2 Wall. Jr. 453. * Where the amount collected was 8 Fechheimer v. Baum, 43 Fed. E $35,869.77, the plaintiff's counsel was 719; Central R. & B. Co. v. Pettus, allowed ten per cent, thereof. Harri- 113 U. S. 116, 128, Where counsel son v. Perea, 168 U. S. 311, 317. See were paid $2,000 for disbursements also Adams v. Kepler M. Co., 38 Fed. and it was agreed that their compen- E 281. As to the extent of an attor- sation should be liberal in case of ney's lien, see Mass. & So. Const Co. 48 754 costs. [§ 337. however, will the personal expenses and compensation for the personal services of a person, not a trustee, who has engaged in litigation in behalf of himself and others, be included in them. 5 § 337. Taxation of costs. — Costs as between party and party are taxed by a judge or clerk of the court upon notice to the adverse party, .and are included in and form a portion of the judgment or decree. 1 To each bill of costs should be attached an affidavit by some person acquainted with the facts, stating that the services for which fees are charged were performed. 2 It has been said that the court will not on the taxation enforce a stipulation that disbursements not allowed by rule or stat- ute may be included in the bill of costs. 3 The bills when taxed must be filed with the papers in the cause. 4 "When the taxation is by the clerk, a motion for a retaxation of the costs may be made before, or an appeal taken to, a judge of the court. 5 A party who objects to a charge in lump should de- mand a specification of the items, of which it is composed. 8 "Where there is a dispute as to a question of fact, material to the taxation of a bill of costs, a reference may be had to an auditor. 7 Costs as between solicitor and client are taxed by the court, usually by means of a reference to a master. 8 It has been held that a Circuit Court of Appeals may reverse a decree for an error in taxing costs as between party and party. 9 An appeal lies from a decree awarding costs as between so- licitor and client. 10 Upon such an appeal, the court may re- v. Tp. of Gill's Creek, 48 Fed. R. 145 J 'Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. Claflin v. Bannett, 51 Fed. R 693; 527; Central R. & B. Co. v. Pettus, Coe v. Western R Co., 65 Fed. R. 16. 113 U. S. 116; Cowdrey v. G, H. & A State statute regulating the allow- H. R Co., 93 U. S. 352. ances in a partition suit was followed 9 The City of Augusta (C. C. A.), 80 by a Federal court of equity. Willard Fed. R. 297. 307, citing O'Reilly v. v. Serpell, 62 Fed. R. 625. Morse, 15 How. 62, 124; Burn's v. * Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. Rosenstein, 135 TJ. S. 449, 456. But 527. see Du Bois v. Kirk. 158 U. S. 58, 67; § 337. 1 U. S. R S., § 983. Gamewell F. A. Tel. Co. v. Municipal 2U. S. R S., § 984; Jerman v. Stew- Signal Co. (C. C. A.), 77 Fed. R 490; art, 12 Fed. R. 271. Blanks v. Klein (C. C. A), 78 Fed. R 3 Lee v. Simpson, 42 Fed. R 434. 395, and cases there cited. * U. S. R S., § 983. io Where the Supreme Court af- 6 Re Strauss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. R. firmed a decree with costs of the Cir- 467; Tuck v. Olds, 28 Fed. R 883. cuit Court as well as of the Supreme * Dedekam v. Vose, 3 Blatchf. 153. Court, it was held that the Circuit i Bottomley v. U. S., 1 Story, 153. Court had no power to grant costs § 338.] SECURITY FOE COSTS. 755 verse the decree if the costs have been awarded upon errone- ous principles ; " but will very rarely do so merely because it considers the sum allowed for a counsel fee too large. 12 § 338. Security for costs. — A complainant who does not re- side within the district may be compelled to give security for costs. 1 Such security may also be required of a non-resident defendant to a bill of interpleader when he takes aggressive action. 3 In order to obtain an order compelling such security, the defendant must move for it as soon as he ascertains the plaintiff's residence. 3 If he takes after such discovery any step in the cause before moving, it seems that he thereby waives his right to security, 4 unless a necessity for unforeseen disburse- ments, such as the expense of a reference, subsequently arises. 4 Upon a failure to file security when required, the plaintiff's pro- ceedings will be stayed. 6 A plaintiff's proceedings may also be stayed until he pays the costs of another suit between the same parties upon the same cause of action in which he was unsuccessful, even if that other suit was in a State court, 7 or a Federal court in another district, 8 and, it has been held, when the other suit was in forma pawperis? When one of several plaint- iffs is a resident of the district, it seems that no security for costs will be required. 10 If the defendant do not demand se- curity for costs within a reasonable time, that such security has not been given will not, when the cause is called for trial, as between solicitor and client out 3 Migliorucci v. Migliorucci, 1 Dick, of the fund. Mason v. Pewabic Min- 147; Foster vlSwasey, 2 W. & M. 217; ing Co., 153 IT. S. 361, 366. Bliss v. Brooklyn, 10 Blatch. 217; " Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. . Prince v. Towns, 33 Fed. R. 161. 527; Central R. & B. Co. v. Pettus, 4 Migliorucci v. Migliorucci, 1 Dick. 113 U. S. 116. 147 ; Foster v. Swasey, 2 W. & M. 217 ; 12 Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. Bliss v. Brooklyn, 10 Blatchf. 217; 527; Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U. S. 78; Prince v. Towns, 33 Fed. R. 161. But Sloan v. Mitchell (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R. see Stewart v. The Sun, 36 Fed. R. 307. 89. But see Central R. & B. Co. v. 6 Uhle v. Burnham, 46 Fed. R. 500. Pettus, 113 U. S. 116. 6 Fox v. Blew, 5 Madd. 147. § 338. i Lyman V. & R. Co. v. South- ' Buckles v. C, M. & St. P. R. Co., ard, 12 Blatchf. 405. But see Wood- 47 Fed. R. 434. worth v. Sherman, 3 Story, 171. The 8 Kimble v. Western Union TeL Minnesota rule requiring the plaint- Co., 70 Fed. R. 888. iff in every case to give security for 9 Ibid. costs means only the clerk's costs. "Winthrop v. Royal Exch. Ass. Robinson v. Honstain, 79 Fed. R. 678. Co., 1 Dickens, 282; Walker v. East- 2 Gross & Phillipps Mfg. Co. v. Ger- erby, 6 Ves. 612; Gilbert v. Gilbert, hard, 8 Rep. 136. 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 603. 756 costs. [§ 338. be a ground for a continuance. 11 "Where a plaintiff has recov- ered judgment against a solvent defendant, and process is out- standing in the nature of an execution to collect the same, it is not proper to require the plaintiff to make a deposit to secure costs due a commissioner. 12 It was held in New York, by Chancellor Kent, that a person who sued in another's right, as an executor or administrator, could not be compelled to give security for costs ; 13 but the receiver of a national bank ap- pointed by the Comptroller, when suing in another district, has been compelled to file security for costs. 14 The United States and parties suing or defending under the direction of any De- partment of the government are by statute exempted from lia- bility to give security for costs, at least upon appeals and writs of error. 15 Persons allowed to sue m forma pauperis are not obliged to file security for costs originally or on appeal. 16 The usual security required is a bond or undertaking with a suffi- cient surety for two hundred and fifty dollars, 17 but the plaint- iff may at any stage of the case be obliged to file additional se- curity. 18 In one case a bond for two thousand dollars was required. 19 In the District of Ohio it is held that a surety to a bond is a party to the suit, and that his liability can be en- forced by summary proceedings after the final decree ; that the statute of limitations does not begin to run in his favor until the final decree ; and that security " for costs " includes the costs of an appeal. 20 Where a State statute made the indorser of a writ liable for the costs, it was held that he remained liable l for costs in both State and Federal courts after a removal. 21 "Hawkins v. Willbank, 4 Wash. i«27 St. at L., 252; Boyle v. Great 285. N. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. R. 539; supra, 12 U. S. v. St. Charles Co., 31 Fed. § 200. B. 442. 17 Deprez v. Thomson-Houston EL 13 Goodrich v. Pendleton, 3 J. Ch. Co., 66 Fed. R 22. (N. Y.) 520. See Cathcart v. Hewson, » Ibid. 1 Hayes, 173. "Ibid. " Piatt v. Adriance, 90 Fed. R 772. so M'Claskey v. Barr, 79 Fed. R 408. i» U. S. R.S.,§1001. The costs are "Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. paid out of the contingent fund of Washburne, 66 Fed. R 790. the department which authorized the suit, defense or appeal. CHAPTEE XXVI. ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND ORDERS. § 339. Enforcement of decrees and orders in general. — Decrees and orders are enforced in seven ways: by writ of execution, 1 by attachment, 2 by writ of sequestration,* by writ of assistance, 4 by the action of the court itself through the medium of a master B or receiver, 6 and by bills to carry decrees into execution. 7 Equity Rule 10 provides as follows : "Every person, not being a party in any cause, who has obtained an order, or in whose favor an order shall have been made, shall be enabled to enforce obedience to such order by the same pro- cess as if he were a party to the cause ; and every person not being a party in any cause, against whom obedience to any order of the court may be enforced, shall be liable to the samo process for enforcing obedience to such orders as if he were a party in the cause." § 340. Executions. — The rules provide that "final process to execute any decree may, if the decree be solely for the pay- ment of money, be by a writ of execution, in the form used in the Circuit Court in suits at common law in actions of assump- sit." 1 A decree for a deficiency after a sale of mortgaged property in a foreclosure suit is enforced in the same manner. 2 By a statute passed June 1, 1872, and re-enacted December 1, 1873, "the party recovering a judgment in any common-law cause in any Circuit or District Court, shall be entitled to sim- ilar remedies upon the same, by execution or otherwise, to reach the property of the judgment debtor, as are now provided in like causes by the laws of the Sta^e in which such court is held, or by any such laws hereinafter enacted which are adopted by general rules of such Circuit or District Court ; and such courts § 339. 1 g§ 340, 380. « Ch. XVIL 2 §§341-346. 7§349o. . s §347. ' §340. 1 Rule a See §380. < § 348. 2 Rule 93. 5 8 349. 758 ENFORCEMENT OP DEOBEES AND OEDEE8. [§ 340. may, from time to time, by general rules, adopt such State laws as may hereafter be in force in such State in relation to remedies upon judgments, as aforesaid by execution or other- wise," 3 In cases where an appeal lies to or a writ of error may issue from the Supreme Court, 4 or from a Circuit Court of Appeals, 5 the execution cannot issue until the expiration of ten days from the entry of the decree or judgment. The writ may, however, be previously prepared by the clerk. 6 The mar- shal in the courts of the United States has duties analogous to those of the sheriff in the different States. 7 It is his duty " to attend the District and Circuit Courts when sitting in his dis- trict, and to execute throughout the district all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the authority of the United States; and he shall have power to command all necessary as- sistance in the execution of his duty." 8 He has the right under the direction of the Attorney-General to protect judges of the courts of the United States while in the discharge of their official duties, and while on their way to hold court, and if necessary, to take human life in their defense. 9 " The mar- shals and their deputies have, in each State, the same powers in executing the laws of the United States, as the sheriffs and their deputies in such State have by law, in executing the laws thereof." 10 Under these provisions of the Ee vised Statutes, the marshal or his deputy, if resisted when in the performance of his duty, may call to his aid a sufficient force from his dis- trict, called the posse eomitatus, or power of his county, from the corresponding force which the sheriff or county officer has at his command, 11 — that is, such number of men as are neces- sary for his assistance in the execution of the writs of the United States; and therein every person above the age of fif- teen and able to travel is bound to be aiding, and if they re- s' U. S. R S., § 916. See Lamaster 9 In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1; s. C 39 v. Keeler, 123 U. S. 376; and infra, Fed. R. 833. § 380. lll U. S. R S., § 788; In re Neagle, < U. S. R S., § 1008. 135 U. S. 1, 68. It has been held that BDanielson v. Northwestern Fuel this gives to the marshals the same Co., 55 Fed. R 49. and no more power to arrest without 6 Board of Com'rs v, Gorman, 19 a warrant than is conferred by the Wall. 661. State statutes upon the said officers. 1 1n re Neagle, 135 17. S. 1; S. C 39 In re Acker, 66 Fed. R. 290, 294. Fed. R 833; U. S. R &, § 788. " 6 Op. Atty. Gen. 466, 469. »U. S. RS., g787. § 340.] executions. 759 fuse to assist, may be punished by fine and imprisonment. 12 It has been said, that this force by the common law included all persons, whatever might be their occupation, whether civilians or not; and including the military of all denominations, — militia, soldiers, marines, — all of whom were alike bound to obey the commands of a sheriff or marshal. " The fact that they are organized as military bodies, under the immediate command of their own officers, does not in any wise affect their legal character. They are still the posse comitatvLs" 1S An act of Congress has, however, provided, that " it shall not be law- ful to employ any part of the army of the United States as a posse comitatus, or otherwise for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." M Under this statute, it seems that the aid of the army cannot be obtained by a marshal unless the President shall employ it to suppress insurrection after a proclamation commanding the insurgents to disperse.' 5 The marshal and his deputies may carry arms and use force in the execution of their official duty although a State statute forbids carrying concealed weapons; 16 but they may not make arrests nor carry arms outside of the districts for which they are appointed. 