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-
THE LUDVIG HOLBERG.
ness. It should also be stricke,nout. Mills v. Duryeg, 7 Cranch, 481. Inasmuch as it is not disputed that the Kansas court had jurisdiction, and that the defendants had notice of the proceedings therein, the def!lnse set up in the third paragraph of the answer is plainly an equitable one. Christmasv.Rtt88ell,5Wall. 290; AUisonv. Chapman,19 Fed. Rep. 488. Equitable defenses cannot, however, be set up in actions at law in the federal courts. Bennett v. Butterworth, 11 How;, 669; MonteJo v. Owen, 14 Blatchf. 324; ParsOnBv. Denis, 7 Fed. Rep. 317; Doe v. Roe, 31 Fed. Rep. 97. This paragraph must therefore be.stricken out.
LUDVIG HOLBERG. 'STAFFORD V.THE LunVIG HOLBlllRG.
Tint F.O. MATTHIESSEN & WIECHERSS: R. Co. v.TIIljl LUDVIG HOI..BERG.
(OtrCtUt Cowrt, 8. D. Nf/W Yotk.June 5, 1800.)
OF EVIl>ElfCE. ," .' .' '
" 'The' decision of the distrlct court as to questions of fact will not be disturbed on appeal where the evidence is conflicting, and some of the witnesses were examined before district judge.
, In Adfuiralty.
On appeal fro.D1' district court. '
FINDINGS OF FACT.
OLThelibelallt Stafford was the owner of the bark Quickstep before lit'tpe time of on the 24th day ofMay,1887. The libelant ,the F. O. Miithiessen & Sugar Refining Company is a corporatioll" 'll,£,i,d ,,:8S the owner of a cargo of.sugar laden on board said bark. (2) Qn the afternoon of the,24th day of May, 1887, the bark Quickwas being towed from sea into the port step, ladElP with a cargo of ,of New' YorIt by the tug-boat Leonard Richards" on a hawser 80 fathoms proceeding up about in the middle of the main ship chanlong. nel, and' when a little to the southward and eastward of buoy No. 11, at .about 4:26p. M., she waS run into by the steam-ship .Ludvig Holberg; the latter v!lssel ;stljking ,the bark on hllr port quarter, about the mizzen topmast back,stay, cutting into her after compani<;>ndoor a distance of about nine feet, her open so that the cargp· rolled out. Immediately after the qql1isiAn said .bark began to sink, and, while sinking, wall towed by the tug on to the west bank, where she grounded in 25 feet of water, abo\ltaquarter of a mile below buoy No. II,snd, beCame ;3 total was a1110st. " . .. (3) 'thl;l bark waS 1 feet long, 37 feet beam, 2,3 Jeetdepth of hold, , ;3Iid was laden with 1,024 tons ofsugar, and drew 20feet of wa,ter. (4) The Ludvig1J'01berg,which hails from Bergen, Norway, was an iroll'screw steam-ship of 687 tons 20,0 lopg. Tll,eclaimants'