_iOV^~ ^OJllV^JO^"" -J r-rt !± CO O - =0 § 1 jj-' ^ i^WE-UNIVERS-//, ^^ • ^v^lOSAKCElij> ■^n \xmm^'' ^/m-viNCdW^-; ^^ .i,Of-CALIFO,?^^ I Mi ,j,.OF-CAilFG/?^ iJJiV 1 xx\lLIBRA«Y6)/: ^^ (^;// ^\WEUNIVEky//i 'Jr a ^ o ^s>;lOSANCElfj'^ pit I M;OFCAilFO/?^ .^WEUNIVERJ/A O "•i u./iit jui - «>9U]<\iiiii ait' v/vuvaaii 3> AOS-ANCElfi Nt-UBRARYQc. •UBRARYOc ^^V\EUNIVER% ^lOSANCl .ilAifiilin^ :%av:iiii!-iv^ . :^aA!N(}-3WV <^ %iiJAlNa-3\\V ^ ,v>vlOSAKCElfX;> %liiMNa-3i\V ^^l-IJBRMY/3^^ .-v^UBRARY^^^^ ^.OFCAIIFO% Id: ^^f.CAllFO%^ ^WE•lJNIVER5•/A ■^iyJlVJiaP.-# ^TiiaDKYSOl^ ^sM-lIBRARYO^ "^(i/OjnvDjO'^ 5J^EUNIV[:-RS'/:^ .vlOSAJlCFl^y. o =o '^dOJilVj-dO'^' s^ '^toi. y^. AWElJJJlVERSyA smiNft-jwv ,vA,OF-CAllF0/iV, ^ '^(^'Afai ^1 :y A TREATISE ON FEDERAL PRACTICE IN CIVIL CAUSES WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PATENT CASES AND THE FORECLOSURE OF RAILWAY MORTGAGES. By ROGER FOSTER, OF THE NEW lOEK BAE, AUTHOR OF "FOSTEK'S FEDEKAL JUDICIAUY ACTS" AND "TRIAL BY NEWSPAPER;' AND LECTURER ON FEDERAL JURISPRUDENCE AT THE LAW SCHOOL OF YALE UNIVERSITY. in two volumes. Vol. L BOSTON: THE BOSTON BOOK COMPANY. 1892. Copyright, 1890, By RoGEii Foster. Copyright, 1892, By Roger Foster. T I89X 53nibcrsitn l!3rrss: John Wilson and Son, CAMiiiauGE, U.S.A. TO C!;e jHemorp of mp jFafter, DWIGHT FOSTER, FORMERLY JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, / DEDICATE THIS BOOK, BEGUN AT HIS SUGGESTION, ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT LIVE TO CORRECT ITS FAULTS. mTKd PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. The passage of the Evarts Act creating the Circuit Courts of Appeals, which radically changed the jurisdic- tion and practice affecting appeals and writs of error, and the many recent decisions explaining the right to and practice in removals from the State to the Federal courts, have rendered a second edition necessary. The reception given by the bench and bar to the first edition has encouraged the author to enlarge the scope, and he hopes the usefulness of the book. Many of the original sections have been rewritten, and new sections have been added to the original chapters, including all material stat- utes and decisions passed or reported before the October terra of 1891, and many decisions since that date which have been added while the book was in the press. New chapters have been added, on Practice in Admir- alty, by Charles C. Burlingham, Esq., of the New York bar ; Practice in the Court of Private Land Claims, by ex-Judge E. A. Bowers, now of the bar of Washington, D. C. ; and Practice in the Court of Claims. The chapters on Juris- diction, Evidence, Costs, Practice at Common Law, Re- moval of Causes, and Writs of Error and Appeals, have been entirely rewritten and nearly doubled in size. A larsj-e number of forms and rules, and a few recent statutes Vi PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. have been added to the Appendix. It is hoped that the book will now serve as a iuU guide to the practitioner in every branch of Federal practice in civil causes. The author has been greatly aided by the Notes to the Revised Statutes by Messrs. Gould and Tucker, and by the Important Federal Statutes Annotated, by Mr. Russell H. Curtis. The references to the Supplement to the Revised Statutes are to the first edition. New York, January 11, 1892. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. The object of this work is to furnish a guide to the whole field of practice in the Federal Courts, except in cases of admiralty, criminal prosecutions, and before the Court of Claims ; including references to all the statutes and the principal decisions upon the subject. Greater space has been given to practice in equity on account of its importance and obscurity. The chapter on the practice on Writs of Error and Appeals is not intended as more than a summary which may be of convenience to the practitioner. The practice in the Supreme Court of the United States cannot be adequately described in less than at least one volume. The author has used with great freedom many treatises on chancery pleadings and prac- tice, and collections of annotations upon statutes of the United States. Besides the great work of Lord Redes- dale, he is especially indebted for assistance to Daniell's Chancery Practice, with the notes of successive editors, including those of Chancellor Cooper ; Bump's annota- tions of the statutes regulating Federal Procedure ; and the manuscript lectures on equity pleading delivered be- fore the Law School of Boston University, by the late Judge Dwight Foster. The citations from Daniell are taken from the second and fifth American editions. The writer is aware that both these editions contain manv viii PREFACE, rules of modern English chancery practice which are not binding upon the courts of the United States ; but he has been careful to exclude all such from this work. The fact that these later editions are more accessible to the profes- sion is his reason for referring to them rather than to the first American edition. He has received great assistance and encouragement from many members of the bench and bar; especially from his teachers, Professor Theodore W. Dwiii:ht and ex-Judo;e John F. Dillon, and from John A. Shields, Esq., the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, who has very kindly examined and approved the chapter on Costs. He is fully conscious that the book contains many errors and omissions. The pressing need of a treatise upon the subject is his only excuse for the publication of so imper- fect a work. And he will welcome any criticism, w^hether public or private, which Avill show him how, in a subse- quent edition, to make it more useful to the profession. Netv York, August 31, 1889. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Pagk Table of Cases xxix Table of Statutes cix Table ok Equity Rules cxv Table of Rules of Supreme Court cxvi Table of Rules of Circuit Court of Appeals cxvi Table of Admiralty Rules cxvii Table of Rules of Court of Claims cxvii Table of Rules of Court of Private Land Claims .... cxviii CHAPTER I. jurisdiction. § 1. Equitable Jurisdiction in General 1 § 2. General Survey of the Jurisdiction of Courts of Equity .... 3 § 3. Constitutional Provisions affecting the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts 4 § 4. The Distinction between Law and Equity in the Federal Courts . 5 § 5. General Rules affecting the Jurisdiction in Equity of the Federal Courts 6 § 6. State Statutes cannot impair the Jurisdiction nor regulate the Practice of Federal Courts of Equity 9 § 7. State Laws creating new Rights are enforced by Federal Courts of Equity 10 § 8. State Statutes of Limitation 11 § 9. Property in the Custody of a State Court 12 § 10. Property in the Custody of a Federal Court 14 § 11. Illustrations of Equitable Jurisdiction in the Federal Courts . . 14 § 12. Illustrations of Cases where the Federal Courts have refused to assume Equitable Jurisdiction 19 § 13. Federal Courts which have Jurisdiction in Equity 27 § 14. Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 27 § 14rt. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of Appeal 30 § 15. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States .... 30 § 16. Matter in Dispute 32 § 17. Suits arising under the Constitution or Laws of the United States 35 § 18. Controversy between Citizens of different States 37 § 19. Citizenship 38 § '20. Under Grants of different States 41 § 21. Ancillary Jurisdiction 41 X TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page § 22. Limitations upon Jurisdiction by Residence 44 § 23. Special Limitation upon Jurisdiction of Circuit Court for Southern District of New York 49 § 24. Suits by Assignees 54 § 25. Jurisdiction of the District Courts of the United States .... 57 § 26. Territorial Jurisdiction and Terms of the Supreme Court, Circuit Courts of Appeal, Circuit and District Courts of the United States , 58 § 26a. Jurisdiction of the Court of Claims 86 § 266. Jurisdiction of the Court of Private Land Claims 87 § 27. Sources of Federal Equity Practice 89 CHAPTER II. PERSONS WHO MAT BE PLAINTIFFS OR DEFENDANTS IN A SUIT IN EQUITY. § 28. General Rule as to Persons capable of being Plaintiffs .... 91 § 29. States as Plaintiffs 91 § 30. Alien Enemies as Plaintiffs 91 § 31. Married \Vomen as Plaintiffs 91 § 32. Suits on behalf of Infants 92 § 33. Suits on behalf of Idiots, Lunatics, and Persons of Weak Mind . 94 § 34. Capacity of Foreign Executors, Administrators, and Receivers to sue 95 § 35. Who may be Defendants to a Bill in Equity 95 § 36. The United States as a Defendant 95 § 37. Liability of States to Suits by Private Persons 100 § 38. Liability of a State to a Suit by another State 107 § 39. Suits against Infants 107 § 40. Suits against Idiots, Lunatics, and Persons of Weak Mind . . . 108 § 41. Suits against Married Women 109 CHAPTER III. PARTIES. § 42. General Rule as to Parties 110 § 43. Parties with no Interest in the Subject-Matter of the Suit . . . Ill § 44. Persons who on account of their Interest need not be made Parties to a Suit in Ecjuity 112 § 45. Cases where the Law has furnished a Representative .... 116 § 46. Suits l)y a Complainant on behalf of himself and others similarly situated 119 § 47. Illustrations of Bills filed by Representatives 120 § 48. Suits against one or more of a Class 121 § 49. Suits by or against one or more as Representatives of a Class claiming a Common Right 122 § .50. Omission of Defendants not within the .Jurisdiction of the Court 123 § 51. Formal Parties who may be omitted when without the Juris- diction 126 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI Page § 52. Parties whose Interest is separable 126 § 53. Parties indispensable to a Decree 129 § 54. When Numerous Interests have been created for the Purpose of preventing the Plaintiff from obtaining Equitable Relief . . 133 § 55. When a Person consents to the Relief sought 133 § 56. When the Plaintiff waives his Right against a Person .... 134 § 57. When the Interest of an absent Person is evidently very small . 134 § 58. When the Right of Administration is in Dispute 134 § 59. Relaxation of Rules as to Parties in Special Cases 135 § 60. Restatement of the Rules as to Parties 135 § 61. Objection for Want of Parties 136 § 62. Objection for Joinder of Improper Parties 138 CHAPTER IV. BILLS. § 63. Informations 139 § 64. Definition and Classification of Bills 140 § 65. Frame of a Bill in Equity 142 § 66. The Address and Introduction 143 § 67. The Narrative Part of a Bill 144 § 68. Scandal and Impertinence 145 § 69. Certainty 147 § 70. Inconsistency and Bills with a Double Aspect 149 § 71. Multifariousness in General 152 § 72. Multifariousness by Misjoinder of Plaintiffs 153 § 73. Multifariousness by Misjoinder of Defendants . 154 § 74. INIultifariousness without Misjoinder of Parties 157 §75. Objections for Multifariousness 159 § 76. Special Provisions of the Federal Equity Rules and Pi'actice . . 160 § 77. Bills to enjoin the Infringement of Patents 162 § 78. General Rules of Equity Pleading 165 § 79. The Common Confederacy Clause 168 § 80. The Charging Part 169 § 81. The Jurisdiction Clause 169 § 82. The Interrogatory Clause 170 § 83. The Prayer for ReUef 171 § 84. Waivers and Offers 172 § 85. The Prayer of Process 175 § 86. The Signature to a Bill 176 § 87. Affidavits to Bills 177 § 88. Bills of Interpleader 178 § 89. Bills in the Nature of Interpleader 181 § 90. Bills of Certiorari 181 CHAPTER V. STJBPCENAS TO APPEAR AND ANSWER. § 91. Definition and Form of Subpoena 183 § 92. Issue of the SubpcBua 185 Xii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page § 93. When a Subpoena is necessary 185 § 94. Personal Service of a Subpoena 186 § 95. Service upon Corporations 188 § 96. Substituted Service of a Subpoena 191 § 97. Statutory Service of a Subpoena 193 § 98. Exemptions from Service of Subpoena, or other Process Legal or Equitable, other than Arrest 195 CHAPTER VI. APPEARANCE. § 99. Definition of an Appearance 198 § 100. What constitutes an Appearance 198 § 101. Effect of an Appearance 199 § 102. When an Appearance must be made 200 CHAPTER VII. TAKING BILLS PRO CONFESSO. § 103. When a Bill may be taken pro confesso 201 §104. Practice in taking a Bill p-o co«/esso 202 CHAPTER VIII. DEMURRERS. § 105. Definition and General Characteristics of a Demurrer .... 208 § 106. Admissions by a Demurrer 208 § 107. Demurrers to Parts of Bills 210 § 108. Classification of Demurrers to the Relief 212 § 109. Demurrers to the Discovery 215 § 110. Of what Defects Advantage should be taken by Demurrer . . 216 §111. When a Demurrer should be Filed 217 § 112. Title of Demurrer 217 § 113. Protestation 217 §114. Statement of the Extent of the Demurrer 218 §115. Statement of Causes of Demurrer 218 § 116. Demurrers ore ten us 220 §117. Prayer of Judgment 221 § 118. Certificate of Counsel 221 § 119. jMotions to take Demurrers off the File 221 § 120. Setting Demurrer down for Argument 222 §121. Argument of Demurrer 222 § 122. Overruling a Demurrer 223 § 123. Sustaining a Demurrer 225 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xiii CHAPTER IX. PLEAS. Page § 124. Definition and Classification of Pleas 226 § 125. Pleas in Abatement in General 228 § 126. Pleas to the Jurisdiction 229 § 127. Pleas to the Person 229 § 128. Pleas to the Bill 230 § 129. Pleas of Pendency of another Suit 231 § 130. Pleas of AA'ant of Parties 23i § 131. Pleas of Statutes 234 § 132. Pleas of Matter of Record . ; 236 § 133. Pleas of INIatter in Pais 238 § 131. Pleas to the Discovery 238 § 135. When a Plea must be filed 239 § 136. Frame of a Plea 239 § 137. Answers with Pleas 241 § 138. Proceedings of the Plaintiff when a Plea is filed 242 § 139. Motion to take a Plea off the File 243 § 140. Argument of a Plea 244 § 141. Motion for a Reference of a Plea 247 § 142. Hearing upon Pleas 247 § 143. General Remarks upon Pleas 249 CHAPTER X. ANSWERS AKD DISCLAIMERS. § 144. Pleading Defenses in an Answer 250 § 145. Defenses peculiar to Patent Cases 251 § 146. Admissions and Denials independent of Discovery 254 § 147. Impertinence and Scandal 255 § 148. Discovery 256 § 149. Proceedings to compel Answer 260 § 150. Frame of Answer 260 § 151. Signature and Oath to Answer 262 § 152. IMotions to take Answers off the File 263 § 153. Exceptions for Insufficiency 264 § 154. Supplemental Answers 267 § 155. Disclaimers 267 CHAPTER XL REPLICATIONS. § 156. Definition and History of Replications 2G9 § 157. When a Replication should be Filed 270 § I-IS. Effect of a Replication 271 § 159. Frame of a Replication 271 XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER XII. AMENDMENTS. Page § 160. Amendments in General 273 § IGl. When Bills can be Amended 273 § 162. Form and Effect of Amendment of a Bill 275 § 163. What Amendments to Bills may be made 276 § 164:. Amendment by Pleading Matters subsequent to the Filing of the Bill 279 § 165. Proceedings upon an Amended Bill 280 § 166. Amendments of Demurrers, Pleas, and Replications .... 281 § 167. Amendment of Answers 281 § 168. Practice in obtaining Leave to Amend 284 CHAPTER XIII. CROSS-BILLS. § 169. Definition and Origin of Cross-Bills 286 § 170. When a Cross-Bill should be Filed 286 § 171. AVhen a Cross-Bill should not be Filed 287 § 172. Frame of a Cross-Bill 291 § 173. Proceedings upon Cross-Bills • 293 CHAPTER XIV. BILLS OF REVIVOR ; SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS ; BILLS OF REVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT ; AND BILLS IN THE NATURE OF THE SAME. § 174. Abatement 296 § 175. Effect of Abatement 298 § 176. When a Suit may be Revived and Effect of Revivor .... 299 § 177. Who may Revive a Suit 300 § 178. Manner of Revivor in General 301 § 179. Definition of Bills of Revivor and Parties to the Same . . . 302 § 180. Frame of a Bill of Revivor 303 § 181. Proceedings upon Bills of Revivor 304 § 182. Bills in the Nature of Bills of Revivor in General 307 § 183. Frame of Bills in the Nature of Bills of Revivor and Proceedings upon them 308 § 184. Bills of Revivor and Supplement 309 § 185. Supplemental Bills in the Nature of Bills of Revivor .... 309 § 186. What renders a Suit defective 310 § 187. Supplemental Bills 311 § 188. Parties and Frame of a Supplemental Bill 313 § 189. Proceedings upon Supplempwtal Bills 314 § 190. Bills in the Nature of Supplemental Bills in General .... 318 § 191. Frame of a Bill in the Nature of a Supplemental Bill .... 318 § 192. Proceedings upon Bills in the Nature of Supplemental Bills . . 319 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV CHAPTER XV. INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. Page § 193. Definition and Classification of Interlocutory Applications . . 321 § 194. Definition and Classification of Motions 321 § 195. Motions of Course 321 § 196. Special Motions without Notice 322 § 197. Notice of Motion 324 § 198. Argument of Motions 327 § 199. Petitions in General 329 §200. Petitions for Leave to Sue m/br?na /)aw^e/'js 331 § 201. Petitions of Intervention 332 § 202. Form of Petitions and Practice upon them 335 § 203. Orders ,- 336 § 204. Judges -who may grant Orders 338 CHAPTER XVI. INJUNCTIONS. § 205. Definition, Classification, and Objects of Injunctions .... 341 § 206. Injunctions to enforce Trusts and other purely Equitable Rights 341 § 207. Injunctions to restrain Corporations from violating their Charters 342 § 208. Injunctions to enforce the Specific Performance of Covenants and other Contracts affecting Land 344 § 209. Injunctions to restrain a Multiplicity of Suits 345 § 210. Injunctions to prevent Irreparable Injury for which the Remedy at Law is inadequate ; in General 346 § 211. Injunctions to stay Proceedings in other Courts 346 § 212. Injunctions to restrain the Alienation of Property 352 § 213. Injunctions to prevent Waste 353 § 214. Injunctions to prevent the Continuance of a Nuisance . . . 