Volume 120 — United States Reports

The original action was brought by the St. Louis National Bank against Augusta B. Allen and her'daughter on a promissory note for $3750, with interest at the rate of ten per cent, yearly, made by the defendants May 10, 1878, and payable December 20, 1878, to the order of J. H. Dowell & Co., and by them indorsed to the plaintiff.

the DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. This was an1 action at law against a county to enforce the. payment of coupons on bonds issued by the- county. The case.-is .stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>The sea-pay given to officers of the navy by Bev. Stat. § 1556 may be earned by sendees performed uuder orders of the Navy Department in a vessel employed, by authority of law, in active service in bays, inlets, road- • steads, or other arms of the sea, under the general restrictions, regulations and requirements that are incident or peculiar to service on the high seas.</p> <p>The authority of the head of an Executive Department to issue orders -and regulations under directions of the President to have the force of law is subject to the condition that they conflict with no act of Congress: and an order by .the Secretary of the Navy that a service shall not be a sea service which Congress has directed shall be a sea service is invalid.</p>

<p>This case is affirmed on the authority of United States v. Symonds, just decided (ante, 46).</p>

<p>Prior to the enactment in the act of February 25, 1871, 16 Stat. 431, now Rev. Stat. § 12, that “whenever an act is repealed, which repealed a former act, such former act shall not thereby be revived unless it shall be expressly so provided,” it was the general rule of law that the repeal of a repealiug act restored the law as it was before the passage of the latter act without formal words for that purpose, uefiess otherwise provided either in the repealing act or by some general statute.</p> <p>Before the passage of the act of March 3, 1835, forbidding it, 4 Stat. 757, it was lawful for the Secretary of the Navy to make allowances out of appropriations in gross to officers of the Navy beyond their regular pay, for quarters, furniture, lights, fuel, &c., and the repeal of that act by, the act of April 17, 1866, 14 Stat. 33, restored the right 'to make such allowances'; and such as wei’e made by him and were settled at the. Treasury Department, between the date when the latter act went into effect and the passage of the act of February 25, 1S71, 16 Stat. 431, were made in accordance with the executive construction of the statutes respecting the navy and the Navy Department prior to 1835, and this court will not at this late day question their validity. ■</p> <p>The contemporaneous construction of a statute by the Executive Department charged with its execution is entitled to great weight, and ought not to be overturned unless clearly erroneous.</p> <p>It is not decided (1) wdiether after settlement of an account at the Treasury it can be reopened by the Accounting officers on the ground of .error .arising only from mistake of law; nor 72) whether errors in accounts with the United States, stated closed and'settled by payment, can be corrected otherwise than by regular judicial proceedings instituted by the-United States.</p>

Held: that to credit Nash with the time of his service as master’s mate and acting gunner would be inconsistent with those provisions of the statute fixing the salary of officers, and making the rate of pay dependent on the period of service in their particular grades. Senate Ex. Doc. 101, 48th Cong., 1st Session. After this interpretation of the act of 1882, Congress, in the *62 Naval Appropriation.

<p>On similar facts, with reference to the same corporate grant, Neto Orleans Water Works Co. v.Nivers, 115. U.S. 674, is affirmed to the point that a legislative grant of an exclusive right to s.upply water to a municipality and its inhabitants, through pipes and mains laid in the public streets,, and upon condition of the performance of the service by the grantee, is a grant of a franchise vested in the state, in consideration of the performance of a public service, and, after performance by the grantee, is a contract protected by the Constitution of the Ujiited States against state legislation, and against provisions in state constitutions, to impair it.</p>

Held: that the last clause of the amendment as to the equal protection of the laws, Avas not violated by any diversity in the jurisdiction of the several courts Avhich the state might establish, as to subject-matter, amount, or finality of their decisions, if all persons within the territorial limits of their respective jurisdictions have an equal right in like cases, and under like circumstances, to resort to them for…

