Volume 110 — United States Reports

Action to recover possession of land. The plaintiffs claimed title through a sale under decree of foreclosure of a mortgage of tbe premises executed by the defendants. Several defences were interposed, but the assignment of errors related only to the following.

<p>Contract — Estoppel—JSvidence^-Prineipal and Agent.</p> <p>1. Although a cashier o£ a bank ordinarily has no power to bind the bank except in the discharge of his customary duties ; and although the ordinary business of a bank does not comprehend a contract made by a cashier without delegation of power from the board of directors, involving the payment of money not loaned by the bankin the customary way ; nevertheless: (1.) A banking corporation, whose charter does not otherwise provide, may be represented by its cashier in transactions outside of his ordinary duties, without his authority to do so being in writing, or appearing in the records of the proceedings of the directors. (2.) His authority may be by parol and collected from circumstances or implied from the conduct or acquiescence-of the directors. (3.) It may be inferred from the general manner in which, for a period sufficiently long to establish a settled course of business, he has been suffered by the directors, without interference or inquiry, to conduct the affairs of the bank ; and (4.) When, during a series of years, or in numerous business transactions, he has been permitted, in his official capacity and without objection, to pursue a particular course of conduct, it -may be presumed, as between the bank and those who in good faith deal with it upon the basis of his authority to represent the corporation, that he has acted in conformity with instructions received from those who have the right to control its operations.</p> <p>2. That which directors ought, by proper diligence, to have known as to the general course of the bank’s business, they may be presumed to have known in any contest between the corporation and those who are justified by the •circumstances in dealing with it upon the basis of that course of business.</p>

Bill in. equity to quiet title. Plaintiff claimed under a tax sale, but did not aver possession. Defendant wag owner prior to tbe tax sale.

Held: in the case of the Railroad Land Company v. Courtright, 21 Wall. 310 , could be secured before any road was built; but having built no road up to March 17th, 1860, the Stat,e, by an act of its legislature of that date, declared the grant forfeited and resumed control of it.

Held: That it was her duty to take legal steps to recover the money from the United States, and that whether the action was brought in her own name, or in hers jointly with the children, she was equally bound to prosecute it with diligence. 2.

Held: That they related to the same transaction inquired of in' chief, and should have been allowed. 2. When the record does not contain, all the evidence in a case, the appellate court .is not warranted in assuming that the refusal by the court at nisi prius to permit a question tó be put to a witness worked no injury to the party questioning.

<p>'Error — Exceptions—Evidence—Practice.</p> <p>When it appears that an exception to the rejection of evidence was taken after the trial was over, and at the time when the bill of exceptions was tendered for signature, it does not constitute a proper subject for assignment of error.</p>

Suit to recover on coupons on bonds issued by a county in payment of subscription to stock of a railroad company by a township within the county.

IN ERROR. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.' Motion to dismiss a cause brought here from a State court by writ of error, on the ground that the federal question was not raised in the court below.

<p> Mem-oval of Causes. </p> <p>Under the act of March Sd, 1875, c. 187,18 Stat. 470, a cause cannot he removed from a State court to a Circuit Court of the United States after a trial has been had in a State court, and judgment rendered and set aside, and new trial ordered, and the term passed at which this was doné.</p>

Held: That the executors were necessary parties to the suit, and if they were citizens of the same State as the daughter, the cause could not be removed into the Circuit Court of the United States, under the third subdivision of § 639' Rev. Stat. even though the legatees and devisees of the great mass of the estate were citizens of other States.' Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the court below remanding the…

Held: That this only provided for the receipt and distribution of the sums paid without such a protest’or reservation on the part of Mexico as in the opinion of the President was entitled to further consideration, and that it did not set new limits on executive power. 5. § 5 of that act requested the President to investigate charges of fraud made ■ by Mexico respecting the proof of certain claims before the commission,…

This .was a suit brought by the plaintiffs in error, who were plaintiffs in the Circuit Court, to recover the sum of $1,037.40, an alleged excess of duties exacted'by the defendant as collect- or of customs at the port of New York, on two cases of' kid gloves imported by plaintiffs from Paris, France, in the steamer Mosel, in June, 1878.

Kellogg Bridge Company v. Hamilton, 110 U.S. 108 (1884), was an Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose lawsuit which took place in 1884.

