FEDERALREPORTEB. voL 48.
was comtt:l1mieatibg to his principal by telegraph. They werehvodays in making propositions and counter-propositions. Each said to the other: I ' You yield, and I will yield. We think it is best, in view of othel'matters, to have all matters between us settled." And they were settled. And it is not for one party to come in and ask that it be set aside, unless he can clearly show that he was misled and defrauded. This, in our opinion, has not been done in this case. With these views, gentlemen, in which my Brother KREKEL concurs, the bill in this case will be dismissed.
CuTTING fl. FLORIDA Ry. & NAV.CO., MEYER'll. SAME, BROWN 11. SAME, CENTRAL TRUST Co. 'II. SAME, GUARANTY T. & S. D. Co; 'II. SAME, DAVIS'll. SAME, (MALLORY et al., Interveners.)
(Circuit Court, N. D; Florida. December 15, 1891.)
A number o'f competing raill'oads were negotiating for the formatIon of a pool ot the business from the Chattahoochee river to northern and eastern ports, and a certain steam-ship line agreed with one of them to enter the pool as its connecting line. The companies failed, however, to form a through pool, but formed a pool Chattahoochee to the South Atlalitic ports only, of which fact the steam ·from slti,p received, timely notice. Be/.d, that the latter was not entitied to shar& in the profits realized from the pool by the railroad, although the latter may haveused the:agreement with it as a menaue to secure better terms for itself.
In,Equity. On Bee 43 Fed., Rep. 743'
PARDEE,J. This case was submitted to the circuit judge on petition for r.ehearing, Judgo SPEER of the southern district of Georgia, who originullyheard'Rnd decided the case, having ,ceased to aot in the northern district of Florida. It has been argued orally and by brief, and has been fully on all the issues made and sought to be made. The main grouitdsurged in the petition for a rehearing, in various forms of recital, anlou-ntto this: That the master and the judge deciding the cause reached a: wrong conclusion on the fa.cts of the case; but complaintisfl,lso made that the judge held the exceptions to the master's report to be too vaguo and indefinite to authorize him togo behind the report to inquire if. the master had correctly reported the facts in the case. The strict rule in regard to exceptions to a master's report is that only such exceptions will be heard by the court as have beetl made before the master; and further, that exceptions must be precise and specific, raising .well-defined issues. the tinning of the master being prima jacie correct. See Gainea v.' New Orleans, 1 Woods, 104; f',()wdrey v. Railroad Co., Id.331j 13 Pet. 359; Medsker v. Bonebrake, 108 U. S. 60, 2 Sup. at. Rep. 351; Burns v. ROI:lenstcin, 135 U. S. 449, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 817. As I read the opinion of Judge SPEER, filed in
CUTTING V. FLORIDA RY. & NAV. CO.
the case, (reported 43 Fed. Rep. 743,) he did, as a matter of fact, go behind the master's report and examine the testimony taken before the master to ascertain the facts in the case. and found the master's report sustained by the evidence. However this may be, on this application for a rehearing the strict rule has been waived, and all the testimony in the case examined and considered. The case shows: (1) That in the summer of 1886 the railroad companies engaged in the carrying business from the Chattahoochee river to northern and eastern ports, in connection with their own and connecting steam-ship lines, entered into negotiations with a view to form a pool which should divide the profits, do away with competition, and avoid a war of rates. (2) That the petitioner's steam-ship line from Fernandina to northe.rn ports had ,been and was respondent's main connecting line in carrying!>llch business as responden t could secure from the Chattahoochee river to northern and eastern ports. (3) That in the negotiations aforesaid it was understood and agreed between respondent and petitioner that petitioner's line should be included as the connecting line of respondent, to be bound by the contract made, and to participate in the earnings of the pool. (4) The pool for business to the northern and eastern ports contemplated was not formed, it being impossible for the contracting parties to agree upon the details and percentages; but in lieu t1 eref a pool of the carrying business from the Chattahoochee river to S( nth Atlantic ports only was entered into between respondent anel others, which included the railway lines engaged in the carrying trade from the Chattahoochee river to South Atlantic ports, and did not include the petitioner's or any other steam-ship line, (5) That the agreement