354 § 215. Injunctions to restrain Trespass 356 § 216. Injunctions to restrain the Infringement of Patents .... 3.57 § 217. Injunctions to restrain the Infringement of Copyrights . . . 361 § 218. Injunctions to i-estrain the Unlawful Use of Trade-marks . . 364 § 219. Injunctions to prevent ihe Opening of Letters 366 § 220. Injunctions to compel the Performance or prevent the Breach of Contracts not affecting Land 366 § 221. Injunctions to compel the Delivery of Personal Property tor- tiously withheld 367 § 222. Injunctions authorized by Statute 367 § 223. When Injunctions will not Issue 369 § 224. Distinction between the Judicial Writ and the Writ Remedial . 372 § 225. Distinction between Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunctions . 372 § 226. Distinction between Provisional and Perpetual Injunctions . . 374 § 227. Distinction between Common and Special Injunctions .... 374 § 228. Time and Place of Applications for Interlocutory Injunctions . 375 XVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page § 229. Injunctions not prayed for in the Bill 375 § 230. Special Practice of the Federal Courts in the Issue of Injunc- tions 376 § 231. Notice of Application for Interlocutory Injunction 379 § 232. Affidavits upon an Application for an Injunction 380 § 233. Rules of Decision upon Applications for Interlocutory Injunc- tions 382 § 234. The Writ of Injunction ' 383 § 235. Dissolution of Interlocutory Injunctions in General 385 § 236. Dissolution of Injunctions for Causes arising after their Issue . 387 § 237. The Imposition of Terms upon the Issu'e, Denial, Dissolution, or Continuance of an Injunction 388 § 238. Perpetual Injunctions 391 CHAPTER XVII. RECEIVERS. § 239. Definition of Receiver 394 §»240. When Receivers will be Appointed 394 § 241. Rules regulating the Appointment of Receivers 398 § 242. Ancillary Receivers 399 § 243. Terms upon the Appointment of Receivers, and Preferences in Foreclosure Suits 400 § 244. Property over which Receivers may be Appointed 414 § 245. Powers of Receivers in General 417 § 246. Powers of Receivers of Railroads 420 § 247. Receivers' Certificates 425 § 248. Advice to Receivers 427 § 249. Litigation by Receivers 428 § 250. Duties of Receivers 431 § 251. Liability of a Receiver 434 § 252. Manner of applying for the Appointment of a Receiver . , . 440 § 253. Who may apply for the Appointment of a Receiver .... 442 § 254. IManner of the Appointment of a Receiver 442 § 255. Who should be appointed Receiver 443 § 256. The Receiver's Security 445 § 2.57. Receivers' Accounts 447 § 258. Compensation of Receivers 449 § 259. Removal of Receivers 451 § 260. Discharge of a Receiver 452 CHAPTER XVIII. XnE AVRIT OF NE EXEAT REPUBLTCA. § 261. Definition of the Writ of Ns Exeat Rcpuhlica, and wlien it will Lssue 455 § 262. Against whom the Writ will Issue 456 § 263. Practice in obtaining the Writ of Xe Exeat 457 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XVU CHAPTER XIX. EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. Page § 264. Evidence in General 461 § 265. Admissions 461 § 266. Constructive Admissions 462 § 267. Documentary Evidence in General 463 § 268. Federal Statutes regulating Admission of Documentary Evidence 465 § 269. Definition and Use of an Affidavit 482 § 270. Manner of Verifying an Affidavit 482 § 271. Title of an Affidavit 483 § 272. Form of an Affidavit 483 § 273. Execution of an Affidavit 484 § 274. Competency of Witnesses 485 § 275. Subpoenas ad Testificandum 489 § 276. Service of a Subpoena ad Testificandum 490 § 276a. Depositions in the District of Columbia for use in Suits pending elsewhere 492 § 277. Compelling a Witness to testify 493 § 278. Testimony taken in Equity which may be used in other Courts . 494 § 279. Bills to perpetuate Testimony 494 § 280. Bills to take Testimony de bene esse 497 § 281. Bills of Discovery 489 § 282. Testimony taken before a Cause is at Issue 500 § 283. Testimony taken after a Cause is at Issue within the Jurisdic- tion of the Court 500 § 284. Present Method of taking Testimony within the Jurisdiction . 502 § 285. Testimony taken after a Cause is at Issue and beyond the Juris- diction of the Court 509 § 286. Depositions de bene esse under the Acts of Congress .... 509 § 287. Form of Deposition under Acts of Congress 515 § 288. Commission issued under a Dedimus Potestaiem 518 § 289. Proceedings under a Dedimus Potestaiem 520 § 290. Letters Rogatory 523 CHAPTER XX. DISMISSING BILLS OTHERWISE THAN AT A HEARING. § 291. Dismissal of Bills by the Plaintiff 532 § 292. Dismissal of Bills for want of Prosecution 534 § 293. Dismissal for want of Jurisdiction 534 § 294. Dismissal for Failure to Perfect or Revive a Suit 537 § 295. Election 538 CHAPTER XXI. THE HEARING. § 296. Bringing a Suit to a Hearing 540 § 297. Manner of Hearing a Cause 541 VOL. I. — b Xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page § 298. Rules of Decision upon a Hearing 542 § 299. Objections which cannot be made at the Hearing 544 § 300. Action of the Court upon a Hearing 545 CHAPTER XXII. ISSUES AT LAW. §301. Power of Courts to direct Issues at Law 547 § 302. Matters concerning which an Issue is directed 548 § 303. Time when an Issue is directed 549 § 304. Manner of Trying an Issue 549 § 305. Effect of tlie Finding of a Jury upon an Issue 551 § 306. Proceedings after the Trial of an Issue 553 CHAPTER XXIII. PROCEEDINGS IN A MASTEr's OFFICE. § 307. References to Masters in General 554 § 308. "Who may be appointed Master 555 § 309. Bringing on a Reference 555 § 310. Parties entitled to attend a Reference before a Master . . , • 556 § 311. Proceedings before a Master in General 557 § 312. A State of Facts 559 § 313. Evidence before a INIaster 560 § 314. Masters' Reports and Compensation 561 § 315. Exceptions to Masters' Reports 562 § 316. Sales by Masters 564 CHAPTER XXIV. DECREES. § 317. Definition and Classification of Decrees ........ 568 § 318. Final and Interlocutory Decrees 568 § 319. Decrees m /personam 569 § 320. Decrees in rem 570 § 321. Absolute and Conditional Decrees 571 § 322. Decrees nisi 572 § 323. Decrees in the Nature of Decrees nisi 574 § 324. Time of Entry of Decree 575 § 325. Frame of Decrees 575 CHAPTER XXV. COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. ^ § 326. Definition of Costs and Distinction between Costs at Law and in Equity 580 § 327. Who are given Costs 580 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XIX Page § 328. Classification of Costs 584 § 329. Costs as between Party and Party 585 § 330. Attorney's Fees 585 § 331. Clerk's Fees 596 § 331a. Commissioners' Fees 616 § 332. Marshal's Fees ' 620 § 333. Witnesses' Fees 637 § 334. Miscellaneous Disbursements 640 § 335. Costs out of the Fund 642 § 336. Costs as between Solicitor and Client 644 § 337. Taxation of Costs 644 § 338. Security for Costs 645 CHAPTER XXVI. ENFORCEMENT OF DECREE AND ORDERS. § 339. Enforcement of Decrees and Orders, in General 647 §340. Executions 647 § 341. Contempts 649 § 342. Notice of Application for Attachment 653 § 343. Hearings upon Applications for Attachments 653 § 344. Order of Commitment 655 § 345. Writ of Attachment 656 § 346. Execution of Writ of Attachment 656 § 347. Sequestration 658 § 348. Writ of Assistance 659 ^ 349. Action by Court itself 660 § 349a. Bills to carry Decrees into Execution 662 CHAPTER XXVII. CORRECTION OF DECREE OTHERWISE THAN BY APPEAL. § 350. Correction of Decrees in General 664 § 351. Amendment upon Petition without a Rehearing 664 § 352. Petitions for a Rehearing 665 § 353. Supplemental Bills in the nature of Bills of Review .... 668 § 354. Bills of Review 670 § 355. Provisions peculiar to Bills of Review for Matters of Fact newly discovered 672 § 356. Provisions common to all Bills of Review 673 § 357. Bills in the nature of Bills of Review 677 § 358. Bills to impeach Decrees on Account of Fraud 678 § 359. Bills to Suspend or Avoid the Operation of Decrees and Judg- ments 680 XX TABLE OF CONTENTS. VOL. II. CHAPTER XXVIII. PRACTICE AT COMMON LAW IN CIVIL ACTIONS. Page § 360. Common-Law Practice in General 683 § 361. Writs and Process in General 688 § 362. Writs of Prohibition 690 § 363. Mandamus 701 § 363a. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to issue a Writ of Mandamus to an Officer of the United States . 706 § 364. Practice on Application for Mandamus 713 § 365. Writs of Certiorari 717 § 366. Writs of Habeas Corpus in General 719 § 36Ga. Suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus 736 § 367. Practice on Application for Habeas Corpus 738 § 368. Appeals in Habeas Corpus Proceedings 751 § 36Sa. Writs of Quo Warranto 753 § 3686. Writs of Scire Facias 759 § 369. Attachment of Property 762 § 370. Arrests 764 § 371. Consolidation at Law and in Equity 765 § 372. Evidence, Testimony, and Depositions 766 § 373. Abatement and Revivor 769 § 374. Trials ; 771 § 375. Rules of Decision at Common Law 776 § 376. Xew Trials 781 § 377. Bills of Exceptions 784 § .378. Judgments 787 § 379. Correction of Judgments by Courts that rendered them . . . 793 § 380. Executions and Proceedings Supplementary thereto 794 § 381. Condemnation Proceedings 798 CHAPTER XXIX. REMOVAL OF CAUSES. § 382. Removal of Causes from one Federal Court to another . . . 803 § 383. Cases which may be removed from a State Court to a Circuit Court of the United States 804 § .384. Separable Controversies 813 § 385. Practice on Removal in General 817 § 385a. Petition for Removal 818 § ZHob. Bond on Removal 821 § 385c. Proceedings in State Court on Removal not dependent on Preju- dice or Local Influence 822 TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxi Page § S8od. Time of Removal not dependent on Prejudice or Local Influence 823 § 386. Practice on Removal for Prejudice or Local Influence .... 825 § 387. Practice on Removals of Suits containing Controversies between Citizens of the same State, claiming Land under Grants of dif- ferent States 831 § 388. Practice on Removal of Suits against Revenue Officers, and Offi- cers of either House of Congress 835 § 389. Practice on Removal of Cases arising under the Civil Rights Laws 836 § 390. Filing of Record 837 § 391. Practice after Removal 839 § 392. Effect of Removal 845 § 393. Remand 816 CHAPTER XXX. PRACTICE IN ADMIRALTY. By Charles C. Buelinghaji, of the New York Bar. § 394. Libel 851 § 395. Security for Libellant's Costs 852 § 396. Parties 852 § 397. Mesne Process. Joinder of Process in rem and in personam . . 852 § 398. Process in rem 853 § 399. Cases in which the res cannot be arrested 853 § 400. Process in personam 8.54 § 401. Return of Process and Defaults 855 § 402. Release of Property from Custody of Marshal. Claim . . . 855 § 403. Security for Defendant's Costs 855 § 401. Stipulation for Value. Sureties 856 § 405. Bond to the Marshal 857 § 406. Appraisement 857 § 407. Petition to bring in additional Parties under Rule 59 ... . 858 §408. Answer, when filed. Defenses — Contributory Negligence, Lim- itations, Laches 858 § 409. Tender 859 § 410. Exceptions. Amendments 859 § 411. Cross-libel 860 § 412. Interrogatories 860 § 413. Trial 8G1 § 414. Evidence. Depositions 861 § 415. Interlocutory Decree and Reference 862 § 416. Final Decree 862 § 417. Sales 863 § 418. Sales as Perishable 864 § 419. Costs 864 § 420. Intervenors 865 § 421. Petition against Proceeds of Sale 865 § 422. Priorities 865 § 423. Appeals — what appealable ; to what Court 866 XXll TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page § 424. Appeals, when and how taken 86(3 § 425. Practice on Appeals 8G6 § 426. Petition of Appeal » .... 867 § 427. Bond on Appeal 00.. 867 § 428. Assignment of Errors » . , . . . 868 § 429. Bill of Exceptions. Record on Appeal 868 § 430. New Proofs on Appeal 868 § 431. Appeal to the Supreme Court 869 § 432. Prohibition 869 § 433. Mandamus , . 870 § 434. Limitation of Liability, — Petition 870 §435. Same, — Monition 871 §436. Same, — Proof of Claims 871 §437. Same, — Answer; Trial 872 § 438. Proceedings on Seizures 872 § 439. Proceedings in Prize Causes 873 CHAPTER XXXI. COURT OF CLAIMS. § 440. Organization of Court of Claims 876 § 441. Jurisdiction of Court of Claims 877 § 442. Decisions on Jurisdiction of Court of Claims 895 § 443. Statute of Limitations in Court of Claims 902 § 444. Petitions and Parties Plaintiff in Court of Claims 904 § 445. Pleadings by Defendant in Court of Claims 910 §446. Amendments in Court of Claims 911 § 447. Attorneys in Court of Claims 913 § 448. Evidence before the Court of Claims 913 § 449. Motions and Notices in Court of Claims 923 § 450. Abatement and Revivor 924 § 451. Discontinuance and Withdrawal of Papers 924 § 452. Trials in Court of Claims 924 § 453. References by Court of Claims 928 § 451. New Trials .' 929 § 455. Judgments in Court of Claims 932 § 456. Judgments in Court of Claims 933 § 457. Appeals from Court of Claims 935 CHAPTER XXXII. PRACTICE P>EFORE THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. By Hon. E. A. Boweks, of the Bar of Washington, D. C. § 458. Introductory ....■■ 937 § 459. Former Method of Settlement, and Decisions as to validity of Mexican and Spanish Land Grants 939 § 460. Organization of the Court of Private Land Claims 913 TABLE OF CONTEXTS. XXIU Page §461. Time and Place of Holding the Court 943 § 462. Jurisdiction of the Court of Private Land Claims 944 §463. Parties 947 § 464. Locality of Proceeding 948 § 465. Pleading and Practice 948 § 466. Evidence 953 § 467. Attorneys and Clerks 956 § 468. Limitation of Proceedings 957 § 469. Deci-ees 957 § 470. Preparation for Appeals 959 § 471. Practice when no Appeal is taken 959 § 47-2. Appeals 961 § 473. Termination of Court of Private Land Claims 963 CHAPTER XXXIII. WRITS OF ERROR AND APPEALS. § 474. Writs of Error and Appeals in General 964 § 475. Writs of Error and Appeals to the Supreme Court from the Fed- eral Courts 965 § 476. Certification to the Supreme Court 971 § 477. Writs of Error from the Supreme Court to State Courts . . . 993 § 478. Writs of Error from and Appeals to the Circuit Courts of Appeals. 1005 § 479. AVrits of Error from and Appeals to the Circuit Courts . . . 1009 § 480. Judgments, Orders, and Decrees which may be reviewed by Writs of Error or Appeals 1017 § 481. Value of the Matter in Dispute 1026 § 482. Parties to Writs of Error and Appeals 1030 § 483. Time within which Writs of Error and Appeals must be taken . 1036 § 484. Writs of Error 1040 § 485. Appeals 1044 § 486. Security on Writ of Error or Appeal 1046 § 487. Supei'sedeas 1047 § 488. Return to AVrit of Error or Appeal 1053 § 489. Motions to Dismiss Appeals, and Writs of Error 1060 § 490. Printing the Record 1069 § 491. Argument of Appeals and Writs of Error 1072 § 492. Rehearings 1079 § 493. Further Proof on Appeal 1080 § 494. Decisions on Writs of Error and Appeals 1082 § 495. Mandate 1001 § 496. Second Writ of Error or Appeal 1098 XXIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. APPENDIX. FORMS. Page Form I. Bill in Equity, in Patent Case llul II. Bill in Equity to cancel Decree of Naturalization . . 1100 III. Fr?ecipe for Subpoena ar/ /?es/wnc/en(/i/?H 1110 IV. Subpoena 1110 V. Fra-cipe for Appearance 1111 YI. Demurrer 1111 VII. Plea 1112 VIII. Answer 1113 IX. Disclaimer 1116 X. Replication 1116 XI. Bill of Revivor 1117 XII. Notice to take Testimony in Equity 11-0 XIII. Notice of Deposition under Revised Statutes . . . . 1121 XIV. Order iov Decliiints potestatem 1122 XV. Letters Rogatory 1124 XVI. Letters Rogatory 1125 XVII. Master's Warrant or Summons 1126 XVIII. Notice accompanying Draft of Master's Report . . . 1126 XIX. Order appointing Referee to try Action at Common Law 1127 XX. Stipulation for reference of Action at Common Law . 1128 XXI. M' r'lt oi Ne exeat 1129 XXII. Writ of Habeas Corpus 1129 XXIII. Order dismissing Writ of //a/yeas Co?7/us 1130 XXIV. Order adjudging Party guilty of Contempt .... 1131 XXV. Order fining Defendant for Contempt 1131 XXVI. Order of Court for Receiver's Certificates with Form of Receiver's Certificate 1132 XXVII. Petition for Removal from a State Court to a Circuit Court of the United States 1138 XXVIII. Bond on Removal 1139 XXIX. Final Record in Equity 1140 XXX. Bill of Exceptions in Ejectment 1142 XXXI. Bill of Exceptions 1147 XXXII. Appeal and Allowance 1152 XXXIII. Citation and Appeal 1152 XXXI \'. Supersedeas Bond 1153 XXXV. Writ of Error from Supreme Court to Circuit Court . 115o XXXVI. Writ of Error from Supreme Court to Circuit Court of Appeals 1151 XXXVII. Writ of Error from Circuit Court of Appeals to Circuit Court 1155 XXXVIII. Certificate by Clerk to Transcript 1156 XXXIX. Citation on Writ of F:rror 1157 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXV Form XL. XLI. XLII. XLIII. XLIV. XLV. XL VI. XLVII. XL VI 1 1. XLIX. L. LI. LII. LIII. LIV. Citation to Cu'cuit Court of Appeals on Writ of Error 1157 Certificate by Clerk under Supreme Court Rule 9 . . 1158 Writ of Error to State Court 1159 Assignment of Errors 1160 Praecipe for Appearance in Supreme Court .... 1161 Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Circuit Court of Ap- peals 1161 iMotion to Dismiss or to Affirm 1172 Notice of Submission of jNIotions to Dismiss and to Affirm 1172 Rule for Mandamus 1173 Writ of Mandamus 1174 Petition for Writ of Prohibition 1176 Suggestion for AVrit of Prohibition llSO Rule to show Cause why Writ of Prohibition should not Issue 1186 Return of District Judge 1186 Mandate 1187 ADMIRALTY FORMS. I. Libel in rem 1188 II. Interrogatories annexed to Libel 1192 III. Libel in personam with Clause of Foreign Attachment . 