ersManv!'g Co., 109 U. S. 117, 3 Snp. Ct. Rep. 100; Busseyv. Manujacturing Co., 110 U. S. 131, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 38; Phillips v. City oj Detroit, 111 U. S. 604, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; Stephenson v. Railroad Co., 114U. S. 149, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 777; Beecher Manuj'g Co. v. Atwater Manuj'g Co.; 114 U. S. 523, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1007; Heating 00. v. Burtis, 121 U.S. 286,7 Sup. Ot. Rep. 1034; Hendy v. Iron- Works, 127 U. S. 370, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1275; Campbell v. Bailey, 45 Fed. Rep. 564,
and authorities there cited. The contention of defendants is, in my opinion, sustained, and complainant's bills must be dismissed. It is so ordered.
(District Court, W. D. PenWlylvanta. May 7, 1890.)
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION-LIBEL IN PERSO:lifAM-SUPPLIES AND SERVICES.
The district courts of the United States have jurisdiction of a libel in personam against the owner of a domestic steam-boat for supplies furnished to the boat and services performed for her.
In Admiralty. Libel in personam by Charles Jutte against John M. Davis, owner of 'the Bengal Tiger, for supplies furnished' to the boat, and services performed for her. On motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. Denied. Geo.C. Wilson, for libelant. Bartdn &- Barton, for respondent. ACHESON, J. Undoubtedly this court has jurisdiction generally of suits in personam upon maritime contracts; and as this is such It suit against the owner of the BerJgal Tiger to enforce a personalliability, and not a proceeding in rem against the steam-boat, the objection that she is a domestic yessel, and hence is not subject to a maritime lien for the claim in suit, is not well taken, and the motion to dismiss must be denied. And now, May 7, 1890, the motion to dismiss the libel is denied.
HELENA, H. S. & S. R. CO.
S. & S. R. Co. et ai.
(Oircuit Court, D. Montana.
FOREIGN CORPORATIOKS-RwHT TO DO BUSINESS IN A
Compo St. Mont. 1888, § 442, p. 720, requiring foreign corporations, before doing business in the state, to file, in the office of therecorder of the county wherein it intends to carryon business, a copy of its charter, and certain verified statements as to its capital, does not prevent a foreign trust company which has not complied therewith from purchasing securities of a railroad company in the state, and taking a mortgage upon its property to secure them, since such isolated act is not doing business in the state.
MORTGAGES FROM RAILROAD COMPANIES-RECORDING.
The general statute, (Comp. St. Mont. 1888, p. 1073, § 1555,) declaring that all mortgages of real or personal property executed by an incorporated company shall be recorded in the recorder's office of every county wherein any part of the property is situated, and shall be accompanied by the affidavit specified in Compo St. § 1538, relating to chattel mortgages, does not by implication repeal the earlier special statute, (Comp. St. Mont. 1888, p. 824, § 700,) relating to mortgages by railroad companies, and providing that the record in the office of the secretary of state of a mortgage by a railroad company, whose line is wholly or in part in Montana, shall be notice to all parties without furtller record. An answer coutaining mere allegations of law and legal inferences should be stricken out as irrelevant and immaterial.
In Equity. On exceptions to answer to cross-bill. Toole &- Wallace and A. K. Barbour, for cross-complainant. Henry C. Smith, Sterling &- Muffly, Walsh &- Newman, and T. D. Penry, for defendants.
KNOWJ,ES,.r. One of the defendants in the above-entitled action, the Northwestern Guaranty Loan Company, filed therein its cross-bill asking for affirmative relief against plaintiffs and all the other defendants. The said defendants have answered this bill. A part of them join in one answer, a part in another answer, and John Steadman, J. S. Keerl, and the Helena Steam Heating & Supply Company each in separate answers. In each one of these answers the following allegations are made, to-wit: " (1) That the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company of New York. in said bill mentioned, has not, and at the time the pretendild mortgage was executed had not, filed in the office of the secretary of Montana, or in the office of the clerk and recorder of said Lewis and Clarke county, an authenticated copy of its certificate of incorporation, or a verified and attested statement showing the name of said corporation, and the location of its office, the amount of its capital stock, and the amount actually paid in, the amount of its assets, and the cash value thereof, or any of the other statements required by the laws of the state of Montana, and therefore was not qualified or competent to make or enter into a contract within the state of Montana. (2) That said pretended mortgage was not executed, verified, and recorded liS provided in the laws of the state of Montana, in that it is not recorded in the office of the clerk and recorder of Lewis and Clarke county, wherein the property is situated. and does not contain the affidavit pres<:ribedby section 1555 of the statutes of Montana. (3) That the said Guaranty Loan Company, or the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, or its assigns, should not be heard to assert, and should not assert, a claim under said pretended mortgage adverse