Volume 106 — United States Reports

Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>A judgment of reversal by a State court, with leave for further proceedings in the court of.original jurisdiction, is not subject to review here.</p>

Petition for mandamus. .A collision occurred-in the harbor of Baltimore, Maryland, between the steamer “ Knickerbocker,” owned by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad C°mPany? and the barge “ J. J. Munger,” owned by Jeannette Maxon.

<p>1. After the adjournment without day of a term, whereat a final judgment on a verdict was rendered by one justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and an appeal taken therefrom to the general term, but no bill of exceptions or case stated filed, a new trial cannot be granted upon a case stated filed by him at a subsequent term.</p> <p>2. When a verdict and a judgment for the plaintiff were wrongly set aside, and the error appears of record, he may, without a bill of exceptions, avail himself of it upon a writ of error to reverse a final judgment afterwards rendered against him.</p> <p>3. When a judgment for the plaintiff in a personal action was erroneously set aside, and a subsequent final judgment against him is brought up by writ of error, pending which he dies, this court will affirm the first judgment nunc pro tunc.</p>

<p>1. A composition between a bankrupt and his creditors, under sect. 17 of the act of June 22,1874, c. 390, although ratified by the proper District Court, did not discharge him from a debt of. a liability incurred by him while acting in a'fiduciary character.</p> <p>2. That section did not repeal sect. 6117 Rev. Stat. Wilmot v. Mudge, 103 U. S. 217, cited upon this point and approved.</p>

Held: that the claim must be disallowed, because that act can only be applied to the balance’ decreed to be paid, and that was in favor of the owners of AY. 8. Quaere, Can such a claim, if there were any ground therefor, be allowed in favor of a party who does not set it up in his pleadings. Appeals from the Circuit Court of the,United States.for the Southern District of New York. The facts are stated in the

<p>1. A case should not be withdrawn from the jury, unless the facts are undisputed, ■ or the testimony is of such a conclusive character that a verdict in conflict therewith would be set aside.</p> <p>2. Circumstances stated which estop a mutual life insurance company from setting up that the policy sued on was forfeited by the non-payment ad diem of the stipulated annual premium. Insurance Company v. Norton, 96 U. S. 234, and Insurance Company v. Eggleston, id. 572, approved.</p> <p>3. Where that, premium is, by- the contract, subject to a deduction equal in amount to the dividends to which the assured is entitled, it is the’duty of the company to give him such notice of that amount, that he may, in due time, pay or tender the balance of the premium.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.</p> <p>Motion to advance under Rule 32.</p>

This was a bill filed by Gosling, wherein he alleges that, being the first inventor of a new and useful improvement in step-covers and wheel-fenders for carriages, he obtained letters-patent therefor, No. 62,406, bearing date Feb. 26, 1867 ; that on his surrendering them, reissued letters No. 5,644, dated Nov. 4, 1878, were granted to him for that invention, and that Roberts, the defendant, was infringing them. He prays for an injunction, an account, and general relief.

Held: that, if .there had been such default, he was not entitled to the decree. 2.

Held: in all the States where that law prevailed, to be too important, we might almost say too sacred, to be concluded forever by the result of one action between the contesting parties.

Held: that A. thereby infringed the patents. Qutzre, Would A/s sale of the buckle, apart from the band, be an infringement of the patents. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island. The facts are stated in the

<p>Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court.of the State of Colorado.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that in view of the case made by the bill, and of the subsisting trust, the existence of which is admitted by the demurrer, B. is entitled to a discovery of the disposition made of the money, and that the limitation does not commence running until the trust is closed, or until A., with the knowledge of B., disavowed the trust or held adversely to his claim.

<p>The court, in 22 Wall. 604, when this ease was then before it, passed upon the character and effect of certain certificates therein' described, which were issued by a railroad company pursuant to a resolution passed by the board of directors, Dee. 19, 1868, declaring that each stockholder was entitled to eighty per cent of his capital stock, the earnings which the company, with a view to increase its traffic, had thitherto expended in constructing and equipping its road and in purchasing property. The court adheres to its former ruling that the certificates were dividends in scrip, within the meaning of sect. 122 of the act of June 30, 1864, c. 173, as amended by the act of July 13, 1866, c. 184; but further holds that the company could show what were its earnings from Sept. 1,1862, to Dec. 19, 1868, when the income-tax law was in force, as its earnings during any other period were not subject _ to the ta;c in question.</p>

Held: That the question of the validity of the bond, as dependent upon the sufficiency of its consideration, is not a matter of procedure and remedy, to be governed by the lex'fori, but belongs to the "substance of the contract, and must be deter-' mined by the law of the seat of the obligation. 2.

