ralty court. If the district court entertains such a suit, appeal lies from its . decision to the circuit court, and from there, here, if the value of the matter in dispute is sufficient. Brown and Arthur Goo. Brown, for petitioner. John H. Thomas, contra. The cases cited in the opinion were: The Belfast, 7 Wall. 637; Smith v. Brown, Law Rep. 6 Q. B. 729; The Franconia, Law Rep. 2 P. D. 163; The Guldfaxe, Law Rep. 2 Adm. & Ec. 325 j The Explorer, Law Rep. 3 Adm. It Ec. 289; The Charkieh, Law Rep. 8 Q. B. 197.
see The Lf,....r8on'. 10 FED. REP. 763.
Admiralty..-Jnrisdiction-Prohibition. Ex PARTE DETROIT RIVER FERRY CO. Petition for writ of prohibition. '.rhis case is in all its material facts like that of Ex parte Gordon, just decided. It was determined on the same day, and the decision was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Waite, denying the writ. In an action for damages for death caused by a collision, an appeal ",ill lie to the circuit court in favor of libellant if he is defeated, and in favor of respondent if the recovery exceeds $50. It is no ground for relief by bition that provision has not been made for a review of the decision of the court of original jurisdiction, by appeal or otherwise Same. Ex PARTE HAGAR. This was a bearing on petition for a writo! prohibition brought to restrain proceeding in the district court of the district of Delaware, sitting in admiralty, fro'm further action in a suit. pending for. the recovery of half pilotage claimed to be due under the statutory regulations of Delaware. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court denying the writ. Claims for pilotage fees are within the jurisdiction of the admiralty, and such being the case under the decision just rendered Ex parte Gordon, the district court can properly hear and decide the matters in dispute, and prohibition will be denied. H. G. Ward and R. C. McMurtrie, for petition. George Gray, Edward G. Bradford, Henry Flanders, andThomas F. Bayarcl, contra. parte McNeil, 13 Wall. 236; Hobart v. Drogan, 10 Pet. 108. Cases cited:
CRESCENT CITY, ETO., CO.
CRESCENT CITY LIVE-STOCK, LANDING & SLAUGHTER-HoUSE CO. 11. BUTCHERS' UNION LIVE-STOCK, LANDING & SLAUGHTER-HoUSE CO.·
(O'ircuit Court, E. D. Louisiana. April 25, 1882.)
When there is 8 federal question involved in the suit, the circuit court hall jurisdiction without regard to the citizenship of the parties. 2. LIs PENDENS, 'The pendency of Ii similar suit between the same parties in the state court h not sufficient ground in law to sustain a plea of Us pendens: Stanton v. Emery,93 U. B. 554. Ins. Co. v. Brune, 96 U. B. 588. 3. EQuITY PLEADING-RuLES 32 AND 37. Under the thirty-second rule in equity a defendant may demur to part ot a bill, plead to a part, and answer to the residue; and under the' rule no demurrer or plea shall be held bad and overruled upon argument only because the answer of the defendant may extend to some part of the same matter as may be covered by the demurrer or plea; but there is no rule which allows a defendant to demur to the whole bill, plead to the whole bill, and answer to the whole bill at the same time.
Thomas 1. Semmes, Robert Mott, and Henry Kelly, for complainant. B. R. Forman, for defendant. PARDEE, C. J., (BILLINGS, D. J., concurring.) This cause has been Bet down for hearing, and heard, on demurrer and pleas. The murrer is a general one, going to the whole bill. The questions raised by it have been practically disposed of on the hearing heretofore had for a preliminary injunction. As we adhere to our opinions given 'on that hearing, the demurrer must be overruled. The first plea sets up a forfeiture of complainant's and rights by reason of having removed the grand Slaughter-house, as originally located on the right bank of the Mississippi river, under the provisions of act No. 118 of 1869, to the left bank of the river. This plea is insufficient, as, under the terms of said act 118 of 1869, such removal would not work.a forfeiture of complainant's charter and exclusive rights, even if such forfeiture could be inquired into collaterally. The second plea is to the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that both complainant and defendant are citizens of Louisiana. The federal question involved in this suit, to-wit, the' constitutionality
.Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.