FINANCE CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA V. CHAR.J,ESTON, C.
The assignee of a claim the United States is the" party" to whom the claim belongs. He owns it; and, being such owner, he is entitled,in my judgment; to redress against the United States, as if it "'vere suable," not by the assignor or original holder alone, but generally, as if the United States were a private person. The court is as competent to deal with the claJm in the hands of the assignee as in those of the assignor. Proof of the assignment is the only additional circumstance in the case, and that is a very simple matter. U. S. v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 669, was a suit under the, act of 1887 by an assigne'e. The objection was not made in that case, and it appears to have been taken for granted, that the assignee could maintain the suit if the assignor could. 'Sooner or later this question must be decided by the supreme court, and itmay as well be in this case as any other. My impressionis that under the act of 1887 the assignee may sue the United States, in' respect to the claims mentioned therein, ad if it were a priva1irperson, and I will give judgment '. ,
et al. v.
In re HaT.
(Oircutt'Oourt. ,D. South Oarolina.
o:r PUBRB-RIGllT 01' INSPEOTION· .t\.!l in possessiqu of papers of _ railroad COlIlpallY Upon which he bas a a lien for legal services cannot be compelled to perJ;llit an inspection ,thereof by the company's attorney. or to deliver them up to the court, upon a suggestion that he ; is now, retained by persons bringing suits against the comJ!any upon canses ot· action' arising out of transactions with which he was profeSSlOn!¥ly while counsel 'for the company, and that his possesBion ,of the. papers would an undue, when no particular suits are spet;l1!ed, li'ud the attorney denies that he is any liction to which the papers in his possession relate either directly or indireotly. " .
At Law. In. the matter of the. suggestion of counsel for D.H. Chamberlain, receiver, against James F. Hart, Esq. A. T. Smythe, for re.ceiver. . O. E, Spencer, for respondent. James F. Hart, Esq.,wasfor many months generalat, tomey for the Charleston, Cincinnati & Chicago Railroad Company.: His oonnectionwith the company in this capacity ceased 30th J une;l89L At the- time .:he'so ceased to be its attorney he had in his hands' papers belonging to it, obtained 'by him in his daims a lien upon until his arrears of salary, amounting to several thoufland dollars, have been paid. The present proceeding is based. upon the statements that the said James F. Hart is the attorney for persons
Qli$rlestoD, Cincmnlttj,&Ohicago Rail-
road ,Oompany fox, CaUSe!! ,of out of with which he ,was counsel· for the:90mpllny during the CQg.:gg.Ull;nce of:thp.t .relntionj,tnat. ip. the of said 'suits he would have great adVlllltagein: holding in his possession papers of the railrQa<l coropanYiTeCj:li"ed ,by ,him as its: counsel, and intenJed to be sQlEllyfQrJta that au ',inspection of these papers by the rehiaoouDsEllis necessal'y for the proper conduct of their cases The answer of Mr. H:l;l,l't toa rule issul:1cl against him upon ofthis Buggestionadmitait;hat he was the attorney for this road, m!lny papers belongingm:itcame into his hands while he was such attorney, and he deClines. to, ,surrender them until he is compen!;lated . ,service. He' adds. servicl:1s were rendered. to the railroad cODlpany, aridtbntfrQm F'ebruary28,l&91,tQJuly 1,1891, he presentr,eceivl:ll'l;' :00. 80th June,18IU, the receiver witb the furthel' legal services of respondent, and so notified him' jn writing,a. ()f: ,which, jf! annE\x;E\d to his return." He denies that he has, or ever had, any writing, paper, or 'document having relation, directly or indirectly, to any action which he has been retained to prosecute, or is now pr()sectiting;ngainst said company. He ends with a prayer for the protection of his lien. ,l!-n f!.tto,rn,e,y,has upon the papers of bisclient'\vliich are the' result of his lahor, or conie into bis bands professionally, and that he can ret/!.ip thew until his fees are paid. 1 Jones, Liens, 122. The cases which1have re'warded the research of the counsel differ upot) theque!;ltipn",hether"p,uring such retention, the client or the succeeding attorney inspect them. The weight of authorityis in favor of[1theaffirmative. RoBS v'. Laughton, 1 Ves. & B. 849j Cot/tmer¢J,l v'.'p01mrcm, 1 Both, are much sh/!.ken by L01'llv.Jf"tiMnleighton, Jac. 580; Newron v. Harlu,!ui, 4 Scott, N. R. 769·.. & R. 400; Reslapv,'Metcalfe;dl,Mylne &:Cd86j Oa,ne,v.,Martin, 2 Beav. 585;. none cases permit the inspection of papers, except when a particular suitw8sin progress, and the papers pertained to that suit. In the present instance, no case is specia'lljfuainfd.A general: description: is,used,to·wit, cases in which he had acquired knowledge as attorney for the 'cotinpany,and whiohhe now brings against the com pany. The respondent denies that any 'one case of this kind exists. There is nothingthen.up.on which the court can proceed. It may be well to say that, notwithstanding the recogni. tipnpf, the JIm ,elairotlg an this. e.ourt.will not, permit sucl\ a;Jien.to JJ&ed a,s' in this suggestion,hll,p.jlily bymistake, as appeam. be papers ismade; they; wiU.beat Qnce im,poUllded and lQ9getl with, .. rule is
AlIERICAN".ORTG.CO. OF SCOTLANn::II. HOPPER.