<p>In Illinois when a declaration in an action at law alleges a joint liability of two defendants,-a plea in bar which does not trayerse this allegation admits it, and makes the declarations of one defendant not served with process evidence against the other who has appeared .and answered.</p> <p>In an action by an attorney to recover for services rendered in defending a suit for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon a tract of land near a large town, and in preventing the foreclosure, and in bringing about a favorable sale of the property, evidence as to the- character of the land and its possible*value as a future suburb of the town is admissible.</p> <p>As the length of hypothetical statements presented to a witness to ascertain his opinion upon any matter, growing out’of the facts supposed, necessa-' rily depends upon the simple or complicated character of the transactions recited, and upon the number of particulars which must be considered for the formation of the opinion desired, it must in a p-eat degree be left to the discretion of the cóurt; and in-this case that discretion was properly exercised.</p>

<p>While creditor who finds specific property of his debtor in the hands of the debtor’s wife to whom it had been assigned by the debtor before bankruptcy rftly follow it and have it appropriated to the payment of his debt, a judgment in personam for its value cannot be taken against her in case the property itself cannot be found. Phipps v. Sedgwick', 95 U. S. 3, and Trust Co. v. Sedgiuick, 97 TJ. S, 304, affirmed.</p> <p>A bill in equity against husband and wife by the assignees in bankruptcy of the husband, which alleges that the husband before the bankruptcy transferred a large amount of personal property in the form of bonds, stocks, &c.,/to the wife for the purpose-of concealing- the same from his creditors, and delaying, hindering, and defrauding them, and in contení-' plation of bankruptcy, and which does not describe the property, but avers inability to do so, and which waives answer under oath and asks as relief for a transfer to the assignee of the. .property in whatever form it may exist, as assets of the bankrupt, sejfcs forth no case for relief in equity, and should be dismissed on demurrer.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT -OF THE UNITED STATES FOJS THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.</p>

Held: that the defendant’s plea sufficiently avers all the facts necessary to constitute the former judgment a bar to this action. Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiff in error. Mr. C. J. Hillyer for defendants in error. Mr. William M. Stewart was with him on the brief.

Held: there was no just ground ;of complaint that the Railroad Commissioners had refused to follow its directions. In the State case the writ is dismissed, there being no Federal question immolved. In the Federal case, the decree of the court below is affirmed.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT' OF KANSAS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

' .APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. . This was an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States'for the "Western District of Louisiana remanding to a court of the state a cause which had been removed from it. The base is stated in the opinion of the court.

■ This was an action at law to recover a sum alleged to be due the United States on imported merchandise. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff below sued out this writ of error. The' case is stated in the opinion of the the court.

<p>APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>There is nothing in the facts in this case to take it out of the operation of United States v. Taylor, 101 U. S.'216, where, after consideration, it was held that the act of August 5, 1861, § 36, 12 Stat. 301 was not repealed by the act of June' 7, 1802, 12 Stat. 422; that prior to the application of the owner of the land sold for taxes for the surplus in the Treasury arising from the sale, he had no claim therefor which could be enforced • by suit against the United States; and that the statute of limitations began'to run against it only from the date of his application.</p>

<p>APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.</p> <p>This was a suit to recover salary withheld. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

. This case was heard in the court below upon demurrers to an amended bill and to an amended bill in the nature of a supplemental bill. The demurrers were sustained and the bill dismissed upon the ground that the- suit was barred by the statute of limitations of the State of New York.

This was an action to recover on a bond. The case which makes the Federal question is stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>' APPEAL EROM- THE CIRCUIT COURT OE THE UNITED STATES EOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OE ARKANSAS.</p> <p>Bill in equity. Tbe case is stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.</p>

Held: as to the Sallie Pearce, that the contract was that of a common carrier; that, as to the Colossal, it was immaterial ■whether the contract was that of towage merely, or that of a common carrier; and that each disaster was causee], by an inevitable accident, falling within the excepted dangers of the river and of navigation,- alleged in the bill' as forming part of each contract. - We concur in this conclusion.