1193 IV. Stipulation for Libellaut's Costs 1198 V. Claim of Owner 1199 VI. Claim of Agent 1199 VII. Stipulation for Claimant's Costs 1200 VIII. Stipulation for Value 1201 IX. Bond to Marshal 1202 X. Order appointing Appraisers 1203 XI. Notice to Appraisers 1203 XI I. Oath of Ajipraisers 1204 XIII. Notice of Appraisement 1204 XIV. Report of Appraisers '....-. 1204 XV. Exceptions to Libel 1205 XVI. Answer in Admiralty 1205 XVII. Petition to bring in Vessel under Supreme Court Rule 59 1207 XVIII. Interlocutory Decree and Default in Admiralty . . . 1209 XIX. Interlocutory Decree in Admiralty 1209 XX. Commissioner's Report 1210 XXI. Exceptions to Connnissioner's Report 1210 XXII. Final Decree in Admiralty 1211 XXIII. Final Decree in Admiralty 1212 XXIV. Final Decree in Admiralty 1212 XXV. Final Decree in Admiralty for Summary Judgment on Bond to Marshal 1213 XXVI. Final Decree and Order of Sale in Admiralty . . . 1214 XXVII. Notice of Appeal in Admiralty 1215 XXVni. Petition of Appeal 121.i XXIX. Order for Mandate in Admiralty 1216 XXVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. Page Form XXX. Mandate in Admiralty 1217 XXXI. Final Decree on Mandate in Admiralty 1218 XXXII. Libel or Petition for Limitation of Liability .... 1218 XXXIII. Order for Transfer to Trustee 1221 XXXI V. Transfer to Trustee 1222 XXXV. Order for Monition 1223 XXXVI. JNIonition 1225 XXXVII. Final Decree in Proceedings for Limitation of Liability in Admiralty 1226 II. RECENT IMPORTANT STATUTES. Judiciary Act of 1875 as amended in 1887 and 1888 1230 Unamended section of Judiciary Act of March 3, 1875 1235 Evarts' Act creating Circuit Courts of Appeal 1238 Joint Resolution as to same • 1243 Act to Provide for bringing Suits against the United States .... 1214 Act Regulating proceeding before Board of General Appraisers and Ap- peals therefrom 1249 Act to Protect Trade and Coinmerce against Unlawful Restraints and Monopolies 1251 IIL Equity Rules . . . • 1253 IV. Admiralty Rules 1278 Supreme Court Rules 1292 VI. Rules of Circuit Court of Appeals 1311 VII. Rules of Court of Claims 1328 TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXVll VIII. Page Rules of Court of Private Land Claims 1349 IX. Bankruptcy Rules 1353 IXDEX 1371 TABLE OF CASES. [references are to pages.] Abbot V. Amer. Hard Rubber Co., 4 Blatclif. 489 128 Abbotsford, Tlie, 98 U. S. 440 964 Abbott (•. Curtis & Co. Manuf. Co., 2o Fed. R. 402 774 Abergavenny (Earl of) v. Powell, 1 Meriv. 4:J4 497 Abernetby v. Hutchinson, 3 L.J Ch. 20'J .341 Ablenian v. Bootli, 18 How. 479 1078 r. , 21 How. 506 736, 1058 Abraham v. Nortli German F. I. Co., 37 Fed. R. 731 42, 102 Acklev School District v. Hall, 103 U. S. 428 1059, 1002, 1068 Adair c. Brimmer, 74 N. Y. 589 3 i: Sliaw, 1 Sch. & Lef. 243 644 Adam r. Norris, 103 U. S. 501 956 Adams r. Adams, 21 Wall. 1S5 254 r. Board of County Comm'rs, McCahon (Kan.), 235 34 V. Bridgewater Iron Co., 6 Fed. R. 179 256 V. , 26 Fed. R. 324 17, 18 r. Crittenden, 17 Fed. R. 42 374, 301 r. , 106 U. S. 57(i 1029 y. Howard, 21 Off. Gaz. 264 ; 9 Fed. ]{. .347 212, ,'.34 r. Jones, 12 Pet 207 977 r. Keillor Milling Co., 36 Fed. R. 212 171 V. , 38 Fed. R. 281 644 V. May. 27 Fed. R. 007 688, 818 V. St. Leger, 1 Ball & B. 182 117 IV Spangler, 17 Fed. R. 1.33 781, 782 v. United States, 20 Ct. CI. 115 98 V. Wootls, 8 Cal. 306 448 Adams County ;•. Burlington & Mo. R. R. Co., 112 U. S. 123 1004 Adams Express Co. v. Denver & R. G. R. R. Co., 16 Ferl. R. 712 35, 313 Adamson i: Hall, 1 Turn. & R. 2-58 537 366 Addorley v. Dixon, 1 Sim. & S. 607 344, Addington v. Burke, 125 U S. 093 10«)5 Addison v. Lewis, 75 Va. 701 406 Adee v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, 46 Fed. R. 39 511 Adelbert College v. Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co. 47 Fed. R. 836 828, 830, 831, 832, 833 Adeline, The, 9 Cranch, 244 1080, 1081 Adriatic, The, 107 U. S. 512 1091 Aetna Ins. Co. v. Weide, 9 Wall. 677 1000 Agar V. Fairfax, 17 Ves. 533 573 V. Regents' Canal Co., 1 Swanst. 2.50 Agawani Co. oot 583 254, 555 16, 662 749, 750 532 818 26 Fed. 1068 665 Jordan, 7 Wall 252, 253 Ager V. Murray, 107 U. S. 126 Ah Toy, In re'io Fed. R. 705 Ainslie v. Sims, 17 Beav. 174 Akers v. Akers, 117 U. S. 197 Alabama v. Georgia, 23 How. 505 28, 107 r. Wolffe, 18 Fe.l. R. 836 38 Alabama, The, and The Gamecock, 92 U. S. 605 863, 865 Alabama G. L. I. Co. v. Nichols, 109 U. S 232 788, 1027 Alabama & C. R. R. Co. v. Jones, 5 N. B. R. 97 395 «. 7 X. B. R. 145 451, 452 Alaska, The, 130 U. S. 201 Albany v. Steam Trap Co R. 3"'l8 Albrech v. Sussman, 2 Yes. & B. 323 229 Albright V. Teas, 106 U. S. 613 36 Aldrich v. Aetna Co., 8 Wall. 491 1002, 1062 r. Cooper, 8 Ves 394 4 Aldridire V Mesner, 6 Yes, 418 181 Alert, The, 12 Fed. R. 343 853 Alexander i'. Esten, 1 Caines (X. Y.), 152 326 V. Roulet, 13 Wall. 386 938 Alice, The, 12 Fed. R. 023 475 Alice Tainter, The, 14 Blatchf. 225 607 Alida, The, 12 Fed. R. 343 853 Alire v. United States, 1 Ct. CI. 233 898 V. 7 Ct. CI. 27 898 Alkan r. Bean, 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 351 370 Allan i: Iloulden, 6 Heav. 148 116 Allen, Matter of, 13 Blatchf. 271 d^jQ V. Allen, Hempst. 58 295 r. Black, 43 Fed. R. 228 748 V. Blunt, 1 Blatchf. 480 187, 577 V. , 3 Storv, 742 551, 553 V. , 2 Woodb. & M 121 513, 515 V. Coffman, 1 Bibb (Ky.), 469 172 XXX TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Allen V. Dallas & W. R. R. Co., 3 Woods, 316 3y5, 398. 422, 441, 442, 453 V. Fairbanks, 40 Eed. R. 188 762, 709 V. , 45 Fed. R. 445 154, 778 V. Gallowav, 30 Fed. R. 406 3 ('. Mavor,' &(;. of N. Y. 18 Blatchf. 239; 7 Fed. R. 483 203, 264, 302, 311, 534, 544 V. O'Donald, 23 Fed. R. 573 146 V. , 28 Fed. H. 17 257 r. Pullman's P. C. Co , 139 U. S 658 21, 1087 ,:. Rvcrson, 2 Dill. 501 820 V. St. Louis Bank, 120 U. S. 20 990, 1084 V. United States, 17 Wall. 207 900 y. , 5 Ct. CI. 339 900 V. Wilson, 21 Fed. R. 881 202 Alley V. Nott, 111 U. S. 472 833 Allfrev V. Allfrey, 1 Macn. & G. 87 668 Allin,7« re, 8 Fed. R. 753 449 AUis, Jn re, 44 Fed. R. 216 494 V. Stowell, 5 Fe3 r. , 1 Fed. R.870 18 r. , 28 Fed. R. 217 580, 585, 588 American E. C. Co. v. Consumers' American Fertilizer Co. r. Board of Agriculture of N. C, 43 Fed. R. 609 34 American L. & T. Co. v. East & West R. Co., 40 Fed. ]{. 182 340 American M. P. Co. i-. Vail, 15 Blatclif. 315 359 American N. P. Co. v. City of Eliza- beth, 4 Fisher Pat. Cas. 189 359, 360 American R. P. Co. v. Knapp, 44 Fed. R. 607 165 American Saddle Co. v. Hogg, 1 Holmes, 133; 6 Fisher Pat. Cas. 67 253 American S. L. B. Co. i'. Empire State Nail Co., 47 Fed. R. 741 820 American Union Tel. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 1 McCra. 188 382 American W. P. Co.. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333 1006, 1067 American Zylonite Co. v. Celluloid Manuf Co. 32 Fed. R. 809 532, 533 Ames L\ Birkenhead Docks, 20 Beav. 832 444 V. Chicago, S. F. & C. Rv. Co., 39 Fed. It. 881 " 814,816 V. Colorado Cent. R. R. Co., 4 Dill. 251 804 V. Hager, 30 Fed. R. 129 32 V. Holderbaum, 42 Fed Gas Co., 47 Fed. R. 43 487 V. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449 r. Quimby, 100 U. S. 342 Amis r. Smith, 16 Pet. 303 Amory c. Aniory, 91 U. S. 356 R. 341 46, 194 5, 91, 758, 811 1090, 1099 1022 1061, 1068, 1093 818 V. , 95 U. S. 186 V. Broderick, Jacob, 530 53'.» r. Lawrence, 3 Clifl\ 523 166, 209 Amoskeag Manuf. Co. v. United States, 6 Ct. CI. 99 901 Amsden v. Norwich Union F. I. Co., 44 Fed. R. 515 45, 841 Anisinck v. Balderston, 41 Fed. R. 641 805, 813 V. Barklav, 8 Ves. 594, 4^.0 Amy v. Dubuque, 98 U. S. 470 12 V. Galena, 7 Fed. R. 163 714 r. Manning, 38 Fed. R. 530 827, H28 V. , 38 Fed. ]{. 868 828, 831 c. Shelby County, 1 Flipp. 104 598, 6(tl V. Watertown, 1-30 U. S. 301 687, 090, 793 Anderson v. Appleton, 32 Fed. R. 8.')5 814, 816, 889, 84tl V. Bowers, 40 Fed. R. 708 37, 38,814 43 Fed. R 321 — (,-. Jacksonville, 1'. & M. 11. Co., 2 Woods, 628 — r. Lewis, 3 Bro. C. C. 429 — r. .Mackay, 46 Fed. R. 105 — V. Moe, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 299 — V. Santa Anna, 116 U. S. 356 R. 833 333 192 767 638 779 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] XXXI Anderson v. Shaffer, 10 Fed. K. 266 70o l: Witt, 13» U. S. 6'J4 38 Andes v. Siauson, loO U. S. 4:>5 771, 773 Andrae i: Redtield, 12 lilatchf. 407 7!)7, 7!)8 Andrews v. Cole, 20 Fed. R. 410 204, 58ti (•. Smitli, 5 Fed. H. 833 13 V. Spear, 4 Dill. 472 7<)5 Angel V. Sniitli, Ves. 335 376, 480, 659 Angell I'. Ans^eli, 1 Sim. & S 83 V. Davis, 4 Myl. & C. 360 V. Draper, 1 Vern. 399 r. iladden, 16 Ves. 202 ('. Wcstconibe, 6 Sim. 30 Angerstein v. Clarke, 1 Ves. Jr. 250 496 645 4 180 49!) 186, 280 386 856 589 875 1082 Angier v. JNIav, 3 W. R. 330 Ann Caroline. Tiie, 2 Wall. 538 Anna, The, Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 337 Anna Maria, The, 2 Wlieat. 327 Anne, The, 3 Wlieat. 435 Anonymous, Ambl. 237 ; 2 Ves. Sen 497 1 Atk. 18 1 Atk. 521 1 Atk. 578 2 Atk. 14 2 Atk. 113 2 Atk. 469 3 Atk. 219 3 Atk. 530 3 Atk. 809 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 73 5 Blatchf. 134 1 Chan. Cas. 269 2 Chan. Cas. 164 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 166 2 Gall. 101 Hempst. 450 4 Hill (N. Y.), 597 2 Jac. & W. 553 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 143 2 .Madd. 395 6 Madd. 10 12 Mod 522 2 P. Wms. 68 2 P. Wms. 283 I Vern. 104 1 Vern. 117 1 Vern. 351 1 Ves. Jr. 93 1 Ves. Jr. 409 5 Ves. 656 9 Ves. 512 2 Ves. Sen 497 ; Ambl. 237 2 Ves. Sen. 520 V. Bridgewater Canal Co., 9 Sim. 378 V. Christopher, 11 Sim. 409 V. Gwillim, 6 Ves 2«5 V. Harrison, 4 Madd. 252 V. Jolland, 8 Ves. 72 V. Lake, 6 Ves. 171 Anson i: Blue Ridge R. R. Co., 23 How. 1 1062 497 571, 572 456 396, 440 581 375 650 655 224 237 442 637 122, 144 213 134 621 631 483 262 325 538 353 116 551 672, 674 538 111 296 353 92, 331 326 138 497 376 . < I o 485 262 257 444 262 Antelope, The, 10 Wheat. 66 1083 12 Wheat. 546 633, 852, 865 Anthony v. Carroll, 2 Ban. & A. Pat. Cas. Iu5 12 V. Louisville & N. R. R. Co. 132 U. S. 172 786 Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769 371 Appletou V. Ecanbert,45 Fed. R.281 502, 506, 508 Apthorp V. Comstock, 2Paige (N. Y.), 482 ^ 548, 550 Archbishop of York v. Stapleton, 2 Atk. 136 280 Archer v. Hartford F. 1. Co., 31 Fed. R. 660 587, 588, 638 V. Preston, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 133 2 Arcot (Nabob of) v. East India Co., 3 Bro. C. C. 292 240 Arglasse v. Muschamp, 1 Vern. 75 2, 570 V. , 1 Vern. 135 2 Argo, The, 2 Gall. 314 513 2 Wheat. 387 511 Arguello v. United States, 18 How. 539 956 Arkansas Valley L. & C. Co v. Mann, 130 U. S. 69 1084 Arkell, Ex parte, 15 Blatchf. 437 18 Armstrong u. Armstrong, L. R. 12 Eq. 614 419 V. Brown, 1 Wash. 43 521 V. Chemical Nat. Bank, 37 Fed. R. 406 256 V. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. R. 209 30, 32, 33 35 V. Lear, 8 Pet. 52 130, 251 r. Storer, 9 Beav, 277 533 V. Trautmann, 36 Fed. R. 275 30, oo or. V. Treasurer of Athens Co., 16 Pet. 281 1004 V. United States, 13 Wail. 154 909 V. , 6 Ct. CI. 226 909, 931 Armstrong's Foumlry v. United States, 6 Wall. 766 1025 Arnold v. Chesebrough, 35 Fed. R. 16 ^ 505, 509 V. Kearney, 29 Fed. R. 820 846 V. Kempstead, 1 Amb. 466 4 Arnoux i-. Steinbrenner, 1 Paige (N. v.), 82. 429, 533 Arrowsmith v. Gleason, 129 U. S. 86 43, 679, 812 Arnndell (Lady) v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 139 353 Asbee V. Shipley, Madd. & Geld. 296 318 Asid)urnham v. Thompson, 13 Ves. 402 581 Ashby V. White, 14 How. St. Tr. 814 743 Askew V. Poulterers' Co., 2 Ves. Sen. 89. .302 V. Townsend, 2 Dick. 471 299 Aspen M. & S. Co. v. Rucker, 28 Fed. R. 220 11 Aston r. Heron, 2 M. & K. 390 439 Atalanta, The, 3 Wheat. 409 1080, 1081 XXXll TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Atchison v. Morris, 11 Fed. R. 582 19'J, 842 Atcliison, T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. United States. 15 Ct. (^1. 1 915, 916 Aihertun i: Fowler, 91 U. S. 143 1003, 1040 Atkins r. Brewer, 3 Cow. 206 729 V. Dick, 14 Pet. 114 128 V. Petersburg R. R. Co., 3 Hughes, 307 405, 40G r. Wabash, St. L., & P. R. R. Co., 2'.) Fed. R. 101 14, 399, 443,444,451, 452 Atkinson v. Glenn, 4 Cranch C. C. 134 613, 522 V. Ilanwav, 1 Co.\ Kq. 360 2tt0 Atkvn V. Wabash Ry. Co ,41 Fed. R. 193 438, 548 Atlantic, The, Abb. Adm. 451 475 Atlantic Dredjiing Co. v. Bergen Neck Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 208 370 Atlantic (i. P. Co. v. Uittman P. M. (^o., 9 Fed. R. 316 652 Atlantic Works v. Bradv, 107 U. S. 192 " 253 Atlantic & P. Tel. Co. r Union Pac. Rv. Co., 1 Fed. R. 745; 1 JlcCra. 541 382 Atocha r. United States, 6 Ct CI. 09 912 Atterbury v. Gill, 13 Ofl'. Gaz. 276 297, 307 Attleborough Nat. Bank r. North- western M. & C. Co., 28 Fed. R. 113 13 Attorney-Cieneral v. Bank of Colum- bia, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 511 443 r. Rirniingham & O. J. Ry. Co., loJur. 1024 343 V. Brewers' Co., 1 P. Wms. 376 581 V. Brooke, 18 Ves. 319 mG V. Brown, 1 Swanst. 205 220 r. Bnrch, 4 Madd. 178 499 V. Butler, 123 Mass. 306 140 V. City of J>ondon, 1 Ves. Jr. 24-3; 3Bro C. C. 171 642, 643 V. Clapham, 4 I)e G. M. & G. 591 577 V. Cleaver, 18 Ves. 211 351 r. Corporation of Poole, 4 M. & C. 17 155 r. Day, 2 Madd. 246 444 c. Day, 1 Ves. 218 663 V. Foster, 2 Hare, 81 314, 319 r. (iee, 2 Ves. & B. 208 444 /•. Goddard, 1 Turn. & R. .348 134 r. (Jreat Northern Ry.Co., 1 Dr. & Sm l.J4 342, .343 /•. Greonhill, 34 Beav. 174 665 c. Guardian Mut. L. I. Co., 77 N. Y 420 574 '•. II;iniiIton, 1 Madd. 2H r. lie wit, ('()oi)er's Kq. PI. ,319 255 '•. .Jackson, 11 Ves. 365 122, 219,1^34 '■ .Icaius, 1 Atk. .355 172 '•. .Jolmson. 2. J. Wils. 87 355 r. Lanil.inh, 5 Price, 386 2.58 r. London, 12 Beav. 8 215 Attorney-General v. Manchester & L. Ry. Co., 1 By. Cas. (Kng.), 436 389 f. Marsii, 16 Sim. 572 388 V. Mayor of Galway, 1 Moll. 95 440 V. Montgomery, 2 Atk. 378 552 V. Newconibe, 14 Ves. 1 278 V. Nichol, 16 Ves. 338 354 V. North American L. I. Co., 89 N. Y. 94 482, 447 V. Parkhurst, 1 Chan. Cas. 112 94 V. Pearson, 7 Sim. 2liO 199, 464 V. Railroad Cos. 35 Wis. 425 342 V. Ricliards, 2 Anstr. 603 355 i: Rumford Chem. Works, 2 Bann. & A. Pat. Cas. 298 15 l: Shelly, 1 Salk. 162 122 V. Tiler, 1 Dick. 378 94 r. Utica Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.), 371 342 i\ Vernon, 1 Vern. 277 759 I--. Vigor, 11 Ves. 563 418 r. Whorwood, 1 Ves. Sen. 534 171 r. Worcester Corporation, 1 C. P. Coo]ier, 18 260 V. Wright, 3 Beav. 447 327 V. Wyburgh, 1 P. Wms. 599; 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 107 122 r. Wynne, Moseley, 126 116 Atwill V. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39 168, 173, 175, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 218, 225, 257, 2.58. 281 Atwood r. Hawkins, Rep. / Fincii 113 116 Aurrecoechea v. Bangs, 110 U. S. 217 1072, 1073 Austin V. Austin, 11 Jur. N. S. 536 577 V. Chambers, 6 CI. & Fin. 38 149 l: Gagan, 39 Fed. R. 626 819, 821, 823, 824, 845 Austria (Eni])cror of) r. Day, 2 Giff. 628: 3 De G. F. & J. 217 369, 582 Avery, Tlie, 2 Gall. 308 (i28 Ayers, In re, 123 U. S. 443 101, 106, 130, 371, 72.5, 727 r. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 712 932 /•. Watson, 113 U. S. 594 822, 844 r. , 137 U. S. 584, 844 1022 Ay les worth f. (iratiot County, 43 Fed. R. 350 705, 706 Avliffe ;;. Murray, 2 Atk. 58 484 Avlwin r. Bray, 2 Y. & J. 518, n. 225 Ayres r. Carver, 17 How. .591 121, 122, 123, 286, 289, 291, 294, 295, 1023 V. Wis wall, 112 U. S. 187 115, 806. 814, 815 B. Babbitt >: Finn, 101 U. S. 7 1053 Bachrach v. Norton, 132 U. S. .337 86 Back " Sierra Nevada C. M. Co., 46 Fed. R. 673 804 Bacon r. Bronson, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. V.) 194 V. Felt, 38 Fed. R. 870 815, 817, 840, 843 TABLE OF CASES. XXXlll [References Bacon r. Hart, 1 Black, 38 1043 V. Jones, 4 M. & Cr. 433 375, 392 V. Magee, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 515 4b2 v. Northwestern Mut. L. I. Co., 131 U. S. 258 779 r. Rives, 106 U. S. 99 126 V. Robertson, 18 How. 480 120 V. Spottiswootle, 1 Beav. 382 392 Bafleau v. Rogers, 2 Paige (X. Y.), 209 178, 180, 583 Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 87 168, 214 V. , ICliff. 211 237 V. Ranlett, 100 U. S. 255 1087 Bagley v. Yates, 3 McL. 465 650, (352 Bagsiiaw v. Eastern Union Ry. Co., 2 Macn. & G. 389 343 Bailey v. Birkenhead, L. & C. J. Ry. Co., 12 Beav. 433 209 V. Sewell, 1 Huss. 239 548 V. Tavlor, 1 R. & M. 73 392 V. Wfight, 2 Bond, 181 236, 211 Bailev W. M. Co. v. Young, 12 Blatchf. 109 222, 261, 263, 283 Baiiv V. Lambert. 5 Hare, 178 533 'v. Taylor, 1 Russ. & M. 73 392 Bain, ^.r/)a//e, 121 U. S. 1 726 Bainbridge v. Burton, 2 Beav. 539 120 Bainbrigge v. Blair, 3 Beav. 421 452, 453 Baines v. Baker, Ambl. 158 355 Baird v. Sliore Line Ry. Co., 6 Blatchf. 461 387 V. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 348 909 V. , 8 Ct CI. 13 909 Baiz, In re, 135 U. S. 403 698, 701, 718 Baker r. Backu.s 32 111 79 443 V. Biddle, Baldw. 394 17, 544 V. Haily, 2 Dick. 632 458 V. Hart, 3 Atk. 542 553 V. Howell, 44 Fed. R. 113 3.5, 642 V. Mellish, 11 Ves. 70 211, 221, 225, 281 V. Morton, 12 Wall. 150 3 V. Power, 124 U. S. 167 1021 V. I\ogers, Sel. Cas. Cli. 74 122 V. Wales, 14 Abb. Pr. N. s. (N. Y.)331 197 V, White, 92 U. S. 176 1021 V. Whiting, 1 Story, 218 667 Balch V. Tucker, 2 Cii. Cas. 40 548 Baldwin v. Ely, 9 How. 580 581 t\ Mackown, 3 Atk. 817 314, 316 V. State, 129 U. S. 52 ; 9 S. C. Rep. 193 733 Ball V. Tompkins, 41 Fed. R 486 LS, 396 V. United States, 140 U. S. 118 340 Ballance o. F'orsyth, 24 How. 183 6sl Ballard v. Catlhig, 2 Keen, 606 3:!2 v. Searls, 130 U. S. 50 1084, 1089 Baltimore Car Wheel Co. r. Bemis, 29 Fed. R. 95 24, 372 Baltimore & (). R. R. Co., Ex purte, 106 U. S. 5 1029 , Ex parte, 108 U. S. 566 702, 703, 1018 V. Bates, 119 U. S. 464 827 VOL. I. — C are to pages.] Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. Ford, 35 Fed. R. 170 347, 845, 84^1 V. Hamilton, 16 Fed. R. 181 687 Baltimore & C. R. R. Co. v. Grant, 98 U. S. 398 1088 V. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210 966, 967 '■. Si.xth Presbn. Church, 91 U. S. 127 787, 1054 Bampton v. Birchall, 5 Beav. 330 309 r. , 1 PliiU. 568 309 Bancroft r. Warden, 2 Dick 672 2iS0 r. Weiitworth, 10 Ves. 285, n. 265 Banigan v. Worcester, 30 Fed R. 392 810 Bank v. Carrollton R. R., 11 Wall. 624 130, 214 V. McLeod, 38 Ohio St. 174 430 Bank of Ale.xandria (;. Young, 1 Cranch C. C. 458 765 Bank of British N. A. v. Borling, 44 Fed. R. 641 10, 688 l: , 46 Fed. R. 357 55 Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny, 1 Pet. 567 703 Bank of Danville v. Travers, 4 Biss. 507 518 Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Exp. Co., 93 U. S. 174 778 V. Ashley, 2 Pet. 327 1084, 1091 Bank of Lewisburg v. Sheffey, 140 U. S. 145 665 Bank of Montreal v. Thayer, 7 Fed. R. 622 427, 439 Bank of N. Y. v. Skelton, 2 Blatchf. 14 345, 347 Bank of S. C. v. Rose, 1 Rich. Eq. (S. C). 292 532 Bank of U. S. c. Bank of Washington, 6 Pet. 8 1093 i: Beverly, 1 How. 134 4 V. Daniel, 12 Pet. 32 102(5 i: Green, 6 Pet. 26 981, 987 V. Kurtz, 2 Cranch C. C. 342 768 V. Planters Bank, 9 Wheat. 904 29 (•. Ritchie, 8 Pet. 128 107, 108, 677 r. Swan, 3 Pet. 68 1069 r. Weisiger. 2 Pet. 481 1092 r. White, 8 Pet. 262 202, 675 Banking Assoc, i: Insurance Assoc, 102 U. S. 121 1061 Banks V. Miller, 1 Cranch C. C. 543 511 Hannert r. Day, 3 Wash. C. C. 343 512 Banque Franco-Egyptienne v. Brown, 24 Fed. R. 106 " 287 Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582 16, 813 Barclay r. Brown, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 245 576 Barings v. Dabney, 19 Wall. 1 10-')9 Barker r. Dixie, Rep. /. Hardw. 2-52 462 r. Dnmaresque, 2 Atk. 119 538 r. Ladd. 3 Sawy. 44 770, 780 i:. Ray, 2 Riiss. 63 5-52 V. Smark. 3 Beav 64 538 r. Todd, 15 Fed. R. 265 3-30, 334 Bark ley v. Levee Conim'rs, 93 U. S. 258 705 Barlow v. Gains, 8 Beav. 329 442 XXXIV TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Barnard v. Darling, 1 Barb. Cli. (N. Y.) 441 V. Gibson, 7 How. 650 3U2 V. Ht'vdrick, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 62 ; 2 Abb. Pr. n. s. (N. Y.), 47 483 Barnes, Ex parte, 1 Sprague, 133 515 J}aniesle f. Powell, 1 Ves. Sen. 120 678 Banicsville & .M. K. K. Co., Matter of, 2 MoCra. 210 839 Barnet i: Day, 3 Wa.sli. 243 621 Barnev v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. 280 131, 135 (,-. Globe Bank, 5 Blatcbf. 107 50 V. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324 780 V. Latham, 103 U. S. 2U5 37, 135, 159, 160, 806, 813, 817 V. Luckett, 1 Sim. & S. 419 374 r. Mavor, &c., of Baltimore, 1 Huglies, il8 38 i: Sclitiioider, 9 Wall. 248 405, 460 Barns r. Omally, 4 McL. 570 681 Barr r. Pittsburgh P. G. Co., 40 Fed. K. 412 27 Barrel v. Transportation Co., 3 Wall. 424 1044 Barrell v. Simonton, 3 Cranch C. C. 081 513 Barrett r. Holmes, 102 U. S. 651 778 Barriliean r. Brant, 17 How. 43 1035 Barron r. Bunisicle, 121 U. S. 186 813 Barrow r. Hill, 13 How. 54 1093 1-. Hunton, 99 U. S. 80 13, 43, 670, 679,811 V. Reab, How. 3G6 1086 Barry, Ex /xirtc, 2 How. 65 719, 734, 741, 743 , Ex jiarte, 7 Law Bep. 374 741, 742 , Jn re, 42 Fed. R. 113 734, 741, 780 , In r,', 136 U. S. 597, n. 734, 741, 780 V. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550 33, 535, 536 V. Mereein, 5 How. 103 734, 735, 1020 V. Mutual L. L Co., 53 N. Y. 536 179 Barteis v. Redfield, 47 Fed. \\. 708 1097 Bartli r. Makeever, 4 Biss. 210 790 Hartliolow v. Trustees, 105 U. S. 980 Barile v. Coleman, 3 Crancli C. C. 2S3 130 Bartiett r. Sultan of Turkey, 19 Fed. H. 340 191 r. Wood. 9 W. l^ 817 577 Barton r. Barbour. 104 U. S. 126 95, 230, 415. 416, 417, 420, 435, 4;:9 V. Forsyth, 5 Wall. P.lO 1022, 1090 V. I'etit, 7 Cranch, 288 108i» lias ,\ Steele. 3 Wash. 381 7<)8 ]?asey v. Galhiglier. 20 Wall. 670 224, 551 Bashaw v. United States, 47 Fed. K. 40 585,Yi91 Bashford >• Barstow, 4 Wis. 567 756 Basset v. United States. 9 Wall. 38 337 Bassett v. Johnson, 1 Green Ch. (N. J.) 154 551 Bast V. First Nat. Bank, 101 U. S. 93 487 Bate Kefriiierating Co. v. Gillett, 30 Fed. K. 0»3 652 V. Gillette, 28 Fed. R. 673 557, 558, 561 Bates ;;. Clark, 95 U. S. 204 Coe, 98 U. S. 31 102 253 909 V. Uriited States, 4 Ct. CI. 569 Batcsville Inst. v. Kauffman, 18 Wall. 151 113, 128 Bath (Earl of) v. Sherwin,4Bro. P. C. 373 4, 345 Bath County v. Amv, 13 "Wall. 244 704 Batt V. Procter, 45 Fed. R. 515 191, 195 Battaile v. Fisher, 36 Miss. 321 433 Battelle v. United States, 7 Ct. CI. 297 903 Battle V. Mutual L.L Co., 10 Blatchf. 417 277 Bawtree r. Watson, 3 M. & K. 339 134 Ba.x V. Whitbread, 16 Ves. 15 577 Bayard v. Lombard, 9 How. 530 1030, 1086 Bav City, The, 3 Fed. R. 47 586 Baverque v. Cohen, McAll. 113 222, 375 Bayley v. I)e Walkiers, 10 Ves. 441 262 Bayliss v. Lafayette M. & B. Ry. Co., 8 Biss. 193 334 Beach v. Rice, 131 U. S. 293 287 Beadleston v. Harpending, 32 Fed. R. 644 849, 850 Beale v. Thompson, 8 Cranch, 70 517 Beall V. New Mexico, 16 Wall. 535 1053 Bealls >'. Illinois M. & T. R. R. Co., 133 U. S. 290 118-463 Bean v. Clark, 30 Fed. R. 225 248 V. Patterson, 110 U. S. 401 597 V. Smith, 2 Mason, 252 56 Bearblock v. Tyler, 1 Jac. & W. 225 550 Beard v. Bowler, 2 Bond, 13 244 V. Federy, 8 Wall. 478 939, 940, 946, 949, 951, 952, 956, 957, 962 Beardsley i-. Littell, 14 Blatchf. 102 401, Marquis of Huntley, 766 232 Beauchamp \ Jacob, 5l6 Beautort (Duke of) v. Morris, 2 Piiill. 683 550 V. Neeld. 12 Ci. & Fin. 248 3 Beaumont r. Boultbee, 5 Ves. 485 172 Beaupre v. Noyes, 138 U. S. 397 783, 1004, 1022 Beauregard v. New Orleans, 18 How. 497 " 777 Beavan v. Carpenter, 11 Sim 22 497 Bechtel v. United States, 101 U. S. 5'.i7 468 Beckwith v. Easton, 4 Ben. 357 638 r. United States, 16 Ct. of CI. 2.-.0 593 Heddoes r. Pugh, 2(5 Beav. 407 287 Hedt'ord ( I )uke of) t'. British Museum, 2 M. & K. 552 345 P.eebe r. Louisville N. O. & T. Ry. Co., 39 Fed. R. 481 38 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] XXXV Beebe v. Russell, 10 How. 283 569, 1024 Beebees, Exparie, 2 Wall. Jr. 127 490, .512 needier v. Binliijier, 7 Blatciif. 170 399 Heeile v. Cbeenev, 5 Fed. H. 388 824, 84.5 iieedle v. Bennett, 122 U. S. 71 17 Beeknian v. Peck, 3 Jolins, Cli. (N. Y.) 41.5 6(55 Beer Co. c. JIassacluisetts, 07 U. S. 25 1004 Beers v. Ciielsea Bank, 4 Edw. (N. Y.) 277 451 V. Hauptbton, 9 Pet. 3(31 789 V. Wabasb, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 34 Fed. ]{. 244 343 Bebrens v. Sievekinff, 2 M. & Cr. 602 232 Bein v. Fleatb, 142 U. S. 704 1059 i-. , (3 How. 228 92 V. , 12 How. 168 9, 389 Beine, In rr, 42 Fed. R. 545 748 Beirne v. Wadswortb, 36 Fed. R. 614 534 Belden i'. Devoe, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 223 483 Belgenland, Tbe, 108 U. S. 153 1051, 1053 Bell V. Cliapman, 10 Jolms. 183 01 V. Cureton, 2 M. & K. 503 153 0. Davidson, 3 Wasb. 328 521 V. Donoboe, 17 Fed. R. 710 127, 129, 130, 132 V. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351 511, 516, 779, 780 V. Nimraon, 4 McL. 539 513 V. United States Stamping Co., 32 Fed. R. .549 560 Belloat V. Morse, 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 1-57 279 Bellocq v. United States, 13 Ct. CI. 195 932 912 398 533 909 Bellocque v. United States, 8 Ct. CI 493 Belmont Mail Co. r. Columbia I. & S Co., 46 P^ed. R. 8 V. , 46 Fed. R. 336 Belt V. United States, 15 Ct. CI. 92 Benedict, In re, 4 West. Law Mo. 449 737 V. St. Josepli & W. R. Co , 19 Fed. R. 173 395 Benites v. Hampton, 123 U. S. 510 1062, 1064 Benjamin's Heirs v. Dubois, 118 U. S. 46 1024 Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235 804 Bennet v. Going, 1 Moll. 529 64.3, 644 V. Vade, 2 Atk. 325 1-50 Bennett i: Attkins, 1 Y. & C. 247 581 V. Bennett, Deady, 299 479, 734, 742 V. Butterwortii, 11 How. 669 5, 684, 787 V. Colley, 2 M. & K. 225 ; 5 Sim. . 181 V. Devino, 45 Fed. R. 705 V. Hamill, 2 Sell. & Let'. .566 573, 679 V. Ha'tner, 17 Blatcbf. 311 V. Honywood, Amb. 708 V. Neale, Wigbtwick, 324 Bensinger S. A. C. R. Co. v. National C. R. Co., .42 Fed. R. 81 45 .396 820 206 121 251, 548 Benson c. Hadfield, 4 Hare, 32 159, 230, 231 V. MoMabon, 127 U. S. 457 727, 728, 752 Bentley v. Joslin, Hempst. 218 300 Bentlif v. London, & C. Tr. Co., 44 Fed. R. 667 199, 841, 842 Benton r. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 692 912 c. Woolsey, 12 Pet. 27 140, 1083 Bergen, //* re, 2 Huglies, 513 764 Bernards Townsbip v. Stebbins, 109 U. S. 341 16, 536 Berney v. Sewell, 1 Jac. & W. 647 395 Bernbeini v. Blrnbaum, 30 Fed. R. 885 33, 56 Bernie r. Vandever, 16 Ark. 616 556 Berrv v. Sawyer, 19 Fed. R. 2«6 257, 463 Bertbold v. McDonald, 22 How. 334 055 Bettes V. Dana, 2 Sumuer, 383 131, 303, 307 Betts V. Barton, 3 Jur. x. s. 154 532 f. Lewis, 19 How. 72 537 Bickett V. Morris, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 47 373 Bickford v. Skewes, 8 Sim. 206 484 Biefr. Dver, Chan. Cal. XI. 3 Bigelow,'/!.^ parte, 113 U. S. 328 72-5, 726 Biggs V. Barry, 2 Curt. 2.59 782 Bigler V. Waller, 12 Wall. 142 1043, 1046 Bignold v. Audland, 11 Sim. 23 177, 179 Billing i: Fliglit, 1 Madd. 230 240 Bills V. New Orleans, St. L & C. R. R. Co., 13 Blatcbf. 227 840 Bingbam r. Cabbot, 3 Dall. 19 1083 V. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382 144 Bininger, Re, 7 Blatcbf. 1.59 701 Biiiks^'. Binks, 2 Bligli P. C 593 662 Bircb, Re, Shelf, on Lun. 146 .396 V. Corbin, 1 Co.x Eq. 144 178 Bird V. United States, 45 Fed. R. 110 592, 594 Birdsall v. Manufacturing Co., 1 Hughes, 64 351 1-. Perego, 5 Blatcbf. 251 279 Birdsell v. Hagerstown A. I. M. Co., 1 Hugbes, 64 352 V. Sbaliol, 112 U. S. 485 113 Birdseve v. Heilner, 26 Fed. R. 147 248 v". Shaeffer, 37 Fed. R. 821 832, 844 Birdsong v. Birdsong, 2 Head (Tenn.), 289 333 Birkenbead Docks v. Laird, 4 De G. M. & G. 7.32 578 Bischoff y. Wetbered, 9 Wall. 812 237 Biscbotfsbeim v. Baltzer, 10 Fed R. 1 511,518 V. , 20 Fed. R. 890 19 r. Brown, 29 Fed. R. 341 768 Bishop r. Willis, 2 Ves. Sen. 113 337 Bishop of Winchester v. Fournier, 2 Ves. Sen. 445 548, 579 Bissel V. Canada & St. Louis Ry. Co., 39 Fed. R. 225 814 Black r. Henry G. Allen Co., 42 Fed. R. 618 151, 167, 168, 177, 280 XXXVl TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Black V. Lamb, 1 Beas. (N. J.) 108 547 V. Thorne, 10 Blatclif. 06 53. '251, 5o6, 570 Blackburn v. Crawfords, 3 Wall. 175 518, 523 V. Selma R. Co., 3 Fed. R. 689 566 v. Selma, M. & M. R. R. Co., 2 Flipp. 520 199, 228, 229, 230 Blaiii V. Home Ins. Co., 30 Fed. R. 667 602 Blair v. St. Louis, II. & K. Ry. Co., 19 Fed. R. 861 412 v. , 20 Fed. R. 348 433 v. , 22 Fed. R. 471 402, 403, 405, 412 v. , 23 Fed. R. 521 406 V. , 23 Fed. R. 523 406 V. , -Zlj Fed. R. 524 409 i: , 23 Fed. R. 704 411 r. Turtle, 5 Fed. R. 394 ; 23 Alb. L. J. 435 197 Blake V. Blake, 18 W. R. 944 571 V. Bogle, Macqueen's H. L. Bract. 244 n. 771, 1035 Cemetery, 14 002, 009 37 17 344 444 415 821 !'. Greenwood Blatclif. 342 r. Hawkins, 19 Fed. R. 204 c. McKim, 103 U. S. 336 Blakeley v. Biscoe, Hempst. 114 Blakemore v. Glamorgansliire Canal Nav., 1 M. & K. 154 342, Blakeney v. Dufanr, 15 Beav. 40 Biancliard v. Cawtiiorne, 4 Sim. 566 414, V. Dwiglit, 12 Wend. (N. Y.), 192 V. Putnam, 8 Wall. 420 252, 686 Blandy v. Griffith, 6 Fislier P. C 434 673 Blaquicre v. Hawkins, Doug. 378 097 Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1 461, 502, 506, 507, 508, 1083, 1085 Bleecker r. Bond, 3 Wasii. 529 465, 466 Bligbt V. Fislier, Pet. C. C. 41 491, 651 Bliss V. Brooklyn, 10 Blatclif. 217 615 V. City of Brooklyn, 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 596 359 r. United States, 37 Fed. R. 191 593 Blitz r. Brown, 7 Wall. 693 1051 Block V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 21 Fed. R. 529 190 V. Darling, 140 U. S.234 820, 1027 V. United States, 7 Ct. of CI. 406 465, 466, 472 Biodgett ?•. Hobart, 18 Vt. 414 292 Blois r. P.etts, 1 Dick. 33*; 416 Blomficld r. Fvre, 8 Beav. 250 171,376 IJlondheim r. Moore, 11 Md. 365 399,441 Bloss.mi r. Milwaukee &C. R. R. Co , 1 Wall. 655 567, 1024 '•. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 190 565, 566 Blount r. Uniteil States, 21 Ct. CI. 274 ^98 V. Walker, 134 U. S. 607 1004 Blow r. Tavlor, 4 Hen. & M. (Va.) 1-39 ' 386 Blower v. jMorrets, 3 Atk. 772 299 Bloxain r. Metropolitan Ry. Co.,L. R. 3 Cli. 337 343 Bluebird Min. Co. v. Murray, 45 Fed. R. 388 " 804 Blumlein, In re, 45 Fed. R. 236 31, 1013 Blunti'. Clither()w,6 Ves. 799 418 V. Smitii, 7 Wiieat. 248 1090 Board of Commissioners v. Gorman, 19 Wall. 661 048, 795, 1051 Board of Education v. Scoville, 13 Kan. 17 179 Board of Field Officers v. United States, 20 Ct. CI. 18 897 Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. S. 531 103, 129, 371 Bock r. Perkins, 139 U, S. 628 36 Boddy r. Kent, 1 Meriv. 361 206, 538 Bodwell r. Crawford, 26 Kan. 292 369 V. Willcox, 2 Caines (N. Y.), 104 325 United States, 20 Ct. CI. 900 900 459 668 898 209 Boelim 142 r. , 21 Ct. CI. 290 r. Wood, Turn. & R. 332 Boesch V. Graff, 133 U. S. 097 56!: Bolinger v. United States, 18 Ct. CI 148 Bogart r. Hinds. 25 Fed. R. 484 Rohanan r. Nebraska, 118 U. S. 231 1061 Boise County c. Gorman, 131 U. S. cxxv 1051, 1052 V. , 19 Wall. 661 1051 Boles, In re, 48 Fed. R 75 736 Bolles r. Town of Amboy, 45 Fed. R. 168 780 BoUman, Ex parte, 4 Cranch, 75 717,719, 727, "■" Bolton V. Bolton, 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. (2d Am. Ed.) 468, n. V. , 2 Sim. & S. 371 V. Corporation of Liverpool, 1 M. & K. 88 V. Gardner, 3 Paige (N. Y.),273 " ' 1, 745 281 537 216 240 Bond i: Dustin, 112 U. S. 604 Bondurant r. Watson, 103 U. S. 773, 774 278 1042 818 627 , 103 U. S. 201 Bone i: The Norma, Newb. 533 Bonner v. United States, 9 Wall. 156 898 Boogher v. Insurance Co., 103 U. S. 90 772, 1091 Boom Co. V. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, 799, 808, 810 Boon r. Collingwood. 1 Dick. 115 460 Boon's Heirs r. Chiles, 8 Pet. 532 113, 126, 128, 130 Boone r. Chiles, 10 I'et. 177 240. 1080 Boone County v. Burlington & M. H. R. Co., 139 U. S 684" 235 Bootli '•. Booth. 2 Atk. 34;) 538 r. Clark, 17 How. 322 95, 430 i\ Leycester, 1 Keen, 247 532 r. St! Louis F. E. Mfg. Co., 40 Fed. R. 1 . 45 TABLE OF CASES. XXXVll [References Bootle V. Blundell, 19 Ves. 494 405, 5o0, o')2 Rnrlaiid r. Haven, 37 Fed. R. 394 ^ 10 Horiiemann r. Norris, 47 Fed. li. 4.>8 790 Biiis V. Preston, 111 U. S. 252 5, 5:^0, 1083, 1087 Bosanauet r. Marsham, 4 Sim. 573 280 osanqiiet r. Marsham, 4 Sim. 573 Bostock V. Nortli Staffordshire Rv. Co., 3 Sm. & G. 283 342, 343 Boston Electric Co. i'. Electric G. L. Co., 23 Fed. R. 838 7G3 Boston M. Co. v. Eagle M. Co., 115 U. S. 221 1076, 1077 Boston \V. H. Co. v. Star R. C, 40 Fed. R. 167 111, 112 Bostwick V. American Finance Co., 43 Fed R. 897 189 V. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3 1002, 1018, 1021 Bottoniley v. United States, 1 Story, 13-3 622 c. , 1 Story, 153 622, 632, 645 Boiulereau v. Montgomery, 4 Wash. 186 520, 521, 522, 523 Boudinot V. Svmmes, Wall. C. C. 139 260 Bouldin r. Phelps, 30 Fed. R. 547 940, 941 Boult 1-. Blunt, Cary, 72 372 Bound V. South Carolina R. R. Co., 43 Fed. R. 404 407, 418 565 188 447 are to pages. J Boyert'. Boyer, 113 U.S. 689 Boyle V. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 648 Urace r. Taylor, 2 Atk. 253 Bracken v. Martin, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 55 Bradford v. Felder, 2 McCord Ch. (S. C), 170 v. Union Bank of Tenn., 13 How. V. , 46 Fed. R. 315 Bourke r. Amison, 32 Fed. R. 710 Bourne v. Maybin, 3 Woods, 724 Bournonville v. Goodall, 10 Pa. St. 133 774 91 97 Boussmaker, Er parte, 13 Ves. 71 Bowe I'. United States, 42 Fed. R. 761 Bo wen v. Chase, 94 U. S. 812 27 r. , 7 Blatchf. 2.55 832 Bower B. R. Iron Co. v. Welles R. 1. Co., 43 Fell. R. 391 256, 265 Bowers r. Supreme Council, Am. Le- gion of Honor, 45 Fed. R. 81 849 Bowie >: Talbot, 1 Cranch C. C. 247 513 Bowman r. Bell, 14 Sim. 392 440 r. Bowman, 30 Fed. R. 849 16, 813, 820 r. Clucago & N. W. Ry. Co., 115 U.S. 611 33 r. Sheldon, 5 Sandf. (N. Y.) 657 483 Bowman's Devisees v. Watlien, 2 .McL. 376 1.59 Bowyer v. Bright, 13 Price, 316 315,066 'v. Priicliard, 11 Price, 103 180 Boyce i: Grundv, 3 Pet. 210 4, 15 (\ , 9 Pet. 275 1092 V. Tabb, 18 Wall 546 778 Boyd, Ex part,', 105 U. S. 047 6, 775, 794 V. Clarke. V', Fed. R. 908 801 V. Gill, lU Fed. R. 145 814, 816 V. Heinzelman, 1 Ves. & B. 381 539 f. Mills, 13 Ves 85 264 V. Nebraska, U. S. S. C. Feb 1, 1892 758 i: United States, 116 U. S. 016 465 Boyden v. Burke, 14 How. 575 474 209 9, 1022 213 279 288 38 703 V. Williams, 3 How. 576 Bradley, Ex parte, 7 Wall. 364 f.' Reed, 2 Pitlsb. (Pa.), 519; 12 Pittsb. L. J. 65 353, 387 Bradstreet, Exjiart/',4 Pet. 102 703 , Ex parte, 6 Pet. 774 703 , Ex parte, 7 Pet. 634 1090 , Ex parte, 7 Pet. 634 703, 870 , Ex parte, 8 Pet. 588 703 V. Neptune Ins. Co., 3 Sumner, 601 237 Bradstreet Co. t\ Higgins, 112 U. S. 227 1U27, 1028 r. , 114 U. S. 262 584 Bradwell /•. Weeks, 1 Johns. Ch. ( .\. Y.) 325 92 Branihall v. United States, 6 Ct. CI. 238 931 Bramston r. Carter, 2 Sim. 458 186, 280 Brande r. Gilclirist, 18 Fed. R. 465 286 Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U. S. 262 1038, 1039, 1044, 1045 Brandon v. Brandon, 5 Madd. 473 418 Brandon Manuf. Co. v. Prime, 14 Blatchf. 