'·!irdfetition1Votild anydeCl'eethis'court might make 'afford: the'complainants'? Under theaction already had in-the state coti'rt;'or act upon the () 'flnai to, bEl 'made therEiitl at the :,end, of the litigation, :' Rai'lwayCo¢p.,ny would have the authdrity" of the state court, iand'thestate statute by the 'court,t'o'enter upon the conStl'tiction'oOhe cross-toad'. ' In so'eritering, 'it aIiu'itsetnployes would , the'state court author, thereto:. ToeIiforce tllelnjunctiongranted 'by this coutt its , l marshal'wl:/uld, bEfsent <t6.arrest' the :parties for cOntaIh'pt. ,With equal jUdiCikle'omityand courtesy 1tbbstMe:oourt; on the recogHited' Jtneory'Qfhavrng, firSt 'acquired juriallictidri 'of 'the cause, :' might: injul'ietibn ,against' the United his depui to restrain ,them, from. 'interfering of;the-BeltRai:l'waji'Companyuftdet judgment or ; ''With' ; ptdeeeffihS'S' ofthe I(WM,a:S r cohc6IVtl; the very 'purpose underdiscussioht6"'prevent sucbunh,tirtful Wt,veen' courts and discredit: able 66lliethns b'etween 'ilieir Iriiriistel'ia:l'dfficers.' If, 'as 'COlltendedfor 'by the tl'i:f$tSElll-ofthe tmortgAgees"ltlieyare';Deeessary'parties to the conand 'they -ai'etitit
MaBjerBOn v. Ra:ilroad O(j., 12 Mo. 342 j tnatter of fact, ;, the at>pJ:optifition of 'olWay-fur the road 'and the tr1atJ.per the -material to the security 'of't1\6 certainly rtotwithout: remedy in ': the ,protection'dt'their rights arid i!iterests., If it '13hotiJd becomeapparent'afUlr the 'riase :is'fiilally ended·illthe state 'oourt, atid'tjrgun operating.itsroa.d:Mer ,that Of '.and the Belt,road had ':the Mi§i!ouri' Paoific, thatJthe liSesd'd'8.maged the'Inortaged"premises' a.s 'IriaterialWirppair the se'ourity, 1, am not prepared' to'say thatJtW& non,'not comb this court 'for api propriate' forin of.llction:.. :aut under the present 8wtusofthe:baEl@[I ;fOrbidden' to :grant the :ternporaty writ of injunction, and the sarmeis -:tefused.:l":'.' ' " ,- ",: ,iL" '
'not bina t11e of, tl;leir, interests
McS1l4+teJ.iiF&tyojMobe;.ly; '79Mb:' '4'1'45.' An4
: In ,re
LAW. .J , . The act of congress prohibiting the importation of aliens uUder'contract to per',: "fOrJ9 to for1l'oUowinjt t!; S.v; qraig; I -" I " ;" " , , ,"
, , svJ\'l I;lQt" tp.e t,he treasurY IlQt- to permit rSllch aliens ttl land,the fact't1l.at the refusal of iI permit to land is to con!lne the itnrni·
',:: , ;" ,: ,i
-, ; ' ': i
-,': ;, ,:' -,
,. gmnt to the ship on which he cSlIle while she remaiJls .in port, does not authorize :.': hi!i(tb be'released under corpus when it clearly appears that he Is within the purview of, the ,act. "" '
'At .' for hiJ,bias corpm. ' , DomenicO di Florio, l1-11'alien immigrant, being barred from landing at New ,York. by the collecti>r of the port, applied for his release from the custody. , ' . LrrenziJUUo, for petitioner. Daniel O'Connell, Asst. U.S. Atty., for the collector.
