<:ourtto ,prQcQed,kl:trlaUhereoo, and,to graotrelief, tQUSt' be determined under the Iowa statutes. Of the subject-matter of the action the Pdlk had, jUrisdietion. And .all, the parties to filed in the action and COW!lse} taking .part.intliltt trial. The,colilrt had jurisdiQtion oethe parof the Iowa . statutes, as to the force and effect ties·. of pjeading& 'In action, is pecuU",rl,:the province of the Iowa courts. given tpthestatut(' by the highest court of the state (IThe should-be followed, qy thill' court." Moore8 v. Bank,: 104 U. S. 625. "The cODstruction given to a statuteof.a state by the highest tribunal of the statute, and is upon of 8uchstate is regard:ed (:purts of the UnitedStates."!4fingweU v. Warren,2 Black, 599. And when, as in this case, the decision is supported by the unbroken line of decillions of the state supreme court, the federal courts would ae:capt stateconstructiou, even though that might conflict with the defederal90urts had made in cases before it, wherein a like poipt of was involved. Bucher v. Railroad 125 i U. S. 5P91 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 974. Attdeven upon ma.tters of general ,law, such as the cons.truction of commercial law and like matters, not of state legislation, the federal courts hesitate to adopt :directly the with reference to actions brought before them from any 'a state, r construction would have, within that state, a differeut ,effect from that flowing from the construction adopted' by the state court. ,"Even in such cases, for the sake ofharmolly aud to avoid confusion, Ithe federal. courts wil11ean towar(ls anagreemellt of views with the state question seems to them balanced with doubt." Burgess v. court, if [Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 2 Snp. Ct. Rep. 10. I find that the plea in 1 bar is in point. It is w.ell taken and fully sustained by the evidence. Let decr.ee be ent.ered .herein diEitnissing complainant's bill, and, on defendaut's cross-bill, defendant's title to the real estate in ; and quieting tbe title in him.
NASRVA & L. R. CORP, t1. nOSToN & L. R,CoRP. d aL (ccrcuu Court, D. Ma88achiUetts., Haroh 16,1892.)
L JrLuTBu m es.N01IlRY-T,AIONG,AN ACCOt/NT-L,AW 01' THB «;JABD. When a question as to the date from which interest shalll'l1u has been decided by the court after fnll hearing, on a for final decree, such deoision Is binding on a speo'i$l xQallter to whom the cause is subsequently referred to take an account. and cannot be again raised by exceptions to 'his report.
SAMB-RBPOBT-EPFBQT.. OP PBIOB SUPRllilllE COURT DlliOISJON.
,tty, the D;I&ster's report in tespeot thereto is not subject to e:cception because it
When the supreme court has decided that. plaintiff Is entitled to a full accounting in i'espeOt to a given senesof transactions, upon definite principles of liabU-
awards a sum exceeding the amount named in the bill, and it 1s Imm.aterial whether the bill Is amended. ,
In Equity. Suit by the Nashua &; Lowell Railroad Corporation against the Boston .& Lowell Railroad Corporation and others for au ae-
counting. For reports, 8 Fed. lteP. 19 Fed.. ReI? 804; 27 Fed. Rep. 821; and '10, Sup.: et,'Rep.1004.; iThe hearmg 18 now upon exceptions to the report of the special master. Overruled. Francis A. Broo'k8, forcomplitinarit.' " Joffiah H. Benton, Jr., for ludge. On July 21, 1891, ,was referred to a master to take an ,account under the mandate of the supreme court, 'directing the circuit court to take in accordance with the opiniollof that court. 1:36 U. S. 3.$6,10 Su.p.Ct. Rep. 1004. The master upon this accounting finds that the -complainant is entitled to recover frOm the defel,ldant the sum of$29,676.41, ipterest from May 19,1890, the date' of the 'mandate, to the date ofthefhlal decree herei,n. To this report" both parties ,filed The complainant's tions relate to the question of ti!p.e from be computed upon the sum found due. Under the firSt exception, it is claimed that interest should have been' reckonedfrem the date 'of the commenceJ?ent of suit, April 17, In the second exception, it is: claimed thll:t interest' should be allowed' from the times·' the several sums of money: belonging to the cOD1plainant· were appropriated by the defendant. Somo months before the case was referred to the master, upon complainant's motion' for a final