V. LE }l']';ORE.
pied by the appellees, or to do an act that will occasion :njury to any considerable extent. Thedamages,if any, to which the appellees can' lawfully lay claim, are certainly very small, if not purely nominal. We recognize the rule that legal 'rights of every description are entitled to protection, no matter howslllall their money value may he, but a 'court of equity is not bound to afford protection by an unconditional order of injunction, when adequate relief may be afforded in Bome other manner, whether the right involved is of great or little value. BCI.88ett v. Man1ifacturing 0>., 47 N. H. 437; McElroy v. Kansas Oily. 21 Fed. Rep. 257; Eris R. 0,. v. Delawa1'6.L. &: W. R. 0>., 21 N. J.Eq. 291, 292. We are of the opinion that the' circuit eourt would' have gone quite far enough in the case at bar, had it required the appe+Iant to give a bond in a 8um, not exceeding $2,500, conditioned to pay snch damages. if any, as the complainants below might thereafter be adjudged to be entitled to, by any court of competent jurisdiction, in consequence of the allegedadditionaJ.. servitude imposed or tbrel:'ltened to be imposed on its right of way. Entertaining these views, the order of injunction appealed from is bereby vacated and annulled, the existing injunction it dl8sd1ved,the cause is remanded to the lower court, with directions to take a bond for the protection of the appellees not exceeding the amount. and with conditions as above indicated.
(C'rcuit CO'l£1'1 Q/' AppeaZl,
Circuit. January 25,Ill9l.)
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United Statea for the Western. District of Arkansas. ..' , H. 8. and .Ale:». G. Oochran, tor John 11, Roger,. for appellee. .'. .' Before CALDWELL. CircUit Judge. and SumAS and T1JAYEB.District JUdges.. ", . TltAYER.District. Judge. This is an appeal from an order·granting and continuing a preliminary injunction. The .same questions arise: that have been fully considered and determined at. tbe PJ'esent in the case of the same appellant against Gabriel L.Payne and Houston J.Payne. 49 Fed, Rep. 114·.. For the reasons stated the opinion on.fiie in the'last-mentioned cause the order ot injunction appealed from is vacated andannulloo. the existing injunction is di8solved. and the cause is remanded to the lower,court. with directions to take a bond wit.b suretieil :tr!>m the in _IIUIll not to exceed $2.WO, conditionl3d that the appellant will par such damages. if any. M the.appellell may be adjljdged to be entitled to. by .any co,urt'of competent junsdiction. in' corisequence ol'tbe alleged lidditlonal servitudlt imll08ed. or threatened to 'be "Uoposed. on the appellarit'a right of . way. .,'·.. . .
In re FIRST NAT.
(O'Lrcwtt Oourt, D. Vermont. ;December 24, 1891.)
1. NA'J;IOl'l'AL BA:nrs-:-MARRIEI> WOMEN AS SHAREHOLDERS-LIABILITY POR AssESSMBNTIl.
Mal'ried women, who are permitted by the laws of the state in which they reside to become shareholders in national banks; are liable to assessments thereon under the national banking laws.
2. EnOl1TION....VALIDITY-JOINT DEBTORS.
Wllere a judgment is against a husband and wife jointly, the fact that execution is issued against the Wif,e, ,alone is an irregularity not within the reach of a writ of,error, lind, when no motion is made in the trial court to correct it, it must be considered valid. , '
ExillouTION SALEs-REDIlMPTION OJ' LANDS-VOLUNTARY PAYMENT.
Under Laws Vt. 1884; No. 189, § 10. permitting the debtor to redeem within six montlls lands sold on execution, by Paying to the officer the amount for which they were sold, with interest1 such II payment is voluntary, arid eonstitutes a waiver of ,all defects in the proceeaings. ' . . A decree founded upon a tort will survive though the debtor die pending an ap-. peal il1wnich a supersedeiJibond has been given.
PI!' AOTIONs-DEATH PENDING ArPEAL.
III Equity. In the matter of the reqeivership of the First National St. Albans. Heard on petition by the receiver for leave to ac,cept a proposal to compromise, together with a petitioJ;l. to sell assets ill case the proposal is not approved. Proposal disapproved. For former reports, see 35 Fed. Rep. 463; 39 Fed. Rep. 403; 40 Fed. Rep. 413; 41 Fed. Rep. 752; 43 Fed. Rep. 700. Edward A. Sowles, Henry a. Adam8, and T. W. Moloney, for petition. Albert A. HaU,. H. ,Oharlrea,R,oyr;e, Geo r A. Ballq,rd,. Henry A. Burt, Jed P. Ladd, and WiUard Farrington, opposed.
WHEEJ,ER, J. This bank has long been in the hands of a receiver appbinted by the comptroHer' of the cutrency. The statute (seotion 5234) provides that the receiver, "upon theorqer of a court of record of competent jurisdiction, may seU or compound all ba,d or doubtful llpd, op. alikewlier, may sell all the relll and personal property of such association, on such terms as the court snall direct." This receivership now has cash in treasury and bank about $22,500 j real estate, which came from mortgages formerly belonging to the estate of Hiram Bellows, through Edward-A. Sowles l executor, worth about $6,500; redeemable leases from the Same way, worth about $4,500j a judgment of the same this coqrt Margaret B. Sowles and Edward A. Sowles for about $50,OOO,appa;J,'ent1y satisfied to about $30,000, on which- a writ of error without auperaedeas is now pending in the supreme court of the United Statesjreal estil.tesold on execution against her on this judgment to the amount of about $10,000; a decree of this court against Oscar A. Burton for about $15,000, on appeal i.s now pending in the supreme c01,lrt of Statesj and poor paper of one Marshall to the amount of about $100,000, for which $2,700 is offered. The claims amount to about $290,000, besides one in favor of Margaret B. Sowles of about $26,000, established by decree of this court since the payment of divi-