Held: The provision in § 823, taken from § 1 of the act of February 26, 1853, c. 80, 10 Stat. 1G1, that the fees to clerks''-shall be “taxed and allowed,” applies, prima facie, to- taxable fees and costs in ordinary suits between party-and party, prosecuted in a court; and there is no specification of naturalizatioirmatters in the fees of clerks. *170 (2) The statute béipg of doubtful construction as to. what fees were to…

<p>ERROR TO THE CIROUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.</p> <p>This was an action at law to recover upon a policy cf life insurance issued by the plaintiff in error. Verdict for the plaintiff below, and judgment on the verdict. The defendant below sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p> <p>cited: Woodruff v. Wentworth, 133 Mass. 309 ; Stone v. White, 8 Gray, 589 ; Pierce v. Charter Oak Insurance Co., 138 Mass. 151; Shultz v. Mutual Life lnsurance Co., 6 Fed. Rep. 672; Cazenove v. British Assurance Co., 6 C. B. N. S. 437; S. C. on appeal, 29 Law Journal, N. S. (C. P.) 160; Wright v. Equitable Life Assurance Co., 50 How. Pr. 367; Thompson v. Weems, 9 App. Cas. 671; Jeffries v. Life Lnsurance Co., 22 Wall. 47; Ætna Life Insurance Co. v. France, 91 U. S. 510; Insurance Co. v. Trefz, 104 U. S. 197; Carpenter v. Providence Washington Insurance Co., 16 Pet. 495; London Assurance Co. v. Mansel. 16 Ch. D. 363; McDonald v. Law Union Insurance Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 328; Edington v. Ætna Life Insurance Co., 77 N. Y. 564; S. C. 100 N. Y. 536; Rivaz v. Gerussi, 6 Q. B. D. 222; McLanahan v. Universal Insurance Co., 1 Pet. 170; New York Life Insurance Co. v. Fletcher, 117 U. S. 519 ; McCoy v. Metropolitan Insurance Co., 133 Mass. 82; Batchelder v. Queen Insurance Co., 135 Mass. 449; Fowkes v. Manchester & London Insurance Co., 3 Fost. & Fin. 440; S. C. 3 B. & S. 915 ; Dilleber v. Home Life Insurance Co., 69 N. Y. 256; Connecticut Life Insurance Co. v. Union Trust Co., 112 U. S. 250; N. Y. Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U. S. 591; Moulor v. Insurance Co., 101 U. S. 708; In re General Provincial Life Assurance Co., 18 Weekly Reporter, 396; American Insurance Co. v. Mahone, 56 Miss. 180; Roehner v. Knickerbocker Life Insurance Co., 63 N. Y. 160 ; Railroad Co. v. Dubois, 12 Wall. 47; Taylor v. Ely, 25 Conn. 250; Insurance Co. v. Wolff, 95 U. S. 326; Devens v. Mechanics' & Traders’ Insurance Co., 83 N. Y. 168; Bennecke v. Insurance Co., 105 U. S. 355.</p> <p>cited: Hampshire Bank v. Billings, 17 Pick. 87; Stone v. White, 8 Gray, 589 ; American Insurance Co. v. Mahone, 56 Miss. 180 ; Connecticut Insurance Co. v. Luchs, 108 U. S. 498; Liberty Hall Association v. Housatonic Insurance Co., 7 Gray, 261; Bardwell v. Conway Insurance Co., 122 Mass. 90; Hall v. People's Insurance Co., 6 Gray, 185; Lorillard Fire Insurance Co. v. McCulloch, 21 Ohio St. 176; Towne v. Fitchburg Insurance Co., 7 Allen, 51; Brennan v. Security Insurance Co., 4 Daly, 296; Fowkes v. Manchester Insurance Co., 3 Fost. & Fin. 440; Hoddson v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 97 Mass. 144; Frost v. Saratoga Insurance Co., 5 Denio, 154; S. C. 49 Am. Deo. 234; Ames v. New York Union Insurance Co., 14 N. Y. 253; Shearman v. Niagara Insurance Co., 46 N. Y. 526; Bevin v. Conn. Insurance Co., 23 Conn. 244; Bouton v. American Insurance Co., 25 Conn. 542; Walsh v. Ætna Insurance Co., 30 Iowa, 133; Insurance Co. v. Slockbower, 26 Penn. St. 199; North Berwick Co. v. New England Fire and Marine Co., 52 Maine, 336; Reynolds v. Commercial Insurance Co., 47 N. Y 597; Kennedy v. Green, 3 Myl. & K. 699 ;Viele v. Germania Insurance Co., 26 Iowa, 9; Von Bories v. United Insurance Co., 8 Bush, 133; Westchester Co. v. Earle, 33 Mich. 143; Williamsburg Co. v. Cary, 83 Ill. 453; Anson v. Winnesheils Co., 23 Iowa, 84; Jewett v. Home Insurance Co., 29 Iowa, 562; Security Co. v. Fay, 22 Mich. 467; Horwitz v. Equitable Insurance Co., 40 Missouri, 557; Pitney v. Glens Falls Co., 65 N. Y. 6; Pechner v. Phænix Insurance Co., 65 N.Y. 195; Hadley v. Fire Ins. Co., 55 N. H. 110; Fishbeck v. Phænix Insurance Co., 54 Cal. 422.</p>