Bill in equity by beirs at law of Tbusie M. Allen to enforce a trust in relation to real and personal estate claimed to have been made in her favor in her lifetime. Answer denying the trust; and cross-bill by one defendant asking that plaintiffs .might be perpetually restrained from setting up their claim. Judgment below for defendants .in the original suit and sustaining the cross-bill. Plaintiffs in original suit and defendants in cross-suit, appealed.

Held: That he was entitled to recover it. Whether § 12 ofdhe act of June 7th, 1862, c. 98, 12 Stat. 422 , in regard to the disposition of one-half of the proceeds of the subsequent leases and sales of land struck off to the United States at a sale for the non-payment of the tax, applies to the land in this case — qucere.

Held: that this judgment was no bar to an action by H in the Circuit Court of the United States to recover the land against the plaintiff in ' the former suit. Mr. W. Hallett Phillips and Mr. H. J. Lemy for the plaintiff in error. Mr. A. S. Lathrop for the defendant in error. *152 MR. Justioe Gray delivered the

<p>Internal Improvements — Municipal Bonds — Nebraska—Statutes,—Tax.</p> <p>A wagon bridge across the Platte River is a work of internal improvement within the meaning of the statute of Nebraska of February 15th, 1869; and that statute makes it the duty of county commissioners to levy a tax on the taxable property within a precinct in whose behalf bonds have been issued under that statute to aid in constructing such a bridge, sufficient to pay the annual interest on the bonds, and without regard to any limit imposed by, or voted in accordance with chapter 9 of the Revised Statutes of 1866.</p>

Held: That the signature of the clerk was essential to the valid execution of the bonds, even though he had no discretion to withhold it. 2.

Held: That there was no basis for the assignment of errors. .2. A plaintiff obtained a verdict against the United States in the court below, subject to the

' ' An act passed by the legislature of the State of Ohio, re- • specting the administration of assignments by insolvent debtors, provides as follows: “ Creditors Shall present their claims . . . .to the assignee for allowance, and the assignee shall indorse his allowance or. rejection thereon, and claimants whose claims are rejected shall be required to bring suit against the assignee to enforce such claims, • . . . .in which, if he recover, the judgment shall be against…

Held: On an attempt to attack the judgment collaterally by reason of entry before the time for answering had expired, that the court would make all necessary presumptions to sustain it.

Held: and a majority of the votes cast were for subscription, shall have authority to issue bonds for such an amount ’ as was voted for, notwithstanding any insufficiency, informality, or-irregularity in such election or in the, notice thereof.” Pri; Laws III. 1869, .vol. 3, pp. 256-7-8. • By an ordinance of the city council of .Jonesboro passed July 21st, 1871 — irwhich referred to the resolutions of March 2d, 1868, and…

Held: That J.’s 1st claim must be- limited to a screw follower, and could not be construed to embrace an arrangement for moving the valve. 2. Since the decision in Loom Company v. Higgins, 105 IT.

Held: That, in a suit to collect an internal revenue tax on the undivided net earnings of the road, carried to a fund or to construction account, the plaintiff was not entitled to have the interest upon these bonds deducted from its net earnings before settling the amount to be subject to the tax ; but that the amount of that interest, if earned and. carried to a fund or charged to construction, was taxable.

<p>IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p>

<p>IN ERROR TO THE OIROUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WÉST VIRGINIA. ' .</p> <p>Action — Error—Partnership.</p>

<p>Bill of Exchange — Da/mages—Protest.</p> <p>When a bank, the owner and holder of a bill of exchange on a foreign eoun-try, remits it for collection to its correspondent abroad, and the bill is not paid at maturity, and is protested, the correspondent is not entitled to damages on the protest, as against the owner, even though the owner may have failed before maturity of the bill, being largely indebted to the correspondent.</p>

<p> Practice. </p> <p>When counsel stipulate to submit a case, fixing a time for filing of argument by the plaintiff, and a time subsequently for filing the defendant’s argument, and a time still later for plaintiff's reply, and the plaintiff failing to file an argument, the defendant files one within the time allowed to ■him and the plaintiff files no reply, the court will take the case as submitted under the rule.</p> <p>Stipulations between counsel for submitting suits, when filed, cannot be withdrawn without consent of both parties. Muller v. Bows, 94 U. S. 277, ap-provedand followed.</p>

Suit in the Court of Claims for mileage at the rate of ten cents a mile under the act of March 3d, 1835, 4 Stat. 755. Judgment below for the claimant, from which the United, States appealed. The issues and contentions are stated in the opinion of the court. The case was submitted on briefs.

