in this. as in the other point, are supported by surrounding oiroum. stances,-the master's repeated complaints and demands; seeking sJWplies on the libellant's credit, leaving the work only when they could not be obta.ined without pledging the vessel; and the absence of any other apparent motive for leaving. The failure of the libellant to bdrawal. The legal keep his contract justified the respondent's wi questions raised need not,therefore, be considered at this time. A decree will be entered for the respondent, with costs.
(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. July 5,1881.)
1. BILL OF &LE-INvAI.IDITY OF, WHEN" SWNATURE OBTAINED BY FBAUDDECREE OF DISTRIOT COURT AFFIRMED.
Appeal from Decree of the District Court in Admirality. The facts of the case are fully reported in 6 FED. REP. 732. Walter George Smith and Francis Rawle, for appellant. A. C. Sheldon and Curtis Tilton, for appellee. MoKENNAN, C. J. The libellant is entitled to the relief which he seeks, if the bill of sale signed by him of date March 20, 1880, is not valid and binding upon him. While he admits the signing of it, he denies that he was acquainted with or informed of its contents, and says his execution of the paper was procured deceptively and fraudulently. If this be so, the bill would be totally ineffective as a. transfer of the ownership of the vessel, whose possession he now seeks to recover. While the proofs are conflicting, the preponderance is in favor of libellant's hypothesis, that the bill of sale is invalid because of the circumstances touching the execution of it, and the subsequent use of it, not contemplated or intended by both the parties when it was signed. The opinion of the learned judge in the.court below, sufficiently indicates the reason for auch a conclu. sion, and it is not necessary to collate and discuss the evidence to show that such a conclusion of fact is maintainable. The libellant is entitled to a decree for the delivel;y of the vessel, etc., to him, and for the payment of the agreed· amount of damages, to wit, $275, and costs, and a decree will be entered accordingly.
. -Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
SWINBURNE and others.
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Wisconsin. July 8,1881.)
JURISDICTION-CREDITORS' BILL-DECREE IN ADMffiALTY.
The circuit court of the United States has not jurisdiction to entertain a creditor's bill filed in that court, and based on a jUdgment or decree in admiralty recovered in the district court, all the parties to .the bill being citizens of the same state. Jurisdiction in such a case is not maintainable OD the ground that the bill in the circuit court is ancillary to the judgment or decree in the district court; nor is the case one arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, so as to give the court jurisdiction under the first clause of the first section of the removal act of March 3,
In Equity. Winfield Smith, for complainant.. George D. Van Dyke, for defendants. DYER, D. J. In effect, this is an application for an attachment of certain of the defendants for contempt, because of their refusal to submit to examination, on oath, before a master, pursuant to an interlocutory decree heretofore entered in this cause. It appears that in 1880 a money decree was recovered against the defendants for the sum of $2,148.71, in the district court of the United States for this district, in a cause of collision in admiralty, wherein the present complainant was libellant and the defendants were respondents. There was no appeal to the circuit court, and the decree in the district court became final. Execution was issued thereon and was returned nulla bona. Thereupon the libellant in that case and complainant here, filed the present creditors' bill in the circuit court to reach assets, effects, and equitable interests of the defendants in satisfaction of the decree in the district court. The defendants Dot appearing, the usual orders were duly entered, referring the case to a master to appoint a receiver of the property, things in action, and effects of the defendants, and requiring the defendants to make conveyances to the receiver, and to submit to examination on oath before the master. On the return-day of the master's summons, the defendants appeared specially, and by their counsel objected to the proceedings as not within the jurisdiction of the court, and declined to be sworn and examined. Whereupon the record was certified to the court for its action thereon, and argument has been had on the question of jurisdiction. The grounds of objection to jurisdiction are that both the comv.8,no.2-4