AHERIl)AN MORTa., CO. OF SCOTLAND,Limited, SAME t1.
'" . '", , '
(Cft'C'II:tt Oourt,D. Oregon. · November 2,
The land department has no, authority, ot ,its own motion to set aside or oancel the 'finllol. certifioate ota settler UIlderthe pre-emption law. Smith v.EwLna, 11 Bawy. ;Rep. 741j v. Fine, 14 40 Fed, Rall' , themailltenance of an .the actual at the ouster complamed of ili a su:fll.Olellt estate against a mere. iJj.ttuder.
' . · ", , ' '. , . , ' ' , '.
8. SUfi!:.' '
from apre-emp1lo$', who has o\rt4ined a :ftBal.w!oate, has nqt lIuoll in tb,e fro!!! the fact of 'an'action to recover the 'POS86S8iol1 tbllreof'trom anyone.' . ' ,.: "
. " " :
(Sull.abuB by the Court.)
), At Law. These, the'conrt:' tbgether,1WUhm1t the iIitervention of a jury, upon an agreed stateofJacts.i' (/, ' Mr. JIfUlitltm :. ,r" -' i :.. ,. Mr., J. J. Bal1erat/tMr. ,RaleighStott" lUlQ Mr. W. L. Boise, for defendants.
1: ,. , : \....
'i' · .:
,the complaints that the plaintiff ,the ,laws pf 'Great Britain, and' tbatthe defendants are citizens of Oregon; that it is the owner,rand entitled,to 1:he poSsession of the S, t ,cilf sectionf22"in township 8 N., of rangErS1 .E. t Wallametmetidian"andof the S.,W.+Qf sectiOD)!j,intownshi,p2 .N.,.of :tbasamerange; that the defendant' Crow,wrongflllly withholds from it the possession of said S. E.quarter section. and: tbe does the like with reference to said S.W. quarter sec.uon, each ofwhich exceeds in vaJue the.sum:o ( $2,.000. , Theanswerscontainademal oLtbe,ownershi.p of. premises by,the plaintiff, and an al1egati<lD.tbat the defendant Crow is the owner :of said south-east quarter section, and Hopper of said ,s,outh-west quarter .seetion.'.' ; "'ii " /, ., It, is.admitted that" Jesse, Fulford. entetedsaid ': south.east ' q\larter section at the proper underthepre-:emption law ,lJ,od reeeived ,his final certificate therefor on ,AugustS!, 1882, andtheteupon -the'sametl) W. C. Smith,who'IUortgngedittodie plaiotiffon the same daY'lls security loan ,of money; ,that 10,1885,1 th,:l plaintiff. commenced a :suit in the proper. st81tecouri to. foreclose said sueh· ptocee,dings were had t1gereon'that'theproperty;wflS sol-d to aaberifflsdeed .thereforon·.Qotijber -1:2; 1881jan'd that the .m:oneyJoaned tGl Smith'was lQlinedin goodJaitlli; ·witbout.:noticeof any. defect d.eficielacy", in ,'!lis entry, ,and ethe m6ne-y thereon had, nQtbeen returned.. ; . ., '. i 'on'Mi:ty7, 1885, thedefelldani ,Ctp'o,M applied at the, lan<1.offioe -to entet;Jsa,id, soutb-east quarter, law;; illi.at