17 All writs of execution upon judgments or de- crees obtained in a Circuit or District Court, in any State which is divided into two or more districts, may run and be executed in any part of such State; but must be issued from and made returnable to the court wherein the judgment was obtained. 16 In such a case, the writ may be executed, by the marshal of the district from which it was issued, in the other district without any independent writ being directed to him for that purpose. 19 All writs of execution upon judgments obtained for the use of the United States, in any court thereof, in one State, may run and be executed in any other State or in any Territory, but they must be issued from, and made returnable to, the court wherein the judgment was obtained. 20 Where a marshal takes 12 Bac. Abr. Sheriff (11). hart, 47 Fed. R 802; Sifford's Case, 5 » 6 Op. Atty. Gen. 466, 473. Am. Law Reg. 659. » Act of June 18, 1878, § 15 ; 20 St. » Walker v. Lea, 47 Fed. R 643. at L 145; 1 Sup. U. S. R S. 363. " U. S. R S., § 985; infra, § 380. is 16 Op. Atty. Gen. 162; U. S. R S., " Prevost v. Gorrell, 5 W. N. C. (Pa.) g§ 5298, 5300. 151. i« U. S. ex rel. MoSweeney v. Full- *> U. S. R &, § 986. 760 ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND OEDEES. [§ 341. possession of property not subject to execution which is owned by a party to the writ, the case is one which arises under the laws of the United States, and the Federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction of a suit to recover the property. 21 So is a suit against a marshal for infringing a State, statute which had been adopted by a rule of a court of the United States. 22 It has been held that, where a marshal under an execution in equity has seized the property of a person not a defendant to the writ, such third person cannot file a petition pro interesse suo to recover possession, but that his remedy is an original bill, or an action at law; 23 that such a suit arises under the laws of the United States, when the marshal claims that the property belongs to the defendant to the writ; 24 but that it does not when the marshal makes no such claim. 25 §341. Contempts. — An attachment is the proper process to compel obedience to a decree or Qrder requiring the per- formance of a specific act other than the payment of money, 1 or to punish a contempt of court. 2 It seems, that in districts held in States where imprisonment for debt has been abolished, disobedience to a decree or order for the payment of money cannot be punished by attachment; 3 unless the defaulting party is an officer of the court, as an attorney, 4 or has bid in property at a judicial sale; 5 or the motion is made by a mas- ter or the clerk of the Supreme Court to compel payment of his fees. 6 The older cases both in the English Chancery and the Federal courts hold that it is a contempt to criticise in the press the conduct of the court, 7 and to publish anything which may create a prejudice against either party to a pending cause. 8 21 Front St. Cable Ey. Co. v. Drake, R 409; Nelson Morris & Co. v. Hill, 65 Fed. R. 539. 89 Fed. R, 477. 22 Sowles v. Witters, 46 Fed. R. 497. * Jeffries v. Laurie, 27 Fed. R. 195; 23 Ex parte Mensing, 55 Fed. R. 17. Re Pitman, 1 Curtis, 186; Bagley v. Contra, St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. Yates, 3 McLean, 465; The Laurens, Drake (C. C. A.), 73 Fed. R. 945; su- 1 Abb. Adm. 508; Re Paschal, 10 Wall. pra, § 917. 483; U. S. v. Mann, 2 Brock. 9. 24 Bock v. Perkins, 139 U. S. 628. « Camden v. Mayhew, 129 U. S. 73. » Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334. « Equity Rule 82; S. C. Rule 10. § 341. iRule 8; Mallory Mfg. Co. v. 'See the language of Lord Chan- Fox, 20 Fed. R 409. cellor Hardwicke in 2 Atk. 469, 471 ; 2U. S. R. S., § 725; Re Chiles, 22 Hollingsworth v. Duane, Wajl. C. C. WalL 157. 77, 100; U. S. v. Duane, WalL C. C. 102. a Mallory Mfg. Co. v. Fox, 20 Fed. »2 Atk. 469. § 341.] CONTEMPTS. 761 A case in which punishment was inflicted by Judge Peck for a criticism published upon one of his decisions led to his im- peachment trial before the Senate; and although he was ac- quitted, a statute was enacted which materially diminished the powers of the Federal courts to punish for contempt. 9 The courts of the United States have power " to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, contempts of their authority: Provided, that such power to punish contempts shall not be construed to extend to any cases except the mis- behavior of any person in their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, or by any party, juror, witness, or other persons, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the said courts." 10 Beyond this the Circuit and District Courts have no such power. 11 The act, just quoted in terms, applies to all courts. Whether it can be held to limit the authority of the Supreme Court, which derives its existence and powers from the Consti- tutionj is doubtful. 12 It has been held at circuit that a United States commissioner has no power to punish for contempt. 13 It has been held in Ohio, under a similar statute, that the pub- lication of charges of misconduct against a judge holding court, in a newspaper which the writer had reason to believe would be circulated and read in the court-room, and which was thus circulated and read, is " misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court or judge, as to obstruct the administra- tion of court or justice." u It is a contempt for a public officer 9 V. S. R S., § 725. E. 774, 780. It has been held that it 10 U. S. R. S., § 725. is a contempt to represent by words 11 Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, and by printed circulars that a sale 510. under an execution is invalid, and 12 Field, J., in Ex parte Robinson, that any one who buys will become 19 "Wall. 505, 510. involved in litigation. InreSowles, is In re Mason, 43 Fed. R. 510; Ex 41 Fed. R. 752. The writing, by a parte Doll, 7 Phila. 595; Ex parte State officer, of a letter refusing a Perkins, 29 Fed. R. 900. license permitting 1 a foreign corpo- H Myers v. State, 21 W. L. Bull. 404; ration to do business within the s. C, 22 N. E. R. 43. See Cooper v. State, which states as his reason for People, 13 Colo. 337. It has been such refusal the conduct by the ap- said that a false report of a decision plicant in certain litigation in a Fed- is, " in its essence, a common-law eral court, is not a contempt. Hill- contempt of court.'' Gorham Mfg. mon v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 79 Fed, Co. v. Emery B. T. D. E. Co., 92 Fed. R. 749. ?62 ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND OBDERS. [§ 341. to attempt to unlawfully dispossess the court, its officers or its records from rooms in which they are located. 15 The seizure by a sheriff, under State process, of property in the custody of a deputy marshal after its sale by the marshal, but before its delivery to the buyer, is a contempt of the Federal court. 16 Misbehavior in the presence of the court may consist in an as- sault, 1 ' or in abusive language addressed to the court I8 or one of its officers, 19 or any person there. 20 Similar conduct in an ante-room of the court or so near the court- room as to be heard therein is also punishable as a contempt. 21 It has been said to be a contempt for an attorney to carry a pistol into court. 22 A hearing before a master in chancery or examiner is, for this purpose, treated as a proceeding in court. 23 The cases affecting receivers have been cited in the chapter on Receivers. 24 Pro- ceedings before a grand jury are considered to be in the pres- ence of the court; 25 and an attempt in the hall adjoining the room where a grand jury is in session to bribe a witness sum- moned before it is a contempt of court. 26 Bribery of a witness in the town where the court is held has been held to be a con- tempt within the statute. 27 It was held to be a contempt of court to sue in a court of another State a party while there for the purpose of attending the taking of a deposition ; and a fine of the expenses of such suit, including the counsel fees therein, is In re Lyman, 55 Fed. R 29. re Terry, 36 Fed. R. 419. 16 Sabin v. Fogarty, 70 Fed. R 482. 2 « U. S. v. Emerson, 4 Cranch, C. C. Where a marshal who had replevied 188; U. S. v. Carter, 3 Cranch, C. C goods allowed the plaintiff's agents 423. to put them in a car and to procure 2 i U. S. v. Emerson, 4 Cranch, C. C. a shipping receipt and bill of lading 188. for the same, directed to a stranger 22 Sharon v. Hill, 24 Fed. R 726. to the suit, it was held that the prop- 23 Sharon v. Hill, 24 Fed. R 726; erty had passed out of the custody of U. S. v. Anonymous, 21 Fed. R 761. the Federal court and that a sheriff 24 See § 249. who levied a State writ of attach- 2S Savin, Petitioner, 131 TJ. S. 267. ment upon them was not guilty of 26 Ibid. contempt. Animarium Co. v. Bright, 27 In re Brule, 71 Fed. R. 943. For 83 Fed. R 197. a case where it was held, that a man 1' Sharon v. Hill, 24 Fed. R 726; was guilty of contempt for failing to Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; In re attend in obedience to a subpoena Terry, 36 Fed. R 419; TJ. S; v. Pat- and to present to the court the facts terson, 26 Fed, R 509. which excused him from attendance; is Ex parte Terry, 128 U. a 289; In see Carman v. Emerson (C. C, A), 71 re Terry, 36 Fed. R 419. Fed. R 264 w Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; In § 341.] CONTEMPTS. T63 was imposed upon the party who brought it. 28 It has been said to be a contempt of court to bring before it a collusive suit. 29 An officer of the court may be punished by attachment for his misbehavior in office after his term of office has expired by resignation or otherwise. 30 An attorney 31 or other officer 32 of the court may be thus compelled to pay to a person named in the order money received by him in his official capacity. Where, however, there is room for a reasonable doubt as to how much is due from the officer, the court will usually refuse to proceed against him summarily, and require the complaining party to begin a suit. 33 A juror has been punished for con- tempt because he had talked about the case in violation of the court's direction to the contrary. 34 It is a contempt of court for a person to assist another, whether acting as the latter's agent or otherwise, in committing an act which has been for- bidden to himself in an injunction issued against him individ- ually. 35 A person not a party to the suit may be punished for a violation of an injunction against a corporation when he is a controlling member of the same and controlled part of the litigation for the defense. 36 A person not a party to the suit 28 Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. E. 17, defendant corporation which, when 45-47. But see Blight v. Fisher, Pet enjoined from selling a certain cor- C. C. 41. dial in certain bottles with a particu- 29 Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 351; lar label, Sold its entire stock of cor- Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, dials with such bottles and labels to a 419. third person, under an arrangement so The Laurens, 1 Abb. Adm. 508. that he would fill all orders for the 81 In re Paschal, 10 Wall. 483; Jef- cordial which the defendant should fries v. Laurie, 27 Fed. R 195. receive, was guilty of contempt; al- 82 Re Pitman, 1 Curt. 186; Bagley though it did not share in the profits v. Yates, 3 McLean, 465; The Laur- of such sales, and although it acted ens, 1 Abb. Adm. 508. under advice of counsel. Societe 83 See In re Paschall, 10 Wall. 483; Anonyme v. Western Distilling Co., U. S. v. Mann, 2 Brock. 9. 42 Fed. R. 96. It was held that a de- 84 Re May, 1 Fed. R 737; U. S. v. fendant had violated an injunction Devaughan, 3 Cranch, C. C. 84. against his "making, using or vend- 85 Dadirrian v. Gullian, 79 Fed. R ing for use " certain specified arti- 784 A person enjoined from the in- cles, where, after the injunction, he fringement of a patent was held to sold such an article previously man- commit a contempt by contributing ufactured. A. B. Dick Co. v. Wick- to a fund to defray the expenses of an- elman, 89 Fed. R 95; other who was contesting the valid- 36 Stahl v. Ertel. 62 Fed. R. 920; ity of a patent. Bate Ref . Co. v. Gillett, American Const. Co. v. Jacksonville, 30 Fed. R 683. It has been held: that a T. & K. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. R. 937. 764 ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND ORDERS. [§ 341. who assists a party in violating an injunction may be punished for a contempt. 37 A person is not relieved from punishment for contempt because lie acted in good faith under the advice of counsel that he was not infringing the court's order; 38 but such advice may be considered in mitigation of the damages. 39 And if the question as to whether he is in contempt is doubt- ful, the court will not punish him. 40 A violation of an order may be punished when it was the result of negligence, but not wilful disobedience. 41 A court has no jurisdiction to punish for contempt an act not forbidden at the time of its commission ; nor can it accom- plish such a result by the entry of an order nunc pro tunc as of a date prior to the commission of the act, 42 except in a case where the judge has announced orally from the bench a de- cision that an injunction issue, when the order may be entered as of the date of such decision, and a subsequent act may be punished accordingly, even if committed before the formal entry of the order. 43 It has been held that a court has no juris- . diction to punish as a contempt a violation of an oral stipula- tion made in open court. 44 A domestic or foreign corporation, as well as an individual, may be fined for a contempt. 45 A re- cent statute allows any Circuit Court or judge of the United States to punish as for a contempt or otherwise the violation of an injunction granted by any Circuit Court of the United States or judge thereof restraining and enjoining the perform- ance or representation of a dramatic or musical composition. 46 Disobedience to a subpoena issued by a Circuit Court of one district ordering a witness to appear and testify before a mas- ter appointed to take testimony therein by the Circuit Court s' Ex parte Lennon, 64 Fed. R.820; «Ex parte Buskirk (C. C. A.), 72 S. a, 166 U. S. 548. Fed. R 14. 