• This was a bill in equity brought by Wing and others, tó restrain Anthony- and the other defendants from infringing reissued letters-patent No. 1049, granted Sept. 25, 1860, to Albert S. Southworth, for certain improvements in taking photographic impressions, and subsequently extended for seven years from April 10, 1869. ■ The original letters-patent are dated April 10, 1855.

Held: in substance, that when a distiller’s bond was given under sect. 58 of the act now in question, which required the bond to be conditioned for the performance of several particular acts which it specifically-stated, and the agent of the government took the bond conditioned, not in the specific way directed by the statute, but for the parties’ compliance with all the provisions of the act and such other acts as were…

Held: that the steamer was in fault. 2. Towage should be employed, when necessary to enable a large steamer to leave a crowded slip or harbor without damaging other vessels. 3. Steamers and locomotives should be so managed and operated as to do the least possible injury consistent with their substantial usefulness. 4.

Held: that the action on the motion cannot be reviewed here or in the Circuit Court. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. This was an information filed in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York against a distillery, claiming that it was forfeited to the United States for violation of the revenue laws.

Held: that it does not amount to his-invention. 3. The combination of the first claim of ClougH’s is new, and he, having first ' applied a valve regulation of any 'kind • thereto, is entitled to hold as infringements of the second claim all- valve 'regulations, applied to such a combination, which perform the same office in substantially the same way as, and were known equivalents for, his form of valve regulation.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was an action brought by Osborne against the county of Adams, Nebraska, to recover the amount of certain coupons detached from bonds of Juniata Precinct, a legal subdivision-of that county.

Held: that the value of the matter in dispute between them and the respective appellees- is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction. Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri.

Held: that the cause was not removable, as it involves no controversy wholly between citizens of different States. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. The case is stated in the

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Constitution's prohibition on lawsuits against the federal government did not extend to officers of the government themselves. The case involved the heir of Mary Anna Custis Lee, wife of Confederate States of America General Robert E. Lee, who sued to regain control of Arlington House and its grounds. Arlington had been seized by the United States government in 1861 and eventually converted into Arlington National Cemetery. The estate had been sold to pay outstanding taxes, but the lawsuit contested the tax sale as improper. A jury found in favor of the Lees. The Supreme Court, too, concluded that the tax sale was illegal.

Held: that an estate in the lands was not by the contract vested in B., and that his failure to make payment within the time limited therefor worked a forfeiture of his privilege under the contract. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. The case is stated in the

Held: that they are subject to a duty of thirty-five per cent ad valorem, as “ manufactures of iron, not otherwise provided for,” under schedule E of sect. 2504 of the Revised Statutes, and not to a duty of one cent and one-half per pound, under said schedule, as “band, hoop, and scroll iron.” 2.

<p>1. A deed which a man caused to be made to his wife, for lands whereon they resided, will not be set aside at the instance of ids subsequent creditors, it appearing that at its date, and when he paid for the lands and the improvements which he afterwards erected thereon, his property largely exceeded his debts, and that there was no intent to defraud.</p> <p>2. A misdescription of the lands will not defeat the wife’s right to them, to the exclusion of those creditors, there being no doubt as to the lands intended to be conveyed.</p>

Motion by the appellees to dismiss as to part of them, and to affirm as to the rest. The facts are stated in the opinion of'the court.

Held: or by any such laws hereafter enacted which may be adopted by general rules of such Circuit or District Courts; and such courts may, from time to time, by general rules, adopt such State laws as may hereafter be in force in such State in relation to. remedies upon judgments as aforesaid, by execution or otherwise.” This provision.is part of the sixth section of the act of June 1,1872, e. 255, entitled “ An Act to…

Held: The appeals were appeals, in open court, not requiring citations, and the order and the decree appealed from sufficiently designated all the appellees by name. 2..

Pasteur, the owner in fee of lands in New Orleans, remained in the possession of them until Noy. 17, 1863. A libel of information under the act of Aug. 6, 1861, c. 60, was then filed against them in the proper District Court of the United States. A decree for their condemnation and forfeiture was rendered Dec. 5, 1863, by virtue whereof they were sold, Jan. 13, 1866. Under the purchaser, the defendants, Lynd and Lewis, derive their title. Pasteur died May 3, 1874.