<p> Jurisdiction. </p> <p>When the value of the matter in dispute in this court is less than $5,000 the court is without jurisdiction of the'cause, although an amount more than $5,000 may have been involved below. Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165, approved and followed.</p>

<p>An act which directs the Court of Claims to reopen and readjudicate a claim, and in case it finds a further amount due that the same shall be a part of the original judgment, confers no right of appeal from .the final action of , the court under it; and if: the time for the right of appeal from the original judgment has expired before appeal from such final action is claimed and taken, the appeal will be dismissed.</p>

<p>APPEAL EEOM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.</p>

Held: that, on the record herein, claim 2 of letters patent No. 40,156, granted to James Bing, October 6th, 1863, for an “improved shoe for car-brakes,” namely, “ The combination of shoe A, sole B, clevis D and bolt G, the whole being constructed and arranged substantk lly as specified,” does not embody any lateral rocking motion in the shoe, as an element of the combination. *230 On such a construction, there was, on the…

<p>The decree of the Circuit Court was reversed on a question of fact, as to whether an agreement of a certain character was made between the copart-nerg in a firm, on its dissolution, as to the interest which the copartners should have in the future in a portion of its assets.</p>

<p>Execution — Judgment—Jurisdiction.</p> <p>From a decree of the Circuit Court, awarding a fund of $6,000 to one claiming under a distinct title, the grantee in a deed of trust to secure debts to various other persons, exceeding that amount in all, but of less than $5,000 each, may appeal to this court.</p> <p>A judgment duly recovered is not affected, nor the right to take out execution upon it impaired, by an application made to the court to set it aside, and “ continued until the next term, without prejudice to either party.”</p> <p>All the proceedings hinder a levy of execution have relation back to the time of the seizure of the property.</p> <p>A levy of execution, for a debt of the lessee, upon the leasehold estate, and upon a cotton press, with its engine, boilers and machinery, erected by him, under which the officer has seized the property, and given due notice of a sale thereof, is not defeated by an order from the clerk, under seal of the court, pursuant to a direction of the judge in vacation, without notice to the judgment creditor, requesting the officer to return the execution unexecuted; nor by the officer’s, upon receiving such order, ceasing to keep actual possession of the property, and returning the execution, with his doings indorsed thereon, to the court, for further directions.</p>

Held: That, in fixing a date when a suit to recover back the tax alleged to have been illegally exacted would be barred by the statute of limitations, the second appeal was the one contemplated by the statute. *273 This action was brought by Hicks, the defendant in error, on August 15th, 1879, to recover $3,292.95 for taxes alleged to have been illegally exacted by the intestate as collector of internal revenue on October…

Held: so as to give to the claimant, from whose possession it has been taken, the opportunity to assert and enforce his right. And this jurisdiction is well defined by Mr. Justice Nelson, in'the statement quoted, as arising' out of the inherent power of every court of justice to control its own process so as to prevent and redress wrong.

Held: That, the agreement with the assignee was not an agreement to save A harmless against liability as stockholder ; that neither the assignee in bankruptcy nor the bankrupt’s property in his hands was subject to the liability which attached'to the stock, and that B assumed no liability which could be set up by a stockholder as a defence against his individual liability to B. The American File Company was a…

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.</p>

<p>nr ERROR TO THE CIRCÜIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.</p>

Held: That the State court of Georgia had jurisdiction to make the decree which it made; that it was not voidable as to D; and that, notwithstanding the relations between the parties, the judgment was conclusive in the absence of an impeachment for unfairness and fraud. Mr. Henry B. Tompkins argued for appellants. *318 Mr. Rcmdall Hagner submitted on Ms brief for appellees. Me.

Held: That the use of the remaining seven-tenths was within the discretion of the municipal au- . thorities, and was not subject to judicial order in advance of ah ascer-' tained surplus. ' Mr. J. M. Freels and Mr. B. II. Canby. for plaintiffs in error. Mr. T. C. Mather for defendant in error.