371; 3 Bann. & A. Pat. Cas. 191 211,292,293 Brandreth v. Lance, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 24 371 Brannen v. United States, 20 Ct. CI. 219 915 Brantford City, The, 32 Fed R. 324 86.S Brashear v. Mason, 6 How. 92 710 Brasher's E.x'rs v. Van Cortlandt, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 242 109, 176, 184 Brassev v. New York & N. E. R. R. Co., 19 Fed. R. 663 25, 397 Breeden v. Lee, 2 Hughes, 484 23, 3.56 Breedlone ;-•. Nicolet, 7 Pet. 413 1086 Brewer v. Jacol)s, 22 Fed. R. 217 776 Brewster r. Shuler, 38 Fed. R. 549 601 v. Wakefield, 22 How. 118 127, 1025, 1032 Bridses, Ex parte. 2 Woods. 428 721 r. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R. 17 196, 197, 651, 6-54 Rriges v. Sperry, 95 U. S. 401 843 Briy^gs i\ French, 2 Sumner, 251 41 ('. The Light Boats, 1 1 Allen (.Mass.), 157 96 Brisjham v. LmMinnton, 12 Blatchf. 237 95, 132, 195, 4.30 Bright r. Milwaukee & St. P. R. R. Co , 14 Blatchf. 214 839 >: United States, 6 Ct. CI. 118 901 ■. , S Ct. CI. 326 901 r. , 12 Ct. CI. 646 929 XXXVlll TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Briirstocke v. Kock, 7 Jur. n. s. 63 497 Brill r. Stiles. 35 111 305 1)94 hrinckerlioff v. Brown, 7 Johns. Cli. (X. Y.)217 ^ 541 Brine v. Insurance Co., 9(3 U. S. 627 10, 542, 575, 779 Brinkerhoff v. Brown, G Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 139 156, 220, 225 Briscoe v. Commonwealth Bank, 9 Pet. 85 1075 !". Southern Kan. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R. 273 60, 66, 88 Brison v. Lingo, 26 Mo. 496 755 British Queen iMin. Co. v. Baker S. M. Co., 139 U. S. 222 773 Britton v. Brewster, 2 Fed. R. 160 151 r. Hill, 12 C. E. Gr. (X. J) 389 357 Biobst i: Brobst, 4 Wall. 2 976, 987 Biockctt c. Brockett, 2 How. 238 868, 1037, 1045, 1046, 1048 V. , 3 How. 691 552, 1086 Brockwav v. Township of Oswego, 40 Fed" R. 612 714,716 Broderick's Will, Case of, 21 Wall. 503 10, 11. 12,24,235 Brodhead v. Shoemaker, 44 Fed R. 518 811, 834 Brodie v. Barry, 3 Meriv. 695 395 r. Opiiir S. M. Co., 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 37 V. St. Paul, 1 Ves. Jr. 326 ]'>romloy r. Smith, 1 Sim. 8 r. Town of Jeffcrsonville, 3 McL. 336 Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 498 V. La Crosse & iM. R. R. Co., 1 Wall. 405 1051, 1052 r. , 2 Wall. 283 293, 334 V. Railroad Co., 2 Black, 524 333, 560, 1019 V. St. Croix Lumber Co., 35 Fed R. 634 V. Schulten, 104 U. S. 410 Brook V. Evans, 29 L. J. Ch. 616 376 Brook (Lord) r. Lord Hertford, 2 P. Wms. 518 Brooke r. Clarke, 1 Swanst. 550 Brooks r. Bicknell, 3 McL 250 V. Byam, 1 Story, 296 570 583 119 224 195 849 rco — V. , 2 Story, 553 — >: Clark, 119 U. S. 502 — i\ Far well, 2 McCra. F>d. R. 167 — r. Fry, 45 Fed. R. 776 — r. Jenkins. 3 McL. 432 — /•. Miller. 28 Fed. R. 015 574 386 381 254, 259, 265 580, 581 816 220: 4 106 763 474, 518 17, 18 /•. Mills Couiitv, 4 Dill. 524 2.32 /•. Missouri, 124 U. S. 394 1002 r. Xorris, 11 How. 201 1038 r. O'Hara, 8 Fed. R. 529 ; 2 Mc^ Cra.OU 145,150,381 Bronlatour v. United States, 7 Ct. CI. 555 901 Browder v. McArthur, 7 Wheat. 58 1079 280 102 687 514 7!;0 686 687 Brown, Ex parte, 116 U. S. 401 703 V. Apsden, 14 How. 25 1079 V. Chesapeake & O. Canal Co., 4 Fed. U. 770 687 V. Clark, 3 Woodeson's Lect. 94 County of Buena Vista, 95 157 214, 235 V. Deere, 6 Fed. R. 484 ; 2 Mc- Cra. 425 391, 392, 893 V. , 6 Fed. R. 489 340, 341 V. Dowthwaite, 1 Madd. 448 116 V. Evans, 18 Fed. R. 56 795, 797 l: , 8 Sawy. 502 948 r. Galloway, Pet. C. C. 219 512 r. Guarantee Trust & S. D. Co., 128U. S. 403 157,160 V. Hall, 6 Blatchf. 405 252 v. Hazelhurst, 56 Md. 26 418 r. Higden, 1 Atk. 291 V. Huger, 21 How. 305 V. Lake Superior Iron Co., 134 U. S. 530 201, 207, 217, 397, 452, 453 V. Murray, 43 Fed. R. 614 37, 822, 823 r. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 5 Blatchf. 525 119,333 c. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 9 Fed. R. 183 V. Piatt, 2 Cranch C. C. 253 V. Pierce, 7 Wall. 205 V. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 V. Pond, 5 F\'d. R. 31 V. Ricketts, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 425 271,326 V. , 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 555 121 V. Robertson, 2 Phill. 173 326 r. Spofford, 95 U. S. 474 487 V. Swann, 9 Pet. 1 1023 V. . 10 Pet. 497 4, 499 V. The Independence, Crabbe, 54 475 V. Toledo, P. & W. R. Co., 35 Fed. R. 444 434 r. Trousdale, 138 U. S. 389 34, 814 V. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 571 902 V. , 15 Ct. CI. 392 899 V. Vermuden, 1 Chan. Cas. 272 122, 123, 156 V. Warner, 8 Beav. 292 298 Browne v. Browne, 1 Wash. 429 38 Brown c. Curtis, 10 I'aige (X. Y.), 210 248, 264 Brownsville v. Loague, 129 U. S. 493 7( 5, 712, 717 Brownsvvord v. Edwards, 2 Ves. Sen. 243 212 Broyles v. Buck, 37 Fed. R. 137 587, 588 Bruce r. Manchester & K. R. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514 32, 8.3, 34, 1028, 1029 r. , 19 Fed. R. 342 466 V. United States, 17 How. 437 469. 470 Brugger v. State Investment Ins. Co., 5 Sawy. 304 16, 159 Brundage r. Goodfellow, 4 Ilalst. Ch. (X.J.) 513 205 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] XXXl.X Brunker, Ex parte, 3 P. Wnis. 312 457 Brunswick (l)uke of) v. King of Han- over, Beav. 1 95 Brush El. Co. l: Ball E L. Co., 43 Fed. H. 899 165 Bryan v. Kennett, 113 U. S. 179 9:i8 V. Parker, 1 Y. & C. 170 548 V. Spruill, 4 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 27 147 V. United States, G Ct. CI. 128 89'.» V. , 21 Ct. CI. 249 910 Bryant r. Leylanii, 6 Fed. R. 125 499, 767 — — V. Tliomi)son, 27 Fed. K. 881 844 V. Western Un. Tel. Co., 17 Fed. R 825 372 Bufciareilo, In re, 45 Fed. R. 463 728 Buchanan v. Hodjjson, 11 Beav. 368 243 r. llowland, 2 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 341 382 Bucher i-. Cheshire R. R. Co., 125 U S. 555 779, 780 Buck i: Colhath, 3 Wall. 334 36, 37 r. Fawcetr, 3 P. Wms. 242 679 r. Hermance, 1 Blatchf. 322 .382 I'. Piedmont & A. L. I. Co., 4 Fed. R. 849 13, 443 Buckeridge v. Glasse, 1 Cr. & Ph. 426 153 Buckeve Engine Co. v. Denan Brew- ing Co., 47"Fed. R. 6 397 Buckingiiani v. Burgess, 3 McL. 368 513, 515 i: McLean, 12 IIow. 1-50 570, 1023, 1044. 1062, 1085 Buckingham (Duke of) v. Duchess of Buckingham, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 527 ^ 392 Buckles r. Chicago, M. & St. P. Rv. Co., 47 Fed. R. 424 ' 046 Buckley v. United States, 4 How. 251 482 Buckner r. Finley, 2 Pet. 586 54 Buddicum V. Kirk, 3 Cranch, 293 521, 523 Huel i\ Van Ness, 8 Wheat. 312 1005, 1041 Buell r. Conn. Mut. L. I. Co , 1 Cin. L. B. 51 768 Buerk c. Iiiiliaeuser, 8 Fed. R. 457 138, 159, 176, 184, 186, 199, 200, 214 Buffalo Ins. Co. r. Providence & S. S. S. Co., 29 Fed. R. 237 637 Buffington r. Harvev,95 U. S. 99 668,670, 671,676,677 Buford '•. Strother, 3 MoCra. 253; 10 Fed. R. 406 43, 811, 812 Bugiiin r. Bennett, 4 Burr. 2035 6'.»8 Bull V. Bank of Kasson, 123 U. S. 105 54 Bullen r. Miciiel, 2 I'rice, 399 550 Buller V. Slideil, 43 Fed. R. 116 684 Buliinsier i: .^L^ckev, 14 Blatchf. 3-55 271 Bullock r. Richardson, 11 Ves. 375 171 /•. Wailingfonl, 55 N. H. 61'.* 473 Bunbury r. Bunburv, 1 Beav. 318 352 Bunce v. (;allagiier,'5 Biatciif. 481 4 Bunker ;■. Stevens, 26 Fed. R. 245 581 Bunt r. Sierra Butte G. M. Co., 138 I Butler's U. S. 483 775 1 Wasli. Burch r. Cavanaugli, 12 Abb. Pr, n. s. (N. Y.) 410 357 Burck V. Taylor, 39 Fed. R. 581 81.3, 821, 823, 824, 842 Burdell, E.r partp, 32 Fed. R. 681 6.J3, 640 Burden r. Johnson, 107 U. S. 251 1033 Burdeit, In re, 127 U. S. 771 702 Burdick (.■. Hale, 7 Biss. 96 821, 824, 845 Burdsall r. Curran, 31 Fed. R. 918 665 Burt'ord, Ex parte, 1 Cranch C. C. 456 658 V. , 3 Cranch, 448 717 Burgess v. Graffani, 10 Fed. R. 216 Burke c. Bunker Hill & S. M. & C Co., 4() F'ed. R. 644 V. United States, 13 Ct. CI. 231 V. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20 543, 776, 778, 779 Burkett i: Randall, 3 Meriv. 466 547 Burlington, The, 137 U. S. 386 1029 Burlinuton, C. R. & N. Ry. Co. v. Dunn, 122 U. S. 513 V. Simmons, 123 U. S, 52 564 Burnet c. Chetwood, 2 Meriv. 441 V. Craig, 30 Ala. 135 Burney v. Morgan, 1 Sim. & S. 358 Burnliam v. Bo wen, 111 U. S. 776 403, 405. 407 V. Dalling, 18 N. J. Eq. 132 V. Rangelev, 1 Woodb. & M. 7 V. ", 2 Wooilb. .^ M. 417 V. Webster, 1 Woodb. & M. 172 Burnley c. Town of Jetfersonville, 3 McL. 336 Burns, The, 9 Wall 2-37 V. Rosenstein, 135 U S. 449 V. United States, 4 Ct. CI. 113 Burpee v. First Nat. Bank, 5 Biss. 405 745 277 820 912 8.50 . 5(i9 364 357 120 402, 411 251 40 584 237 250 1031 562 909 258, 259 703 Burr, Ex prvie, 9 Wheat. 529 r. Des Moines R. R. & N. Co., 1 Wall. 99 773 Burrell r. Hackley, 35 Fed. R. 833 463 r. Pratt, 35 Fed. R. 834 463 Burrowcs v. Lock, 10 Ves. 470 582 Burrus, In r?, 136 U. S. 586 721, 734, 735 Burton ;;. Burton, 79 Cal. 490 591 V. Simmons, 2 Cranch C. C. 195 516 V. Smith, 4 Wash. 522 116 ('. West Jersey Ferry Co., 114 U. S. 474 786, 1087 Bush V. Kentucky, 107 U. S 110 837 Buslinell v. Kennedv, 9 Wall. 387 55, 56, 199. 842, 844 Bussard v. Catalino, 2 Cranch C. C. 421 512, 516, 640 Butler w. Douglass, 3 Fed. R. 612 543 ■. Eaton, 141 U. S. 210 '. P^reeman, Ambl. 301 '. Gage, 138 U. S. 52 . Poole, 44 Fed. R. 586 . Shaw, 21 Fed. R. 321 Young, 1 Flipp. 276 Lessee 101 Farnsworth, 1089 396 1003 12, 761, 770, 780 18 5 4 39,40 xl TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Buiterfiekl v. Usher, 91 U. S. '246 10:^4 liiutervvorth r. Hailey, lo Ves. ^58 277 V. Hill, 114 U. S. 12« 18, 187, 1U9, 2UU, 2UG V. Hoe, 112 U. S. 50 7U7, 7Ub Butz V. City of Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575 778 Bulz T. E. R. Co. r. Jacobs Electric Co., 36 Fed. K. lUI 3(i<.) Bii.xton V. James, 5 De G. & Sm. 80 2o5, 3G2 V. Lister, 3 Atk. 383 300 Buzard v. Houston, 119 U. S. 347 8, 23 Byers v. Fowler, 12 Ark. 218 790, 79G Byrne v. Byrne, 2 >ch. & Lef. 537 374 Byron, In re, 18 IhhI R. 722 727 Bvron (Lord) c. Jolmston, 2 iVIeriv. '29 381 Cabrera, Ex parte, 1 AVash. 232 457 Calm c. Qung Wall Lung, 28 Fed. R. 39G 586, 601 Caiioon V. Ring, 1 Cliff. 592 551 Calderon v. O'Donoliue, U. S. C. C-, S. I). N. Y., June, 1891 7, GO Caldwell r. Taggart, 4 Pet. 190 133, 135 V. Walters, 4 Crancli V.. C. 577 385 Calhoun v. United States, 14 Ct. CI. 193 931 California c. Chue Fan, 42 Fed R. 8U5 807 California A. S. P. Co. v. Molitor, 113 U. S. 609 652, 976, 979, 981, 989 Calkins c. Bertrand, 8 Fed. R. 755 581, United States, 1 Ct. CI. 382 583 910, 911 563 1044 Callaglian v. Mvers, 128 U. S. 017 Callan v. Mav, 2 Black, 541 1024, Callicot, AV, 8 151atchf. 89 725 Callowav r. Dobson, 1 Brock. 119 2:^8 Calverley c. Williams, 1 Ves. Jr. 211 292 Calvert r. Gray, 2 Coop. Cli. 171, /( 379 Camblos v. Philadelphia & R. R. R. Co, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 411 ; 4 Brew.st. (l-a.)563 373,374 Cambria Iron Co. v. Asiiburn, 118 U.S. 54 833 Cambuston r. United States, 95 U. S. 285 797, 1090 Camden r. Mayhew, 129 U. S. 73 566, 650 Camden & A.'R. R. Co. v. Stewart, 4 C. K.Cireen (N. J.), (iO 533 CauK ron v. Ilodgus. 127 U. S. 322 844 /•. Mclioberts. 3 Wheat. 591 120, 135 Cam[) '■. Receivers of Niagara Bank, 2 Paiire (N. Y.). 283 429 Campbell r. Boyreau, 21 How. 223 ^771. r. Campliell, 2 M.&C. 25 92 288 2 Ilalst. Eq. (N.J.) 710 r. City of New York, 35 Fed. R. 14 318 CampbelU-.Holyland,L. R.Ch D. 160 575 i\ James, 3 Feil. Rep. 513 7.t8 f. , 5 Fed. K. 807 570, 10',t7 /•. , 31 Fed. R. 525 lUil7 r. Laclede Gas Co., 119 U. S. 445 472 V. Mackay, 1 M. & Cr. 003 152 r. .Mayor, &c. of N. Y., 33 Fed. R. 795 ■ 222, 243, V. , 45 Fed. R. 243 V. Rankin, 99 U. S. 261 V. Seaman, 63 N. Y. 568 V. Tousev, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 64 V. United States, 107 U. S. 407 541 252 1054 356 95 899, 909 v. Wilcox, 10 Wall. 421 1093 ("amprelle r. Balbach,46 Fed. R. 81 818 Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall. 561 127, 130 Canal & C. Sts. R. R. Co. v. Hart, 114 U. S. 654 794 Candler r. Pettit, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 168 279 Cannon r. Pratt, 99 U. S. 619 905 v. United States, 118 U. S. 355 970, 1092 Cape Ann Granite Co. v. United States, 20 Ct. CI. 1 913 Captain John, The, 41 Fed. R. 147 0:^5, 626, 627, 6:12 Carey ?^. Brown, 92 U. S. 171 117 V. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. R. 438 174 Carlisle v. Cooper, 3 C. E. Green (N. J.), 241 538 r. United States, 16 Wall. 147 902 ,,. . G Ct. CI. 398 9U2 Carlisle (Countess of) v. Lord Berk- lev, Amb. 599 446 Caril, Ex parte, 106 U. S. 521 727 Carnochan v. Christie, 11 Wheat. 446 2M), 287 East India 284 832 463 777 57(t. Carnotic (Nabob of) Co., 1 \'es. Jr. 374 Caro ('. Metropolitan El. Rv. Co , 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 138 Carpenter r. (.HiieaL'o, JI. & St. P. Rv. Co., 47 Fed. R. 535 831, V. I'rovidence Wash. Ins. Co., 4 How. 185 V. , 16 Pet. 495 543, 776, V. Strange, 141 U. S. 87 237, 578, 601 V. United States, 42 Fed. R. 264 97, 897 V. Wcstinghouse A. B. Co., 32 Fed. R. 434 190 Carper r. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87 751 Carr r. Fife, 41 Fed. R. 713 804 )-•. , 45 Fed R. 209 844 r. United States, 98 U. S. 433 95, 96 r. , 23Ct. CI. 118 620 Carrinston r. Florida R. R. Co., 9 Blatch. 468 844 V. HoUv, 1 Dick. 280 533 r. Lei.tz, 40 Fed. R. 18 267 r. Stimson, 1 Curt. 437 513, 514 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] xli Carrington (r.ady) r. Cantillon, Buiib. 107 ' 191 Carroll r. Parran, 1 Bland (Md.), 125, n- <)7o ,.. Safford, 3 How. 441 10, 777 Carroll County >\ Smith, 111 U. S. 5o6 7 7 'J Carrot) Iron Co. c. JMaclareii, 5 II. L. C. 41G 570 Carson v. Donaldson, 45 Fed. R. 821 804 /■. Dunliani, 121 U. S 421 818, 811), 822, 844, 849 r. Hyatt, 118 U. S. 279 37, 813 Carson & 1{. Liimlier Co. v. Holtz- claw, 3!) Fell. It. 578 820, 832, 833 V. , 3!) Fed. R. 885 828 Carstairs r Mechanics' & T. Ins. Co , 13 Fed. R. 823 191 Cart V. Hodirkin, 3 vSwanst. 161 550 Carte v. Hall, 3 Atk. 496 250 Carter v. I)e Brune, 1 Dick. 39 lUl r. Ini;rah.ini, 43 Ala. 78 17(5, 184 V. New Orleans, 19 Fed. R. 659 833 Carteret (Lord) r. Paschal, 3 P. Wnis. 197 062 Carilett v. Pacific Ins. Co., 1 Paine, 594 465 Carver i: United States, 111 U. S. 609 899 Carwick n. Yonnor, 2 Swanst. 239 539 Cary, In re, 10 Fed. R. 622 337, 653 V. Domestic Springbed Co., 2(5 Fed. R. 38 380 r. Lovell .Manuf. Co , 39 Fed. R. 163 588 Casamnjor v. Strode, 1 Sim. & S. 381 37() Casborne v. Barsham, 5 M. & C. 113 550 Case V. Beanregard, !)9 U. S. 119 25 V. , lOlU. S. 6S8 25,545 V. Clarke, 5 Mason, 70 41 y. Kellv, 133 U. S. 21 542 V. Redfield, 4 McL. 526 158, 165 Casey, /•;./■ jHir/c, 18 Fed. R. 86 793 i;. Cincinnati Tvpog. Union, 45 Fed. R. 135 " ^ 372, .382 Cassiiis, The, 41 Fed. R. 367 ^(W) Caster r. Wood, Bahhv. 289 267, 284 Castle i'. BuUard, 23 How. 172 774, 775, 10s7 Castro r. De Uriarte, 12 Fed. R. 250 687 V. Hendricks, 23 How. 438 946,95.3 V. United States, 3 Wall. 4(5 UCjI, 1044, IO.'kS Cathcart v. Hewson, 1 Hayes, 173 (i4() Catlierwood r. (iiipete, 2 Curt. 94 7o4 Cailett f. Pacific Ins. Co., 1 Paine, 504 41,466,475 Catlernll i\ Pundiase, 1 Atk. 290 677 Catton r. Earl of Carlisle, 5 Mndd. 427 307,317 Causin r. Chid)b, 1 Cranch C C. 267 (124 Cavender r. Cm vender, 114 U. S. 161 221 r. , 8 Fed. i^ 611 401 r. , 3 McCra. DH-', fii).") Cawthorn v. Clialie, 2 Sim. & S. 127 208 Celluloid Co. V. Crowe Co., U. S. C. C, 3(1 Circuit 465, 489 Celluloid Manut. Co. v. Arlington Maruif. Co., 34 Fed. R. 324 870 V. Cellonite Manuf. Co., 40 Fed. R. 476 564 r Chandler, 27 Fed. R. 9 588 '■. Goodyear D. V. Co., 13 Blatclif. 375 371, 372 i: Russell, 35 Fed. R. 17 505, 509 Central Nat. Bank r. Connecticut Mut. L. I. Co., 104 U. S. 54 lOS'i c. Hazard, 30 Fed. R. 484 426,427 Central Pacific R. R. v. Dver, 1 Sawy. 641 " ].j4, 1-37 Central R. R. Co. r. Bourbon Co., 116 U. S. 538 1074 Central R. R. & B. Co. >: Pettus, 113 U. S. 116 119, 120, 3.33, 580, 584, 58.3, 042, 643, 644, 645 Central Transp. Co. r. Pullman's P. C. Co., 139 U. S. 24 774, 1021, 1089, 1091 Central Trust Co. i\ Central Iowa R. R. Co., 38 Fed. R. 863 584 ('. East Tenn , Va. & Ga. R. Co., 30 Fed. R. 895 14,409 r. Grant Locomotive Works, 135 U. S. 207 671, 1020, 1038 V. Marietta & N. G. Rv. Co., 48 Fed. R. 850 1020 r. , 48 Fed R. 8(34 1020 /■. Oliio Cent. K. R. Co., 23 Fed. R. .306 419,451 n. St. Louis, A. & T. Ry.Co., 40 Fed. R. 426 192, 435, 436 r. , 41 Fed. R. 551 -39, 401, 414, 437 V. , Sheffield & B. C. I. & Rv. Co., 44 Fed. R. 526 427 V. Te.xas & St. L. Ry. Co., 22 Fed. Pv. 135 ■ 399, 400, 409 r. , 23 Fed. R. 673 412 r. , 23 Fed R. 703 408, 411 r. , 24 Fed. It. 153 442 r. , 32 Fed. R. 448 563 V. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. R. Co . 23 Fed. R. 675 448 r. , 23 Fed. R. 803 422, 424, 425, 428, 431 /•. , 26 Fed. R. 74 435 r. , 27 Fed. R. 175 5(i2 r. , 29 Fed. R. 618 14, 399, 452 V. , 32 Fed. R. 187 449, 450 r. , .32 Fed. R. 084 585, 586, 5S7 r. , 34 Fed. R. 259 422, 434 V. , 46 Fed. R. 26 4:;4, 431 Centre v. Keene, 2 Cranch C. C. 198 515,516 Cervantes v. United States, 16 How. 619 962 Chace r. Vasqnez, 11 Wheat 420 1025 Chadbourn r. Coe, 45 Fed. It. 822 130 Chadbourne v. German Araer. Ins. Co., 31 Fed. 11. 625 584 xlii TABLE OF CASES. 288 121 109 [References Chadwick v. Broadwood, 3 Beav. 316 247 V. United States, 3 Fed. K. 75U 465, 46G, 481 Chaffee r. Havward, 20 How. 208 1062 V. United States, 18 Wall. 516 787 Cliaffin 1-. Taylor, IIG U. S. 567 1099 Cliaires v. United States, 3 How. 611 109*4 Chalie v. Pickering, 1 Keen, 749 430, 466 Ciianiberlain v. Agar, 2 Vcs. & B. 259 246 V. American Nat. L. I. Co., 11 Hun, 370 822 /•. Mensing, 47 Fed. R. 435 688, 690 Clianiberlaine v. Chester & B. Hy. Co., 1 Exch. 869 343, 344 Ciiambers, In re, 44 Fed. R. 786 790 V. Green, L. R. 20 Eq. 552 698, 699 i: Harrington, 111 U. S. 350 1019 c. McDougal, 42 Fed. K. 694 430, 818, 820, 822 Chaniley v. Lord Dunsany, 2 8ch. & Lef. 690 2b7, Ciiancey v. May, Free. Ch. 592 Chandler v. Thompson, 30 Fed. R. 38 767, 782, 780 Chandos (Duke of) r. Talbot, 2 P Wnis. 372 Chanute City v. Trader, 132 U. S. 210 1007, 1008 Chapin v. Sears, 18 Fed. R. 814 158 V. Walker, 6 Fed. R. 794; 2 McCra. 