88 Atlantic G. P. Co. v. Dittraan P. 43 Ibid.; Kimpton v. Eve, 2 Ves. & Mfg. Co., 9 Fed. R 316; Ulman v. B. 349; Anon., 3 Atk. 567; James v. Ritter, 72 Fed. R 1000. Downs, 18 Ves. 522; Vansandan v. 89 Ulman v. Ritter, 72 Fed. R. 1000 Rose, 2 Jac. & W. 264; Koehler v. « California P. Co. v. Molitor, 113. Farmers' & D. Nat. Bank, 6 N. Y. U. S. 609; Onderdonk v. Fanning, 2 Supp. 470. Fed. R. 568; Lilienthal v. Wallaoh, "Ex parte Buskirk (C. C. A.), 72 37 Fed. R. 241; Truax v. Detweiler, Fed. R. 14, 20. 46 Fed. R. 117. 46 U. S. v. Memphis & L. R. R Co., « Indianapolis Water Co. v. Amer- 6 Fed. R. 237. ican Strawboard Co., 75 Fed. R. 972. «29 St. at. L. 482. § 342.] NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOE ATTACHMENT. 765 of another district is punishable by the court which issued the subpoena. 47 §342. Notice of application for attachment. — The rules provide that if a decree be for the performance of a specific act, other than the payment of money, it must prescribe the time within which the act shall be done, " of which the defendant shall be bound without further service to take notice ; " * and that, " except in cases where personal or other notice is spe- cially required or directed," an entry of an order in the order- book is sufficient notice thereof to the parties to the suit. 2 A party who has actual knowledge of the issue of an injunction may be punished for disobedience to the same, although he has not been served with a copy of the writ or order. 8 It is, how- ever, the safer practice to make personal service of a certified copy of a decree or order, disobedience to which it is desired to punish by an attachment. 4 In case of disobedience to a decree for the performance of a specific act, other than the payment of money, the rules direct the issue of an attachment ex pwrte by the clerk, upon the filing of an affidavit that the act has not been performed within the required time. 5 It is, however, the usual practice to give notice to the delinquent, of an applica- tion for an attachment, either by an order to show cause or otherwise. 6 An attachment may be issued at the request of a person not a party to the cause in whose favor an order has been made, or against a person not a party to the cause against whom obedience to an order can be enforced. 7 Notice of the application, when required, should be served personally upon « In re Spofford, 62 Fed. R 443. Jacksonville, T. & K. Ey. Co., 52 Fed. § 342. i Equity Rule 8. R 937. In the Southern District of 2 Equity Rule 4 New York the rules provide for four 3 Ex parte Lennon, 64 Fed. R 3S0; days' notice. Where the notice named s. a, 166 U. S. 548. a defendant corporation " and its of- * In re Cary, 10 Fed. R 622; In re ficers " as the objects of the contempt Lloyd, 10 Beav. 451. But see Re proceedings, without specifying the Feeny, 1 Hask. 304; s. C, 4 N. B. R. individual officers, it was held that [70] 233; Skip v. Harwood, 3 Atk. 564; any officer served with the notice Hearn v. Tenant, 14 Ves. 136; People might be attached. American Const. v. Brower, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 405. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. Ry. Co., e Rule 8. 52 Fed. R 937. 6 Worcester v. Truman, 1 McLean, 7 Equity Rule 10. See King v. Mo- 483; Fischer v. Hayes. 6 Fed. R 63. Lean Asylum of M. G. Hospital (C. C. Six days' notice has been held to be A.), 64 Fed. R 325. reasonable. American Const. Co. v. J66 ENFOECEMENT OF DECEEES AND OEDEES. [§ 343. the person thereby affected. 8 If a party conceals himself to avoid personal service of the notice, perhaps notice may be served upon an attorney who has appeared for him in the pro- ceeding in which the contempt was committed. 9 § 343. Hearing upon applications for attachments. — "When the contempt was committed in the presence of the court, no notice nor trial of any disputed question of fact is necessary. 1 It has been held at circuit that in any other case, at least when an attachment has' been issued, a person charged with contempt may demand that interrogatories be filed con- cerning the facts which, it is claimed, constitute his offense; and that, if he denies the facts charged under oath, he cannot be punished, — the only remedy being an indictment against him for perjury : 2 but a recent decision of the Supreme Court seems contrary to these rulings; 3 and it seems that this never was the rule in equity. 4 He cannot be compelled to answer interrogatories. 5 Otherwise, when at the argument of the mo- tion for an attachment the party accused of disobedience de- nies the charge, the court may either determine the disputed question of fact upon such affidavits as are then presented to it, or refer the question to a master. 6 If it finds the charge proved, or the master so report and his report be con- firmed, the court may then punish the offender by fine or im- prisonment, and, if a fine be imposed, may direct him " to stand committed till paid." 7 The court cannot punish a contempt by striking out an answer or by refusing a hearing upon the mer- its. 8 The court may make a preliminary order directing that 8 Gray v. Chicago, L & N. R. Co., 1 6 Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 68 ; U. S. Woolw. 63; Hollingsworth v. Duane, v. Debs, 64 Fed. R. 724. See Wood- Wall. C. C. 141. ruff v. North Bl. G. M. Co., 45 Fed. R. 9 Eureka L. & Y. C. Co. v. Superior 139. In the absence of a denial, ma- tt of Yuba County, 116 IT. S. 410, 418. chines or articles sold under the same § 343. i Ex parte Terry. 128 U. S. name as those the sale of which was 289; In re Terry, 36 Fed. R. 419. enjoined will be presumed to be of 2 U. S. v. Dodge, 2 GalL 313; Hoi- the same character. Stahl v. Ertel, lingsworth v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 77. 62 Fed. R. 920; Stebbins v. Duncan, See U. S. v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 103. 108 U. S. 32, 48; Brown v. Metz, 33 3 Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267. 111. 339. < U. S. v. Anon., 11 Fed. R. 761. See 7 Fischer v. Hayes,6 Fed. R 63; U. & U. S. v. Debs, 64 Fed. R. 724 R. S., § 725. 6 Hollingsworth v. Duane, Wall « Hovey v. Elliott* 167 U. S. 409. C. C. 77. See U. S. v. Duane, Wall C. C. 102. § 343.] HEAKING UPON APPLICATIONS FOB ATTACHMENTS. 767 he be fined; determining the principles with regard to which the amount of the fine should be estimated; and directing either the submission of the amount to the court upon affida- vits, or a reference to a master for that purpose. 9 When an injunction against the infringement of a patent has been vio- lated, the fine may include the profits made by the defendant by his contemptuous acts; and in that case the order may direct that that part of the fine be paid to the complainant. 10 When the contempt consisted in the institution of a suit, the fine should include the expenses of the defense of such suit in- cluding reasonable counsel fees, which must be paid to the party against whom the contemptuous suit was brought. 11 A reasonable counsel fee for the contempt proceedings is usually included in the fine. 12 In these cases the writ of attachment does not issue till after the final order. " In proceedings in equity between parties to a suit for contempt in not obeying the process of the court, or any order or decree in the cause, the proceedings in equity between parties to a suit for con- tempt in not obeying the process of the court, or any order or decree in the cause, the proceedings on the attachment may be, and usually are, entitled as in the original suit, though it is not irregular to entitle them in the name of The People, on the relation of the person prosecuting the attachment against the defendant or party proceeded against. Where the attach- ment proceeding for a contempt is against a witness, or a per- son not a party to> the suit, the practice is to entitle the order for attachment, and all subsequent proceedings thereon, in the name of The People, on the relation, etc." 1S On a motion for a commitment for contempt when served with a subpoena, it was held that two witnesses must be produced to prove con- temptuous words, but that one was sufficient to prove a battery upon the process-server. 14 A State statute regulating the prac- 9 Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63. 7 Paige (N. Y.),235; Stafford v. Brown, i<>Searlesv.Worden,13Fed.R716; 4 Paige (N. Y.), 360; U. S. ex rel. S. C. as Worden v. Searles, 121 U. S. Southern Exp. Co. v. Memphis & L. 14;InreMullee,7Blatchf.23; Double- R Co., 6 Fed. R. 237. But see TJ. S. day v. Sherman, 8 Blatohf. 45. v. Wayne, Wall. C. C. 134. " Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R. 747. 14 Anon., 3 Atkyns, 219. Astosuffi- 12 Stahl v. Ertel, 62 Fed. R 920. ciency of proof, see U. a v. Jose, 63 K»Blatchford,J.,inFischerv.Hayes, Fed. R 951. 6 Fed. R. 63. See also People v. Craft, 768 ENFOECEMENT OF DECEEES AND OEDEES. [§ 344. tice in contempt proceedings does not affect the practice in the Federal courts. 15 But criminal proceedings to punish contempts are, to a certain extent, by statute assimilated like other crim- inal proceedings to the State practice. 16 It has been said that proceedings to punish for contempt of court are of a criminal rather than a civil nature ; 17 but that the offense is not a fel- ony, but more in the nature of a misdemeanor. 18 § 344. Order of commitment. — It is better practice for the order committing a person for contempt to recite the offense charged, although it seems that this is not necessary if it de- scribes the same by reference to other proceedings. 1 It has been said that an order committing a person for contempt can- not be altered at a subsequent term of the court; 2 that the court cannot subsequently discharge the party committed upon proof of his inability to comply with the order, his remedy being an application to the President for a pardon; 3 and that such an order is void if it does not express or limit the term of imprisonment. 4 Before the Evarts Act no appeal lay from an order committing a person for contempt. 5 If such an order is void, the prisoner may be discharged on habeas corpus, 6 but not for irregularities, 7 nor for the erroneous construction of a statute, 8 when the court had jurisdiction to grant the order. 15 Searles v. Worden, 13 Fed. R. 716. 63 Fed. R 1001). It has since been held 16 In re Riker, 66 Fed. R 290. by the same court that such an order 17 Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; cannot be reviewed by writ of error. In re Pitman, 1 Curtis, 186; Fischer v. Nassau El. R. Co. v. Sprague El. N. Y. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63; Hayes v. Fischer, & M. Co., 95 Fed. R 415, which fol- 102 U.S. 121; New Orleans v. Steam- lows In re Debs, 158 IT. S. 564, 573. ship Co., 20 WalL 387; Re Manning, See, however, In re Spofford, 62 Fed. .44 Fed. R. 275. R. 443. The Supreme Court has re- is In re Acker, 66 Fed. R 290. fused to review by writ of error the § 344. l Fischer v. Hayes,6 Fed. R.63. judgments of a State court denying 2 Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R 63. an application to punish a party for 8 Re Mullee, 7 Blatchf. 23. contempt, where it was claimed that 4 Matter of Marsh, Mac A. & M. the obligation of a contract was im- (D. C.) 82. paired by such denial. Newport 5 Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U. S. 121. It Light Co. v. Newport, 151 U. S. 527. was held by the Circuit Court of Ap- <* Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713; Ex peals for the Second Circuit that parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289. See §§366, under the Evarts Act such an order 367, infra. could be reviewed by writ of error ' Savin, Petitioner, 131 TJ. S. 267, (Gould v. Sessions, 67 Fed. R. 163; But- 279; Stevens v. Fuller, 136 U. S. 468, ler v. Fayer weather, 91 Fed. R 458); 478. See g§ 366, 367, infra. but not by appeal (Sessions v. Gould, 8 In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164; In re §§ 345, 346.] execution of weit of attachment. 769 Upon an appeal from the final decree so much of an order fining a party for contempt as gave indemnity to his antag- onist may be reviewed, 9 but not so much of the fine as was im- posed solely by way of punishment to vindicate the dignity of the court. 10 A prisoner committed for a contempt is not enti- tled to any credit for good behavior. 11 §345. Writ of attachment. — An attachment is a writ di- rected to the marshal of the court, sealed and bearing teste in the same manner as a writ of subpoena, 1 directing him to attach the body of the person named therein, and to safely keep the same, so that he can produce the person or persons thus at- tached in court at a certain day termed the return day of the writ, or until the further order of the court. 2 The writ must be indorsed with the special reason for which it is issued, and also with the name and address of the solicitor of the party issuing it. 3 The writ may be issued either in' vacation or in term; and may be returnable immediately; provided, at least, that the party against whom it is issued then dwells or is within twenty miles of the place of holding the court. Otherwise, a period of fifteen days between the teste and the return might be required. 4 § 346. Execution of writ of attachment. — The first thing to be done after the writ has been issued is to deliver it to the marshal to whom it is directed, or to one of his deputies author- ized by him to receive such writs. 1 Although the writ is al- ways directed to the marshal of the judicial district within which it is to be executed, 2 it is usually executed by one of his deputies. The marshal and his deputy can only execute the writ within the district for which he has been appointed ; * and not then against a person who has been brought there by force or fraud, or under such circumstances as would make it im- proper to serve a subpoena upon him; 4 and probably not upon Lennon, 150 U. S. 393; In re Swan, * Acts of 11 Geo. IV. and 1 Wm. IV., 150 U. S. 637; infra, § 366. ch. 36, § 15, note 3. » Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14, 36. § 346. i U. S. R S., § 787. io New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 20 2 U. S. R S., § 787. Wall. 387. s U. S. R. S., § 787; In the Matter of Uln re Terry, 37 Fed. R 649. Allen, 13 Blatchf. 