This was an action against sureties in an appeal bond. Judgment for defendants, to review which plaintiffs sued opt this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

These were actions at law in a state court of Louisiana against the obligors on an injunction bond given in an action ' brought in the District Court- of the United States for the District of Louisiana. Judgments for plaintiff, which were affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state on appeal. Defendants sued out these writs of error. The facts which make the Federal question are stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: under the wording of said § 179, viz. :,/That no right accrues to or is invested in any informer in any case until the fine, penalty, or forfeiture in such case is fixed by judgment or compromise,'and the amount or proceeds shall have been paid,’ that unless the amount of the fine, penalty, or forfeiture had been both fixed and paid to the Government prior to August 1, 1872, no share of the same could be paid to the…

Held: is not enough. An averment of residence is not the equivalent of an averment of citizenship for the purposes of jurisdiction in the courts of the United States. According to the pleadings the Huntsville Female Academy is .an Alabama corporation, and the other defendants are residents of either Alabama or Tennessee.

<p>An order drawn upon a county treasurer by county officials in favor of A • or order unindorsed, and a like order in favor of A, both assigned by A ‘ to B for a valuable consideration, constitute no cause of action in B’s favor on which B can maintain an action in a Circuit Court of the United States on the grbu )d of citizenship, if A could not maintain the action there on the same ground; and if, in such action in B’s favor A’s necesr sary qualification of citizenship does not affirmatively appear in the • record in this 'court, the writ of error w-ill be dismissed whether the question,of jurisdiction be made or not, and plaintiff in error adjudged to pay Costs in this court.</p>

<p>The United States are not responsible for the injury or destruction of private property caused, by their military operations during the late civil war; nor are private parties chargeable for works constructed on their property by the United States to facilitate such operations.</p> <p>Accordingly, where bridges pn the line of a railroad were destroyed during the civil war by either of the contending forces, their subsequent rebuilding by the United.States as a measure of military necessity, without the request of, or any contract with, the owner of the. railroad, imposes no liability upon such owner.</p>

This was a bill in equity. Respondent demurred. Decree for complainant, from which respondent appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Service by an officer of the navy as an enlisted man in the marine corps is to be credited to him in calculating his longevity pay under the act of March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 472, 473, c. 97.</p> <p>The marine corps is a military body, primarily belonging to the navy, and under control of the Naval Department, with liability to be ordered to service in connection with the army, and in that case under the command of army officers.</p>

. This was an action at law on a contract for the sale and purchase of railroad iron. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This was- an action at law to recover back duties alleged to have’ been illegally exacted. Judgment for plaintiff, to review which défendant sued out this writ' of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Two actions at law: the-first to recover back duties alleged • to have been illegally exacted; the second, to recover additional duties after delivery of the goods. Judgment against the importers, who sued out these-writs of error. The case is stated in' the opinion of the court.

error- to the district court of the united states for the DISTRICT OF- WEST - VIRGINIA. The case is stated in tjie opinion of the court.

The following motion was filed in these cases: “ Th&j above appellant [Grant] moves the honorable the Justices of the Supremo Court of the United States, that Brainard H. Warner the receiver, appointed by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in Equity- Cause 4291, be directed to turn over to the Clerk of this Honorable Court out of the rents and profits in his hands the amount of $5500, for costs accruing or to accrue, in the hearing of the cause, and for counsel…

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OE TENNESSEE.</p> <p>This was a petition for a rehearing in the case decided in 119 H. S. 450-453.</p>

Held: There was but one entire offence for the continuous time. (2) The trial court had no jurisdiction to inflict a punishment in respect of more than one of the convictions. ■ (3) As the want of jurisdiction appeared on the face of the proceedings, ' the defendant could be released from imprisonment on a habeas corpus.