for pooling the Chattahoochee business to South Atlantic ports was made on the 16th of July, 1886, to take effect August 1, 1886, and a copy thereof was furnished by respondent's traffic agent to petitioner on the ,26th day ()fJuly, 1886, thereby giving full notice to petitioner that the pool agreed upon only included business of the Chattahoochee river to South Atlantic ports, and did not include any business to northern and eastern ports. (6) The case does not show that the petitioner suffered any speCific damages iIi its business or otherwise because not included in the pooLas made. The respondent, in fact, carried no freight uuder the operation of the pooling contract, and yet collected $14.210.97 as its share in the pool,-$11,08i5.03 being for cotton carried directly to Savannah for local delivery or foreign export. It is this share so collected by which petitioner insists should be divided with him. Waiving the question whether the petitioner's demand is one to commend itself to a court of equity, it seems clear that petitioner's grievance if;! that a pool was not made of the business to northern and eastern ports. In a pool of the Chattahoochee business to South Atlantic ports, the peo: titioner's line was not a competitor, and there was no reason why it should be included when it could render no assistance, nor interpoee any hindrance. That petitioner's line, as a probable competing line in case no pool was made, was used as a menace by respondent to force better pimself,is probably true, but it constitutes no legal ground for
FEDERAL REPORTER i
vol. 48. ;
oonlpellingresponderit to share petitioner the receipts from the pool actually 'made, which included n08team-ship lines. That petitioner was 4eceived into believing that its line would be included in any pool entered into by respontlent'may be true, and still no dal;lse ofactiori could ariseinpetitiOrier'sfaVor until specific damllgesgrowing out of the deceit should be alleged and proved. In short, petitioner's 'case, viewed in its most favorable light, is one in which: respondent agreed to form a pool of the Chattahoochee river business' to northern and eastern ports, and to includepetltioner1s li l1 e iil such a' railway and stelrin-ship pool, and thenfailed and neglected to make such pool, but instead made a pool of Chattahoochee river business to southern Atlantic ports,in which business steam-ship lines could not participate, and which pool did not include petitioner's line. I· am satisfied that the conclusion reached by the master :in his report and by the court' on the hearing was correct. The rebOOring asked for is denied, with costs.
JiRsT NAT. BANK OF DANVU,LE ·fI. CUNNINGHAM.
(Oirctl!!t Oourt, D. KentucwY· . December 12, 1891.)
A warrant attorney contained ina note to confess judgment thereon remains in force only so long as the note is unpaid; and where the payee, after receiving satistaction thereot. fraudUlently conceals the fact, and procures 'an attorneytoappear,and oonfess judgment wi,tbout the maker's or consent, sucb appearai:1ce confers no jurisdiction on the court. and the judgment Is void.
"SAME-MOTION TO VACATE-COLLATERAL ATTACK.
draws'bls motion by leave ot court, does not constitute an appearanoe to the actlOn suoh 88 will "nder the judgment valid, and he may still impeaoh it in a collateral suit.
ant, tl\e faot that he subsequently moves to vaoate the same, alId afterwards wiph-
Where il. judgment bas been trauduletltly obtained in the absellce of the defend-
The prOVision of the tederal constitution that full faith and credit shall be given In eaoh atate to the publioacts, records, and judioial' proceedings ot every other lItate gIves to a Judgment rendered in another state only suoh credit as it is en titled to in tl1at IItate; and, it it may there be collaterally attacked tor want of jurisdiction in the court rendering it, it may be so attacked in any other state.
ACTION ON FOREIGN JUDGMENT-FRAUD.
InA suit brought upon a jUdgment rendered in another state upon the appear. ance and confession of an attorney under a warrant contained in the note sU,ed on, the defendant.may show that the jUdgment was fraudulent and void by reason ot the fact' thaUhe warrant of attorney had expired by previous payment ilf the note
J. A. Cunningham upon a judgment 'rendered against him by a state
court of Illinois. Heard on demurrer to the answer. Overruled. A. O. Ruiker and Gib8on, MashaU& UJchre, for plaintiff. Wm. Lind8ay and Humphrey & Da'L'ie, for defendant.
Acti6n by the First National Bank of Danville, Ill., against
JACKSON, J. The plaintiff's motion to file the amended petition tendered is ll.llo\'Ved; and the second paragraph of the defendant's answer