lTALIA. 1 THE GELLERT. HAMBURG-AMERICAN PACKET
.(Dtatrf,Ct Court, E. D. New York. June 2; 1890.)
SALVAGE-COl\lPENSATION""'ToWING SHIPlI\1'I'l1 BROKEN SHAFT.
Where the steam-ship I. became dillabled at sea by the breaking of her tunnel shaft., and in such con<1ition was towed for 750 miles, to the POl't of New Y.ork. by the stelil;D-ship G.,.b.othveB6els being. of large value. and having valuable cargoes and ,many passengel'S b.oard, it was heW that the G. should recover 125,000 as salvage for her servicles; . .
In Admiralty. Action to recover salvage. The steam-ship Ttalia, bound from Hamburg to New York, broke her tunnel shaft while laboring in a heavy sea. The shaft was temporarily repaired, and the vessel continued slowly on her coursel;tt a speed of three knots per hour. The weather at this time;was favorable. The ltalia's sails were of no practical use, and he1'shaft was liable to break again at any time, especially if the weather should become had. She ran 234 miles in this -condition, when she was overta.ken by the steam-ship Gellert, also bound from Hamburg to New York. She was then about 750 mIles from New York, and 320 miles from Halifax. In response to her distress signals, the Gellert came to her assistance, made fast to her by hawsers, and towed her to the port of New York; the service occupying about four days. The weather during the was at times stormY;IHld after the arrival of the vessels at New York the path over which they had come was swept bya succession of gales. The Ita:lia was at no time completely disabled, but used her own steampower and sails during the whole of the towage. Her value, with her cargo and $473,421.88. She was ca1'l'ying220 passengers. The.Geliert was worth $400,000, and she had on board at the time of the service 461 passe'tlgers. Wheeler, Cortis &: Godkin, for libelant. Wing, Shoudy &: Putnam, for claimant.
BENEDICT, J. I am of the opinion that the facts presented show the rendition of an important salvage service to a vessel of large value, by which she was relieved from a position of peril. Upon the evidence, I am of the opinion that $25,000 is a proper salvage reward for the services rendered. The ealvage award is therefore fixed at that Bum.
by Edward G. Benedict., Ellq., of the New York bar.
uNITED STATES tI. NOa8cB.
: .UNITED STATES V. NOBSOH.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D. ;rUDe 12, 1!390.)
FEDERAL COURTS-JURISDICTION-CANOELING DECREE
The United States can sue in a federal court for the cancellatIOn of a certIficate or decree of naturalization, which has been, obtained by fraud in a state court. A bill by the United States in the feeleral court, to cancel the decree of naturali. zatioll .Qfa stlLte court, which merely alleges that was admitted to becitizen on his own applil,ation, without the examiuation of witnesses, and witb611b inquiry by the court as to his qualifications; that defendant· knew the decree were falsei and that the was obtaine,d bY; fraud practiced on the court,-is demurranle,thongh it shows the decree to have been erroneous, since defendant wbuld not be guilty of fraud merely becauseh,e applied for naturalization, knowing that .he was not entitled to it. Facts n;lUst be shown by the bill from which the court may judge whether the· decree was fraudulently obtained, and the court ithpoSed upon. .
. ' .