175 250, 286, 287 Ciiaplin V. Young, 6 L. T. n. s. 97 415 Chapman v. Barger, 4 Dill. 557 44, Ml, 812 !-. Barnev, 129 U. S. 677 89,118, 284, 584, 688, 849, 1090 V. Borer, 1 Fed. R. 274 13 7-. Derby, 2 Vern. 117 4 r. School District No. 1, Deady, II 18 147,214,229,250,256 Chap[)ede]aine i'. Dechenau.x, 4 Cranch, 3(;6 Chappell V. Bradshaw, 128 U. S. 132 n. Purday, 4 Y. & C. 485 V. Sheard, 1 Jur. x. s. 996 Charkich, Matter of, L. R. 8 Q. B. 197 ; 42 L. J. Q B. 75 Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 376 Chase V. Dunham, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 572 V. Edwards, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 283 r. Sanborn, 6 Off. Gaz. 932 Chateauiiav (). & 1. Co., Petitioner, 128 \J. S. 544 703, 775, 784, 785, 787 Blake, 35 Fed P. 804 1048 Clintfield V Bo vie, 105 U. S. 231 1029 ChattanooL'a H. v^- C. 1?. Co. /•. Cin-' cinnati, N. O. & T. P. Hv. Co., 44 Fed. P. 4.-,6 ■ 817, 823 Cheang Kce r. United States, 3 Wall. 320 1090 56 994 113 362 685 392 274 485 362 are to pages.] Chedworth ( Lord) v. Edwards, 8 Ves. 46 353 Cheesman r. Hart, 42 Fed. R. 98 337, 782 Shreve, 37 Fed. R. 36 36 Cheney v. Hughes, 188 U. S. 403 1060 Cheong Ah Mov i-. United States, 113U. S. 216" 1079 Cherokee Co. Comm'rs r. Wilson, 109 U. S. 621 1079 Cherokee Indians v. Cherokee Na- tion, 19 Ct. CI. 35 910, 912 Cherokee Nation r. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1 107 V. Southern Kan. Ry. Co., 135 U. S. 641 151, 158, 225 Cherrey v. Monro, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 618 214 Chertsy Market, hi re, 6 Price, 261 341 Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Union Bank, 8 Pet. 259 1022 Chesapeake & O. R. R Co. r. Patton, 5 W. Va. 234 357 V. United States, 19 Ct. CI. 300 912 V. , 20 Ct. CI. 49 898 V. White, 111 U. S. 134 845 Chester r. Life Assoc, of /\nier., 4 Fed. R. 487 2'.)9, 300, 388 Chetwynd v. Lindon,2 Ves. Sen 450 218 Cliicago & A. Rv. Co. r. New York, L. E. & W. R.^Co , 34 Fed. R 516 373 1-. Union R. M. Co., 109 U. S. 702 222, 243, 271, 295, 532 Chicago & V. R. R. Co. v. Fosdick. 106 U. S. 47 574, 575, 1019, 1080, 1089 Chicago, B. &Q. R. Co. r. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co , 34 Fed. R. 481 374, 380 Chicago, L & N P. R. R. Co. r. Min- nesota & N. W. R. R. Co., 29 Fed R. 337 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Beck er, 32 Fed, R. 849 r. Hartshorn, 30 Fed. R. 541 V. Third Nat. Bank, 134 U. S. 276 278, 281, 289 Cliicago, St. L. & N. O. R. R. Co. r. Macomb, 2 Fed. R. 18 171,208, 216, 218 Chicago, St. P. ^L & O. R. R. Co. v. Dakota Count V, 28 Fed. R. 219 39 r. Hoberts,"lll U. S. 690 850, 1018, 1022 Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 19 Ct. V\. 133 Child r. United States, 6 Ct. CI. 44 Cliildras r. Eiuorv, 8 Wheat. 642 Childs r. I)istrict"of Columbia, 19 Ct. CI. 332 Chiles, AV, 22 Wall. 157 Chils r. (ironlund, 41 Fed. R. 115 r. , 41 Fed. I{. 505 782, Chisholm c. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 834 813 215 915 9:;2 56 0.''2 (i50 7S2 ^2, 787 28, 29, ]od Chittenden i: Darden, 2 Woods, 437 763 Cholmondelev (.Marquis) v. Lord Clin- ton, 2 Jac.&W.l 112,115 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] xliii Cliulinondeley (Marquis) c. Lord Clin- ton, 2 Moriv. 71 27«, 409 Ciiorbin o: Uiiitud Suites, 6 Ct. CI. 480 406 Clioteau V. United otates, 20 Ct. Ci. 2.30 910 Cliouteau v. Barlow, 110 U. S. 2;J8 1085 Cliowick V. Dimes, 3 Beav. 290 208, 200, ;;88 Cliristenseu, In re, 43 Fed. R. 243 748 Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. K. K. Co., 133 U. S. 233 106, 130 c. United States, 7 Ct. CI. 431 002 Christie, Matter of, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 242 482, 585 f. Craig, 2 Meriv. 137 Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wall. 69 Christy, In re, 3 How. 292 V. I'ri.igeon, 4 Wall. 196 Church V. Ilubbart, 2 Cranch, 186 353 42 008 778 474, 475 ?'. Marsh, 2 Hare, 052 337 Ciiurcli of Jesus Christ v. United States, 130 U. S. 1 397 Churton v. Frewen, L. K. 1 Eq. 238 284 Circassian, The, 6 Ben. 512 026 City, The, o. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477 778 City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 570 180, 181 l: Skelton, 2 Blatchf. 14 345, 347 City of Lincoln, The, 25 Fed R. 835 858 City of Washington, The, 13 Blatchf. 410 625, 627 Claasen, In re, 140 U. S. 200 1047, 1050, 1060 Clatlin V. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 110 U. S. 81 833 Claiborne County c Brooks, 111 U. S. 400 780 Clare v. National City Bank, 14 Blatchf. 445 584 V. Wood, 1 Hare, 314 464 Claridge v. Hoar, 14 Ves. 59 227 Clark, Ex parte, 128 U. S. 395 748 V. American D. & I. Co., 25 Fed. R. 641 639 V. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436 102 V. Bever, 139 U. S. 96 778, 810 V. Blair, 14 Fed. K. 812 064 V. Fredericks, 105 U S. 4 1086 V. Freeman, 11 Beav. 112 371 V. Hall, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 382 065 y. Hancock, 94 U. S. 493 1007 V. Keith, 106 U. S. 464 lll99 r. KiUian, 103 U. S. 706 070, (iTl c. Lord Rivers, L. R. 5 Eq. 91 150 V. Periam, 2 Aik. 337 149 V. Reyburn, 8 Wall. 318 574 V. Scott, 5 Fisher Pat. Cas. 245 251 V. Smith, 13 Pet. li)5 10, 779 r. Sohier, 1 Woodb & M. 308 781 y. United States, 99 U. S. 493 903 V. , 11 Ct. ("1 098 902 V. Wooster, 1 19 U. S. 322 17, 18 Cl.nrk's Ex'rs v. Van Rienisdvk. 9 Cranch, 153 257, 462, 403 Clarke, Ex parte, 1 Russ. & M. 563 376 V. , 100 U. S. 399 719, 726, 729, 750 V. Byne, 13 Ves. 386 c. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164 178 42, 142, 303, 308 303, 308 91 L\ , 2 Sumner, 262 V: Morey, 10 Johns. 69 V. Price, 2 Wils. Ch. Cas. 157 306, 307 r. Rippon, 1 B. & Aid. 586 770 r. Tipping, 4 Beav. 588 287, 288 u. Tiuelkeld, 2 Crancii C. C. 408 6(i5 (;. White. 12 Pet. 178 367, 373 Clarkhuft r. Wisconsin, L & N. R. R. Co., 26 Fed. R. 465 849 Claxton V. Adams, 1 MacAr. (D. C.) 496 514, 518 Clay V. Field, 138 U. S. 464 34, 1020 r. Smith, 3 Pet. 411 1092 Claybrook r. City of Owensboro', 23 Fed. R. 634 373 Clayton v. Utah, 132 U. S. 6-32 966, 970 Cleaver v. Traders' Ins. Co., 40 Fed. R. 711 844 i\ , 40 Fed. R. 863 584, 580 Clement r. Griffith, C. P. Coop. 470 .326 Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall. 299 271, 284, 1086 Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419 652, 1066. 1067 Cleveland F. & B. Co. v. United States R. S. Co., 41 Fed. R. 476 111, 165 Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Reed, 1 Biss. 180 11,235 Cleveland R. M. Co. v. Rhodes, 121 U. S. 255 1084 Clews V. Woodstock Iron Co., 44 Fed. R. 31 191, 199 Clifton V. United States, 4 How. 242 482 Clinch y. Financial Corporation, L. R. 4Ch. 117 119 Clinton i: Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434 27, 759 V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 122 U. S. 469 787, 1076 Clinton Bridge, The, 10 Wall. 454 236 Clintonia, The, 11 Fed. R. 740 027 Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114 482 Clodimoro Cota, Ex parte, 110 U. S. :-iS5 989, 993 Clough V. Curtis, 134 U. S. 301, 19, 700 967 610 386 898 38 r. United States, 47 Fed. R. 791 Cluiu r. Hrewer, 2 Curt. 500 CIvde i: United States, 13 Wall. 38 Cdal Co. r. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172 Coatcs ('. Merrick Thread Co., 41 Fed. R. 73 519 Cobb V. Globe Mut. L. I. Co., 3 Hughes, 452 839 Cobbcltiom V. William, Chan. Cal. II. 3 Coburn v. Cedar Valley L. & C. Co., 138 U. S. 196 267, 291, 331 xliv C()1>urn V. Cedar Valley L, & C. Co., 2o Ft- J. K. 791 _ 822 Cochrane r. Det-iier, 95 IT. S. 355 S'-U r. O'Brien, 2. Jones & La T. 380 178 TABLE OF CASES. [Refereuoes are to pages.J Colvin, Matter of, 3 Md. Cn. 279 395 ConHnaii(ler-in-('hiet', The, 1 Wall. 43 803 Coniiiiercial & S. Bank y. Corbett, 5 Savvy. 172 839 Cock i: Kvans, 9 Veri,'. (Tenn.) 287 283 Coniinercial IMut. M. I. Co. v. Union Cockcrotr, AV luule, 1U4 U. S. 578 1030 Cocker r. lievis, 1 Ch. Cas 61 080 r. I'lanklia 11. >i B. Co., 1 Siory, It;;* 519, 520 Co(hin<;ton r. Houlditch, 5 Sim. 280 305 r. Joimsione, 1 Beav. 520 417 Co.- f. Louisville & X. K. K. Co., 3 Fi/d. K. 775 373, 374 r. New Jersey Midland Uv. C^o , 27 N. J. Kq. 37 " 401, 425, 42G Coffeen r. Hnniton, 5 McL. 250 582 CoflVv f. United Stales, 110 U. S. 427 872, 873 V. , 110 U. S. 4:;0 1080, 1087 Coffin '■• Chattanooga W. & P. Co., 44 P^ed. H. 535 334 V. Heath, tj Met. (Ma.^s.) 76 574 Cogswell r. Fordyce, 128 U. S. 391 970 Cohen r. Connnissionors of Goldsboro, 77 X. C. 2 857 Cohens r. Virginia, Wheat. 264 35, 904, 995 Cohn l: LonisviUe. X. 0. & T. 11. K. Co., 39 Fed. IL L'27 833 Coiron r. Millaudon, 19 How. 113 130, 1087 Coit r. Cami)l)cll. 82 X. Y. 509 300 r. Xorth Carolina G. A. Co.. 9 Fed. K. 577 464, 707, 708 Coll)urn '•. l)un(;ond)e, 9 Sim. 151 113 Cole S. M. Co. l: Virginia & U. II. W. Co., 1 Sawy. 470 373 r. . 1 Sawy (ks5 338,374,387,542 Coleman -•. Martin', Blatchf. 119 3:53 r. , liiatchf. 29 i 270 r. West ll.artlepool Hv. Co ,8 W. 1! 734 ' 376 Colgate )•. Compasinie Francaise, 23 Fed. ]l. 82 ' 204, 404, 500, 7<:7, 768 Collins r. I'eebles, 2 Fisher's I'at. Cas. Mut Ins. Co., 19 How. 318 254 Connnibsioners i: Aspinvvall, 24 How. 376 705 c. Gorman, 19 Wall. 661 648, 795 r. Sellew, 99 U. S. 624 715, 716 Commissioners of Johnson County v. Thayer, 74 U. S. 631 777 Connnissioner of Patents v. White- ley, 4 Wall. 522 706,711 Commissioners of Tippecanoe County 1-. Lucas, 93 U. S. 108 1002, 1018, 1019 Commonwealth v. Boley, 1 W. N. C. 303 ' 750 1-. Browne, 1 S. & R. (Pa ) 382 756 r. Franklin Ins. Co. 115 Mass. '278 r. Frink, 4 Am. Law Reg. n. s. 700 737 (' Louisville Bridge Co. 42 Fed. R. 241 ^ 819, 821 r. Low, Thatch. Cr. Cas. 477 729 Comstock V. Herron, 45 Fed. R. 600 143, 250 Concannon r. Cruise, 2 IMoll. 332 465 Conn V. Penn, 5 Wheat. 424 237, 506, 508 Coimecticut Mut. L. I. Co., Petitioner, 131 U. S. App. clxx.v 703 i: Cuslnnan, 108 U. S. 51 10, 575 r. Union Trust Co., 112 U. S. 250 487, 7G0 Connecticut & P. R. R. Co. v. Hendce, 27 Fed. R. 678 532 Conner r. Belden, 8 Daly (N. Y.), 2.57 451, 452 r. Skagit Cumberland Coal Co., 45 Fed. K. 802 824 Connolly r. Belt, 5 Crancli C. C. 405 357 r. kretz, 78 N. Y. 020 4.52 .541 W(dlington, 31 Fed. R. 244 12 Con oil V r. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556 m r' Wells," 33 Fed. H. 205 38, 278 121 ('ollins Co. r. Coes, 8 Fed. H. 517 Oi'iti ! Conry r. Caullield, 2 Ball ^^ B. 225 287 (ollinson r. , 18 Ves. 353 323, 45' 458 Colrnan r I'aslern Counties Ry. Co., 10 P.eav. ] ' 312, 343 Columbian (iovt. r. liothschild, 1 Sim. 91 174 Colonial & U. S. M. Co. )•. Ilutchin- Consolidated S S. Co. r. Lamson C. S. S. Co., 41 Fed. K 833 45 Consolidated S. V. Co. v. Ashton Valve Co., 20 Fed. R. 319 17 Consoli .3(1 r. Michigan Dairy Co., 45 Fed. '■ Thacher, S7 X. Y. :;il .315 R is 155,158 Colninbian Ins. Co. c. Stevens, 37 j Con vers '•. Lord Abergavemiy, 1 Atk. X. Y. 536 429 ' 285 ' 122, 156 TABLE OF CASES. [References Cook V. Bamfield, 3 Swanst. GOT 674, b70, 677 V. liny, 4 How. (Miss.) 485 547 V. Bee, 2 Tenn. Cli 344 28:J c. Burnley, 11 Wall. G-Jt) 510, 1090 lO'.ll, lOU'J V. Manclus, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 427 2:34 I'. StaMts, 18 Barb. (N Y.) 407 483 V. Uniied States, lo8 U. IS. 157 1014 V. Wliitney, 3 Wooils, 715 833 Cook ("oiiMty i'. Calumet & C. C. & D. Co., 138 U. S. 635 967, 994 Cooke c. Davies, Turn. & II. 309 186, V. Gvvyn, 3 Atk 089 V. ISeligaian, 7 Fed. K. 263 818, 280 440 821, 822 Cooley I). .Mc Arthur, .35 Fed. R. 372 813 Coombe v. Stewart, 13 Beav. 11 575 Coombs r. Brooks, 3 De G. & S. 452 553 Coon *•. Abbott, 37 Fed. R. 98 504 Cooper, In re., 1.38 U. S. 404 695 V. Galbraith, 3 Wash. .546 40, 41 V. Lewis, 2 Phill. 178 532 V. Matthevs, 8 Law Hep. 413; 5 Penn. L. J. 38 381, 387 V. New Haven S. B. Co., 18 Fed. R. 588 584 V. People, 13 Col. 337 651 c. Philibs, L. R 2 II. L. 170 3 V. Richmond & 1). 11. Co , 42 Fed. R. 697 828 V. Sulilesinffer, HI U. S. 148 7^6 v. Wood, -5' Beav. 391 325 Cooper Abinuf. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. .S. 727 190 Copeland c. Wheeler, 4 Bro. C. C. 256 258, 264 Copen V. Flesher, 1 Bond, 410 155, 279 Corbin r. County of Black Hawk, 105 U. H. a-:)9 Core y. Vina), 117 U. S 347 Cornelius r. Kessel, 128 U. S. 456 Cornell r. (jreen, 43 Fed. K. 105 Cornett v. Williams, 20 VVall. 226 (/Orniiiu' /•. Troy Iron & Nail Factory, 15 How. 451 1024, 1098 Corsar v. Reed, 17 A. B 540 775 Clortes, In re, 136 U. S. 330 728 Cortes Co. v. Tannhauser, 18 Fed R. 667 Costs in C^ivil Cases, 1 Blatchf. 652 (,'ota, Ex parte, 110 U. S. 385 (^ote V. United States, 3 Ct. CI. 64 Cottier c. Stimson, 18 Fed. R. 689 v. , 20 Fed. II. 90(5 V. , 10 Sawy. 212 Cottinghain r. Larl of Shrewsbury, y Hare, 027 Cottle c. Krenientz, 25 Fed. R. 494 55 816 9'.t4 200 470 511 5 7.52 912 GST 086 G8G xlv are to pages.] Coulson V. Walton, 9 Pet. 62 108 Counselman, In re, 44 Fed. R. 268 488, 490 Countess of Carlisle v. Lord Berkley, Amb. 599 446 Countess of Plymouth v. Bladon, 2 •Vern. 32 539 Countess of Portland v. Prodgers, 2 Vern. 104 91 County Court of Taylor Co. v. Balti- more & O. R. R. Co ,35 Fed. R. 161 814, 832 Cousins V. Smith, 13 Ves. 164 375 ,,.. , 13 Ves. 544 121 Covell (.: Heyman, 111 U. S. 176 14 Coveny i-. AUiill, 1 Dick. 355 497 Covert V. Sarjjent, 42 Fed. R. 298 570 C^ovington Drawbridge Co. v. Shep- herd, 21 How. 112 397 Covinu'on Stock Yards Co. v. Keith, 12 lU. S. 248 1047, 1048 Cowdray v. Cross, 24 Beav. 445 657 Cowdrey v. Galveston, H. & H. R. R. Co., 93 U. S. 3-52 407, 642, G43, G44, 645 l: Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 331 420, 421,443,444,449,4-50 Cowles V. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 118 9,38,688 V. Whitman, 10 Conn. 121 341 Cowslad V. Cely, Prec. in Ch. 83 127 Cowtan r. Williams. 9 Ves 107 178, 181 Cox r. Barney, 14 Blatchf. 289 797, 798 V. Land & Water Journal Co., L. R. 9 iMi. .324 364 f. United States, 6 Pet. 172 469, 1031, 10.32 r. Wriglit, 9 Jur. x. s. 98 93, 327 Coy V. Perkins, 13 Fed. R. Ill 585, 586 Coyne « Union Pacilic R. R. Co., 133 U. S. 370 778 Cragin v. Lovell, 109 U. S. 194 25, 1087 Craig V. Brown, Pet. C C 3-32 479 r. Leitensdorfer, 123 U. S. 189 24 V. Smith, 100 U. S. 226 1054 Crampton v. Zabriskie, 101 U. S. 601 17 Cranilall r. Nevada, (i Wall. 35 1059 Crane, Ex /lar/e, 5 Pet. 189 701, 702, 703 r. McCoy, 1 Bond, 422 23 f. Morris, 6 Pet. -598 774, 775 Crane Iron Co. v. Iloanland, 108 U. S. 5 ^ 1069 Crawford r. Points, 13 How. 11 1024 r. The William Penn, 1 Pet. C. C. lOG 91 r. , 3 Wash. 484 224, 250 Crawshay r. Soutter. G Wall. 739 1036 Crease r. Babcock, 10 Met. (Mass.) 532 120 Credit Co. r. Ark. Cent. R. R., 128 578 248, 249 Conghlin r. District of Cobnnbia. 106 U. S. 7 1085, 1091, 1092 U. S. 258 15 Fed. R 1038, 1039, 1045 46 426 Crehore >: Ohio & M. Rv. Co., 131 U. S. 240 ' 84 1 Crenicn /•. Hawkes, 2 Jones & La T. 674 441 xlvi TABLE OF CASES. [References Crensliaw, Ex parte, 15 Pet. 1 19 107U, 1092 C.'resceiU City L. S. Co. r. Butcher's Un. L. S. Co., 12 Fed. R. 22o 211/ 232, 24H Cresse\' r. Meyer, 138 U. S. 525 12, 2o5 Creiize r. Bisliop of London, Dick. Ua7 440 Crew V. Jolliff, Tree, in CIi. 93 583 V. Martin, 1 Fowler's E.xch. Pr. 225 193 Crews V. Burcimm, 1 Black, 3-")2 154 Crittenden, Matter of, 2 Flipj). 212 621, 024, 029, 631, 632 r. Field, 8 Gray (Mass.), 021 547 Crocker Nat. Bank v. Pagensteclier, 41 Fed. H. 705 7().J, 840 Crocket v. Lee, 7 Wheat. 522 145, 1084 Crockett c. Bisliton, 2 Madd. 446 484 Crott c. Dav, 7 Beav. !s4 364 Crofts c. Wortley, 1 Chan. Cas. 241 231, 233 Crofut V. Brandt, 13 Abb. Pr. N. s. 132 027,032 Cromwell v. County of Sac, 90 U. S. 51 777 Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. 405 350, 350 Crosby v. Buchanan, 23 Wall. 420 1087 Cross, In re, 20 Fed. R. 824 727 V. De Valle, 1 Wail. 5 117, 118, 290, 291, 292, 295, 578 r. Morjjan, Fed. R. 241 283 Cross V. United States, 14 Wall. 479 934 c. , 5 Ct. CI. 88 934 V. , 8 Ct. CI. 1 9.34 Crosse v. Bedingfield, 12 Sim 35 178, 216, 462 Crossley v. Derby G. L. Co. 4 L. J. Cii. N. .s. 25 18 v. New Orleans, 20 Fed. R. 352 17 Croucli '•. Hickin, 1 Keen, 385 221 V. Kerr, 38 Fed. R. 549 208, 250 Crow V. Tyrell, 2 Madd. 397 277 Crowell V. Ilopkinton, 45 N. II. 9 466 r. Randall, 10 Pet. :-'68 1004 r. United States, Ct. CI. 23 Crowfoot V. Mander, 9 Sim. 390 29 are to pages.] Cummings r. National Bank, 101 U. S. 153 4, 10, 11, 345, 779 Cummins v. Adams, 2 Ir. Eq. 393 679 Cumiintrliam r. Macon & B. R. R. Co., 109 U. S. 440 101, 102, 103. 105, 100, 371 V. Neagle, 1-35 U. S. 1 722 V. Otis, 1 Gall. 166 519, 520, 521, 522, 524 Cunynghain v. Cunyngham, Anib. 89 060, 068 Curliiiii r. Marquis Townuhend, 19 Ves. 628 395, 445 Curnow v. Phoenix Ins. Cv>., 44 Fed. K. 305 84'.l Curran v. Craig, 22 Fed. R. 101 420, 439 v. St. Ciiarles Car Co , 32 Fed. R. 835 Curry v. Lloyd, 22 Fed. R 258 Curteis v. Gaudier, Madd. & G. 123 Crowley v. Ciiri.'itensen, 137 U. S. 80 (^ro.xon r. Lever, 12 W. R. 237 Crov V. Marshall, 21 Week. L. Bui. 489 Cucullu V. Emmcrling. 22 How. 83 929 305, 318 750 Cudahy r. Mc'ticoch, 37 Feci. R. 1 Cudily, Kr purl,', 40 Fed. l^ iVl , 'Petitioner, 1.31 U. S. 280 726, Cuff,-. Piateli. 4Russ 242 ('iillen »•. Duke of Queensberry, 1 Bro. C. C. 101 Culver r. Utte, 133 U. S. 655 r. WoodrnlT. 