missed the bill, from which order this appeal is prosecutecLt'he decision was rendered on March 13, 1882, affirming the decree of the circuit court. Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opini.on of the court. Where appellant does not seek to reverse the order of sale to satisfy the amount due to the mortgagee, nor ask that the sale made under that order be set aside and a new sale ordered, nor make any offer to redeem by payment of the amount found due on the original mortgage, nor offer to pay the amount bid at the sale by the mortgagee or tender any sum in court as assurance that he will do so, but simply asks that so much of the decree as forecloses this statutory right to redeem may be reviewed and reversed, his bill of review was properly dismissed. Francis H. Kales, for appellant. E. B. McCagg, for appellee. Cases cited in the opinion: Brine v. Ins. Co. 96 U. S. 627; Suitterlin v. Conn. Mut. Ins. Co. 90 Ill. 483.
Corporation-Conduct of its Affairs. OGLESBY 'D. ATTRILL, U. S. Sup. Ct. Oct. Term, 1882. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Louisiana. Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the supreme court on May 8, 1882, affirming the judgment of the circuit court. In conducting the affairs of a corporation, as to the wisdom of an assessment, or its necessity at the time, or the motives which prompt it, the courts will not inquire if it be within the legitimate authority of the directors to levy it, and the objects for which the company was incorporated would justify the expenditure of the money to be raised. Nor will they examine into the affairs of a corporation to determine the expediency of its action, or the motives of it, when the action itself is lawful. A compromise effected beween stockholders and the corporation, by which all claims arising from the assessment and the alleged fraudulent purposes of the officers in connection with it stands as a judgment, and protects from further suit equally those who advised and those who levied the assessment; participants in whatever wrong was committed, if any there were, as well as principals: abettors as well as actors. Henry B. Kelley, Richard De Gray, C. B. Singleton, and H. R. H. Browne, for plaintiffs in error. Thomas J. Semmes and S. T. Wallis, for defendant in error. Cases cited in the opinion: Bailey v. Birkenhead, Lancashire & C. J. R. Co. 12 Beav. 439; Adle v. Prudhomme, 16 La. Ann. 343. Negligence.
SCHEFFER 'D. WASIDNGTON CITY, V. M. & G. S. R. Co., 5 N. J. Law J. 169. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia. This is an action brought by the executor of deceased to recover of a railroad company damages for the death of a party alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the company while deceased on their road. A demurrer was interposed on the ground that the negligence alleged was too remote aa a cause of death to rccolery. the proximate cause
NOTES OF DECISIONS.
bemg suiCide of decedent-bis death resulting by his own immediate act. Thecause was decided by the supreme court of the United States in the October term, 1881. Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion, affirming the judgment of the circuit court, to the'effect that where the proximate cause of death was his own act of self-destruction, sUperinduced by mental abertation, physical suffering, and disease, the railroad company will not be liable. Cases cited: Insurance Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44; Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469; McDonald v. Snelling, 14 Allen, 294. Removal of Cause-separable Controversy. COKnIN tl.VAN BRUNT, U. S. Sup. Ct. Oct. Term, 1881. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of New York. The case· was decided in the supreme court on May 8, 1882. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court, affirming the order of the circuit court. Where the real controversy is about the right to the possession of land, and sO far as the tit1e is concerned it appears that citizf:lns of the state in which suit is brought are the only parties interested, and occupy both sides of that controversy, the cause is not removable under the second clause of section 20f the act of 1875, as there are no separate controversies, such as admit of separate and distinct trials. . Randall Hagner, for plaintiff in error. J. J. McElhone and,Joseph K.McCammon, for defendants in error. Cases cited in opinion: The Removal Cases, 100 U.S. 457; Blake v. McKim. 103 U. S. 336; Hyde v. Ruble, 3 Morr.Tr. 516. Removal of Causes-Revenue Cases. VENABLE'll. RICHARDS, U. S. Sup. Ct. Oct. Term, 1881. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Virginia. The opinion in this case was delivered by Mr. Justice Harlan on May 8, 1882, affirming the judgment. for the removal of both civil Section 643 of the Revised Statutes, and criminal prosecutions of a limited class arising under the laws of the United States without regoard to the amount involved, is not in conflict with the act March 3, 1875, providing for the removal of civil causes to the circuit COUlt; and the act of 1875, so far as it embraces suits arising under the laws of the United States, does not preclude a removal of a suit of the class defined in section 643. W. P. Burwell, for plaintiff in error. S. F. Phillips, Solicitor Gen., for defendant in error. Patents for Inventions-Reissue, when Void. JOHNSON'll. FLUSHING & NORTH SIDE R. CO., U. S. Sup. Ct. Oct. Term, 1881. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of New York. The decision was rendered on May 8, 1882. Mr. Justice Woods delivered the opinion of the court, affirming the decree of the circuit court. Where the original patent could not be fairly construed to embrace