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the ‘ Eastern District of North Carolina.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p>

Held: that the company, no claim having been made here against it for any penalty, is liable to the United States for five per cent on the amount so paid, with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Held: X. That she, though consenting to account for rents and profits, is not entitled, by reason of her coverture, to have the sale set aside and the purchase-money already paid refunded; nor will she or her husband be allowed anything for the improvements. 2. That for, the amount remaining due upon the notes, according to their tenor and effect, the lien may be enforced by.a sale of the .. land.

Held: that the want of such affidavit does not preclude the plaintiff from showing that such an instrument, dated January 2, was executed on Sunday, January 1, or that his duplicate of an instrument executed in duplicate by him and the defendant differs in its contents from the one retained by the defendant. 2.

Held: That the record was properly excluded, it not appearing therefrom that the corporation was doing business in the State at the time of the service of the writ on B. 2. Had that fact appeared, the corporation might have shown that his relations to it did not justify such service.' Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. The facts are stated in the

Held: that the grant was in pfcesenti, and attached to those sections as soon as the map was so filed. No valid adverse right or title to any part of them could be acquired by a subsequent settlement or entry. 2. On the failure of the company to complete the work, a forfeiture of the grant, if it resulted therefrom, can be enforced only by tbe United States through judicial proceedings, or the action of Congress.

Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371 (1882), is an 8–1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court that the Act of August 15, 1876 was a constitutional exercise of the enumerated powers of the United States Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The petitioner had been convicted of receiving money for political purposes in violation of the Act. The petitioner asked the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus.

Held: that the deed is in substantial compliance with the form prescribed. 3. A sheriff having possession of property under a writ of attachment is not bound by the judgment in a replevin suit to which he was not a party, and in which he was not served with process, and did not appear, and which he did not defend, although his under sheriff, as an individual, was a party to the suit. 4.

By duly recorded deed of July 18,1818, signed by John P. Van Ness (his wife uniting in the conveyance) and by Noah Stinchcomb, the former conveyed to the latter, at a fixed annual rent, lot 3, square 455, in the city of Washington, to have and to hold, &c'., unto Stinchcomb, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for the term of ninety years, renewable forever.

<p>1. Where a citizen of a State sues in a court thereof a citizen of the same State and an alien, the latter is not entitled to remove the suit to the Circuit Court.</p> <p>2. The act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, repealed the second clause of section 639 of the Revised Statutes.</p>

Held: that the suit might be prosecuted against the new board, although both the treasurer and the auditor resided out of the district; and that an appeal from a final decree for the complainant might be taken by the treasurer and auditor, describing themselves by their individual names, and as such officers, and as ex officio the levee board. 2.

Held: that the judgment, not being sustained by fhe special verdict, must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the ■ Eastern District of Wisconsin. The facts are stated in the

Held: that his purchase being in violation of law, no right arose therefrom which can be enforced against the United States. Appeal from the Court of Claims.

This is a suit in equity brought by John R. Moffitt against Rogers and Moore for their alleged infringement of reissued letters-patent No. 6162, granted, Dee. 8,1874, to him for an improvement in the manufacture of heel stiffeners for boots and shoes. The original letters No. 127,090 bear date May 21, 1872.

Motion to dismiss a writ .of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa, with which is united a motion to affirm.

<p>A decree is not final within the meaning of the act conferring appellate jurisdiction, unless upon its affirmance nothing remains but to execute it. The court therefore dismisses an appeal by the defendant in a foreclosure suit from the decree therein rendered, which neither finds the amount due nor orders the sale of the mortgaged property, although it overrules his defence, declares the complainant to be holder of the mortgage, and, in order to- ascertain the amount due him and other lien creditors, and for taxes, refers the case to a master, and appoints a receiver to take charge of the property.</p>

<p>Error ' to the; Circuit Court of tbe United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that the obligors are liable. 2. Although it is the usage of trade to sell goods in bond, and deliver them by an order for their withdrawal, the purchaser withdrawing them and paying the duties, the obligors do not become merely sureties, with the goods as the primary security for the duties, nor are they released because the officers of the United States unlawfully part with the goods without exacting payment of…

The Freedman’s Savings and Trust Company,- the holder of certain notes of Dodge, secured by Iiis deed of trust in the nature of a mortgage upon lands in the District of Columbia, filed its bill in the court below, and obtained.a decree, which was affirmed here at the October Term, 1876, 93 U. S. 3'79.

Held: that it was the province of the Land Department to pass upon such matters before the patent was issued, and that they could not be set up to defeat the action. 5. A party cannot invoke the doctrine of estoppel against the owners, by reason of improvements which, with their knowledge, he put upon the land, if he was aware at the time that it belonged to them, and that he had no title to it.

