fees. No such payment is here proved. If the proof showed an agreement with the respective witnesses, ulade at the tim1'l, or previous to the time,. of disbursing the amounts alluded by the claimant, to the effect that their witness fees should be applied to reimburse those expenses, it might b, that the claimant could in' that case tax the witness fees. Wooster v. Handy, 23 Blatchf. 133, 23 Fed. Rep. 49. ,No agreement with the respective witnesses in regard to their fees has been proved; and, for all that appears, the witnesses might now come forward in their own behalf,- and claim their fees, notwithstanding the fact that their expenses of traveling and maintenance have been paid. The clerk's taxation is affirmed.
THE GOOD HOPE. I HILLARD
V.THE GOOD HoPE.
(DI8trict.Oourt, E. D. New York.
A payment of money into court, on plea of tender, at the flling of the answer, will not affect the question of costs, unless it is specified how mucb is tendered as payment of the claim, and bow muoh for costs.
In Admiralty. Goodrich, Deady & Goodrich, -for libelants. Carpenter &; M08her, for claimants. BENEDICT, J. In this case, which is brought by the owners of the tug George G. Meade to recover salvage compensation for services rendered the barge Good Hope, in towing that vessel away from the fire which broke out at the oil docks upon the steamer Hafis, then lying on the upper side of the pier at the foot of North Eleventh street, Brooklyn, in October, 1888. The proofs show a salvage service, but not of a high character. Fifty dollars will, I think, be a proper compensation for a service of the characterin question. The decree will therefore be for the sum of $50, and it mustcarry costs; for the payment into court, at the filing of the answer, of $$0, upon a plea of tender after suit brought, is without effect upon the question of costs, because of uncertainty. The atatement of the answer is that the value of the services, with the libelant's accrued, taxable costs, does not exceed the sum of $80, which sum the claimants deposited in court. But how much was tendered for services, or how much for costs, nowhere appears. For alHhat appears, $10 may have been tendered for services and $70 for costs. In order to make the payment into court available, the Sum paid in for services should have been stated. Let a decree be entered for the sum of 850, and the costs of the cause, to be taxed.
'Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
BAWITZER II. WYATT.
(Oi1"cwf,t Court, S. D. California. December 11, 1889.)
FEDERAL COURTs--J"URIBDICTION-DlVERSE CITIZENBHIP.
Under the act of oongresB (25 St. U. S. 434) that, when an action iB be- . tween citizens of different Btates, it may be brought" in the district of the residence of the plaintiff or defendant," an action by a non·reBident against a partnership, whose members are residents of different states and districtB, m..y be brought in the district of the residenoe of one of them.
ABATEMENT-ANOTHER ACTION PENDING.
The facts that a partnership has become insolvent, and passed into the hands of a receiver appointed by a Btate court of another state, before the commenoement of an action ag-<Linst it in the federal court of the distriot of the residenoe of one of its members, and that plaintiff's olaim has been presented to the reoeiver, who still retains the partnership affairs in his hands uDsettled, are no bar to the aotion.
At Law. On demurrer to plea. . Rothchild & Ach and Brunson, Wilson & LamrM, for plaintiffs. Dooner & Burdett, for defendant Henry G. Newhall. Ross, J. The plaintiffs, who are citizens ·of the state of Connecticut, bring this action against C. A. Wyatt, who is alleged to be a citizen and resident of the state of New York, and Henry G. Newhall, who is alleged to be a citizen and resident of the state of California and of this judicial district, and for cause of action aver, in substance, that at the times stated in the complaint the defendants were partners doing business nnder the firm name of C. A. Wyatt & Co., and that plaintiffs sold and delivered to defendants, at their instance and request, goods, wares, and merchandise of the value 0[$74,391.76, no part of which has been paid, although the whole thereof is due, and payment has been demanded. The defendant Newhall has appeared and filed a preliminary answer in abatement of the action, in which it is alleged that the obligation upon which the suit is brought was a copartnership obligation of the firm of C. A. Wyatt & Co., which firm was, prior to the bringing of the suit, insolvent, and had theretofore passed into the hands of a receiver appointed by the supreme court of the state of New York; and that the demand sued on by the plaintiffs, verified by the plaintiff Lewis F. Rawitzer, was presented to the receiver for adjustment and that said copartnership affairs are still unsettled, and in the hands of the said receiver. The sufficiency of this plea is raised by a demurrer thereto filed by the plaintiffs. In neither the complaint nor the plea is it made to appear where the obligation arose. The jurisdiction of this court is founded only on the fact that the action i" between citizens of different states, and, that being so, the suit is authorized to be brought only "in the district of the residence of the plaintiffor defendant." 25 U. S. St. at Large, 434. It has been brought in the district of the residence of the defendant Newhall, and I think, by virtue of the statute referred to, rightly so. Since the defendants are citizens and residents of different states, and therefore of different districts, to hold otherwise would be, in effect. to hold that where there is v.40F.no.1l-39