Held: Thatlhis was a virtual cancellation of the bond. This was an action at law brought on a distillery warehouse bond against William S. Alexander and James H. Reynolds, principals, and Edward S. Allen and Mahlon C. Atkinson,, their sureties.

The defendant in error, administratrix, devisee, and legatee of Charles .Davis, deceased, was plaintiff in the court below.

<p>•APPEAL FROM THE COURT OE CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court. ■.</p>

Held: That these changes violated no provision of the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiffs in error were petitioners in the courts of California for a writ of mandamus against the defendants in error. The constitutional question at issue was the right of the State of California to alter the plaintiff’s charter. The facts making the case to raise this question are stated in .the

<p>IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT. COURT OR THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.</p>

■ IN ERROR TO THE CIRCÜIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR THE . . EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. The casé is stated in the opinion of tbe court. Tbe question of jurisdiction, decided in the case, was' not raised by tbe parties, but was suggested by tbe court of 'its own motion during tbe argument.

Held: that under the circumstances . the intervention of A was to be regarded as incident to the original suit; and that he was subject to the disabilities resting on the party from whom he took title ; and that the .time for removal having expired before he intervened, his right of removal was barred by that fact. . Bill in equity to determine priority of liens upon real estate in Illinois and for other relief.

<p> Jurisdiction. </p> <p>Distinct judgments in favor of or against distinct parties, though in the sam record, cannot be joined to give this court jurisdiction.</p>

<p>Error — Practice.</p> <p>Grigsby v. Purcell, 90 IT. S. 505, followed ; holding that if the transcript is not filed and the cause docketed during the term to which it is made returnable, or some suificient excuse given for the delay, the writ of error or appeal becomes inoperative, and the cause may be dismissed by the court of its own motion or on motion of the defendant in error or the appellee.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.</p> <p>Motion for leave to docket an appeal, without security for payment of fees for printing.</p>

Held: that C was not liable to pay to H the profits derived by him from the use of the property while he had it. *404 ' On tbe 5th. of June, 1875, Harry Fox and William B. Howard, co-partners ^as Fox & Howard, were adjudged bankrupts, on the petition of their creditors, by the District Court of the Hnited States for the Northern District of Illinois.

<p>IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.</p> <p>An action by a legatee under a will against a surety on the •executor’s bond, to recover the amount of a legacy alleged to -have been wasted by the executor. Plea nil debet and the statute of limitations. ■</p>

Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which issuance of greenbacks as legal tender in peacetime was challenged. The Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1863 were upheld.

ORIGINAL. These were petitions filed in this court by each of the States •of Iowa and Illinois, at the relation of its governor, relying •upon the provision of an act of Congress relating to its admission into the Union, by which it was agreed that “ five per •cent, of the net proceeds ” of lands lying within the State, and afterwards “ sold by Congress,” should be appropriated for certain public uses of the State; contending that the State was thereby entitled to five per…

Held: That a patent for employing such a truck as the forward -truck of a locomotive engine with fixed driving wheels was void for want of novelty. Suit in equity for alleged infringement of letters patent for an improvement in trucks for locomotives by the employment of pilot wheels to allow of lateral motion to the engine.

The defendants in error were plaintiffs below, and brought this action against the plaintiff in error, as surviving partner of the firm of Irwin & Davis, to 'Recoven á balance alleged to be due, growing out of certain sales of-wheat for'future delivery, claimed to have been made by the defendants -in error for the firm of Irwin' & Davis upon their order, The liability 9f the plaintiff in error was denied on two grounds: 1. .That the transactions were made by Davis, the…

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court that allowed state governments, as distinguished from the federal government, to avoid using grand juries in criminal prosecutions.