271; Voss v. Luke, § 345. 1 See U. S. R. S., g 911. 1 Cranoh, C. C. SSI; Sommerville v. 2 Braithwaite's Pr. 159-161. French, 1 Cranch, C. C. 474. * Braithwaite's Pr. 159. 4 In the Matter of Allen, 13 Blatcht- 49 "770 ENFORCEMENT OF DECEEES AND OBDEBS. [§ 346. Sunday, 5 nor usually in the court-room. 6 If a writ is to be exe- cuted in a different district from that within which the court issuing it is situated, it should be directed to the marshal of that district. 7 This has been held proper, when the writ issues to attach, for disobedience to a subpoena, a witness who lives within a hundred miles of the place of holding the court. 8 It has been held that in other cases this cannot be done ; 9 but that, on presentation of a certified copy of the contempt proceedings and of the writ of attachment, the district attorney of the dis- trict where the delinquent is, may obtain from a commissioner of that district a warrant for the arrest of the party in con- tempt, who is then entitled to an examination, pending which he may be discharged on bail; and that if the commissioner decides to hold the party in contempt, the judge of that dis- trict may issue a warrant for his removal as in other criminal cases. 10 If the delinquent be already in custody, either upon criminal sentence or civil process, no further arrest is necessary ; but the marshal should give notice of the attachment, which notice is called a detainer, to the keeper or jailer in whose cus- tody he is. 11 If a return day be appointed in a writ, and it be issued to enforce obedience to an interlocutory order, the marshal may, but is not obliged to, allow the delinquent to go at large with pr without security for his surrender to him upon the return day. 12 If the delinquent do not then surrender himself to the marshal's custody, the latter and his bondsmen are responsible for all damages which the court shall determine have resulted therefrom to the party at whose instance the writ was issued. 18 It seems, however, that this cannot be done when the writ is issued for a refusal to perform a specific act in obedi- 271. And see authorities cited under But see Henry v. Ricketts, 1 Cranch, S§ 98, 277. Of. Wroe v. Clayton, 16 C. C. 580. Simons, 183. »Ex parte Graham, 3 Wash. C. C. s 29 Car. II, oh. 12, § 6. And see au- 456, 462 ; Re Manning, 44 Fed. R. 275. thorities cited under § 84. w U. S. v. Jacobi, 4 Am. L. T. R. « U. S. v. Scholfield, 1 Cranch, C. C. 148, 151, 152; Re Manning, 44 Fed. R. 130; Davis v. Sherron, 1 Cranch, C. C. 275. 287. •" Trotter v. Trotter, Jacob, 533. 7 Voss v. Luke, 1 Cranch, C. C. 331; ™ Morris v. Hay ward, 6 Taunt. 569; Sommerville v. French, 1 Cranch, C. Studd v. Acton, 1 H. Blk. 468. C. 474 " Moore v. Moore, 25 Beav. 8; U. S. s Voss v. Luke, 1 Cranch, C. C. 331. R. 8., §§ 783-786. § 346.] EXECUTION OF WEIT OF ATTACHMENT. 771 ence to a decree. 14 According to an old writer, it seems that when the marshal " has taken up the body he has paid obedi- ence to the writ, though he does not actually bring him up to the court; because the contempt only induces a commitment, which is satisfied by imprisonment in the county gaol." 15 If, however, he be specially ordered so to do, he must obey. Upon the return day of the writ the marshal should make a return thereto. He cannot detain the party named in the writ after the return day, unless by the court's order. 16 There are three ordinary returns upon a writ of attachment: Fvrst, if the delin- quent cannot be arrested, the marshal returns, " The within- named John .Stiles is not found in my bailiwick," — this is termed a non est inventus, and upon it further process of con- tempt is grounded ; second, if the delinquent has been arrested, but the marshal has either accepted bail for his appearance or keeps him in his own custody, the return is, " I have attached the within named John Stiles, as within I am commanded, whose body I have ready," — this is called accepi corpus; third, if the marshal has arrested the delinquent and lodged him in jail, or, finding him there, has lodged a detainer against him, the marshal returns, " I have attached the within-named John Stiles, whose body remains in [naming the jail or prison] in my custody." 17 Although the return is regularly made by the marshal, no matter by whom the writ has been executed, it will not be void if made by his deputy. 18 If the marshal re- fuse to make any return he may be compelled to do so, by means of an order to show cause followed by an attachment against him. 19 When the marshal or his deputy is a party to a cause, or probably when a writ of attachment is issued against either of them, the writs and precepts therein must be directed to such disinterested person as the court or any justice or judge thereof may appoint, and the person so appointed may execute and return them. 20 In such a case the person serving the pro cess should make affidavit thereof. 21 A person arrested ir « Rule S; Cowdry v. Cross, 34 Beav. » Spafford v. Goodell, 3 McLean, 9" 445. 19 U. S. v. ScroggJns, 3 Woods, 529 is Gilbert's Ch. 83. Daniell's Ch. Pr. 470. is Ex parte Burford, 1 Cranoh, C. a 20 U. S. R S., § 923; Rule 15. 456. - "Rule 15. "Braithwaite's Pr. 272, 281. 772 ENFOECEMENT OF DECEBES AND OBDEBS. [§ 347. criminal proceedings to punish for a contempt is entitled to an examination before a magistrate if so entitled by the State practice. 22 § 347. Sequestration. — The process of sequestration is a writ or commission issuing under the seal of the court, directed either to the marshal or to certain persons of the plaintiff's nomination, empowering him or them to enter upon and se- quester the real and personal estate of a defendant (or some particular parcel of his lands), and lo take, receive, and se- quester the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and keep the same in their hands, or pay the same in such manner and to such persons as the court shall in its discretion appoint, until such defendant shall have performed some matter, previously or- dered by the court, in the process specifically mentioned, for not doing whereof he is in contempt. 1 This is one of the oldest writs of the court of chancery, and has been the cause of many conflicts between the English chancellors and the courts of common law. 2 Much curious history and learning upon the subject invite the attention of the antiquarian; but, as the writ is now rarely used, little space will be devoted to it in this work. By the Equity Rules, whenever the marshal has re- turned non est inventus under a writ of attachment, a writ of sequestration may issue to compel obedience to a decree or order of the court. 3 The writ, when not issued to the marshal, appoints two or more sequestrators. 4 The usual number is four. 5 The sequestrators are officers of the court, and as such are subject to new directions during their discharge of their functions, 6 may be attached for disobedience or misconduct, 7 and, if resistance be made to them, may be aided by the court with the exercise of its process of contempt, 8 or by a writ of assistance. Sequestrators must from time to time account , 22 In re Acker, 66 Fed. R. 290. « Hinde's Ch. Pr. 138; Daniell's Ch. § 847. i Hinde's Ch. Pr. 127; Hoff- Pr., ch. xxv, § 7; Hoffman's Ch. Pr.. man's Ch. Pr., ch. iii, § 10; Daniell's ch. iii, § 10. Ch. Pr., ch. xxv, § 7. " Lord Pelham v. Lord Harley, 3 2 Gilbert's Forum Romanum, 78; Swanst. 291, n. Daniell's Ch. Pr., ch. xxv, § 7. 8 Angel v. Smith, 9 Ves. 336; Lord 3 Rules 7 and 8. See Shainwald v. Pelham v. Duchess of Newcastle, 3 Lewis, 6 Fed. R. 766, 777. Swanst. 293, n.; Rule 9. 4 Hoffman's Ch. Pr., ch. iii, §10; a Lord Pelham v. Duchess of New- DanielFs Ch. Pr., ch. xxv, § 5. castle, 3 Swanst. 289, n.; Rule 9. 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr., ch. xxv, § 5. § 348.] WEIT OF ASSISTANCE. , 773 for what comes into their hands, and pay into court such money as they receive. 10 § 348. Writ of assistance.-— The Equity Kules provide that " when any decree or order is for the delivery of possession, upon proof made by affidavit of a demand and refusal to obey the decree or order, the party prosecuting the same shall be entitled to a writ of assistance from the clerk of the court;" 1 This is a writ commanding the marshal to eject the defendant from the land and put the plaintiff in possession ; and is exe- cuted in the same manner as a writ of habere facias posses- sionem is executed in favor of a successful plaintiff in the ac- tion of ejectment; 2 " in the execution of which the sheriff may take with him , the posse comitatus, or power of the county, and may justify breaking open doors, if the possession be not quietly delivered. But, if it be peaceably yielded up, the de- livery of a twig, a turf, or the ring of a door in the name of seisin, is sufficient execution of the writ." 8 This writ is often used to put into possession receivers 4 and sequestrators. 5 It is not issued without an order for that purpose. 6 It cannot issue against any but a party to the suit, or his representative, or one who came into possession under him since the suit was begun. 7 The grantee of the purchaser at a foreclosure sale where the court has ordered the receiver to put him in possession of the purchased property, and where the court has retained jurisdic- tion of the suit, may obtain a writ of possession. 8 The writ cannot be issued to put a party in possession of land beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and all acts of the marshal beyond such jurisdiction are unauthorized notwithstanding the command of the writ. 9 /, io Howell v. Lord Coningsby, 1 • Seton on Deoretes (4th,ed.), 1563. Fowl. Ex. Pr. 161; Deshrow v. Crom- 'Terrell v. Allison, 21 Wall. 289; mie, Bunb. 272. Howard v. Railway Co., 101 U. S. 837, § 34a i Rule 9. 849; Thompson v. Smith, 1 Dill. 458. 2 Hunter's Suit in Equity (6th ed.), 8 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chicago 168. & A. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 653, 658. But 3 Bl. Com. 412. see Van Hook V. Throckmorton, 8 4 Sharp v. Carter, 8 P. Wms. 375, Paige (N. Y.), 33; People v. Grant, 45 379, n.;Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 441, CaL 97; Stanley v. Sullivan, 71 Wis. 1563. 585. 6 Lord Pelham v. Duchess of New- 9 In re Anderson, 94 Fed. R 487, 497. castle, 3 Swanst. 289, n. ; Seton on De- crees (4th ed.), 1562. 774 ENFOBCEMENT OF DECEEES AND OEDEES. [_§ 349., §349. Action by court itself. — In the year 1830, an act was passed in England, at the instance of Sir Edward Sugden, the author of Sugden on Powers, afterwards Lord St. Leon- ards, providing: "That when any person shall have been di- rected by any decree or order to execute any deed or other instrument, or make a surrender or transfer, or to levy a fine or suffer a recovery, and shall have refused or neglected to exe- cute, make or transfer, or levy or suffer the same, and shall have been committed to prison under process for such con- tempt, or, being confined in prison for any other cause, shall have been charged with or detained un:ler process for such con- tempt, and shall remain in such prison, the court may, upon motion or petition, and upon affidavit that such person has after the expiration of two calendar months from the time of his being committed under or charged with, or detained under such process, again refused to execute such deed or instrument or make such surrender or transfer, or levy or suffer such fine or recovery, order or appoint one of the masters in ordinary, or if the act is to be done out of London, then, if necessary, one of the masters extraordinary, to execute such deed or other in- strument or to make such surrender or transfer, for and in the name of such person, and to levy such fine or suffer such re- covery, in his name, and to do all acts necessary to give valid- ity and operation to such fine and recovery, and to lead or de- clare the uses thereof: and the execution of the said deed or other instrument, and the surrender or transfer made by the said master, and the fine or recovery levied or suffered by him, shall in all respects have the same force and validity as if the same had been executed or made, levied or suffered, by the party himself; and within ten days after the execution or mak- ing of any such deed or other instrument or surrender or trans- fer, or levying or suffering such fine or recovery, notice thereof shall be given by the adverse solicitor to, the party in whose name the same is executed or made ; and such party, as soon as the deed or other instrument or surrender, transfer, fine or recovery shall be executed, made, levied, or suffered, shall be considered as having cleared his contempt, except as far as regards the payment of the costs of the contempt, and shall be entitled to be discharged therefrom, under any of the pro- visions of this act applicable to his case ; and the court shall § 349».] BILLS TO CARET DECREES INTO EXECUTION. .775 make such order as shall be just, touching the payment of the costs of or attending apy such deed, surrender, instrument, transfer, fine, or recovery." ' " That where a person shall be committed for a contempt in not delivering to any person or persons or depositing in court or elsewhere, as by any order may be directed, books, papers, or any other articles or things, any sequestrator or sequestrators appointed under any com- mission of sequestration shall have the same power to seize and take such books, papers, writings, or other articles of things, being in the custody or power of the person against whom the sequestration issues, as they would over his own property; and thereupon such articles or things so seized and taken shall be dealt with by the court as shall be just; and after such seizure it shall be lawful for the court, upon the ap- plication of the prisoner, or of any other person in the cause or matter, or upon any report to be made in pursuance of this act, to make such order for the discharge of the prisoner, upon such terms, and, if it shall see fit, making any costs to the cause, as to the court shall seem proper." 2 How far these acts will be followed by the Federal courts is a matter for future decision. 