to. Dealing with the interest of mortgagees in railroad property, we encounter vested rights. They cannot be displaced llpOn any mere idea of right,. or on 8,ny tefined notions of equity.: '.' Inmannging the-property, the court is nor can it entertain,sentiments ofbenevolehce or.hunuitlityitl disbursing the funds,-..;.luxuriet:dn which the owner alone catlindulge. So much of the petition as prays l;pecial under the brder of 28th February, 1891, is disallowed. The claim comes nnder the principIes laid down in Posdickv. We have passed upon several claims of this character in the inta'Vetltion of the PocahontaBOoaI Oo.et4l..in the main cause, (48;Fed. Rep. 188;) Let the claim of the present petitioner be included with those cIaimsto the aIllount; proved, 8902.80, and share the same fate.
D. ConnectiC'itt) March
Tbellupreme court. dillmissed an app8;31from the circuit court, with a mandate requilil1g appellanUo.pay tbe COllte. TbQreaft,er tbe appellant, witbout paying tbe costs, a biU in the circuit court to review its judgment, wbicb was demurred to for want of an allegation tbat the coste were paid. Tl;le court beld that this was not a ground of demurrer, but that the proper remedy was to stay prooe.edings until payment of the costs. No order was. aske!l.fi;ring a time for such payment, aiJd payment wu made and accepted by defendant's counsel two months and twelve days thereafter. Held, tbat tbe delay was not so unressonableas to debar plaintur from filing a supplemental bill alleging such payment. I
011' COBTlI-RuBONABLB D.BL.lT.
In Equity. Bill of review by Martha A.Milleragainst Emma J .C]llrk and others. For opinion on demurrer to the bill, see 47 Fed. Rep. 850. The hearing is now on a motion to strike out a. suppleIllental bill. Overruled. John M. Buckingham. for plaintiff. W. B. Stoddard, for
SHIPMAN" District Judge. This i$.a motion to strlke from the files the supplemental bill in this case, which alleges the payment of costs, upon the ground that the payment and the supplemental bill were delayed for an unreasonable time. Two other grounds were suggested in the motion, were not pressed in the argument. In the decision, which was made alter the argument of demurrer, and which was filed November 3,1891, I said that the omission to state the payment of costs in the bill was not a subject of demurrer; for the payment of costs was one of procedure, rather than jurisdi(ltional, but could be taken by a motion to !ltay procee<Hngs; and also said: "Before a decision upon the other questiOns contained in the demurrer, proceedings under the bill of review should be stayed until the mandate of the supreme court has ,been complied with," etc. No order of sl.ay
waf' asked for, .and therefore no time was fixed for the payment of costs. They were paid' January 15, 1892, aDd the supplemental bill was filed on the next day,--a delay of two months and twelve days. Inasmuch as no order was asked or IPade fixing the time of payment, and as the defendants' counsel accepted the costs, when paid, I cannot say that this delay debars the petitioner in the bill of review from filing her supplemental bill. The decision upon the demurrer was postponed until this payment sh,ould be made Or excused; Inasmuch as, the case was argued some time ago, if the respective counsel have any views in addition to those which were contained in their briefs, I should be glad to receive them in writing.
0/ Appeaw, N'/,nth.
C1trcwU. March 7', 181l9.)
' ., Under Code C!vilProc; Or. § 187, providing that an opinion aiready formed by a juror is not alone sufficient to sustain a challenge, but that the court must be sati.. iled from all the oircumstauees that tbe :j1l.ror cannot t1'Y the case impartially, the :rnlillg'" otrthe court on the juror's qualUioa.tions will not be reviewed unless all of the evidencetaken at the examination be presented in the record, although the te.. tiD'iony produced shows the juror to have a fixed opinion on the merits of the cause. State v.Tom; 8 Or. 179, followed. Under C<>deCivil }iroc. .or. § 281, providing that the point of exception to a juror must be particularly stated; it is not sufficient to challenge for cause witbout stating the particular reasons'for such challenge.
, ' '
The discretionary finding of the trial judge in passing upon a juror's qualifications will reviewed unless1t. appears to have l)een exercised arbitrarily. 4. SAME-ExcEPrrON8. .." the court, of a challenged juror for insufficient reasons, is no ground for exception1wq.en it aPtJea1'8 that the remainder of the jury was made up of personsto whom the excepting party made no objection,
To base error upon the court's ruling that a.juror need.not answer as to his prejndice against corporations, it must appear thllot the party: making the challenge was thereby prevented from ascertaining whether the juror had such prejUdice as , would interfere with his conclusions in arriving at a verdict. All TO FAMILY. ' ',' In an action for personal injuries it Iillpeared that plalnti:Cr had no external hurt except a slight bruise, but ,that he had been in bed ever since the accident,-a period of several months. Evidence was admitted without objection that he had a wife and honie. Bela prOper to admit further evidence that he bad two children, of seven and five :vears respectively, not for the purpose of increasing the damages, but as explaip.ing·wby the members of his family were not called to testify as to his condition during that time, and as tending to show that he was not shamm.tng illness.""
. ,:, '
In a daIlJa,e ilult for personailnjuries, where the evidence points to some internal hurt, marilfeating itself in symptoms of 'hysteria, the Illedical testimony being , conflicting,' ap; ,inlltl;1;¢.tion of defendant's witpesses, who had had experien(Je,in Similar oasel!l was entltle,d to the greatE\r weight, is not nece.. ,sarily disregarded in averaict Tor plaintiff, where the lattel' had produced other , testimony ten4i1lg,tQ.show.,the sel'ious nature of his injuries.
testimony of the attending ,physician, corroborated by that "of, another, medical ex·
A verdict for $10,000 for persbnal injuriell to an adult is not excessive where the