Held: that the plea must be overruled, and the defendants ordered to. answer the bill.

<p>error to the circuit court of the united states FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF'FLORIDA.</p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court,</p>

Held: that the paper was revocable at any time, and - did not amount to the decisive and irrevocable act which must exist to have the effect to transmute the property. Bill in equity. The ease is stated in the

Held: in that case, that it was necessary to specify the particulars of the application, so as to distinguish that charged in the indictment as wilful and criminal from those others contemplated by the statute which were unlawful but not criminal ; and it was held to be of the essence of the .criminality ' of the misapplication that there should be a conversion of the funds to the use of the defendant, or of some person…

Held: imperatively required the county court -to make the subscription and issue the bonds, in accordance with the vote of the majority; and hence, as- held in the former case, it was “immaterial whether a court- composed of the justices or held by the presiding judge alone made the order,’ as either must obey.” .

This was an action to recover the possession of land in California, brought, and prosecuted to final judgment, in the courts of that state. The facts which make the Federal case for this court are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.</p> <p>This was a motion to dismiss, united with a motion to affirm. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This was a bill in equity, filed June 7, 1882, by Elias Speidel, a citizen of Ohio, against Jacob Henrici and Jonathan Lenz, trustees of-the Harmony Society of Reaver County in the State, of Pennsylvania, and citizens of Pennsylvania, and containing the following allegations: That the plaintiff’s parents lived in the kingdom of "Wurtemburg in Germany up to the year 1801, “ engaged in farming and well to do, and without any education or knowledge of. the world or of business,…

Held: that ■ this'meant- that- if--payment was made in money, and not in state bonds or coupons,.it must be' of an amount equal to the face .value of the bonds' issued to the company and the_accrqed interest thereon to the time of payment, together with such ..further sum, if any, ás would be nepessar.v. to enable the state to cancel then, or within a treasonable time-thereafter,- ' $3,POO,000 of its outstanding…

i This was a bill in equity to prevent the infringement of letters-patent. Decree for a perpetual injunction, from which the defendants appealed.. The case is stated in the opinion of the-court.

This writ of error was sued out by the defendant below, who was indicted, tried and. convicted of murder, to review ■ the proceedings and judgment there. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

This was a bill in-equity to restrain the infringement of letters-patent. Decree' that tbe bill be dismissed, from which the complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: even where the requisite diversity of citizenship existed, that the restriction of § 14 operated to prevent original cognizance by a Circuit Court, under § li, of a proceeding by mandarrms not necessary for the exercise of a jurisdiction which had previously otherwise attached, so, with §§ 1 and 2 of the act of 1875 in force at the samé time with § 716 of the Kevised Statutes, the restriction of § 716 must operate…

Ejectment. Plea: The general issue. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinión of the court.

United States v. Arjona, 120 U.S. 479 (1887), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that it is not necessary for Congress to announce that a statute is intended to enforce international criminal law before that statute may be enforced under the Offenses Clause.

This was an information in a state court of Tennessee, against the plaintiff in eiTor, for doing business in the Taxing District of Shelby County in that state, as a drummer on 'behalf of a firm doing business in Cincinnati, Ohio, without a license as required by the provision of the statute of Tennessee, which is set out in the opinion of the court. The defendant was found guilty, and this judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state on appeal. 13 Lea, 303.

Held: that these enactments in the Code, as applied to A, violated that provision of the Constitution of tlie United States which grants to Congress the pow.er to make regulations of commerce among the states. Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, ante, 489, affirmed and applied to .this case.

This was an action at law, in the nature of assumpsit, commenced in a state court against defendant in error and a garnishee. Judgment for defendant, and for garnishee. Plaintiff sued out this writ of error. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

appeals from the circuit court of the united states for THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. . Appeal and cross-appeal from a decree upon a bill .in equity, filed by Schuler against, the' Laclede Bank. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: because they were no longer parts of that county, and no opportunity was given them to participate in the arrangement. These parts of counties have-no separate organization of their own, corporate or otherwise.