LACOMBE, J. The question as to the power of congress to regulate the admission of alien passengers coming to this country was considered in Henderson v. Mayor, etc., 92 U.:S. Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.. S. 580, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247; and the views therein expressed seem conclusive as to the constitutional points'raised in this case. This very act of 1885 has also been considered in U. S. v. Omig, 28 Fed. Rep. 795, by JudgeJ;JRQWN, irithesixth circuit, its tained. Itis;a'vltlla exercise of the power ofcongres9 "to regulate commerce with foreign nations." Any argument as to the merits of the act, which isnoiddUbtto Borne extent a< reversal of the judicial policy of the ernment of this country, is one to be addressed to congress, and not to tb.e,'coum.,The. act, as amended in 1887 I provides that any alien passenger arriving' in this port in any ship orvessel, who comes under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or tnigration of such alien, to perform labor, or services pf any kind in the,Ullited States, shall not be permitttid to land, of the treasury is by the sixth section of the amendatOJ;Y with the duty of enforcing tbis pro\lision. The secretaly, treasury, in this case, acting (ashe necessafily must) through his s\:\bQrdinate officer, the ,collector of the port, refu,sed to permit the J'elatol'i:lr to <land, and may 'lle !laid to restrain them of their liberty to that exten.t. · By his refusal he confines them to the limits of the ship, andtQreview that restraint this writ of lw.beas corpus was granted. that he refuses the permit, and confines thenito The the ship, r\>eP1use they have come to this country under such a contract was referred to in the first section of act; that is, to perlorm labor and services for some 0I1e else after they came here. .;The presumption is that as a public officer he performs his duty, and' that he permit only. because these alien passengers were in fact imported under such contract. That presumption may be overcome by in..this case. All that appears upon proof, but it ia not so that branch,oUhecase,is tRe statement of the relatprs themselves, an., return, by it that comelly this shipfJ:.QID bound for that their JW>Dey from the point of was furnished by Francesa Dl1vesa, 'a now workipg iQ ?a., and tnat they also have agreed to rePl!-ythe cost, ,of.t¥eir passage to Francesa Pli-vesa, for
tbey further agree that 'they will.woi'k at any kind at wages stated by him. It appears, then, that they are witbin the prohibition of the statute, and the collector, or other representative of the secretary of the treasury, was therefore clearly authorized -in fact,it was his refuse a permit their landing, although the effect of such refusal might be to confine them to the limits olthe ship while she remains in this port. The writ, therefore, is dismissed, and the relators are remanded to the custody of the collector.
(Circuit Oourt.. S. ]J.'New York.
11, law.) ,
In an action on a judgment, In which ft' appears by the that the defend·' ant entered his appearance by attorney, a paragraph of the answer, denying or inforlJ!a.tion regarding the judgment to .fox:m a belief, should be stricken out as sb,am. ' '. ' ., 2. BA1iE:. ' . , : ApBr;agrapb of the answer, which denies indebtedness, should also be stricken out. .
A answer, seeking toimpeach the judgment sued on for fraud! shou.ldbe strickell out, Si.DCe it, attempts to. set up an equitable defense to a leg8.1 action., ' ," ,
At Law. Motion to' strike, out certain paragraphs of' the sham. The action was upon a judgment in favor bf the plaintiff against the defendants, recovered in the United States circuit court for the district of Kansas. . By third paragraph the defend:ints, in averred' they were mduced to enter a general appearance 10 the Kansas actlOn by certain stipulations of the plaintiff touching the judgment which he would enter therein, whjch stipulations the plaintiff failed to· keep, whereby the amount onne judgment was, as defendants claitn, im.properly increased. The precise nature of this stipulation. need not be stated. For the 'purpose of this'p1otion it may b.e conceded that by their thhd defense tlie defendants seek to impeach the judgment for fraud or <lOvin in obtainIng it. . · Frank B'tLild, for plaintiff. Thoma8 N.Browne and Olcott, Meatte &: Gonzali38,f6r defendants.
LACOM'Bll:,· iT., .(after Btating the facts cur above.) The" first paragraph of the answer denies sufficient to form a belief as to the recovery of the j\1dgment sued upon. Inasmuch as it appears by the defehdants'qwn paliers that'they entered a general appearance by attorney in'the Kansas actiqn, this par!-,graph must be stricken out as sham.. !,oblin v. Long, 60 How. Pro 200; Beebe V. Marvin, 17 Abb.·Pr. 194; 'The second paragraph of the answer merely denies indebted-