8 The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has power to appoint a trustee to execute an assignment of a pat- entrright, if the defendant refuses to do so after a sale of the patent-right under a creditor's bill, and the decree for the sale may contain a provision for the appointment of the trustee in case of such refusal together with a direction that the defend- ant execute the assignment. 4 A Circuit Court of the United States has power to direct its marshal to remove buildings from land over which a complainant has a right of way. 6 § 349a.- Bills to carry decrees into execution. — A bill to carry a decree into execution is proper where, after a decree has been pronounced, it has happened that owing to some neg- lect of the parties to proceed upon the decree, their rights have become so embarrassed by subsequent events that no ordinary § 349. i Acts of 1 Wm. IV., oh. 36, v. Scott Paper Mfg. Co., 55 Fed. R. § 15, R 15, passed in 1830. 553, 557; Lynde v. Columbus, C. & 2 Act of 1 Wm._ IV., ch. 36, § 15, L C. Ry. Co., 57 Fed. R 993; Wilson R. 16. v. Martin, etc. Co., 151 Mass. ' 515; 'See Rule 90; Shepherd v. Com'rs supra, §§ 8, 98, 325. of Ross County, 7 Ohio, 271 ; Carpen- 4 Ager v. Murray, 105 U. S. 126, 133. ter v. Strange, 141 U. S. 787; Sayle OGormley v . Clark, 134 U.S. 338. 776 ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND ORDERS. [§ 349«. process of the court upon the first decree will serve, and it is therefore necessary to have another decree of the court to ascer- tain and enforce them ; ' or where a person who was not a party nor claims under a party to the original decree, claims, in a similar interest, or is unable to obtain the determination of his own right until the decree has been carried into execution ; 2 or by or against a person claiming as assignee of a party to the original decree, 3 or otherwise, in privity with such a party, for example, a stockholder or perhaps creditor of a corpora- tion; 4 or to carry into execution the judgment of an inferior court of equity. 5 A bill of this description is generally partly an original bill, though not strictly original ; and sometimes it is likewise a bill of revivor or. a supplemental bill, or both; and the frame of the bill, and the course of proceedings upon it, vary accordingly. 6 Such a bill is treated as ancillary to the principal suit, and the Federal court in which the original de- cree was entered will take jurisdiction of the same irrespective of the citizenship of the parties. 7 Upon a bill to carry a de- cree into execution the court is at liberty to examine into the grounds of the original decree, and if such decree appears to have been erroneous, to refuse to enforce it, even when the original decree was entered by consent. 8 Where a decree is capable of being executed by the ordinary process and forms of the court, whatever the iniquity of the decree may be, till it is reversed the court is bound to assist it with the utmost § 349a. i Mitford's PI., oh. i, § 3; ford's PI., oh. i, § 3; Daniell's Ch. Pr. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st Am ed.) 1689; (1st Am. ed.) 1691. Johnson v. Northley, Prec. in Ch. 134; « Mitford's PL, oh. i, § 3; Daniell's s. C, 2 Vera 407. Ch. Pr. (1st Am. ed.) 1693. 2 Mitford's PL, ch. i, § 3; Daniell's 'Railroad Co. v. Chamberlain, 6 Ch. Pr. (1st Am. ed.) 1689, 1690; Ry- Wall. 748; Boot v. Woolworth, 150 lands v. Latouche, 2 Bligh, 566; Old* U. 8. 401; Central Tr. Co. v. Western ham v. Eboral, Cooper SeL Cases, R. Co., 89 Fed. R 24. temp. Brougham, 27. ^ 8 Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Janes ville 'Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Janesville C. Mills, 138 V. S. 552, 562; Gay v. C. Mills, 138 U. S. 552; Organ v. Gar- Parprat, 106 U. S. 679; Lawrence v. diner, 1 Ch. Cas. 231; Lord Carteret Berney, 2 Rep. in Ch. 127; Johnson v. Paschal, 3 Peere Wms. 197; Binks v. Northey, Prec. in Ch. 134; s. c, 2 v. Binks, 2 Bligh, P. C. 593; Root v. Vern. 407; Atty. Gen. v. Day, 1 Vesey, Woolworth, 150 U. S. 401; Daniell's 218; Wert v., Skip, 1 Vesey, 218; Ch. Pr. (1st Am. ed.) 1691. Hamilton v. Houghton, 2 Bligh, P. C. * Central Tr. Co. v. Western N. C. 169; Mitford's.PL, ch. i, § 3; Daniell's R Co., 89 Fed. R 24. Ch Pr. (1st Am. ed.) 1691, 1692. 5 Morgan v. , 1 Atk. 408; Mit- § 349a.J BILLS TO CARET DECEEES INTO EXECUTION. 777 process the course of the court will bear ; but where the com- mon process of the court will not serve and things come to be in such a state and condition after a decree made, that it re- quires a new bill and a second decree upon that before the first decree can be executed, if the first decree is unjust, the court desires to be excused in making it its own, and to build upon such foundations, and charging its conscience with promoting an apparent injustice; and this obliges the court to examine the grounds of the first decree before it makes the same decree again. 9 Equitable assets held by the defendant to a decree in which no strangers to the suit claim any interest can be sub- jected to the payment of sums awarded by the decree through a petition in the original cause. 10 An original bill for that purpose is irregular; but it may be sustained as such a petition; when. no subpoena need be served, an ordinary notice being suffi- cient. 11 9 Lawrence v. Berney, 2 Ch. R. 127; "Maitland v. Gibson, 79 Fed. E. Lawrence Mfg. Co. v. Janesville C. 136. Mills, 138 TJ. S. 552, 562; Mitford's PL, " Ibid. ch. i, § 3; Darnell's Ch. Fr. (1st Am. ed.) 1691, 1692. CHAPTEE.XXYII. CORRECTION OF DECREES OTHERWISE THAN BY APPEAL. §350. Correction of decrees in general. — When a party to a suit in equity, or his representative, feels himself aggrieved by a final decree of the court, there are eight ways in which he can apply to have such decree reversed, set aside, or varied : by petition for a mere clerical or accidental error, 1 by a peti- tion for a rehearing, 2 by a bill of review, 3 by a bill. in the nat- ure of a bill of review, 4 by a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, 9 by a bill to set aside a decree on account of fraud, mistake, accident, or surprise, 6 by a bill to suspend or avoid the operation of a decree, 7 and by an appeal. 8 An inter- locutory decree can be corrected at the entry of the final de- cree. 9 A rule of the State court permitting decrees or a default to be opened at the term after they have become absolute will not be followed by the Federal courts. 10 § 351. Amendment of decrees without a rehearing. — The- rules provide that "clerical mistakes in decrees or decretal orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission,, may, at any time before an actual enrolment thereof, be cor- rected by order of the court or a judge thereof, upon petition, without the form or expense of a rehearing." 1 Decretal orders- may be corrected in the same manner. 2 In this way, correc- tions have been permitted of errors in the title of a decree or order; 8 of an omission in a decree for specific performance of § 350. 1 § 351. supra, § 318. See, however, Gunn v.. 2 § 353. Black, 60 Fed. R 151. See Comly v. •§§354-358. Buchanan, 81 Fed. R. 58. For mo- 4 § 357. . tions at the foot of a decree, see * § 353. supra, § 825a. 6 § 358. W Austin v. Riley, 55 Fed. R 833. '§359. §351. iRule 85. See Witters v. 8Ch. XXX Bowles, 32 Fed. R 130; Hop B. Mfg. s Henry v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 34 Co. v. Warner, 28 Fed. R 577. Fed. R 258; Clark v. Blair, 14 Fed. 2 Union S. Ref. v. Mathiesson, & R 812; Coburn v. Schroeder, 8 Fed. Cliff. 146. R. 521; Iowa v. Illinois, 151 U. S. 238; Spearing v. Lynn, 2 Vera 376. § 351. J AMENDMENT OF DECEEES. 779 a direction to settle the conveyance, 4 or of a reference as to title; 5 of an omission in a decree in a creditor's suit of a direc- tion to take the accounts of the personal estate ; 6 of an allow- ance of interest from a different date from that determined in a master's report which the court had confirmed ; 7 and of other minor defects or redundancies in respect to which a decree did not conform to the directions of the written opinion of the court. 8 It has been held that such a correction cannot be made in an appealable case after the term at which the decree was entered. 9 An order or decree entered by consent cannot be varied or modified in a material part without the assent of all the parties to the same ; but the court, it seems, may give such further directions as are necessary to carry it " into effect, ac- cording to its spirit and intent." 10 The former English prac- tice occasionally though rarely allowed similar corrections in what were manifestly mere clerical errors after a decree had been enrolled ; u and in the Federal courts it has been said that an error in calculating the amount ordered by the decree to be paid may be corrected after enrolment, upon motion or pe- tition, by entering a credit as for its payment. 12 Judgments have been set aside after the terms at which they were ren- dered where appearances had been made by attorneys without authority. 13 It has been held that the Federal courts can set aside, after the term at which it was rendered, a final judgment . Eldredge, 3 Story, 299; Co. v. California V. P. Co., 6 Fed. R Emerson v. Davies, 1 W. & M. 21; 197, 202. Contra, Glenn v. Noonan, Tufts v. Tufts, 3 W. & M. 426; Giant 43 Fed. R. 403; s. C, 43 Fed. R. 550. P. Co. v. California V. P. Co., 5 Fed. R 197. 782 CORRECTION OF DECREES. [§ 352. not be granted for newly discovered evidence where the evi- dence could have been obtained by reasonable diligence on the first hearing, 9 nor when it is merely cumulative to that previ- ously received, nor when, if presented, it would not have changed the result. 10 " A new hearing should not be had simply to allow a rehash of old arguments." " " If rehearings are to be had, until the counsel on both sides are entirely sat- isfied, I fear, that suits would become immortal, and the decis- ion be postponed indefinitely." 12 A rehearing can only take place for the purpose of altering a decree upon grounds which existed at the time when the decree was pronounced, and one will not be allowed to remedy a grievance consequent upon a decree resulting entirely from circumstances that have occurred subsequent to its entry. 13 The rules provide that " every peti- tion for a rehearing shall contain the special matter or cause on which such rehearing is applied for, shall be signed by counsel, and the facts therein stated, if not apparent on the record, shall be verified by the oath of the party or some other person." 14 The petition for a rehearing,should state fully the facts which show the nature of the new evidence, the facts which show that it could not have been found by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the hearing, that it was not known then and that a diligent search was previously made for the evidence; and mere general averments of reasonable 9 Allis v. Stowell, 85 Fed. R. 481; so called, and is not to be governed MoLeod v. New Albany (C. G. A.), 66 by the same stringent rules. " It is Fed. E. 378; In re Gamewell F. A. rather a motion addressed to the dis- TeL Co. (C. C. A), 73 Fed. E. 908; cretion of the court with reference Bennett v. Schooley, 77 Fed. E. 353. to the order of trial." Campbell Pr. io Giant P. Co. v. California V. P. & Mfg. Co. v. Marden, 70 Fed. E. 339, Co., 5 Fed. E. 197, 201; Jenkins v. El- 340. dredge, 3 Story, 399; Tufts v. Tufts, "Field, J., in Giant P. Co. v. Cali- 3 W. & M. 436; Hicks v. Otto, 33 fornia V. P. Co., 5 Fed. R. 197, 301. Blatohf. 133; Page v. Holmes B. A. 13 Story, J., in Jenkins v. Eldredge, Tel. Co., 3 Fed. E. 330; Collins Co. v. 3 Story, 399, 305. Coes, 8 Fed. E. 517; Witters v. Sowles, " Bowyer v. Bright, IS Price, 316; HI Fed. E. 5; Pfanschmidt v. Kelly Hurlburd v. Freelove, 3 Wis. 537. M. Co., 33 Fed. E. 667, and cases cited "Equity Eule 88; U. S. v. The in the opinions in these cases. But Dago (C. C. A), 63 Fed. R. 183. The see Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins, 43 return and affidavits should not be Fed. B. 673. It has been said that a verified before a notary who is one motion to open a decree in order to of the petitioner's counsel. Allis v. introduce new evidence differs from Stowell, 85 Fed. B. 481. a motion for a rehearing, technically •§ 352.] PETITIONS FOE A BEHEAEING. 783 •diligence and previous ignorance are insufficient. 15 The alle- gations must be full, precise, and certain. It seems that they will be insufficient if sworn to merely upon information and belief. 18 It has been held that when evidence of new facts not ■already in issue is to be given, the petition should be accom- panied by a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, pleading these facts; in which case, if the petition be granted, the hearing upon that bill will take place at the same time as the rehearing of the original suit." The usual proceedings to obtain a rehearing are for the party desiring it to file his peti- tion in the clerk's office, and then to procure an order direct- ing his opponent to show cause why his prayer should not be granted. 18 The adverse party may then answer, controverting -or setting up new matter in avoidance of allegations in the petition; or probably may show cause against granting the re- 'hearing on the return-day of the order by an affidavit. 19 If there be any irregularity in the petition, it may be taken off the file at the respondent's motion. 20 Upon the return-day of ■the order to show cause, if no adjournment be had, the matter is argued before the judge, by whose direction the decree or ■order complained of was made, unless he be absent, when the papers and the briefs of counsel should be filed with the clerk, who will mail them to him. 21 The petition will not be granted without^ notice to the adverse parties, and an ■ opportunity for their presence afforded them. 22 A rule of the Circuit Court for ■the Southern District of New York provides that when a -" motion for a rehearing is made during the term at which a decree has been rendered, the enrolling or recording of such -decree shall be suspended until the final disposition of such .motion by the court." 2S Upon a rehearing the cause or matter is proceeded in as if it were heard for the first time. All dep- isAUis v. Stowell, 85 Fed. R 481; « Giant P. Co. v. California V. P. Hicks v. Otto, 85 Fed R 728; Mo- Co., 5 Fed. R 197. Leod v. New Albany (C. C. A.), 66 19 Ibid. Fed. R 378. 2 ° Wood v. Griffith, 1 Meriv. 