<p>IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.</p> <p>' This was an action at law brought by the plaintiffs' in error against the county of Bullitt, in the State of Kentucky, on a contract dated July 8th, 1878, made between the plaintiff Washer and the defendant county, for the construction of a bridge by Washer over Pond Creek, the boundary between Bullitt and- Jefferson Counties.</p> <p>The contract, which is attached as an exhibit to the petition, was executed by Washer and J. W. Ridgway, commissioner' of Bullitt County. It provided that Washer should erect an arched stone bridge with earthen embankments across Pond-Creek; at the Branner foundation site, according to certain specifications, for specified prices per cubic yard of masonry and embankment. Bullitt County guaranteed payment for the whole work.</p> <p>The petition alleged that on August 29th, 1878, Washer transferred by his indorsement in writing the contract made by him with the county of Bullitt, and all moneys due to him thereon, to his co-plaintiffs, Danenhauer and Baecker. It •averred that on December 10th, 1878, there was due to the plaintiffs from Bullitt County on the contract the sum of' $5,325.14, which it refused to pay, or any part thereof, “ except the sum of $1,800, leaving a balance due thereon of $3,-525.14,” from which latter amount was to be deducted the sum of $|540.75, which the plaintiffs had agreed might be paid By the defendant directly to the Smith Bridge Company for materials furnished by it for the bridge, leaving a balance due the plaintiffs of $3,184.39.</p> <p>The defendant filed a general demurrer to the petition, which the court sustained, with leave to the plaintiffs to amend. They afterwards filed an amended petition, in which it was averred that before the contract mentioned in the petition was made the owners and occupants in possession of the lands approaching the bridge on both- sides of Pond Creek appeared in open County Court, and relinquished of record the right of way to and across the bridge; and thereafter, and before the contract was made, the County Court of Bullitt County, being composed of the presiding judge and a majority of the justices thereof, appointed commissioners and notified the Jefferson County Court thereof, and requested it to appoint like commissioners to contract for the bridge, which the Jefferson County Court did; and the commissioners so appointed met at the place proposed for erecting the bridge, and at the place mentioned in the contract, but could not and did not agree upon a plan for erecting the bridge, nor contract for the erection thereof; that thereupon the County Court of Bullitt County, composed of the county judge and a majority of the justices of the county, decided that it was necessary to erect the bridge, and having exhausted all means provided by statute for securing the aid of Jefferson County in building the same, decided to erect the bridge; and that, on July 16th, 1877, said County Court, composed as aforesaid, authorized J. AV. Ridg-way to report plans and specifications for the erection of the bridge, and AV. Carpenter, the county judge, to receive and accept bids for the same; and that, .in pursuance of this authority, the county judge accepted the bid of AVasher; and that Bidgway, being thereunto authorized by an order of the County Court,’ entered into the contract with AVasher appended to the petition, and that the making of the contract was subsequently ratified by orders made and .entered of record by the County Court of Bullitt County, composed of the county judge and a majority of the justices of the county, directing the levy of taxes to pay for the work done under the contract, and the application of the money so raised to that purpose.</p> <p>The amended petition also averred that “the bridge was necessary for the public use of the people and travel of Bullitt County, and that said proceedings and orders and the contract so entered into by defendant were valid and. binding upon it.”</p> <p>By the amended petition the allegations of the original petition in respect to the payment of $1,800 for the work done under the contract, and in respect to the sum of $340.75 due the Smith Bridge Company for materials for the bridge, and the averment that there was a balance due upon work performed by the plaintiff AVasher of $3,184.39, were withdrawn; and the amended petition averred that the defendant had failed to perform its contract or to pay plaintiffs for work done thereunder, to tbeir damage in the sum of $5,325.14, for which amount they demanded judgment.</p> <p>To this amended petition the defendant demurred on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.</p> <p>The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiffs electing to stand by their amended petition the court rendered judgment “ that the plaintiffs take nothing by their petition, and that the defendant go hence without day and recover of the plaintiffs its costs,” &c.</p> <p>The plaintiffs sued out their writ of error.</p>

Held: as trustee, in trust for the “ German Calvinist Society,” lot 9 in square 80 of the City of Washington; that the “German Reformed Church” was .the legal counterpart and successor of the “ German Calvinist Society,” and that the *569 petitioners were the only beneficiaries of the trust estate; that Beintzel, the trustee, was dead and no successor had been appointed.

Held: that a provision of the Constitution of Missouri denying to the prisoner, charged with murder in the first degree, the benefit of the law as it was at the commission of offence — under which a conviction of murder in the second degree was an acquittal of murder in the first degree, even though such judgment of conviction was subsequently reversed — was ii conflict'with the Constitution of the United States.