The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was commenced on the 15th of February, 1877, in the court below, by Jesup, a citizen of New York, and the surviving trustee in a mortgage, or deed of trust, executed on the 20th of December, 1867, by the Atlantic and Gulf-Railroad Company, a Géorgia corporation, conveying to trustees and the survivor of them its main line and certain branches, together with their appurtenances, rolling-stock, equipment, &c., respectively, in trust…

<p>. Whatever was determined here on a writ of error cannot be re-examined upon a subsequent writ brought in the same suit.</p>

Section 2505 of the Revised Statutes provides, among other things, that “ Animals, alive, specially imported' for breeding purposes from beyond the seas, shall be admitted free [of duty], upon proof thereof satisfactory to the Secretary of the Treasury, and under such regulations as he may prescribe.” Article 388 of the Treasury Customs Regulations provides that before a collector admits such animals free he must, among other things, “ be satisfied that the animals are of…

Held: that the contract was riot ultra vires, and that the latter company could lawfully make the purchase, and pay for the same by issuing its own stock therefor; which was delivered to and accepted by the contractors in lieu of the stock of the other company, which latter stock they had subscribed for and agreed to take in payment for the work of construction. . 2.

Held: The bonds are void because the necessary amount to pay them and the interest thereon was to be raised by taxation, which, not being for a public object, the Constitution of the State did not authorize, and the legislature had no power to pass the act. 2.

Held: That the title to the unfinished ves,sel remained in S., and that no property therein vested in the United States. 2. That by the resolution of Congress, releasing and conveying to his heirs-at-law “all the right, title, and.interest of the United States in and to” the vessel, nothing passed to them. Error to the Court of Chancery of the State of New Jersey. The facts are stated in the opinion of the coúrt.

Patterson, a judgment , creditor of a mining company, organized under the general laws of Oregon “in relation to the formation of priváfe corporations',” brought this action against Lynde to enforce his liability'to the company upon an unpaid stock subscription, and thus sought to apply Lynde’s indebtedness to* the payment of the. judgment. Lynde demurred, and judgment was rendered in his favor. Patterson then brought this writ of error.

<p>■ Petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a certiorari.</p> <p>Mr. Abram J. JDittenhoeffer in support of the petition.</p>

On motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. The case in stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: that the papers, being in proper form and duly certified, are admissible; and an objection disclosed only by comparing them with other transcripts offered by him lies not to the competency of the evidence, but to its effect. 3.

Yan Kleeck filed his bill, Nov. 18, 1877, against Shelton and others, praying for the foreclosure of a deed of trust in the nature of a. mortgage upon certain lands in Illinois, executed by Shelton and wife, Sept. 21, 1872, to secure the payment to Yan Kleeck of the sum of $9,000. Shelton and wife answered.

Held: that he must show a clear case of such absolute and unjustifiable neglect and refusal of the' directors to act as would lead to his irreparable injury, should he not be permitted to bring the suit. Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450 , cited upon this point and approved. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. The facts are stated in the

Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: that an impression made on wafers or other adhesive substances capable of receiving an impression, will come within the definition of ‘ cera impressa.' If, then, wax be construed to be merely a general term including within it any substance capable of receiving and retaining the impression of a seal, we cannot perceive why paper, if it have that capacity, should not as well be included in the category.

Held: that the final decree, not disclosing a want of jurisdiction of the court below, as to subject-matter or parties, will be examined here only to ascertain whether the sale conformed to its provisions. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. The facts are stated in the

Held: that the order is binding, and that the creditors are thereby concluded. Arpeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for tbe Western District of Pennsylvania. The facts are stated in the

Held: that the order of the Circuit Court rejecting the claim is binding upon the corporation, and the latter is entitled to an appeal where the amount of taxes is sufficient to give this court jurisdiction. 2. Certain taxes assessed for the years 1877 and 1878, by the city of Savannah, upon land situate within its limits, which belongs to the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company, held to be unauthorized by law.

<p>1. Where a judgment in a State court is rendered against one shortly thereafter declared to be a bankrupt, a writ of error to that judgment brought by his assignee is a suit, within the meaning of section 5057 of the Revised Statutes.</p> <p>2. The limitation of time in that section applies to a suit by the assignee to recover a debt or other moneyed obligation, as well as to a controversy concerning property or rights of property to which there are adverse claims.</p>

<p>1. Distinct decrees in favor of or against distinct parties cannot be joined to render the aggregate sum sufficient to give this court jurisdiction.</p> <p>2. Except in special cases, this court lias no jurisdiction to re-ex-amine the judgment or the decree of the Circuit or the District Court, unless the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, although it arises upon the Constitution or a statute of the United States, exceed the sum or value of §5,000.</p>

Held: that this court has no jurisdiction to re-examine the judgment. 2.

Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional based on an argument that the punishment for violating the law against miscegenation applied the same without regard to race. This logic was clearly rejected by the Supreme Court in 1964 in McLaughlin v. Florida and in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. Pace v. Alabama is one of the oldest court cases in America pertaining to interracial sex.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that as the' taxpayers had only consented to an issue of bonds, the proceeds of the sale of which should be invested in stock, it was beyond the power of the legislature to validate bonds, which, in violation of the act under which they were issued, were not sold, but were directly exchanged for stock, of which fact all. purchasers had notice from the recitals of the bonds themselves.

Held: that he is not entitled to recover. Appeal from the Court of Claims. .The facts are stated in the

The legislature of the State of Minnesota, on March 6, 1868, passed an act entitled “ An Act to authorize the towns in Fillmore, Mower, Freeborn, Faribault, Martin, and Jackson Counties to issue bonds to aid in the construction of any railroad running into or through said counties.” The first three sections of the act, the only ones material to this case, are as follows: — “ Sect. 1.

<p>Where the judges below are opposed in opinion, this court will not take jurisdiction of the case, if their certificate, instead of being confined to single points of law, presents either questions of fact or the whole case for adjudication.</p>

<p>1. Bounty was not allowed by the act of Congress of June 30,1864, c. 174, where vessels of the enemy were, during the rebellion, destroyed by the combined action of the sea and land forces of the United States.</p> <p>2. Property seized upon any waters of the United States, other than bays or harbors on the sea-coast, was not maritime prize, nor was any bounty paid by the United States for the destruction thereof.</p>

Held: that the suit, not involving the validity or the construction of the patents, is not one arising under a law of the United States, and cannot be removed to the Circuit Court. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey.

Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee. In a foreclosure suit, commenced Oct. 24, 1874, against the Saint Louis and Southeastern Railway Company, the court appointed a receiver to manage the- affairs, of the company and issue certificates of indebtedness.

<p>Where, in a case tried by the court below, thé record does not affirmatively show a written stipulation waiving^, jury, the questions decided at the trial cannot be re-examined here on a writ of error.</p>

<p>1. Section 21 of the act of July 14,1870, c. 255, which provided that, in lieu of the duties then imposed by law, certain duties specified should' thereafter be imposed on certain enumerated articles, did not repeal, as to such articles, sect. 6 of the act of March 8, 1865, c. 80, which declared that there should be thereafter paid on all goods the growth or produce of countries east of thé Cape of Good Hope, when imported from countries west of that Cape, a duty of ten per cent ad valorem in addition to the duties imposed thereon when imported directly from the place of their growth or production.</p> <p>2. The latter provision is a general commercial regulation, made to encourage direct importation from countries east of the Cape, as well as to benefit American shipping, and ,is applicable without regard to the regular duties imposed for purposes of revenue, and even where the articles are otherwise entirely free of duty.</p>

United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883), was a case in which the US Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to penalize crimes such as assault and murder in most circumstances. The Court declared that only state governments have the power to penalize those crimes. In the specific case, four men were removed from a Crockett County, Tennessee, jail by a group led by Sheriff R. G. Harris and 19 others. The four men were beaten, and one was killed. A deputy sheriff tried to prevent the act but failed. Section 2 of the Force Act of 1871 was declared unconstitutional on the theory that an act to enforce the Equal Protection Clause applied only to state actions, not individuals' actions.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court. .</p>

Held: in respect to a firm admitted to be insolvent, that transfers made by the individual partners of their interest in the partnership property converted that property into individual- property, -terminated the equity of any partner to require the application thereof to the payment-of the joint debts, and constituted a bar to a bill in equity filed by a partnership creditor to subject- ■ it to the payment of his debt,…

Held: that the instruction was erroneous. Error to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. The case is stated in the

•This was an action by Carpenter against the township of Chickaming,■ Michigan.

<p>• Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of 'the court.</p>

Held: where the owner of letters-patent assigned them, together with all claims for damages by reason of the previous infringement of them, and the assignee filed his bill, to recover such damages. ' 2. Root. v. Railroad Company, 105 U. S. 189 , cited and approved. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is stated in the

Held: that the assignment was a- meritorious act and not impeachable for immorality of consideration. 3.