35. " Page v. Holmes B. A. TeL Co., 2 « Giant P. Co. v. California V. P. Fed. R 330. Co., 5 Fed. R 195. "Baker v. Whiting, 1 Story, 218; « Ibid., 197. Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173, 178; 23 U. S. C. C, S. D. N. T„ Rule 114. Head v. Godlee, Johns. 536, 579; Jopp ■v. Wood, 2 De G., J. & S. 32a 784 C0BKECTI0N OF DEOEEES. [§ 353. ositions taken before the original hearing, though not then used, may be read, 24 and the plaintiff may withdraw from evi- dence any portion of the answer read before. 25 No new evi- dence can be used, unless a supplemental bill has been filed ; 26 but exhibits not previously used may be produced ; " and if a witness has since the former hearing been convicted of per- jury, 28 or admitted receiving a bribe to influence his testimony, 29 that may be proved to the court. After one rehearing, a peti- tion for another can only be filed by special leave of the court, and may be taken off the file if presented without such leave. 30 It has been held that an order granting a rehearing after the time prescribed by the rules has expired is void, not merely voidable; and that a party does not, by taking a subse- quent step in the cause, waive his right to move to vacate the same. 81 The grant or refusal, absolute or conditional, of an application for a rehearing, which has been made in due time, rests in the discretion of the court where the cause is first heard, and is not a subject of appeal. 32 Affidavits presented in support of a motion for a rehearing which was denied, cannot be considered on an appeal from the final decree. 33 § 353. Supplemental bills in the nature of bills of re- view. — A supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review is a bill that brings to the attention of the court new matter, which has arisen or been discovered since, and could not by the exercise of due diligence have been discovered before, the time for taking testimony in a cause expired, and which the party filing the bill alleges as a reason why a decree made and passed therein, but not signed and enrolled, should be reversed or modified. 1 Such a bill cannot be filed after a decree has 21 Cunyngham v. Cunyngham, 103, 106; Buffington v. Harvey, 95 Amb. 89, 90. TJ. S. 99, 100; Steines v. Franklin 25 Allfrey v. Allfrey, 1 Macn. & G. County, 14 "Wall. 15, 22; Railway Co. 87; Ogle v. Morgan, 1 De G, M. & G. v. Heck, 102 U. S. i20; Kennon v. Gil- 359. mer, 131 TJ. S. 22, 24; Boesoh v. Graff, 26 Jenkins v. Eldredge, 8 Story, 299 ; 133 U. S. 697, 699. infra, § 153. 33 Giles v. Heysinger, 150 U. S. 627, 27 Herring v. Clobery, Cr. & Ph. 251. 631. 28 Needham v.Smith, 2 Vern. 463. §353. 1 Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 29Ibid. 173; Mitford's PI., oh. 1, § 2; Moore so Moss v. Baldock, 1 Phila. 118. v. Moore, 2 Ves. Sen. 596; Story's Eq. 81 Glenn v. Lucas, 43 Fed. R. 550. PL, §§ 422, 423. »2Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U. S. § 353.] SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS. 785 > i • • -r been signed and enrolled. 2 The proper remedy in a similar case then is a bill of review. 3 A supplemental bill in the nat- ure of a bill of. review cannot be used to obtain a reversal or modification of a decree for errors in law apparent upon its face. 4 That, before enrolment, can only be done by means of a petition for a rehearing. 5 Matter of revivor and supplement may be incorporated in such a supplemental bill. 6 An English chancery order made'on the 17th of October, 1841, and which should probably be followed here, the clerk taking the place of the registrar and five dollars being reckoned as a pound ster- ling, provides: "That no supplemental bill, or bill in the nature of a bill of review, grounded upon new matter discovered, or pretended to be discovered, since the pronouncing of any decree, of this court, in order to the reversing or varying of such decree shall be exhibited without the special leave of the court first obtained for that purpose, and unless the party exhibiting the same do first deposit with the registrar of this court so much money as together with the deposit by the rules of this court required to be made on obtaining a rehearing of the cause or causes wherein such decree was pronounced will make up the sum of 501., as a pledge to answer such costs and damages as shall be awarded to the adverse party, in case the court shall think fit to award any at the hearing of the cause on such sup- plemental or new bill." 7 A supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review should state the facts which it is desired to prove, and, if they had then occurred, the reason why they were not discovered and given in evidence before publication, and it seems should state positively that the decree has not been enrolled, and not in the alternative, praying one sort of relief as upon a bill of review, if the decree has been en- rolled, and if not enrolled, then to have the benefit of it as upon a. supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review- 8 Such a bill should conclude with a prayer that the cause may be reheard. It should be signed by counsel, and in other re- spects conform to the requirements of a bill of review upon 2 Beames' Orders, 1. "Order of 17th October, 1741; s See §§ 354-356. Beames' Orders, 368. * Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173. 8 Story's Eq. PL, §425. Seethe s gee g 352. language of Lord Eldon in Perry v. "Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 176-178. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173-178. 50 T88 COEKECTION OF DEOKEES. [§ 354. newly discovered facts. 9 Like that, it can only be filed by leave of the court, which is obtained in the same yra.y, and upon the same grounds as leave to file such a bill of review; 10 and the proceedings upon the two kinds of bills are also sub- stantially the same. 11 But according to Lord Eedesdale, " Bills in the nature of bills of review do not appear subject to any peculiar cause of demurrer, unless the decree sought to be re- versed does not affect the interest of the person filing the bill." 12 Laches may be a ground for refusing leave to file a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, unless such laches is extenuated by laches on the part of the defendant to it. ls Such a bill cannot be heard unless accompanied by a pe- tition for a rehearing, when the rehearing of the original and the hearing of the supplemental cause will be set down to- gether. 14 Such a bill cannot be filed to set aside or to reopen an interlocutory order or decree. 15 § 354. Bills of review. — A bill of review is a bill filed to reverse or modify a decree that has been signed and enrolled for error in law apparent upon the face of such decree, or on account of new facts discovered since publication was passed in the original cause, and which could not by the exercise of due diligence have been discovered or used before the decree was made. 1 A bill of review can only be filed to impeach a final, not to impeach an interlocutory decree. 2 For an interlocutory decree can always be modified or reversed by the court with- out any bill for that purpose.' But the expression " final de- cree " is here used with the meaning given it when speaking of appeals. 4 The errors of law for which a decree may be re- versed or modified must be clearly apparent upon the record, 'Story's Eq. PL, §§ 422,425; Ben- §354. 1 Mitf ord's PL, ch. l,§3,pt.3; nett v. Schooley, 77 Fed. R. 352. See Story's Eq. PL, §§ 403-420; Irwin v. infra, § 355. Meyrose, 7 Fed. R. 533; Nickle v. io Story's Eq. PL, § 422. Stuart, 111 U. S. 776; Freeman " Story's Eq. PL, §§ 422-425. v. Clay (C. C. -A.), 52 Fed. R. 1. ' iZMitford's PL, ch. 1, § 3, pt. 3. 2 Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story, 299; "Story's Eq. PL, § 423; Sheffield Story's Eq. PL, § 408a. Canal Co. v. Sheffield & R. Ry. Co., 1 » Story's Eq. PL, § 408a. See supra, Phillips, 484. § 203. " Moore v. Moore, 2 Ves. Sen. 596, « Story's Eq. PL, g 408a; "Whiting v. 598; Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173. Bank of U. S., 13 Pet. 6, 15; Ray v. 1* C. & A. Potts Co. v. Creager, 71 Law, 3 Cranch, 179; Jenkins v. El- Fed. R. 574. dredge, 3 Story, 299. § 354.] BILLS OF EETIEW. 787 that is, " only such as arose upon the pleadings, proceedings, and decree, without reference to the evidence in the cause ; " 5 as, for example, the disregard of a statute, 6 or want of juris- ' diction, 7 or the finding of a fact contrary to an allegation in a defendant's answer when no evidence was taken; 8 not errors in drawing conclusions from evidence, 9 nor errors in casting accounts, 10 nor it seems in matters of abatement, 11 nor in the exercise of discretion, 12 , nor matters of form, 13 — among which, however, the omission of a clause giving an infant defendant a day in which to show cause against a decree is not included, and on that ground a bill of review may be sustained. 14 It has been held to be no sufficient ground for a bill of review that since the decree a State court has given to the Constitu- tion of the State a construction different from that put upon it by the Federal court in its decree ; 15 nor that since the de- cree the Supreme Court has changed its ruling upon a question of law or fact. 16 In England, where the mandatory part of a decree was usually preceded by a statement of the facts upon which it was founded, only the decree itself could be exam- ined for such errors ; " but in the Federal courts where this custom does not exist, the whole record except the evidence may be thus corrected. 18 Bills of review for errors apparent upon the record can only be filed within the time limited for » Bradley, J., in Bufflngton v. Har- " Story's Eq. PL, § 411; Hartwell vey, 95 U. S. 99. See also Whiting v. v. Townsend, 6 Bro. Pari R. 107; Bank of U. S., 13 Pet. 6; Putnam v. Slingsby v. Hale, 1 Ch. Cas. 122. Day, 22 Wall. 60; Thompson v. Max- 12 Bufflngton v. Harvey, 95 U. S. well, 95 U. S. 391. 99; Irwin v. Meyrose, 7 Fed. R 533. 6 Story's Eq. PL, § 405; 'Gregor v. 13 Story's Eq. PL, § 411. Moles-worth, 2 Ves. Sen. 109. " Story's Eq. PL, § 407; Perry v. 7 Ketchum v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., Phelips, 17 Ves. 173; Gregor v. Moles- 4 McLean, 1; Miller v. Clark, 47 Fed. worth, 2 Ves. Sen. 109. See supra, R. 850; B. G, 52 Fed. R 900. § 322. s Clark v. Killian, 103 U. S. 766. " King v. Dundee M. & Tr. L Co., » Whiting v. Bank of U. S., 13 Pet 28 Fed. R. 33; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 6; Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303; Fed. R. 484, Putnam v. Day, 22 Wall. 60; Buffing- "Tilghman v. Werk, 39 Fed. R. ton v. Harvey, 95 TJ. S. 99; Kimber- 680. ley y. Arms, 40 Fed R 548; S. C., 136 « Story's Eq. PL, § 407. U. S. 629; Jourolmon v. Ewing, 85 W Whiting v. Bank of TJ. S., 13 Pet. Fed. R. 103. 6; Bufflngton v. Harvey, 95 TJ. S. 99; io Massie v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41; Clark v. Killian, 103 U. S. 766. Beames' Ord. 1; Story's Eq. PL, § 405. 788 CORRECTION OF DECREES. [§ 354. an appeal. 19 The time within which the control of the Circuit Court over the case is suspended by an appeal subsequently dismissed, is not included in the computation of time ; 20 but the period between the entry of a void order vacating the order sought to be reviewed and the vacation of such void order is included. 21 Laches for a shorter period of time might be a ground for dismissing a bill of review. 22 After a decree has been affirmed by the appellate court, it cannot be reviewed for any reason without leave of that court ; 23 even if the affirmance was by a divided court. 24 Leave to make such an applica- tion to the court below should be inserted in the mandate of the appellate court. 25 Leave will rarely, if ever, be granted then to file a bill of review for errors in law. 26 Leave of court is not needed to enable a party to file a bill of review for errors apparent upon the face of the record. 27 A bill defective as a bill of review may be sustained as a cross-bill. 28 It has been said that a bill of review is not in so far a contention of the original suit as to affect with notice of Us pendens a pur- chaser in good faith after a final decree and before the bill of review was filed or notice to the purchaser of an intention to "Thomas v. Harvie's Heirs, 10 Wheat. 146; Kennedy v. Georgia State Bank, 8 How. 586; Clark v. Killian, 103 U. S. 766; Story's Eq. PL, § 410. See also Massie v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41; McDonald v. Whitney, 39 Fed. R 466; Eector v. Fitzgerald (C. C. A.), 59 Fed. E 808. 2 " Ensminger v. Powers, 108 U. S. 292. 21 Central Trust Co. v. Grant Loco- motive Works, 135 U. S. 207. 22 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Green Bay & M. B. Co., 16 Fed. E. 100, 113; Duncan v. Atlantic M. & O. E. Co., 88 Fed. E. 840. 23 Southard v. Eussell, 16 How. 547 Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 654 Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. E 548 S. C, 136 U. S. 629; Watson v. Stev- ens (C. C. A), 53 Fed. E 31 ; Franklin Savings Bank v. Taylor (C. C. A), 53 Fed. E. 854; infra, § 355. But it has been held that a Circuit Court may, without leave of the Supreme Court, entertain a bill to enjoin the en- forcement of a judgment against the complainant upon a mandate of the Supreme Court on the ground that the complainant was not in fact a party to such judgment nor bound thereby. Brown v. Walker, 84 Fed. E. 532. 24 Leslie v. Town of Urbana (C. C. A), 56 Fed. E. 762. 25 Watson v. Stevens (C. C. A.), 53 Fed. E 31, 35. See also Society of Shakers v. Watson (C. C. A), 77 Fed. E. 512. 26 Southard v. Eussell, 16 How. 547; Kingsburg v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650, 671; Story's Eq. PI., § 408. 27 Eoss v. Prentiss, 4 McLean, 106. 28 Houghton v. West, 2 Bro. Pari. Eep. by Tomlins, 88; Story's Eq. PI., §401, n. 5. § 355.] PROVISIONS PECULIAR TO BILLS OF REVIEW. 789 file the same. 29 A Federal court will not entertain a bill to review a decree of a State court. 30 § 355. Provisions peculiar to bills of review for matters of fact newly discovered. — Bills of review upon matters of fact newly discovered can only be filed by express leave of the court. 1 Leave should be obtained by a petition praying for leave to file the . bill, and supported by an affidavit showing that the new matter, which it is desired to prove, was not known to the petitioner, and could not have been discovered by him, with the exercise of due diligence, in time to prove it before the entry of the decree sought to be reviewed. 