,NOTE. CONFLIOTOF LAWS. The general ru'le is that a negotiable instrument is governed by the laws (If the statein whWl it lspaynble. Webster v. Howe Machine Co., (Oonn.) 8 At!. Rep. 482; Shoe Leather Nat. Bank v. Wood, (Mas]!.) 8 N. E. Rep. 753, and note. Where no place' of payment is expressed,. it is governed by leaJ loci con.tf'dct'U8. Hart v. Wills, (Iowa,) 2 N. W. Rep. 619; Griswold v. Goldinll:, (Ky.) 8 :8. W.Re\). 535. . ." A receipt signed ,in New Hampshire for money received by the borrower's agent in Massachusetts; the receipt, being delivered to the lender in the latter state, is a Hill v. Cllase, (Mass.) 9 N. E. Rep. SO. Where' an 'indorsement is written on 8, note by the payee thereof in one state, and a sale llDd· delivery of the note' is made. in another· state, the. contract of indorsementrilust be rep:arded as made copsummll,ted in the place where the sale and deliverY· occurred, rather than where it was written. Briggs v. IJhtham, (Kan.) l3Pae. Rep. 393. : . , "
BANK OF THE CI'fV·OF NEW YORK ". AMERICAN
CO. and others.
(Oircuit Gourt, 8. D. N6W York. March 9, 1887.)
l3Il0KERS-DELCREDERE (lOIDriBBION-LIEN-SsT·On. Rehearing denied. See 29 Fed. Rep. 611.
." Memorandum on Motion for Rehearing. "David Willcox, for complainant. Alexander 'Thain, for defedtlants Mary·J. Graefl'eand William H. Garner. Samuel' ·W. Bower,' for defendarttB' the American Mills Co., Albert J. Graeffe, and William H; Bowen.
, COXE, J.. I have re-exainined cause in the .light I Of the supplemental submitted by see no reMon to change the views heretbfore e:xpressed. . The arguments preseilted at the final hearihgare nthvreasserted, with, greater emphasis, but not with greater for the comp1!l-il1ant's position was then most concisely stated. Nojn'ew theory is advancedj' no additional proposition of law is suggested. ;; The former' decisionwaB'reached after considerable time and thought had been devoted to the subject,aud after' all the arguments now presented hlidbeen fully cousidered. With every disposition to aid the complaimiIit,' the. conviction that it was without relief could not be resisted. The complainant is not satisfied withthedecisionj but, as I understand the moving papers, it iE\ not conteuded that anything involving the substance of the controversy has been overlooked, The trial oourt may have taken an erroneous view of the law, but: the remedy for B,uch error is a,q appeal. The easels. hot brought within the rule which authorizes a If were ina position to inthe, st. rU.les of equity a.ga inst, the deiendan.t.s; if it were able , to [for its benefit alone a,u..the, ;rights which belong to all the creditors, and to each class of if it could obtain a preference by virtue of a statute designed, to pteventpreferences, and divest a lien
, :POLLI1'Z V. SCHELL.
which, rol' certain pnrposes, concededly existedjif it could take by this action what it could not have obtained if the acts complained of had not path of success would be less difficult. But the complainant' qoesnot and cannot ()ccupy such a position. The conclusion formellyreached, that the relief prayed for cannot be granted in an action ofthis cbaracter, must be adhered to. The Illotion is denied.
SCHELL and others.
(Oirc,uit Oowrl, 8. D. New York. March 19,1887.)
Where, on the trial ofa cause, defendant obtains a verdict for costs, which plaintiff pays, this constitutes an acquiescence in the verdict, and a renunciation of the right to further prosecute the claim adjudicated in that suit, and will bar another action thereon, even though no formal judgment be entered on the verdict.
ADJUDICATA-PAYMENT OF COSTS.
Where plaintiff obtains a verdict for a sum, the right to recover a part of which is barred by a former adjudICation, the verdict is wrong, and cannot be set aside in part, and allowed to stand for residue. In such a case the motion to set aside the verdict will be granted, unless plaintiff remits the amount awarded on the barred claim, and denied if he enters such remittitur
At Law. Acthm to.recover excess of duties. Almon W. Griswold, for plaintiffs. Stephen A. U. S.. Dist. Atty., and TIwrooa Greenwood, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendants.
. ' WHEE.LER, J. T'hiscause was tried by jury January 13 and 14, 1886, in October term, 1885, and the .trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs for $4,017.61, of which $3,890.99 was for excess of duties and gauger's fees, and interest thereon, exacted by Augustus Schell, defendants' testator, as collector of the, port of New York, on an importation of wine made by the plaintiffs from Malaga, Spain, by the brig Gideon, September 1, 1857, and $126.62 was for an excess of duty likewise exacted on an importation of hemp by the brig William Frederic, October 14, 1859. have moved to set aside the verdict because they say The that on the trial of a prior suit in favor of the plaintiffs against their testator in this court on the twentieth and twenty-first days of May, 1859, a verdict was rendered for the defendant on these same claims for excess of duties and fee.s.on the importation by the Gideon, and that the defendants' costs of that suit were taxed and paid. The records of the court show that there was such a suit; that these claims, arising out of the importation by the Gideon, were included in itj that a verdict for the defendant was rendered therein May 21, 1859, but that no formal judgment was entered on the vernict. It is made to appear otherwise