decree" this question Of interest was 'fully. heard by the court upon the record and the evidence in the Cllse, and upon due consideration thereof, aI1dof the arguments and briefs ofcoun-, sel, the court held that the complaiuantwas only' 'entitled to interest from the date of ,the mandatl!. The master properly' based his finding. upon this decision of the court. After '8 full hearing by both parties and a decision 'by the court, this question was not open before the mas-' to follow the ruling of. the court. The ter, but the master was cQmpIainant's ove.rruled. " j The first exception of the defendant, relates to the llomount of 829,676.41 found due by the master.TM defendant contends that the amount should have been '26,124, which is the specifio sum mentioned in the bill of· complaint. Although at first inclined to the opinion that no greater amount sum tneptioned could'pe recovered withQut amendipgthe bill, I 'am satisfied that upon the bill as it stands, in view of ,tbeopipiop of the supreme court, the complainant is entitled to a full accounting with respect to,those matters wherein the defendant was held liable by the supreme court, even if the sum should. prove to be in excess of the amount named in the bill... In this view, it .becameimmaterial or not t}le bill was amended. l: therefore hold the master's finding to be correct, and exception. .. , '" ", overrule The remaining· exceptions of the defeniiaIit, in view of the opinion I have already expressed, become, it seems to me, unimportant. The motion to recommH is denied, exceptions are overruled, and the roaster's report confirmed. .
(CiTCldt Court, D. KaNaB. . February 99, 1891.)
. . ll. ,
Proceedings in the federal courts in KansBS, to enforce a forfeited bail-bond given court.·against the sureties, must be by action after the end of the ali proVided by Gen. St. Kan. c. 82. §ISS, and a judgment entered during the merely. after entry of forfeiture the issuance of a 8cir6
RBVIVQB,O' AOTION&-r-MARBH,l,L'S DEED.
When. IIiJUdg'.,ment'debtordies after a.levyon lands, the action must be revived before a v I.ddeed oan be made.
In Equity. Bill by the United States against Martha Insley and others for an accounting and to redeem lands. Decree ,quieting title in defendant Ill$ley. , J. W. Ad:U,·U.S. Atty., for plaintiff. J. D. McOkperly, defendants. RINER, ):)istrict Judge., This is a bin for an accounting, and to redeem lot 1, block,.l,04,in the qity of Ft., Scott. In July or August, 1869, Joseph H. Roe and C. A. Ruther were arrested upon a complaint charging them. with yiqlating the internal revenue laws of the United States. On the 3d of August, 1869, they: were placed under bond for their appearance before the United States dililtrict court for the district of Kansas, with one M.McElroy and one Charles Bull as sureties. The bond or recognizance is in the following language: these presents, thdt we,Joseph H. Roe, C. A. Ruther. ' "Know 3,nd M,. McElroy aud Charles B\lll, are jointly and !leverally held and firmly bound unto the United Statesof.Americatn the penal sum of two thousand jlollars. lawful JAoney. for the of whil:h and truly to be made we bind ourselVes; our executors; and assigns, firmly by these presents. Witness our hand,S and seals this 'third day' of August. A.D. 1869. The conditions of the above 'obligation are that if the above bounden J08eptt.:H. Roe and C. A; Ruther shall each of them be and appear. in his own, the United State!ldistrict court, in and for the district of Kau!las. at next tetm thereof. and on the first day of said ,tll!;In, thertI to a charge' of wlUfuIly and knowingly Violating the iiiternal reyenue Il\Ws of the United States. arid shall not depart said court without leave, ailU shall abide the judgment of said court therein, then the above obligation to be void; otherWise to be and remain in fUll force and :effect. O. A., RUTHER. [Seal.] "J. H. ROE. [Sea!.] "M. McELROY. [Seal.] "CHAS. BULL. , : "Subscrlbedfn my presence and approved this Aug. 3. 1869, at Fort Scott. Kansas.' W. A. SHANNON, U. S. Com'r." On the 12th day of October, 1869, being the second day of the term, a forfeiture oftJ;lis recognizance ill, due form \Vas taken, and an order for a writ of scire facias was issued, returnable October 30th. On the 6th of November, 1869, and at the same term, !lo.motion was made