2 It seems that the affidavit must be positive, and not merely upon infor- mation and belief. 8 Previous knowledge of it by the petitioner's attorney or other agent while acting in that capacity, is equiv- alent to knowledge by the petitioner, and will be a reason for refusing to allow him to file the bill. 4 If the newly discovered facts are proved by documents that were under the control of the petitioner, very, good reasons for his not discovering and producing them before must be shown in order to entitle him to file" a bill of review founded upon them. 5 The affidavit should also state the nature of the new matter, and the evi- dence desired to be given in its support, in order that the court may judge of its relevancy and materiality. 6 It is said that the matter must be not only new, but material, and such as, if unanswered in point of fact, would clearly entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or would raise a question of so much nicety and difficulty as to be a fit subject of judgment in the cause. 7 The new matter may be concerning a point not in issue in the orig- 29 Rector v. Fitzgerald, 59 Fed. R. Graham, 3 McLean, 41; Ross v. Pren- 808, 811; Ludlow v. Kidd, 3 Ohio, tiss," 4 McLean, 106; Story's Eq. PI., 541. See also Lee County v. Rogers, §S 412, 413. 7 WalL 181. Contra, Earle v. Couch, "Page v. Holmes B. A. Tel. Co., 2 3 Met. (Ky.) 450; Clarey v. Marshall's Fed. R. 330. Heirs, 4 Dana (Ky.), 95, 96. «Norris v. Le Neve, 3 Atk. 26; 3(1 Graver v. Faurot, 64 Fed. R. 241. Greenlee v. McDowell, 4 Ired. Eq. § 355. 1 Anon., 2 P. Wms. 283 ; Perry (S. C.) 481 ; Story's Eq. PL, g§ 413, 414. v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173; Ross v. Pren- 6 Forum Romanum, 187. tiss, 4 McLean, 106; Story's Eq. PI., 6 U. S. v. Sampeyreac, Hempst. 118; t$ 412. Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303; Mas- 2 Wortley v. Birkhead, 2 Ves. Sen. sie v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41; Story's 571; Young v. Keighly, 16 Ves. 348; Eq. PI., § 412. Purcell v. Miner, 4 WalL 519; Dexter 7 Ord v. Noel, 6 Madd. 127. v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303; Massie v. 790 COBKECTION OF DECREES. [§ 356. inal cause, 8 provided that it be connected with the subject-mat- ter of the bill. 9 A bill of review will not lie on the ground of "newly discovered evidence which is merely cumulative, or goes to impeach the character of witnesses. 10 It has been held that a bill of review will not lie on the ground that a decree offered in evidence in the original suit and there held to be res adjiidi- cata has since been set aside for want of jurisdiction, unless it is shown that the defect in the jurisdiction could not have been known or discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence when the decree was offered in evidence. 11 It has been said that the matter upon the discovery of which a bill of review is based, if previously known to the other party, must be of such a nature that he was not in conscience obliged to have discov- ered it to the court; for if it was known to him and such as in conscience he ought to have discovered, he obtained the decree by fraud, and it ought to be set aside by an original bill. 12 Per- mission to file such a bill of review is always in the discretion of the court ; 13 and lapse of time since the discovery of the new matter will always have great weight in inducing the court to look with disfavor upon an application for leave to file such a bill of review. 14 It has been said that if the decree impeached has been affirmed by an appellate court, such a bill of review can only be filed by leave of that court; 15 but in the absence of special circumstances such leave will be granted by the court of review, as of course. 16 A bill of review for newly discovered matter, if filed without leave, may upon motion be dismissed or taken off the file." § 356. Provisions common to all bills of review. — " To en- title a person to bring a bill of review, it is necessary that he should have obeyed or performed the decree ; as, if it be for 8 Partridge v. Osborne, 6 Russ. 195. 13 Beames' Orders, 1; Massie v. Gra- 9 U. S. v. Sampeyreac, Hempst. 118. ham, 3 McLean, 41; Story's Eq. PI., w Southard v. Russell, 16 How. 547. §§404,417. "Vetterlein v. Barker, 45 Fed. R. "Blandy v. Griffith, 6 Fish. Pat. 74. Cas. 434; Thomas v. Harvie, 10 Wheat "Ilanaton v. Molesworth, 1 Eden, 146, 151; Tilghman v. Werk, 39 Fed. 18, 25. But see U. S. v. Sampeyreac, R. 680; Story's Eq. PL, § 419. Hempst. 118; s. C. as Sampeyreac v. 16 Southard v. Russell, 16 How. 547. U. S., 7 Pet. 322; Bennett v. Schooley, w Seymour v. White County (C. C. 77 Fed. R. 352; Municipal S. Co. v. A.), 92 Fed. R. 115; supra, § 355. Gamewell F. A. TeL Co., 77 Fed. R. "Carroll v. Parran, 1 Bland (Md.), 453. 125, note. § 356.] PROVISIONS COMMON TO ALL BILLS OF BEVIEW. 791 land, that the possession be yielded; if it be for money, that the money be paid; if it be for evidences, that the evidences be brought in ; and so in other cases which stand upon the strength of the decree alone. But if any act be decreed to be done, which extinguisheth the party's right at the common law, as making of assurance or release, acknowledging satisfaction, canceling bonds or evidences, and the like, those parts of the decree are to be spared until the bill of review be determined; but such sparing is to be warranted by public order made in court." l If, however, the plaintiff to the bill of review be in- solvent, 2 or for any other reason it be impossible for him to obey the original decree ; 3 or if he were directed to perform an act after the performance of another act by the other party, and that other have omitted to perform his part thereof ; 4 or if the direction were to another defendant to the original de- cree and not to the party who files the bill of review; 5 or perhaps, if lie have given security for its performance, 6 — his disobedience is no objection to the bill of review. By an Eng- lish order in Chancery, made on March 12, 1700, it was ordered that for the future no bill of review should be • allowed or ad- mitted unless the party who preferred it first deposited the sum of £50 with the registrar of the court, as a pledge to answer such costs and damages as the court should award to the ad- verse party, in case it should think fit to dismiss the bill of review. 7 This order should probably be followed here, five dollars being reckoned as the equivalent of a pound sterling, and the money being deposited with the clerk of the court. 8 The court may, however, dispense with this requirement. 9 A decree entered by consent cannot be impeached by a bill of review. 10 A decree entered by consent can be set aside only §356. iDaniell's Ch. Pr. (3d Am. * Partridge v. Osborne, 5 Russ. 195, ed.) 1634, 1635. See also Beames' 251; Story's Eq. PL, §406. Orders, 4; Massie v. Graham, 3 Mo- 5 Hobbs v. State Tr. Co. (C. C. A.), Lean, 41; Hoffman v. Knox, 50 Fed. 68 Fed. E. 618. R 484 This rule applies even when 6 Stallings v. Goodloe, 3 Murph. 159; it appears on the face of the former Taylor v. Person, 2 Hawks (N. C), 298. decree that the court had not juris- 7 Beames' Orders, 313; Anon., 2' P. diction of the subject-matter. Miller Wins. 283. v. Clark, 47 Fed. R 850. e Davis v. Speiden, 104 U. S. 8a 2 Davis v. Speiden, 104 TJ. S. 83. » Ibid. 'Story's Eq. PL, § 406; "Wiser v. "Thompson v. Maxwell, 95 U. & Blachly, 2 J. Ch. £N. Y.) 488; Davis v. 391. Speiden, 104 U. S. 83. 792 correction of decrees. [§ 356. by an original bill alleging fraud or surprise." It is no objec- tion to a bill of review that the party filing it has entered and procured the enrolment of the decree ; " because," said Lord Nottingham, " he can have no error till it be enrolled, and per- haps the defendant will never enroll it ; " 12 and a party may file a bill of review to a decree entirely in his favor, claiming that it is less beneficial to him than it should have been. 13 If upon a bill of review a former decree has been reversed, an- other bill of review may be brought to reverse the decree of reversal ; 14 but after a bill of review has been dismissed upon demurrer or otherwise, no second bill of review will be allowed to be filed. 15 It has been held that a bill of review cannot be filed pending an appeal, although the plaintiff alleges that he does not intend to perfect his appeal. 16 No person can file a bill of review except a party who has been aggrieved by the decree complained of, 17 or the assignee by operation of law of such a party. 18 " If a bondholder not a party to the suit can, under any circumstances, bring a bill of review, he can only have such relief as the trustee would be entitled to in the same form of proceeding. To avoid what the trustee has done in his behalf, he must proceed in some other way by a bill of review." 19 ■ All the parties to the original decree should be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants to the bill of review. 2 ' It is doubtful whether a purchaser from the successful party to the decree can be made a defendant to a bill of review. 21 Lord Redesdale gives the following rules for the framing of a bill of review: "In a bill of this nature it is necessary to state the former bill, and the proceedings thereon; the decree, and the point in which the party exhibiting the bill of review conceives himself ag- grieved by it ; and the ground of law, or new matter discov- " Gilbert v. Endean, 9 Ch. D. 259, "Whiting v. Bank of U. &, 18 Pet 266. See infra, § 355. 6; Thompson v. Maxwell, 95 U. S. 391. 12 Cook v. Bamfield, 3 Swanst. 607. But see King v. Dundee M. & Tr. L 13 Cook v. Bamfield, 3 Swanst. 607; Co., 28 Fed. R. 33. Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303. i 8 Story's Eq. PI., § 409; Thompson 1* Mitford's PL, ch. 1, § 3; Stafford v. Maxwell, 95 U. S. 391. v. Bryan, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 45. m Waite, C. J., in Shaw v. Railroad i«Pitt v. Earl of Arglass, 1 Vera. Co., 100 U. S. 605, 611. 441 ; Dunn v. Filmore, 1 Vern. 135. 20 Bank of U. S. v. White, 8 Pet. 262. " Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. R. 21 Rector v. Fitzgerald, 59 Fed. R. 545, 550; S. C, 136 U. S. 629; Willian 808. v. Willian, 16 Ves. 72, 87. § 356.] FKOVISIONS COMMON TO ALL BILLS OF REVIEW. 793 ered upon which he seeks to impeach it; and if the decree is impeached on the latter ground, it seems necessary to state in the bill the leave obtained to file it and the fact of the discov- ery, though it may be doubted whether after leave given to file the bill that fact is traversable. 2 * The bill may pray simply that the decree may be reviewed and reversed in the point complained of, if it has not been carried into execution. If it has been carried into execution, the bill may also pray the far- ' ther decree of the court, to put the party complaining of the former decree into the situation in which he would have been if that decree had not been executed. If the bill is brought to review the reversal of a former decree, it may pray that the original decree may stand. The bill may also, if the original suit has become abated, be at the same time a bill of revivor. A supplemental bill may likewise be added, if any event has happened which requires it; and particularly if any person not a party in the original suit becomes interested in the subject he must be made a party to the bill of review by way of sup- plement." 2S The plaintiff, however, cannot put his case in the alternative, as a bill of review, or, if the court shall think it not good as such, then as a bill of revivor and supplement. 24 It is improper for a bill of review on account of errors of law to contain a statement of the evidence in the original cause. 25 A bill of review which seeks relief because the original decree was erro- neous for errors of law appearing on its face, and because of the discovery of new facts, and because of fraud, has been held ' multifarious. 26 A bill of review should be signed by counsel, and otherwise conform in general to the requirements of an original bill. 87 If the court had jurisdiction of the original suit, it can take jurisdiction of the bill of review, even though it would have none were the latter regarded as the beginning of a new suit. 28 It has been said that a Federal court cannot *2 But see U. S. v. Sampeyreac, 25 Buffington v. Harvey, 95 TJ. S. 99. Hempst. 118; Dexter v. Arnold, 5 26 Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. R. 548, Mason, 303 ; Story's Eq. PL. 430, note 7. 559 ; S. C, 136 U. S. 629. 23 Mitf ord's PL, oh. 1, § 3, pt. 3. See 2 ? Mitford's PL, ch. 1, § 2, pt. 3. also Whiting v. Bank of U. S. f 13 28 Oglesby v. Attrill, 12 Fed. R. 227. Pet 6. See § 21. 2« Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173. 794 OOBEECTION OF DECREES. [§ 356. take cognizance of a bill of review to a decree of a State court. 29 The service and the appearance of a defendant to a bill of re- view is made and enforced in the same manner as to an orig- inal bill. But if the defendant be beyond the jurisdiction of the court, service of a subpoena upon his solicitor in the former suit may be allowed by the court. 30 The usual defense to a bill of review for errors apparent upon the face of the decree is by demurrer; 31 to which is usually joined a plea setting forth in full the original decree, although there seems to be no neces- sity for this practice. 32 If the demurrer is overruled, the decree is reversed or modified and the errors allowed, and no further answer or hearing is necessary. 