J'EDERAL' 'R!EPORTER, vol. 43.
ot claimant, as the case may be. It is nota final decree, "siuch a;aecree as he can abide by," but the court is to "proceed to' hear the cause parte, and jlidge therein as to law and justice shall appertain." The judge may himself determine the amount to be decreediot, which is the usual practice, he refer it to the clerk or to a commissioner to ascertain and report it. ld. 183-189. The case in 11 Wall. 268, (Miller v. U. S.,) cited by libelant's proctor, was a case of seizure on' a proceeding for condemnation and forfeiture. In such cases, whether in revenue cases or admiralty suits in'rem for condemnation and forfeiture of the property seized, (as, for instance, in prize cases,) the decree of condemnation is absolute, the only question being whether the property be forfeited or not. The rule in admiralty suits on claims ex CO'l1t1'actu is different. In such cases the COurtlDuSt make some inquiry, and the sum which the plaintiff is entitled to recover, and f0t: which a final decree shall be rendered. Authorities The motibIfls denied, and it is ordered that it be referred to the clerk to ascertain'1Tomproof the sum which the libelant is entitled to recover, for . which a filial decree will be rendered.
191. The decree firo'Confesso is 'an interlocutory decree against
---,----THE BRITANNIA. THE BEACONSFIELD. CLEUGH
THE BRITANNIA. COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE V. THE BEACONSFmLD. COTTON et i1.l.· v. THE BRITANNIA et al.
Oourt, S. D. Ne:w York.
June 10, 1890.)
34 Fed. Rep. 546. For opinion in this case, together with the other findings of fact and the conclusions of law, see Rep. ()7. Robert lJerwdict, for the Britannia and the Compagnie Francaise. George A.Black, for the Beaconsfield and Cleugh. Sidney <:Jh,ubb, for Cotton .et al·.
I " '., '
, In Admiralty·.;' On appeal from.district court.
LACOMBE, J. The findings of fact herein are hereby amended by adding theret<? .the following: . 7}irtieth. From the fact that they allowed their vesselW. come into with the Beaconsfield under the circumstances specificallydetaUedjpthe foregoing findings, it must be inferred that there was negligent navigation on the part of those in charge of the Britanni .; ,Thirty-First. The conduct of those in charge of the Bell.consfield, as specifically set forth in· the foregoing findings, .does not warrant the inference that there was on their part ne3ligence contributing to produce the collision. .
.':';. BOTB;CHILD ,. HOG" HENNING v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.
(Circuit Ocurt, D. South Carolina. May 98, 1890.)
RBKOV AL OIl' CAUSES-DQMICIf,B-CORPORATIONS.
A corporation chartered'in another state is not a resident of a state, within the sense of the removal act. of 1888, simply because it does business and has agents within such state. Following Fal& v. Railtway 00., 32 Fed. Rep. 673. (SyllabuB by the Oourt.)
On motion to remand.
BOND, J. The petition to remand this cause is based on the grourtd that the defendant, although a corporation u.nder the law of New York, has a place of business, agents, and property in South Carolina. Being so a resident of the state of South Carolina, it is argued the cause should not have been removed from the state court under the act of congress of 1888. We follow v. Railway Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 673. and the other cases taking the same view with it. The motion to remand is refused. Sns:ONTON, J., concurring.
ROTHCHILD et al. "'. HOGE et
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Virginia. May 26, 1890.)
Under Code Va, § 2874, providing that LO allsignment made by an insolvent special partnership for the purpose of giving preferences shall be valid, creditors who have · filed bills against a special partliership which has made such an assignment" under Code Va. § 2400, providing that suits may be brought by creditors to avoid assignments with intent to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors, prohibited by section . 2458, and :that the creditors filing such bills shall have a lien on the property of the ·; partnership from. the date the bills are filed, are not entitled to have their full · claim paid oilt of the assets of the firm aCCQrding to the dates of their bills. to the exclusion of other creditors. All creditors are entitled to share In the assets
FOR BENEFIT 01/
SPECIAL PARTNERSHIP-PA.YMENT OJ!' CAPITAL IN CASH.
A check given by a special partner, as his capital in the finn. which is received ,by a bank, and without verification placed as cash to the credit of the firm, and which on presentation is paid by the bank on which it is drawn, is a sufficient compliance with a statute requiring the capital of a special partner to be paid in cash. Act Va. Feb. 29,1888, (Acts Va. c. 268,) amending Code Va. 1887, § 2871, and reqUiring the names of special partners to be posted, together with the names of the general partners, conspicuously on the front of the firm's place of business, does not apply to special partnElrships entered into before the act took elfect.
Slater &- Montague, Robt. L. Montague, and Merediih &- Cocke, for comv.43F.no.2-7