In Equity. Goo. D. Reynolds, U. S. Dist. Atty. William' C. Marshall, for defendant. THAYER,' J. The right of the United States to sue for the cancellation of a certificate of decree of naturalization that has been obtained by fraud is probably co-extensive with the right now accorded the United States to sue for the cancellation of patents that have been fraudulently pro-' , cured: U. S. v. Telephcme Co., 128 U. S. 315,9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 90. As no controversy has arisen on this point, I shall assume that the attorney general had the right to file the present bill, even in the absence of any legislative enactment such a proceeding. It is contended, however, that the federal courts have no power to nullify decrees of naturalization granted by state courts, although they were obtained by fraud; and,as this contention presents a question that is fundamental in all 8uitsoftbis character, it will be first considered. I do not understand the claim to be that a decree ofnaturalization stands upon any ·different footing than judgments and decrees rendered in other judicial proceedings. It seems to be conceded, and I entertain no doubt, that fraud, when practiced upon a court in the trial of an applica.tion for naturalization, will vitiate an order admitting the applicant to citizenship! and that any court before whom such proceedings take place may, on the ground of fraud, mistake, or irregularity, vacate its own orders or decrees in that behalf made, provided such court is one baving an inherent power to correct or annul its judgments or decrees, by petition, bill of review, or otber similarand equivalent metbod of procedure. The question chiefly mooted, concerns the right of the federal courts to annul the judgments of state courts, or, what amounts to the same thing, to enjoin a person from exercising a .right secured to him by the final judgment, order, or decree of a state court, made in a case over wbich it has juris.. diction. Fortunately tbere are what seem to me to be controlling adjudications on this quel>tion. In the case of Gai'IU:s v. Ji'uentes, 92U. S. 10, it was',held tbat,the United States circuit court had ijurisdiction of an v.42F.no.8-27
original bill to annul a will as a muniment of title, and to restrain the enforcement of a cO,qrt the will had been esupon th,e ,g,round. decree was by false and msuffiClent tesU'tndny.'T1ilsdeclslon prooeeded upon tbegroulld that, as the a iq equity to impeaph a dec,ree on and as the courts of the state could, entertain such a biU,isiriiiIar authority was 'Vested in federal the decree' to be atfected by the ,proceeding was a decree ofa state court. In the subsequent case of Barrow v.' HuntOn,.99 U. S. 82, it' was also held that an original bill in equity, brought to set aside a !lecree on the ground of fraild, m.llybe maintained in, the courts'of the' United' States, though the assailed· is thatofa state iHbunal. It wafi further held, however, in case, that an attack. upon a JUdgment of a state court cannot be entertained by a federal court, ,,\vhl;lre'theproceeding is tantamount to a motion to set a judgment aside for irregularity, or to a writ of error, or to a petition or bill of review. Proceedings of the latter character, as a matter of course,are' on1ymnintainable. in the court where the record remains. Proceedings to nullifyjudgmeIits of state courts, or to enjoin parties from asserting any rights thereunder, have also' 'b.een entertained' by sevetlll: circuit, ,courts. of the -United States. Thusin,Amoryv. Amory, 12 Amer.LawReg. N. S. 585, Judge DRUM-, MOND,':sittingin the circuit court for the: district of Wisconsin, entertainl;ld ,bill to enjoin parties ,from asserting any rights under a decree of York, ,the bill showing that the decree had, been fraudulently obtained in the state court... See, also, decisions"totbe same effectiinSmith v. Sahwed,9 .Fed. Rep. 483, and Sahlgarllrv. Ke:nnedy, 1,McGll&ry,291, Fed. Rep. 295. In-view of these authorities,Iconclude,tbat it is no objection to an original bill in; a iederalcou.rt to ,enjoin .a party, from asserting rightS under a judgment Qt,decree, on the ground of fraud practiced in procuring it, that the Judgment or decl'oo.inquestion was rendered by 81 state court. Itfollows , of.course, thatdt.isDoobjection to this proceeding that the otder of naturalization was, entered in the St. Louis court of criminal instead of aeo,utt of the United·States. On the contrary, the fac.t that oourthaslOo.. ,equity Jurisdiction, no power to entertain 8 bjll M,revi(lw"and no power to "set aside -an order of naturalizationop nmtion, rathersttengthens the right of the government to sue in -this court; jf. in. poitltQf ,fact the fraud: complained of is of that character that to-invalidate: 8 judgment.: '; This' leads ,to the. seoondimportaut inquiry involved in the ease, whether: :the watterslwarred .in the bill IVe sufficient to sustain it, treatil:lKltas pro¢eeding .to ,impeach a judgment on the ground of fraud., ,Whegist of the. oomplaint seerosto be that an alieni, not at the, ttme entiUe<J.. to any provision oLthe, laws: of the. Was nev,:ertht'Jessadmitted, 'on his own application to be,. cornea. citiZlE1n, by; 8 .conn .hay,ing jurisdietion of natilralization proceediJ;lgs, rib,Qutthe of any witnessel:lin support of the appli;without anyinqui,ry whatever by the court before:whom.thei