33 If the demurrer is sustained, that has all the effect of confirming the decree, and puts an end to the suit. 34 The rule is in such a case only to vary the decree upon such errors as are complained of, except as to con- sequential directions, which will be altered to conform to the changes made. 38 If a bill of review for apparent error contain a statement of the evidence taken in the original cause, that may be stricken out of the bill as surplusage on motion; 36 or it may be a ground of demurrer, if specially assigned ; " but the bill, if otherwise good, cannot be dismissed for that reason upon a general demurrer, 38 although such evidence or an alle- gation of an error of fact cannot on a general demurrer be used in support of the bill. 39 According to Lord Eedesdale : " "When any matter beyond the decree is to be offered against opening the enrolment, as length of time, that matter must be pleaded ; otherwise the plaintiff will not have the benefit of exceptions, as infancy, coverture, or the like." i0 "A bill of review upon ' the discovery of new matter and a supplemental bill of the same nature being exhibited only by leave of the court, the ground of the bill is generally well considered before it is brought; and therefore in point of substance it can rarely be 29 Bradley, J., in Barrow v. Hunton, 86 Bradley, J., in Buffington v. Har- 99 U. 8. 80, 83. vey, 95 U. S. 99. so See supra, § 96. 3 ? Buffington v. Harvey, 95 U. a 99. a Mitf ord's PL, ch. 2, § 2, pt. 1, 5. 88 ibid. 82 Ibid. * 89 shelton v. Van Kleeck, 106 U. a 83 Cook v. Bamfleld, 3 Swanst 607. 532. 84 Webb v. Pell, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 368. « Mitford's PL, ch. 2, § 2, pt 2. 86 Moore v. Moore, 2 Ves. Sen. 596, 598. § 357.] BILLS IN THE NATUKE OF BILLS OF KEVIEW. 795 liable to a demurrer. But if brought upon new matter, and the defendant should think that matter not relevant, probably he might take advantage of it by way of demurrer, although the relevancy ought be considered at the time leave is given to bring the bill." 41 If a demurrer to such a bill of review or supplemental bill be overruled, it does not dispose of the cause ; and the defendant must answer, because fact is at issue. 42 If the demurrer is allowed, however, the suit is at an end. 43 The defendant may, it seems, traverse, and attempt to disprove, the allegations concerning the discovery of the new facts. 44 Upon the argument of the demurrer, nothing can be read except the bill of review and the decree, 45 and, in the Federal courts, the record 46 in the original suit; but, after the demurrer has been overruled, the plaintiff is at liberty to read any evidence that was submitted therein, as at a rehearing, the cause being then equally open. 47 Filing a bill of review does not prevent the execution of the decree impeached. 48 The court has power, when sustaining such a bill, to set aside a conveyance made in pursuance of the decree. 49 "Where an appeal from the original decree has been taken and dismissed with costs, the cau'se will not be erased from the docket by a decree sustaining a bill of review for want of jurisdiction; and in such a case the court will not usually order a restitution of the costs of the original cause in the Circuit and appellate courts paid by the plaintiff to the bill of review. 50 § 357. Bills in the nature of bills of review. — As has been said above, 1 only parties to the decree impeached or their privies by operation of law, as heirs, executors, or administrators, are entitled to file a bill of review ; but other persons in interest and in privity of estate, who are aggrieved by the decree, can have the same relief by means of a bill in the nature of a bill of review. 2 Such are assignees, devisees, and remaindermen of the « Mitford's PL, ch. 2, § 2, pt. 2. « Catterall v. Purchase, 1 Atk. 29a « Cook v. Bamfleld, 3 Swanst 607. « Williams v. Mellish, 1 Vern. H7,n. « Mitford's PL, oh. 2, § 2, pt. 2. «Bank of U. & v. Eitchie, 8 Pet. "Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303; 128. U. S. v. Sampeyreac, Hempst. 118; sojiiller v. Clark, 52 Fed. R. 900. Story's Eq. PL, § 420, n. 7. See Washington Bridge Co. v. Stew- « Catterall v. Purchase, 1 Atk. 290. art, 3 How. 413. « Whiting v. Bank of U. S., 13 Pet § 357. ' See § 356, supra. 13; Story's Eq. PL, § 407. 2 Story's Eq. PL, § 409. 796 , CORRECTION OF DECREES. [§ 358. original unsuccessful parties.' Lord Eedesdale also speaks as follows concerning such a bill: "If a decree is made against a parson who has no interest at all in the matter in dispute, or had not such an interest as was sufficient to render the decree against him binding upon some person claiming the same or a similar interest, relief may be obtained against error in the de- cree by a bill in the nature of a bill of review. Thus, if a decree is made against a tenant for life only, a remainderman in tail, or in fee, cannot defeat the proceedings against the ten- ant for life, but by & bill, showing the error in the decree, the incompetency in the tenant for life to sustain the suit, and the accruer of his own interest, and thereupon praying that the proceedings in the original cause may be reviewed, and for that purpose that the other party may appear to and answer this new bill, and that the rights of the parties may be properly ascertained. A bill of this nature, as it does not seek to alter a decree made against the plaintiff himself, or against any per- son under whom he claims, may be filed without the leave of the court." 4 Otherwise, the frame of and proceedings under bills in the nature of bills of review are substantially the same as those relating to bills of review. § 358. Bills to impeach decrees on account of iYand. — "If a decree has been obtained by fraud, it may be impeached by original bill without the leave of the court ; the fraud used in obtaining the decree being the principal point in issue, and necessary to be established by proof before the propriety of the decree can be investigated. And where a decree has been so obtained the court will restore the parties to their former situ- ation, whatever their rights may be." 1 Such a bill has been called an original bill in the nature of a bill of review. 2 There are dicta stating that a decree obtained by fraud may be set aside upon petition; 3 but it was finally settled that after enrol- ment a decree could only be impeached for this account by an a Story's Eq. PI., § 409; Whiting v. nesle v. Powell, 1 Ves. Sen. 120; Evans Bank of U. S., 13 Pet. 6; Singleton v. v. Bacon, 90 Mass. 213; Pacific R of Singleton, 8 B. Monr. (Ky.) 340; Tur- Mo. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., Ill U. S. 505. ner v. Berry, 38 111. 541. 2 Mussel v. Morgan, 3 Bro. Ch. R 4 Mitford's PI., ch. 1, § 2, pt. 3. 74, 79; Story's Eq. PI., § 426. § 358. 1 Mitford's PL, ch. 1, § 2, pt. 3. 3 Sheldon v. Fortescue Aland, 3 P. See also Story's Eq. PL, § 426; Rich- Wms. 104, 111; Story's Eq. PL, § 426. mond v. Tayleur, 1 P. Wms. 734; Bar- §•358.] BILLS TO IMPEACH DECKEES ON ACCOUNT OF FKAUD. 797 original bill. 4 This is the only manner in which a decree entered by consent can be impeached. 5 Decrees entered by collusion, 6 or surprise, 7 may also be rectified in this manner. Certain other cases, although if logical arrangement solely were considered they should be considered under other heads, yet as they are usually spoken of in this connection by the books, may be here referred to. Lord Kedesdale uses the fol- lowing language, which has been copied by all subsequent text- writers : " Besides cases of direct fraud in obtaining a decree, it seems to have been considered, that where a decree has been made against a trustee, the cestui que trust not being before the court and the trust not discovered ; or against a person who has made some conveyance or incumbrance not discovered; or when a decree has been made .in favor of or against an heir, when the ancestor has in fact disposed by will of the subject-, matter of the suit; the concealment of the trust or subsequent conveyance or incumbrance, or will, in these several cases, ought to be treated as a fraud. It has been also said that where an improper decree has been made against an infant, without actual fraud, it ought to be impeached by original bill." 8 A bill to set aside a decree for fraud must state the decree, and the proceedings which led to it, with the circumstances of fraud on which it is impeached. 9 The bill will be demurrable if it fails to allege that the complainant thereto was misled to his prejudice by a fraudulent representation or suppression of which he complains. 10 All the parties to the original suit or their representatives should be joined as parties to it. 11 Such 4 Mussel v. Morgan, 3 Bra Ch. R. lage of Cellina v. Eastport Sav. Bank 74, 79; Bennett v. Hamill, 2 Sen. & Co. (C. C. A.), 68 Fed. R 401. It has Lefr. 566, 576; Story's Eq. PL, § 426. been said that when a motion for a 5 Buck v. Fawcett, 3 P. Wms. 242; new trial and a petition for a rehear- Davenport v. Stafford, 8 Beav. 503; ing have been denied, equity will not Gilbert v. Endean, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 259; entertain a bill to set aside a judg- Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 1536. ment on the same ground as that al- 6 Buck v. Fawcett, 3 P. Wms. 242; leged in such motion and petition. Story's Eq. PI., §§ 426, 428. Hendrickson v. Bradley (C. C. A.), ' Stevens v. Guppy, 1 Turn. & Rus. 85 Fed. R. 508. 178. SMitford's PL, ch. 2,§ 1, pt. 3; Story's « Mitford's PL, ch. 1, § 2, pt. 3. Upon Eq. PL, § 476. a bill to set aside a judgment for "Massachusetts Ben. L. Ass'n v. mistake, stronger proof of freedom Lohmiller (C. C. A.), 74 Fed. R. 23. from negligence is required than n Harwood v. Railroad Co., 17 WalL upon a motion for a new trial. Vil 78. 798 COEEEOTTON OF DEOEEES. [§ 358. a bill may be filed in tbe court of first instance to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment after a- mandate of affirmance has been remitted to it by a court of review, 12 and to enjoin an of- ficer of the appellate court from enforcing a decree of reversal and sale when such decree was procured from the court of review by fraud. 13 A bill to set aside a judgment or decree of a State court on account of fraud may be filed in a Federal court, 14 and if originally filed in a State court, may be removed to a Federal court, when the requisite difference of citizenship exists. 15 A bill to set aside the decree of a Federal court on account of fraud may be filed in a Federal court irrespective of the citizenship of the parties. 16 Although such a bill is an- cillary to the former suit in the same court, upon demurrer thereto judicial notice will not be taken of any matters in the former suit not set forth in the new bill, unless, perhaps, when it is filed by a party to the former suit. 17 A judgment of a Federal court entered after personal service upon the defend- ant cannot be set aside by an original bill after the time to file a bill of review has expired, because the record does not show the jurisdictional difference of citizenship. 18 A bill defective as a bill to set aside a decree for fraud might perhaps be sus- tained as a bill of review for matters apparent upon the record, but not unless filed within the time allowed for an appeal. 19 Upon an application for leave to file a bill of review for mat- ters of fact newly discovered which were insufficient to sup- port the bill, the court refused to separate from such allegations other allegations of fraud in obtaining the original decree, and to permit the bill to be filed as a bill to set aside the decree for fraud. 20 A bill to set aside a decree for fraud must show a valid and meritorious defense to the original decree. 21 12 Nelson v. First Nat. Bank, 70 Fed. w Pacific R. of Mo. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. R 526. Co., Ill U. S. 585; supra, § 81. 13 Carver v. Jarvis-Conklin M Tr. 17 Richardson v. Loree, 94 Fed. R Co., 73 Fed. R. 9. 375. But see supra, § 264. 1* Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10; 18 Donham v. Springfield H. Co., 62 Barrow v. Hunton, 99 TJ. S. 80; John- Fed. R. 110. son v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640; Arrow- i^Dunlevy v. Dunlevy, 38 Fed. R. smith v. Gleason, 129 U. S. 86, 101. 462. See supra, § 354. But see Nougue v. Clapp, 101 U. S. 20 Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. R 548, 551; Graham v. Boston, H. & E. R. 558; S. C, 136 U. S. 629. Co., 118 U. S. 161, 177. 21 Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed R. 548; is Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U. S. 589. s. C, 136 U. & 629. See supra, § 21. § 359.] TO SUSPEND OB AVOID OPEEATION OF DECREES. 799 § 359. Bills to suspend or avoid the operation of decrees or judgments. — Lord Eedesdale speaks as follows concerning bills to suspend the operation of. decrees: " The operation of a decree signed and enrolled has been suspended on special cir- cumstances, or avoided by matter subsequent to the decree, upon a new bill for that purpose. Thus during the troubles after the death of Charles the First, upon a decree for a fore- closure in case of non-payment of principal, interest, and costs due on a mortgage, the mortgagor at the time of payment being forced to leave the kingdom to avoid the consequences of his engagements with "the royal party, and having requested the mortgagee to sell the estate to the best advantage and pay himself, which the mortgagee appeared to have acquiesced in; the court upon a new bill enlarged the time for performance of the decree, upon the ground of the inevitable necessity which prevented the mortgagor from complying with the strict terms of it, and also made a new decree on the ground of the matter subsequent to the former decree." 1 " The embarrass- ments occasioned by the civil war in the reign of Charles I., and the state of affairs after his death, before the restoration of Charles II., occasioned many extraordinary applications to the court of Chancery for relief, and perhaps induced the court to go far in extending relief; but there were many cases of extreme hardship, in which it was deemed impossible, consist- ently with established principles, to give relief; and all cases determined soon after the restoration, upon circumstances con- nected with the prior disturbed state of the country, ought to be considered with much caution." 2 No instance is known of the maintenance of such a bill in a Federal court. In a few cases the Federal courts have sustained bills to suspend the operation and enjpin the enforcement of judgments at law for matters subsequent. 8 § 359. > Mitford's PL, ch. 1, § 2, pfc * Mitford's PI., ch. 1, § 2, pi 3. 3; Cooker v. Bevis, 1 Ch. Cas. 61; "Johnson v. St. Louis, L M. & S. and also referring to Venables v. Ry. Co., 141 U. S. 602, 610; Parker v. Foyle, 1 Ch. Cas. 2; Whorewood v. The Judges, 12 Wheat. 561. SeeBal- Whorewood, 1 Ch. Cas. 250; Wake- lance v. Forsyth, 24 How. 18a lin v. Walthal, 2 Ch. Cas. a END OF VOL. I.