<p>APPEAR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.</p> <p>The facts making the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court..</p>

Held: That the'hypothecated certificates were not liens to the extent of their face, but that a decree directing the debts secured by them to be paid in them at the rats of ninety cents on the dollar to the extent of the money actually advanced, and making that amount of certificates a lien, would be upheld in equity. Mr. David Clopton and Mr. 8. F. Bice for appellants.

Held: That until refusal by the counties to subscribe, either by direct vote or by failure within a reasonable time to call an election for the purpose, the townships were without legislative authority to subscribe, or to issue township bonds in payment of subscriptions.

<p>Limitations, Statute of — Statutes, Construction of.</p> <p>The construction usually given'to statutes oí limitations, that a disability mentioned in the act must exist at the time the action accrues in order to prevent the statute from running, and that after it has once commenced to run no subsequent disability will interrupt it, is to be given to Bev. Stat. § 1008, prescribing the time within which writs of error shall be brought or appeals taken to review in this court judgments, decrees or orders of a Circuit or District Court in any civil action at law or in equity.</p> <p>Where English statutes, such as the Statute of Frauds and the Statute of Limitations, have been adopted into our own legislation, the known and settled construction of those statutes by courts of law has been considered as silently incorporated into the acts, or has been received with all the weight of authority.</p> <p>Upon a revision of statutes ti different interpretation is not to he given to them without some substantial change of phraseology other than what may have been necessary to abbreviate the form of the law. - Pewnoch v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, cited and approved.</p> <p>The English and American cases construing statutes of limitations as affected by disability provisos reviewed.</p>

<p>APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS.</p>

This was á writ of error to the Supreme Court of Missouri. The plaintiff below sued the plaintiffs in error for rent due on a ■ lease of two storehouses in St. Louis for the months of ■August, September, and October, 1862, at the rate of $583.33 per. month.

Ex parte Yarbrough (also known as the Ku Klux Cases), 110 U.S. 651 (1884), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's power to punish individuals who interfere with the right to vote in federal elections. The Court sustained the convictions of Jasper Yarbrough and seven others, who had been found guilty of beating and injuring an African-American man to prevent him from voting. The decision marked one of the few times that the post-Reconstruction Court upheld Congress's ability to protect civil rights.

This was a bill in equity filed by the Denver & New Orleans Railroad Company, a Colorado corporation, owning and operating a railroad in that State between Denver and Pueblo, a distance of about one hundred and twenty-five miles, against the Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fé Railroad Company, a Kansas corporation, owning and operating a railroad in that State from the Missouri River, at Kansas City, westerly to the Colorado' State line, and also operating from there, under a…

This ivas an action to recover the amounts due on interest coupons of municipal bonds issued in payment of a subscription for $86,000 to railway stock.

Held: That he was entitled to eommigsions on the sales of Indian lands made by him, although they increased his annuál compensation to a greater amount than $2,500. ' § 18 of the Act of August 31st, 1852, 10 Stat. 100 [Bev.

<p>APPEALS FROM THE CIRCÜIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.</p>

Held: decided at December Term, 1878, before the judgment of the Circuit Court in- the case.at bar, was an action by this plaintiff against this defendant and the administrator of James W. Clayton, ini which the defendants set up the decree of divorce now in question. Clayton v. Clayton, 4 Colorado, 410. The other is a very recent decision, not yet officially published. Israel v. Arthur, 7 Colorado.

Held: for that reason, that tbe proceeds of real estate directed to be sold for tbe payment of debts, and- paid by tbe purchaser into court, were legal and not equitable assets.

Held: That all cotton arriving at New Orleans before the proclamation of June 13th, became thereby subject to the treasury regulation.

Held: in deference to a former case of Green ,v. *736 Cresswell, 10 A. & E. 453, that the daughter was primarily liable, and that the promise of the father was collateral.

<p> Bankruptcy. </p> <p>This court has no jurisdiction to review a judgment of a Circuit Court ren- ■ dered in a proceeding upon an appeal from an order of a District Court rejecting the claim of a supposed creditor against the estate of a bankrupt. Wiswall v. Campbell, 93 TJ. S. 347, affirmed.</p>

The steam yacht Mamie, engaged in carrying passengers on the Detroit River, came into collision with another steamer and sank, by reason of which several passengers were drowned. Their administrator commenced suits in the State court to recover damages from the- owners of the yacht. The owners then commenced proceedings in admiralty in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to obtain the benefit of the limited liability act.