5 Dili. 392 ('umminu's r. Akron C. & P. Co., Blatcl.f. 509 '•. Coleman, 7 Rich. Eq. (S. C), 509 436 1087 813 745 727, 745 138 121 473 8,13 490 251 290 171 642, 643 Curtis, Ex parte, 106 U. S. 371 725, 726, 729 V. Banker, 130 Mass. 355 902 V. Railway Co , 6 McL. 401 516 Curzon v. De la Zouch, 1 Swanst. 103 221 Gushing v. Laird, Ben. 408 861 Cust V. Boode, 1 Sim. & S. 21 222 (^uthbert v. Galloway, 35 Fed. R. 400 536 Cutting, Ex parte, 94 U. S. 14 703, lOoO V. Florida \iy. & N. Co., 43 Fed. R. 743 433, 562 V. , 45 Fed. R. 444 334 V. Gilbert, 5 Blatchf. 2.59 154 Cuykendall v. Miles, 10 Fed. R. 342 95, 430 D. DaCosta r. DaCosta, 3 P. Wms. 140 93 Dailv V. United States, 17 Ct. CI. 144 898 Dainese r. Kendall, 119 U. S. 53 1023 Dakin v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 5 Fed. R. 665 211,246 Dakota County v. Glidden, 113 U. S. 222 100() Dalby v. Puilen, 1 Russ. & M. 290 565 Dale i: McEvers, 2 Cow. (X. Y.) 118 541 Dale Tile Manuf. Co. v. Hyatt, 125 U. S. 46 .30 Dalglish V. Jarvie, 2 Macn. & G. 231 3K), 387 Dal ton r. Thomson, 1 Dick. 97 496 Dalv c. Kellv, 4 Dow. 417 353 r. Maguire, Blatchf. 137 520 Daly's Lessee r. James, S Wiieat. 495 777 Dancer r. Hastings, 4 Bing. 2 420 Dandridire c Washington's E.x'rs, 2 Pet. 370 110, 127 Daniel r. Mitcliell, 1 Story, 198 606 Daniels r. liailroad Co., 3 Wall. 250 976 Danville r. Brown, 128 U. S. 503 1047 Darley r. Nicholson. 2 I)r.& War. 80 400 Darlington (Earl of) v. Bowes, 1 Eden, 271 552 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] xlvii 95 1)02 703 Diirnell v. Reyny, 1 Vern. 344 243, 264 Dart c. McKiniiey, 9 Hlatclif 359 840 Dartmoutli Sav. Bank v. Bates, 44 Fed. U. 54(3 789 Darwent c. Walton, 2 Atk. 510. 12 F U'Aiibry (l)uchesse) v. Porter, 41 Fed. U. GS Dauphin i\ United States, 6 Ct. CI 221 Davenport, Ex parte, G I'et. 00 1 u. County of Dodge, 105 U. S. 237 704, 705 r. Davenport, 6 Mad'd. 251 375 V. Dows, 18 Wall. 026 131 V. Flctclier, 10 How. 142 1040, 1040 r. Paris, 136 U. 8. 580 773 V. Stafford, 8 IJeav. 503 079 Da vers v. Davers, 2 P. Wms. 410 404 Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wail. 447 1012, 1043, 1046, 1048 V. United States, 21 Ct. CI. 298 8.18 Davie r. Britji-s, 97 U. S. 628 778 r. Hey ward, 33 Fed. R. '.t3 1029 Da vies o. Corbin, 112 U. S. 3o 34, 705, 1018, 1029 /'. , 113 U. S. 687 1059, 1008 r. Davies, 9 Ves. 461 299 c. , 3 De G. & Sni. 698 462 ''. Latlirop, 12 Fed. li. 353 38, 50 i:. , 13 Fed. R. 565 530, 847 r Quaterinan, 4 Y. &C . 257 159 ,• Williams, 1 Sim. 5 208, 311 Davis, The, 10 Wall. 15 102 Davis V. American Soi: P. C. A., 6 Dai\ (N. Y.). 81 357 (• , 75 N. Y. 36 2 857 /• Barrett, 7 Beav. 171 325 Braden, 10 Bet. 286 976, 981, 985 V (Jrouch, 94 U. S. 514 1024 r Davidson. 4 McL. 13 6 201, 262 r Davis, 2 Atk. 21 li03 — r. Duke of Marlborousl), 2 Swanst. 108 395, 414, 431, 452, 453 — i: Duncan, 19 i^ed. K. 477 435, 440, 453, 454 — c. Gaines, 104 U. S. 386 174 — '•. Grav, 16 Wall. 203 103, 129, 371, 414, 415," 410, 418, 420, 421, 428, 430, 431, 442 — r. James, 2 Fed. R. 618 11 — V. Leo, Ves. 784 381 — f. Miciielbacher, 31 N. W. R. 168 452 — V. Packard, 8 Pet. 312 lOHO — V. Patrick, 122 U. S. 138 784, 785 — '•. St. Louis & S. F. Rv. Co., 25 Fed. R. 780 765, 700, 844, 846 — r. Slierron, 1 Cranch C C. 287 O.'ifj — r. Speiden, 104 U. S. 83 674 — V. Symonds, 1 Cox Kq. 402 — V. United States, 45 Fed. R. 162 Davison v. Attorney General, 5 Price, 398, n. Davoue r. Fanning, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 199 581 602, 611 258 121 Davy c. Seys, Moseley, 204 644 Daws f. Benn, 1 Jac. & VV. 513 134 Dawson v. Raynes, 2 Russ. 466 446, 447 V. Sadler, 1 Sim. & S. 537 211 V. Yates, 1 Beav. 301 441 Day, In re, 27 Fed. R. 681 728 V. Boston Belting Co., 6 Law Rep. N, s. 329 482 V. Crott, 2 Beav. 488 450 0. Hartshorn, 3 i'isher's I'at. Cas. 32 360 V. New England C. S. Co., 3 Elatchf. 154 381, 386 V. New Eng. C. S. Co., 3 Blatcht. 179 686 V. Woodworth, 13 How. 303 770, 1090 Dayton v. Melick, 27 N. J. Eq. 302 287 V. United Stales, 131 U. S. Ixxx. 1025 Deacon v. Sewing Machine Co., 14 Reporter, 43 186 Deakin r. Stanton, 3 Fed. R. 435 390 De Armas v. United States, 6 How. 103 ^ 1022 Debenham ?' Ox, 1 Ves. Sen. 276 581 Debutts I'. McCuUocli, 1 Cranch C. C. 286 514 De Carriere v. De Caloiine, 4 Ves. 577 456 Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497 706, 709 Decker v. Caskey, 2 Green Ch. (N. J.) 446 553 I'. Grote, 10 Biatchf. 331 252 Dedekam v. Vose, 3 Biatchf. 77 586 V. , 3 Biatchf. 153 586,645 Deeson r. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 626 931 Defl .rz V. Reynolds. 17 Biatchf. 436 474 Detord V. Mehaffv, 13 Fed. R. 481 821, 824, 845 DeForest v. Tliompson, 40 Fed. R. 375 95 De Give v. United States, 7 Ct. CI. 517 902 DeGroot v. United States. 5 Wall. 419 1071 De Haro r. United States, 5 Wall. 599 490 Dehon v. Bernal, 3 W;ill. 774 948 r. F'oster, 4 Allen (Mass.), 545 352 Delameter v. Reiniiardt, 43 Fed. R, 75 465, 489 Delancey v. The Queen, L. R. 6 Exch. 286 901 Delancy v. Wallis, 3 Bro. C. C. 12 193 Delano v. Scott, Gilp. 489 474 Delaware County Comm'rs r. Diebold S. & L. Co., 133 U. S. 473 687, 808, 809, 810 Delaware R Co. v. Prettyman, 17 Int. Rev. Rec. 99 370 Delaware River S. B. Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 55 ' 901 Delbanco v. Singletary, 40 Fed. R. 177 823, 824, 839 Dell r. Hale, 2 Y. & C. N. R. 1 211. 212 Del Valle >: Harrison, 93 U. S. 233 1037 Dciu'lu'v '•. Harrisburg, 2 l^earson (Pa.); 330 372 xlviii TABLE OF CASES. [Kefereuces are to pages.] Dcming's Appeal, 10 Wall. 251 1065. 1069 Den r. Jones, 2 McLean, 78 7U0, 7'.il Dunuale c. Arclier. 8 Fet. 52f) 7tj(), IU4U DiMiison V. Basslord, 7 Taige (N. Y.), 37U 262 Dennis v. County of Alacliu;i, o Woods, 083 820, 821, 822 r. Eddy, 12 Blatclif. 195 OiO, 641 r. United States, 2 Ct. CI. 210 800 Dennison r. Brown, o8 Fed.R. 535 829, 831 Denni.stoun r. Draper, 5 Blatclif. 330 84() r. Slew-art, 18 How. 5G5 07G, 986 Denny i: Piron, Ul U. S. 121 278, 788 Dent c. Ferguson, 131 U. S. 397 1072 Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Weilierbee, 2 Cliff. 555 229 Jlenton r. International Co. of Mex- ico, 30 Fed. K. 1 45, 189, 190 Denver & N. O. K. Co. v. Atcliison, T. & S. F. \i. Co., 13 Fed. R. 546 373 Denver & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Denver, S. 1'. & P. M. Co., 17 Fed. H. 867 286 Deputroa v. Young, 134 U. S. 241 535, 536, -537,084 l)erl)V (Karl of), v. Duke of Atlioi, 1 Ves. Sen. 203 212 De Saussure c. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216 1004 l^esbrow r. Cronunie, Bunb 272 059 Deslder r. Dodge, 16 ilow. 022 55 Desuiare r. United States, 93 U. S. 6(t5 1091 Des Moines Xav. Co. v. Iowa Home- stead Co., 123 U. S. 552 814 De Sobry r. Nicliolson, 3 Wall. 420 1886 l)e.-])laces f. tJoiis, 1 Fdw. Ch. (N. Y.),3.")0 25(; Des Rochers, AV jiarte. 1 McAll. C8 740, 741 DeTastet v. Bordenave, Jacob, 516 548, 549 Detroit r. Dean, 106 U. S. 537 20, 101 r. Osborne, 135 U. S. 492 780 Detweiler v. Holderbauni, 42 Fed. R. 337 1 32 Devavnes r. Morris, 1 M. & Cr. 213 3U1 Deveieaux v. Marr, 12 Wheat. 212 O.sl, 9^4 Devie v. Lord Brownlow,2 Dick. Gil 232 Devlin c. United Slates, 12 Ct. CI. 260 899, 913 Devonslier r. Neweidiatn, 2 Scli. & Let'. 199 218 Devonshire's (Karl of) Case, 11 Coke, 89 17 Dewev )'. West Fairmont G. C. Co., lL'3'U. S. 329 42 De Wolf r. Johnson, 10 AVheat. 3(17 1 16 r. Kabiiiid. 1 I'd. I7i; 774.779, 7H) Dexter r. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303 070. ('.72. 67L 675-<)77 Dexterville M.iniif. & B. Co. r. Case, /'I n: 4 Fed. U. H73 410 Dev '•. Chic. go, M. & St. P. Ry. Co, 4*5 Fed. R. 82 807 Dial V. Reynods, 9G U. S. 340 112, 115, 155, 347 Dick V. Oil Well Supply Co., 25 Fed. R. 105 428 V. Struthers, 25 Fed. R. 103 428 V. Swinton, 1 Ves. & li. 371 450 Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578 2 Dickinson c. Planters' Bank, 16 Wall. 250 772 Didier v. Warner, 1 Code R. (N. Y.) 42 485 Dieckerhoft', In re, 45 Fed. R. 235 31, 1012 Dietze, 7n re, 32 Fed. R. 75 728 Dietzsch r. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 494 347 Digby (Lord) />. Meech, 1 Bunb. 195 166 Diggs c. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179 351 Dillon V. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430 209, 210, 403 V. , 1 Holmes, 386 209 c. Francis, 1 Dic-k. 68 170 r. Kansas City S. B. Rv. Co., 43 Fed. R. 1(19 ' 347 Dillon (Lord) r. Alvares, 4 Ves. 357 232 Dilly V. Doig, 2 ^\■s. Jr. 486 155 Dininiick v. United States, 30 Fed. R. 82 COO Dimpfell i\ Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co., IIOU. S. 209 26,161 Dinsmore r. Central R. R. Co., 19 Fed. R. 153 229 r. Loinsville, C. & L. Ry. Co., 2 Fed. R. 4f,5 373, 374 r. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. R. Co., 3 Fed. R. 593 373 i: ftlaroney, 4 Blatclif. 416 517, 518 r. New York Board of Police, 12 Ahb. N. C. (X. Y.) 436 357 '•. Philadelphia & R. R. R. Co., 3 Cent. L. J. 157 39 District Attorney, //; re, 23 Fed. R. 20 591 District of Columbia /-. Gannon, 130 U. S. '-27 960, 967, 1027 Dixon r. Olnnus. 1 Cox F.q. 412 240 r. Ramsay, 3 Cranch, 319 95 r. Western Un. Tel. Co., 38 Fed. n. 377 823 V. Wyatt, 4 M;.dd. 392 312 Doane r. Glemi, 21 Wall. 33 523 Dohle r. Potman, Ilardres, KJO 292 Dobson r. Hartford Car|)et (^o., 114 U. S, 439 206, 1089 Dodtre r. Briggs, 27 Fed. R. 101 4 r Card, 2 Fisher Pat. Cas. 116 36tl r. Israel, 4 Wash. 323 521, 522 r. Knowles, 114 U. S. 430 1043 r. Perkins, 4 .Mason, 4.35 22S r. Woolsev, 18 How. 331 129. 161 Doe /•. ilvde, 114 U. S. 247 214 r. M"cFarland, '.» Cranch, 151 95 ill. Moore) r. Nelson, 3 McL. 3S3 511,518 r. Read, 12 Fast, 57 417 TABLE OF CASES. xlix [References Doe V. Roe, 31 Fed. "R. 97 G84 c. Waterloo Miii. Co. -13 Fed. 11. 21!) 8 Doj^ijett V. Emerson, 1 Woodb. & M. U/O 228, 230 V. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 72 1 16. 158 Dolan V. Jennings, 139 U. S. 385 1082, 1083, 1035 Dolder v. Bank of England, 10 Ves. 284 205, 283 Doll, Ex parte, 7 Phila. 595 051 Donahue In re, 8 N. B. R. 453 623, 032 V. Roberts, 19 Fed. R. 863 512, 510, 517 Donaldson v. Williams, 50 Mo. 408 3 Doiioiioe r. Mariposa, L. & M. Co., 1 I'ac. Coast L J. 211 295 Doolittle, In re, 23 Fed. R. 544 431 r. Bryan, 14 How. 563 796 Doo WoMn, Li re, 18 Fed. R. 898 750,751 Doris Eckhofi; Tlie, 41 Fe: resiiail, 32 Fed. R. 497 823 Dyer v. Dyer, 2 Cox Kq. 92 3 Dvkes V. "United States, 16 Ct. CI. 2h9 896 Dvson V. Morris, 1 Hare, 413 313 E. Fades v. Harris, 1 Y. & C. N. R. 235 138 Fagle, Tlie, 8 Wall. 15 1086 Eagle Iron Works, In re, 8 Paige (X. Y.), 385 443 Eagle Manuf. Co v. Miller, 41 Fed. R. 351 129 Ealer r. Uniied States, 5 Ct. CI. 708 932 Fames c. Kaiser, 142 U. S. 448 1090 Earl of Abergavenny v. Powell, 1 .Meriv. 434 497 Earl of Bath i: Sherwin, 4 Bro. P. C. 373 4, 345 Earl of Darlington v. Bowes, 1 Eden, 271 * 552 Earl of Derbv >: Duke of Athol, 1 Yes. Sen. 203 212 Earl of Devonshire's Case, 11 Coke, 89 17 Earl of Fingal >: Blake, 2 Moll. 50 395 Earl of llchester, A'.r pmie, 7 Ves. 348 577 Earl of Uciccstcr v. Perrv, 1 Bro C. C. 305 " 227, 250 Earl of Lichfield v. Bond, 5 Beav. 513 >265 Earl of Lonsdale ;•. Church, 3 Bro. C. C. 41 433 Earl of Xewbiirgh v. Countess of Newburgh, 5 Madd. 364 518 Earl of Suffolk v. Green, 1 Atk. 450 4, 496 East India Co. v. Boddani, 13 Ves. 421 Q>m c. Campbel, 1 Ves. Sen. 246 247, 266 East Oakland v. Skinner, 94 U. S. 255 542, 543 East Tennessee, V. & G. R. R. Co. v. Southern Tel. Co., 112 U. S. 306 1053 V. , 125 U. S. 695 1066, 1067 Fast & West India Docks & B. J. Ry. Co. V. Dawes, 11 Hare, 363 343 Eastman v. Sherry, 37 Fed. R. 844 5b2, 637, 638 Easton, Ex parte, 95 U. S. 68 693, 869 r. Hodges, 7 Biss. 324 499 r. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. H. 784 422, 434 r. , 40 Fed. R. 189 450 r. , 44 Fed. R. 718 609 Katon V. Cleveland, St. L. & K. C. R. R. Co., 41 Fed. R. 421 795 Fbert r. The Reuben Doud, 3 Fed. R. 520 859, 860 Fccleston v. Pettv, Carth. 79 462 Kchliff V. Baldwin, 16 Ves. 267 3.".3 Kckert i'. Bauert, 4 Wash. 370 191 Fddleston i: Collins, 3 De G. M. & G. 1 287 Edgell V. Haywood, 3 Atk. 354 8 Edison E. L. Co. v. United States E. L. Co., 44 Fed. R. 294 32t'). 464, 487, 494, 502 V. , 45 Fed. R. 55 464, 494, 502, 769 r. Westingliouse, 34 Fed. R. 2-32 297 Edmonson v. Barrel, 2 Cranch C. C. 228 516 Bloomshire, 7 Wall. 306 1044, 1046, 1098, 1099 Fdrington v. Jefferson, 111 U. S. 770" 1085 Edsell V. Buchanan, 4 Bro. C. C. 2.54 208 Edwards i". Connecticut -Mut. L. I. Co., 20 Fed. R. 452 842 r. Cuidifle, 1 Madd. 287 574 V. Harve}', (i. Cooj). 40 643 V. United Slates, 102 U. S. 575 10.58 Edwin f. Thomas, 1 Vern. 489 553 Edwin Butler, The, 32 Fed. R. 290 8H0 Fdye v. Robertson, 112 U S 580 728 Egbert V. Citizens' Ins. Co., 7 Fed. R. 47 515, 517 Fgremont v. CowcU, 5 Beav. 620 145 Elirman v. Teutonia Ins. Co., 1 Fed. R. 471 684 EiflTert i-. Craps, 44 Fed. R. 164 517 Killert r. Craps, 44 Fed. R. 792 501 Fkiu r. Uniied States, 142 U. S. 051 750, 751, 965 I'.lc'tiic 'I'd. Co. of Ireland, In re, 10 \V. H. 4 325 TABLE OF CASES. Electrical Accumulator Co. El. Co , a Fed. K. G02 [References V. Brush 290, 2'Jl, 311, 313. 5;]2 38 Fed. 573 V. Julien Electric Co K. 117 Eley V. Brousfhton, 2 Sim. & S. 188 144 Elgin V. Marshall, lOG U. S. 578 32, 33, 102G, 1028 Elizabeth r. American N. P. Co., 131 U. S. cxlviii 1084 Ellice ('. Goodson, 3 M. & Cr. 6-53 2bO r. Hoiipell,32 Beav. 2'.I9; 9 Jur. X. .s. 530 496 r. , 32 Beav. 308 ; 9 Jur. N. s. 533 49(5, 497 EUint V. Hayman, 2 Cranch C. C. 678 514 r. Sinclair, J.icob, .545 457 r. Van Voorst, 3 Wall. Jr. 299 9() Elliott V. Eawhead, 43 Ohio St. 171 198 c. Pell, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 263 287, 288, 579 516 3 101, 104 168 10, 21, 24, V. Piersol, 1 Pet. 32S ('. Sackett, 108 U. S. 132 V. Wiltz, 107 IT. S. 711 Ellis r. Colman, 35 Beav. 662 V. Davis, 109 U. S. 485 779, 808, 809, 811 V. Jarvis, 3 Mason, 457 682 r. Keynolds, 35 Fed. R. 394 194 Ellsworth V. Curtis, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 105 207 V. United States, 14 Ct. CI. 382 903 Elniendorf v. Delancey, Hopk.(N. Y.), 555 176 /■. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152 128, 135, 777 Elmer v. Creasy, L. R. 9 Ch. 69 258 Elmore v. Grymes, 1 Pet. 4G9 774, 775, 1021, 1091 Eimwood V. Marcy, 92 U.S. 289 542, 778 Elwell ('. Fosdick, 134 U. S. 500 118 Emack v. Kane, 34 Fed. R. 46 24, 372 Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3 1067, 1091 Emerson v. Davies, 3 Story, 768 364 V. , 1 Woodb. & M. 21 666 Emma S. M. Co. v. Emma S. M. Co. of N. Y., 1 Fed. R. 39 227, 238, 240, 247 V. Parks, 14 Blatchf. 411 797 P]mmons v. United States, 42 Fed R. 26 97 V. , 48 Fed. R. 43 908 Emmott r. Mitchell, 14 Sim. 432 226, 227 Emperor of Austria v. Dav, 2 Gift. (528 " 369, 582 V. , 3 De G. F. & J. 217 3G9, 582 Empire, The, 19 Fed. R. 558 861 Empresa Maritima a Vapor v. North & So. Amcr. S. N. Co., 16 Fed. R. 502. 860 Enfield v. Hills, 2 Lev. 238 715 V. Jordan, 119 U. S. 680 781, 982,990 Engel V. Scheiierman, 40 Ga. 206 352 England r. Downs, 6 Beav. 269 432 V. Gebhardt, 112 U. S. 502 1054 are to pages.] English V. F'oxall, 2 Pet. 595 171 Ensminger v. People, 47 111. 384 756 i: Powers, 108 U. S. 292 071, 1052 Enterprise, Tiie, 3 Wall. Jr. 68 704 Equator M. & S. Co. v. Hall, 106 U. S. 86 781 Equitable L. A. Soc. v. Patterson, 1 Fed. R. 126 1-VS, 211, 220 Eriiardt r. Boaro, 113 U. S. 437 17 Erie Belle, The, 20 Fed. R G.3 861 Erie Ry. Co. v. Heath, 10 Blatchf. 214 561 i'. Ramsey, 45 N. Y. 637 232, 347 Erskine v. Hohnbach, 14 Wall. 613 1086, 1090 Erstein v. Rothschild, 22 Fed. R. 61 687 Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How. 172 1067 V. Oregon Ry. & N. Co , 27 Fed. R. 625 112 V. United States, 37 Fed. R. 470 489, 598, 600, 601, 603, 604, 60-5, 606, 607, 610, 687 Esdaile v. La Nauze, 1 Y. & C. 394 353 Eslava v. Mazange, 1 Woods, 623 326, 837, 338, 353, 486, 487, 500 Estes V. Belford, 22 Fed. R. 275 190 V. Gunter, 121 U. S. 183 34, 1029 V. Knickerbocker L. I. Co., N. Y. Daily Reg., Nov. 17, 1882 199 Estis V. Trabue, 128 U. S. 225 1032, 1035 Etheridge >\ Sperry, 139 U. S. 266 780 Etting V. Bank of U. S., 11 Wheat. 59 786, 1083 V. Marx's Ex'r, 4 Fed. R. 673 12, 235 Euberweg v. Comp. Gen. Trans- Atlantique, 35 Fed. R. 530 509 Euphrates, The, 8 Crancli, 385 1081 Eureka L. & Y. Co. r. Superior Court of Yuba Co., 116 U. S. 410 Evan V. Avon, 29 Beav. 144 Evans r. Bacon, 99 Mass. 213 V. Bickncll, 6 Ves. 183 V. Brown, 109 U. S. 180 V. Coventry, 5 De G. M. 911 653 148 678 149 1042, 1068 & G. 343, 397 V. Dillingham, 43 Fed. R. 177 36, 819, 824 V. Eaton, 3 Wheat. 454 v. Evans, 1 Ves. Jr. 96 !•. Gee, 14 Pet. 1 r. Hettick, 7 Wheat. 453 V. Jackson, 8 Sim. 217 V. Phillips, 4 Wheat. 73 676 460 1022 686 113 775, 1021, 1089 50 1038, 104.5, 1061 State Nat. Bank, 19 Fed. R. 462 r. State Bank, 1.34 U. S. Everest v. Buffalo L. O. Co., 31 Fed. R. 742 683 Everett i\ Prythergch, 12 Sim. 363 326 Everhart ;•. lluntsville CoUesie, 120 U. S. 223 584, 849, 1096 Everts, Ex pnitp. 1 Bond, 197 734, 742 Evitt V. Price, 1 Sim. 483 373 lii TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Ewing V. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. l?A 2-21,210, 242, 248, 244 r. , 3 Wall. Jr. 139 243 V. Howard, 7 Wall. 499 1080, lOJU Excliange Nat. Bank c. Tiiird Nat Hank, 112 U. S. 270 1083 E.xpress Cases, 117 U. S. 1 572 E.xpress Co. v. Kountze, 8 Wall. 342 8U4, 108(i r. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 191 2-5, 95, 128, 108 E.xton V. Turner, 2 Chan. Cas. 80 552 Eyre i-. Countess of Sliaftsbury, 2 P. Wnis. 102 573, 574 V HiL'bee, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 502 342 V. ]^otter, 15 How. 42 151 Eyry v. Hujjlies, L. H. 2 Cli. D. 148 287 Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U. S. 521 310, 311 F. F. Merwin, The, 10 Ben. 403 626 Fagan, In re, 2 Spraijue, 91 737 •?. CuUen, 28 Fed. \\. 