Held: in an action brought by the heirs of the devisee of the original proprietor, under a will executed in 1749, and probated in 1756, none of whom had made any claim to the -premises for^three quarters of a century after the death of the original proprietor, under whose will they now assert’title, nor paid-taxes on the property, nor after that time ever taken possession of the premisbs or paid taxes upon them, that the…

This action was instituted in conformity with a local statute of Missouri, to recover certain state and county taxes alleged to be due upon the property of the plaintiff in error, situate in Putnam County in that state. The Federal question is stated in the opinion of the court.

Held: or adjudged invalid, qr defective or insufficient in law, by reason *585 of any informality or omission in setting forth the particulars of the-acknowledgment, before such officer as aforesaid, in the certificate thereof: Provided, however, That it appears in sub-' stance, from such certificate, that the parties executing said deed, mortgage, or other instrument of writing, executed the same , freely and voluntarily…

Held: that there was a latent ambiguity in the will respecting the object of the residuary gift, which ambiguity could be removed by extrinsic evidence; and that the evidence introduced on that point, taken iu connection with the other bequests in the will for the benefit of Presbyterian churches, showed that the testator, *587 in .making the residuary gift, had in his mind the Board of Foreign Missions and the Board of…

This cause is the one referred to in Marsh v. Shepard, ante, 595, as “ the suit in chancery between the same parties, with reference to alleged infringements of the same letters-patent, decided in the Supreme Court of Michigan.” Scott, one of the defendants below, allowed the bill in the lower state court to be taken pro confesso against him, and was no party to the appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, where the decree of the court below granting an injunction was…

Held: that under all the circumstances, and in view of the distances of Dolores from Monclova, the presumption was that the repealing act had not been promulgated when the commissioner extended the title to Gonzales.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Benedict, a citizen of Pennsylvania and rag-dealer at Pittsburgh, against Dushane and Stonebraker, citizens of Maryland and paper-makers at Hagerstown, to recover $813.03 for rags sold and delivered by him tr> them on February Y, 1882, as appeared by the plaintiff’s affidavit to a copy of the bill from his book of original entry.

<p>In this case unsecured floating debts, due by a railroad company for construction, were, in the absence of a statutory provision, held not to be a lien on the railroad superior to the lieu of a valid mortgage on it, duly recorded, and of bonds secured thereby, and held by tona fide purchasers for value.</p> <p>The question of what is a final decree, from which an appeal can be taken, considered.</p>

Petition for writ of habeas corpus. The .petitioner set forth that he was arrested, by the defendant in error, United States Marshal for the District of California, under a warrant issued by a commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States charging him with conspiring with others to deprive certain-subjects of the Emperor of China “ of the equal protection of the laws and of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.” The petition set' forth the warrant,…

This was a petition; filed October 2, 1884, by a’citizen of Nrance against a citizen of Louisiana, to annul a lease of a sugar plantation from the defendant to the petitioner for five years; and alleging that by an extraordinary risé of the Mississippi Liver, which could not have been foreseen, and without any fault of the lessee, a- crevasse was made in the levee's of '-'a , neighboring plantation, the leased plantation overflowed, all the cane destroyed, and the plantation…

Held: that this was an exact and effectual compliance with the provision of the statute.

Held: not only that suits, either at law or in equity, in the Circuit Court, by creditors of a corporation, to enforce the liability of stockholders under a state statute, are governed by the statute of limitations of the State; Terry v. Tubman, 92 U. S. 156 ; Carrol v. Green, 92 U. S. 509 ; Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628 ; but also that the question whether the remedy in the federal courts should be by action at law or…

Held: (lj At the time the bonds were issued there'was no decision of the highest court of Illinois denying the power of the legislature, by subsequent enactment, to legalize a municipal subscription to railroad stock which would have.been originally lawful if it had been made, in the mode in which it was made, under legislative authority previously granted.

This writ of error was sued out to review an order of the Circuit Court remanding the cause to the state court from which it had been removed.

ORIGINAL. The following motion ivas- made in this case: Now comes the petitioner, by- his counsel, and.-moves this ' honorable court for leave to file petition praying for the issue of the writ of habeas corpus and for certiorari, and submits thereon the accompanying brief.