843 608 Fahie r. Lindsay, 8 Oreg. 474 180 Fairbanks c. Anioskeag Xat. Bank, 30 Fed. K. 602 715, 710, 718 V. , 32 Fed R. 572 1038 Fairbrother r. Prattent, 1 Daniel, 04 180 Fairfiix v. Fairfax, 5 Crancli, 10 1043 Fairfield r. County of Gallatin, 100 U. S. 47 543, 777, 778 Faitliful ('. Hunt, 3 Anst. 751 116 Falcon, The, Blatciif. Prize Cas. 52 874 Fales V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Hy. Co., 32 Fed R. 673 44, 189 Fallon V. Railroad Co., 1 Dill. 121 344 Fallowes r. Williamson, 11 Ves. 300 110, 290, 300 Falls of Neuse Manuf. Co. v. Georgia Home Li.s. Co , 26 Fed. R. 1 700 Fanny, Tiie, 2 Low. 508 800 Farez, In re, 7 lilatciif 31 727 , //( re, 7 Blatciif 345 750 Fargo V. Louisville, N. A. & C. Rv. Co., Fed. K. 787 39, 118 V. Southeastern R}'. Co., 28 Fed. R. 900 582 Farley, Ex parte, 40 Fed. R. 66 726, 770 V. Kittson, 120 U. S. 303 244, 248, 249, 403 Farlow r. Loa, 2 C. L. R. 329 38 Farnur ;;. Calvert Litli. Co , 1 Flipp. 228 175,212, 303,381, 382 r. Elstner, 33 Fed. 11. 494 304 Farmers' Bank v. Hooff, 7 Pet. 108 1028 Farmers' L. & T. Co., Petitioner, 129 U. S. 200 427. 509, 714, 1019 r. Pwirlinpton & S. W. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. 11. 805 j 422 r. Central R. R. of Iowa, 2 Fed. R. 0-30 554 V. , 7 Fed. R. 537 , 2 3>IcCra. 181 435, 439 Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central R. R. of Iowa, 8 Fed. R. 00 449, 450 (.'. , 17 Fed. R. 758 435, 566 r. Cliicago & A. Ry. Co., 42 Fed. R. 407, 434 V. , 44 Fed. R. 053 419, 434, 000 V. Denver, S. P. & P. R. R. Co., 1 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 584 35 r. Green Bay & M. R. R. Co , 10 Biss. 203 ; Fed. R. 100 505, 500, 671 V. Green Bav, W. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. R. 004 400 V. Houston & T. C. R. R. Co., 44 Fed. R. 115 42, 195 I'. , U. S. D. C. E. D. Tex. May, 1888 565 V. Logansport, C. & S. W. Ry. Co., 4 Fed. R. 184 419 ;-. Missouri, L & N. Ry. Co., 21 Fed. R. 204 333, 410 r. Waterman, 106 U. S. 205 1029 Farmers' Nat. Bank v. McKlidnne}', 42 Fed. R. 801 36, 39 Farmington v. Pillsbury, 114 U. S. 138 536 Fainswortii v. Montana, 129 U. S. 104 692, 970 Farrar r. Cliureliill, 135 U. R. 009 lo;;8 V. United States, 3 Pet. 459 1060 Farwell v. Kerr, 28 Fed. R. 345 581 Fassett, In re, 142 U. S. 479 853 Faulder r. Stuart, 11 Ves. 296 171 Faulkner r. Daniel, 3 Hare, 199 134 F'awkes v. Pratt, 1 P. \\'ms. 593 176 Fa voile V. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 124 U. S. 519 1058 Fav V. Krie & K. R. R. Bank, Ilarr. (Mich.) 194 453 Featlierstone v. Cooke, L. R. 16 Eq. 298 397 Fechhcimer r. Banm, 37 Fed. R. 107 10 r. , 43 Fed. R. 719 581, 643, 044 Feenv, In re, 1 Hask. 304 ; 4 N. B. R. [70] 223 053 Feinkuopf, In re. 47 Fed. R. 447 728 Feistel v. King's College, 10 Beav. 491 415 Felix V. Scliarnweber, 125 U. S. 54 36 Fellows r. Hall, 3 McL. 281 200 United States, 12 Ct. CI. 931 718 5,6 7(50 111, 112 Fendall f 305 Feneniore r. United States, 3 Dall. 357 Fenn r. Holme, 21 How. -'81 Fenner v. lOvans, 1 T. R. 267 Fenton r. Hughes, 7 Ves. 287 v. Lumberman's Bank, Clarke (N. Y.) 300 441 Fenwick v. Sears, 1 Cranch, 250 95 Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. 1{. 771 108, 331 V. , 246 Fed. R. 88 583, 587, 041 1072 V. Harwood, 7 Cranch, 408 479 V. O'llarra, Pet. C. C. 493 241, 246 V. Ross, 38 Fed. R. 101 807, 847, 848, 849 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] liii 7G5 902 85:3 582 Ch. Ferrand v. Haiiier, 4 M. & Cr. 14o 388 Ferrens, A'e, 3 Ben. 442 740, 743 Ferrers v. Clierry, 1 Kq. Cas. Abr. 3 301 Ferrett t: Atwill, 4 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 215 Ficliera v. United States, i> Ct. CI. 2.')4 Fidelity, The, 1(3 Blatelif. 56:) Fidelity Ins. Co. r. iluntiiigton, 117 U. S. 280 814, 81G Fidelity Ins. & S. D. Co. v. Shenan- doah Iron Co., 42 Fed. II. 372 414,420, 5()2, .j03 Fidelity Trust Co. v. Gill Car Co., 25 Fed. R. 737 842 Field, /•:,(: fxiite, 5 Blatchf. 03 737 n. Holland, G Cranch, 8 4G2, -547, 548 V. Milton, 3 Cranch, 514 717 i: Seaburv, 19 How 323 948, 9-52 u. Sehell, 4 Hlatchf. 435 V. Schieffelin, 7 Jolms. (N. Y.)250 28G '\ United States, 9 Pet. 182 1083 Fife v. Clavton, 13 Ves. 54G 174, 288 Fifth Xat.^Bank v. Long, 7 Biss 502 9G Fiiih r. United States, 3 Ct. CI. 97 931 Filder r. London, B. & S. C. Ry. 1 Hem. & .M. 489 843 Filli r. Delaware, L. & \V. R. R. Co , 37 Fed. R. 65 45, 1S9, 190 Finance Co. of Pa. v. Charleston C. & C. R. Co., 45 Fed. R. 430 •^ — r. , 4G Fed. R. 508 Fincli r. Finch, 2 Ves. Sen. 492 r. Lord Winchelsea, 1 Eq. Cas. Al)r. 2 298, 2'.)9, 3;)3 Findiay v. Ilinde, 1 Pet. 241 178. 215. 21G, 373 Fingal (Earl of) r. Blake, 2 Moll. 50 395 Fingal (Lord) v. Blake, 1 .Moll. 113 548 Fink r. Patterson, 21 Fed. R. 602 16, 120 Fnili'v ". Aiken, 1 Grant (Pa.) h3 :-lG6 FinnV. United States, 123 U. S. 227 903. 911 Fire Ins. Assoc, v. Wickhain, 123 U. S. 42,5 983, 992 First Nat. Bank r. Corbin, 132 U. S. 443 440 4 571 Douglass Coiintv, 3 Ddl. 298 848 20 c. Forest, 40 FvA R. 705 35, .39 i: , 44 Fed. R. 216 515 f. Kidd, 20 Minn. 2:i4 4()7 i\ Redick, 110 U. S. 224 7S8, 1027 y. Schedd, 121 U. S. 74 564 V. Smith, 6 Fed. R. 215 132 First Nat. Ins. Co. v. Salisbury, 130 Mass. 303 " 3.;3 Fisciier v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 03 053, r,.JL G55 ". , 6 Fed. R. 7G ; 19 Blatchf. 2G 165,271 V. , 5 Fed. R. 8G 503 '•. , H) Fed. R. 469 561, 502 r. , 22 Fed. R. 92 555 V. O'Shaughnessey, G Fed. R. 92 216 United States, 36 Fed. R. Fisii 677 595 Fisliburn v. Cliicago, M. & St. P. Rv. Va) , 137 U. S. GO 7^1, 784 Fisher (;. Boody, I Curt. 206 151, 581 t\ Lord, 6 West. L. J. 137 3o7 y. Mansfield, C & L. M. R. Co., 3G Fed. R. 627 42 i\ Mee, 3 Meriv. 45 538 V. Mever, 10 Fed. R. 268 795 i\ Owen, L. 1{. 8 Ch. D. 645 255 r. Perkins, 122 U. S. 522 1003 r. Rutherford, Baldvv. 188 278, 296 Fishmongers' Co. v. East India Co., 1 Dick. 1G3 354 Fisk, Ex parte, 113 U. S. 713 461, G55, 725, 727, 766, 7G7, 846 V. Henarie, 142 U. S. 459 827, 834 ;.. , 32 Fed. R. 417 827, 832, 834 c. Uinon Pacific R. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 3G2 822 /•. . 10 Blatchf. 518 347, 351 Filch y. Chapman, 2 Sim. & S. 31 2-39 r. Creigliton, 24 How. 159 10, 159, 779 r. Rochfort, 18 L. J. Ch. 458 387 Fitton, In re, 45 Fed. R. 471 727 (.'. Earl of ^lacclesfield, 1 Vern. 287 579 Fitzgerald r. ]\Iissouri Pac. Rv. Co., 45 Fe.l. R. 812 37, 39, 779,847 Fitzgerald & M. C. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U. S. 98 19.5, 197, l'.)9, 200 Fitzpatrick c. Domingo, 14 Fed. R. 216 299, 302 V. Hannagan. 106 U. S. 648 1085 Flack r. Holm, 1 Jac. & \V. 405 456 Flaniang's Case, 7 Ves. 305 356 Flanders i\ Seelye, 105 U. S. 718 798 Flash ;'. Dillon, 22 Fed R. 1 43,811,812 y. Wilkerson, 22 Fed. R. 689 10 Fleming, Ex parte, 2 Wall. 759 713 f. Insurance Co., Brightly (Pa.), 102 Fletcher, Ex parte, 6 Ves. 427 r. Bealey, 33 W. R. 745 0. Hamlet, 116 U. S. 408 4 44.3, 444 578 80.5, 812, 814, 824 6 R. Co., V. Morev, 2 Storv, 555 V. New Orleans N. E. R •M Fed. R. 315 V. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87 V. United States, 45 Fed. R. 213 621, 623, ()28, 629, 630, m\ Flint r. Board of (^oinm'rs, 5 Dill. 481 767 i: Russell, 5 Dill. 151 Flijjpin, Ex parte, 94 U. S. 348 Florence S. M. Co. v. Grover & B. S. M. Co., 110 Mass. 1 u. Singer Manuf. Co., 8 Blatchf. 113; 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 329 Flores r. United States, 18 Ct. CI. 352 931 Florida v. Anderson, 91 U. S. 667 29, 596 V. Georgia, 17 How. 478 28, 107, 140, 334 1059 l.')4 704 1.30 liv TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Florifl?. V. Gleason, 14 Fla. 109 755 Kloris, In re, 4-i Fed. K. 114 728 I'lour Citv Nat. Hank f. Weciiselberg, 45 Feci R. 547 11 Flournay i-. Lestrapes, 1.31 U. S. clxi 1086 Fogg V. Blair, l:Jy U. S. 118 210 r. St. Louis H. & K. H. R. Co., 17Fed. R. 871 12, 2.']5 Folev r. Hill, 3 .M. & Cr. 476 242 Foils Appeal, 91 Pa. St. 4:-]4 16, 25, 372 FoUansbee r. Ballard Paving Co., 25 Lawyers' U. S. S. C. Rep. 802 1024 FoUaiid V. Lamotte, 10 Sim. 486 '.',21 Folsom r. Marsh, 2 Storv, 100 36M Fdiida. Ex parte, 117 U. "S. 516 748 Fontain c. Ravenel, 17 How 309 6 Foote V- Cunard Min. Co., 17 Fed. E, 40 102 Forbes v. Memphis, E. P. & P. R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 32:3 119, 293, 33«, 334 Foril V. Douglas, 5 How. 143 250, 256, 286, 287 V. Louisville, N. 0. & T. Ry. Co. 45 Fed. R. 210 611 V. United States, 18 Ct. CI. 62 932 Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201 338, 568, 569, 1019, 1032 Forrest v. Manchester, S. & L. Ry. Co., 4 l)e G. F. & J. 126 843 V. Union Pacific R. R. Co. 47 Fed. R. 1 842, 849 Forster v. Forster, 4 B & S. 187 O'.tS Forsyth r Pierson, 9 Fed. R. 801 195 'v. United States, 9 How. 571 804 Forsvthe r. Kimball, 91 U. S. 291 778 Fort'Scott r. Hickman. 1 12 U. S. 150 1084 Fortuna, The. 2 Wheat. 161 1081 3 Wheat. 236 1081 Fosdick i: Car Co., 99 U. S. 256 402,407, 418 r. Schall, 99 U. S. 235 173. 401, 402, 403, 405, 407, 408 Foss V. First Nat. Bank, 1 ]McCra. 474 293 Fossat Case, 2 Wall. 049 953 Foster r. Chesapeake & N. Rv. Co., 47 Fed. ]{. 369 " 815 V. Deacon, Madd. & G. 59 311 r. Goddard. 1 Black, 506 562, 563 V. Kansas, 122 U. S. 201 758, 759, 1048, 1051, 1052 r. Lind.sav, 3 Dill. 126 238, 290, 577 V. Moore," 1 Curt. 279 359, 383 V. Swasev, 2 Woodb. & M 217 645 ;-. Vassall, 3 Atk. 587 231, 232, 240 Fougeres v. Murbarger, 44 Fed. R. 292 24, 158, 165, 289, .372 Fourniqnet v. Perkins, 16 How. ';2 542 Fourth Nat. Bank v. Francklyn, 120 U. S. 747 11, 1087 V. Stout, 113 U. S. 684 > 1029 Fouvergne c. New Orleans, 18 How. 470 811 Fowle r. Lawrason, 5 Pet. 491 17 V. Spear, 7 Penn. L. J. 176 365 Fowler, In re, 4 Fed. R. 303 V. Ham ill, 139 U. S. 519 727 569, 1020, 1023 717 511, 513, r. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411 V. Merrill, 11 How. 375 515, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523 i\ Wyatt. 24 Beav. 232 573 Fox V. Blew, 5 Madd. 147 646 V. Suwerkrop, 1 Beav. 583 93 Foxwell I'. Webster, 10 Jur. n. s. 137 156 Frances, The, 8 Cranch, 348 1082 Francis v. Flinn, 118 U. S. 385 24^ 372 Franco v Franco, 3 Ves. 76 "117 Frank r. Denver & R. G. Ry. Co. 23 Fed. R. 123 407, 408 V. 23 Fed. R. 757 427, 428, 443 Frankle v. Jackson, 30 Fed. R. 398 428 Franklin r. llersch, 3 Tenn. Cli. 467 538 Fraser v. Jennison. 106 U. S. 191 806, 814 r. Whalley, 2 Hem. & M. 10 386 Fraj-ser !•. Russell, 3 Ihiahes, 227 370 Frearson v. Loe, L R. 9 I'h. D. 48 370 Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160 1090 Freeman, In re. 2 Curt. 491 764 V. Butler, 39 Fed. R. 1 818, 844. 846 v. Clav, 48 Fed. R. 819 1062 V. Holmead, 5 Cranch C. C. 162 611 V. Howe, 24 How. 450 42, 142 r. Pontrell, Chan. Cal. XIIL 4 Free Trader, The, 1 Brown's Adm. 72 625 199 Pollock, 5 Coldw. Freidlander v. (Tenn.) 490 Freliiighuvsen v. Baldwin, 12 Fed. R. 395 ' 591 r. Baldwin, 19 Fed. R. 49 833 r. Key, 110 U. S. 63 712 Fremont v. Merced Min. Co., 1 McAU. 267 375 V. United States.l7 How. 542 940,941 French, Kx parte, 100 U. S. 1 1050, 1051, 1052 r. Brewer, 3 Wall. Jr. 346 382 V. Dear, 5 Ves. 547 176 V. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509 334, 335 V. Hav, 22 Wall. 2-50 212, 347 r. Rainev, 2 Tenn. Cli. 640 258 r. Roe, 13 Ves. 593 193 V. Shoemaker, 12 Wall. 86 569,1019, 1020 V. , 14 Wall. 314 130, 151, 251 Frerichs v. Coster, 22 Fed. R. 637 797, 798 V. United States, 21 Ct. CI. 16 935 Fretz V. Stover, 22 Wall. 198 271, 306, 1086 Frevall v. Bache, 5 Cranch C. C. 403 519, 522 Friday, Ex parte, 43 Fed. R. 916 59 Friedman r. Israel, 26 Fed. U. 801 816 Friend v. Wise, 111 U S. 797 1029 Friezen i-. Allemania F. I Co., 30 Fed. R. 349 842 Frishman v. Insurance Co., 41 Fed. R. 449 348 Frost V. Spitley, 121 U. S. 552 19, 22 TABLE OF CASES, [References are to pages.] Iv Frow r. De la Vega, 15 Wall. 552 206 Frowd V. Lawrence, 1 Jac. & W. 055 376 Frv V. Feiin, 2 Bro. V. C. 2«0 499 —1- r. Quinlan, lo Bhitclif. 205 31G Fueiites v. United States, 22 How. 443 941, 954, 955 Fulen welder v. United States, 9 Ct. CI. 4013 904 FuUiani v. McCarthy, 1 H. L. C. 703 113 FuUagar r. Clark, 18 Ves. 481 549 Fuller V. Claflin, 93 U. S. 14 1018 V. County of Colfax, 14 Fed. R. 177 810 V. Fletcher, 44 Fed. K. 34 782 V. Metropolitan L. L Co. 31 Fed. R. 690 537 V. 37 Fed. R. 163 35, 537 FuUerton v. Bank of United States, 1 ■Pet. 604 777 Fulton ';. Rosevelt, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 178 92 Fulton Bank v. Beacli, 2 Paige (N.Y.), 307 262, 264 V. New York & S. Canal Co., 4 Paige (N. Y.), 127 314 Furbush v. Bradford, 1 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 317 389 Furlong v. Edwards, 3 Md. 99 452 Furnian v. Nichol, 8 Wall. 44 452, 1004 Furtado v. Furtado, Jur. 227 93, 327 Fussell V. Gregg, 113 U. S. 550 19 G. Gaffney r. Gillette, 4 mil. 264, n. 804 Gage V. Kaufman, 133 U. S. 471 100 — - V. Kellosig, 26 Fed. R. 542 065 r. Pumpelly. 108 U. S. 164 1061 V. , 115 U. S. 454 174, 1079 Gaines v. Agnellv, 1 Woods, 238 270 v. Chew, 2 IIow. 619 150, 156, 157, IGO, 172 V. Fuentes, 92 U. R. 10 10, 43, 542, 543, 679, 779, 808, 809, 811 r. Maussoaux, 1 Woods, 118 226 V. New Orleans, 17 Fed. R. 16; i. 4 Woods, 213 17 V. Relf, 15 Pet. 9 703 V. Thompson, 7 Wall. 347 711 Gait V. Osbaldeston, 1 Uuss. 158 499 Galena v. Amy, 5 Wall. 705 705 Gallagher's Ex'rs v. Roberts, 1 Wash. 320 244 Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350 726 V. Sage, 3 Sawy. 93 419 Gait r. Galloway, 4"Pct. 331 472 Gallon V. Hancock, 2 Atk. 425 4 Galveston Railroad v. (^owdrey, 11 Wall. 459 119, 120, 333, 334 Gamber (;. Atlee, 2 De G. & Sm. 745 91 Game well F. A. Tel. Co. r. City of Chillicothe, 7 Fed. R. 351 l.iS, 165 r. Mayor, &c., of N. Y., 31 Fed. R. 312 9 Gandy v. Marble, 122 U. S. 432 164, 168 Garcias v. Ricardo, 14 Sim. 265 238 Gardiner v. Mason, 4 Bro. C. C. 478 192 t'. Howe, 4 Madd. 236 549 Gardner r. Bhine, 1 Hare, 381 444 V. Collins, 2 Pet. 58 777 V. Gardner, 87 N. Y. 14 338, 392 V. Lindo, 1 Cranch C. C. 78 479 V. London C. & 1). Ry. Co., L. R. 2 Ch. App. 201 410 V. Ogden, 22 N. Y. 327 2, 670 Garey r. Union Bank, 3 Cranch C. C. 91 511 Garland v Davis, 4 How. 131 1087,1088 r. Garland, 2 Ves. -Jr. 137 443 Garneau v. Dozier, 100 U. S. 7 1054 Garrett v. City of Memphis, 5 Fed. R. 860 41f^ V. Woodward, 2 Cranch C. C. 190 512, 514 Garrison r. United States, 2 Ct. CI. 382 931 V. , 7 Wall. 088 931 Garth v. Cotton, 1 Dick. 183; 1 Lea. Cas. in Eq. (0th ed.) 800 353, 354 Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 20 Fed. R. 187 512, 517 Gason v. Wordsworth, 2 Ves. Sen. 336 524 Gass V. Stinson, 3 Sumner, 98 521 Gause v. Perkins, 3 Jones' Eq. (N. C.) 177 3.57 Gavin v. Vance, 33 Fed. R. 84 44, 813. 824 Gay V. Parpart, 101 U. S 391 1048, 1068 r. , 106 U. S. 679 003 Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477 113, 114 Gaylord v. Fort Wayne, M. & C. K. K. Co., 6 Biss. 286 25 Gaylords v. Kelshaw, 1 Wall. 81 130, 545 Gee V. Pritchard, 2 Swanst. 402 342 Geilinger r. Philippi, 133 U. S. 246 14 Geldard v. Hornby, 1 Hare, 251 575 Gelpcke r. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175 543, 778, 779 Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246 1003 Generes v. Campbell, 11 Wall. 193 964 Geortre i". St. Louis C. & W. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 117 333,405 Georgeanna, The, 31 Fed. R. 405 622, 625 Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 12 Pet. 91 3.55 Georgia, The, 7 Wall. 32 1086 Georgia v. Atlantic & G. R. R. Co., 3 Woods, 434 431 V. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402 27 V. Grant, 6 Wall. 241 19, 107, 185, 714 1031 19, 29, 107, 172,369 Georgia (Governor of) v. INIadrazo, 1 Pet. 124 105 Germain v. Mason, 12 Wall. 259 1032 ,Iesup, 106 U. S. 458 Stanton, Wall. 50 Ivi TABLE OF CASES. [Relereuces are to pages.] Gernon v. Boecaline, 2 Wash. loO 4.55, 459, 460 y. ___, 2 Wash. 199 248 Gest V. Packwood, o9 Fed. R. 525 55 Geyger v. Geyger, 2 Dall. 332 708 Giant Powder Co. v. Calit'ornia V. P. Co., 5 Fed. R. 197 6G5, 666, 667 V. Safety N. P. Co., 19 Fed. R. 509 226, 281 Gibbins v. Mainwaring, 9 Sim. 77 442 Gibbons & Otidfn, 6 Wlieat. 448 1002 V. United States, 8 Wall. 269 896 Gibbs V. Clairett, 2 Gill & J. (Md.) 14 159 c. David, L. U. 20 Eq. o7o 400, 483, 443 V. Diekma, 131 U. S. clxxxvi 1093 Gibson v. Bruce, 108 U. S. 561 818 V. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92 235 V. Lewis, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 476 353 V. Martin, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 481 442 V. Memphis &c. R. R. Co., 31 Fed. R. 553 582 V. Peters, 35 Fed. R. 721 591 y. , 36 Fed. R. 487 591 V. Shuleldt, 122 U. S. 27 33, 34, 1028, 1029 V. Smith, 2 Atk. 182 381 V. Van Drcsar, 1 Blatchf. 532 383 V. Whitehead, 4 JMadd. 241 226 Gier v. Gregg, 4 McL. 202 267, 281 Gilbert v. Endean, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 259 674, 679 V. Gilbert, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 603 646 V. Lewis, 1 De G. J. & S. 38 Gilbert & B, Manuf. Co. v. Bussing, 12 Blatclif. 426 Gilchrist v. Helena H. S. & S. R. R. Co., 47 Fed. R. 593 Giles r. Little, 134 U. S.645 V. Paxson, 36 Fed. R. 882 Gillespie v. Moon, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 585 Gillet V. Moody, 3 N. Y. 479 Gillis V. United States, 12 Ct. CI. 704 147 383 256 994 502 158 429 908 13 Gilman v. Perkins, 7 Fed. R. 887 Gilplns V. Consequa, Pet C. C. 85; 3 Wash. 184 521, 522, Gindrat v. Dane, 4 Cliff. 260 Ginter v. Riiiney Tobacco Co., 12 Fed. R. 782 Gist /;. Davis, 2 Hill Ch. (8. C.) 835 Gittings r. Crawford, Taney's Dec. 1 Ghiddon i\ Stoncinan, 1 Madd. 143, m. Glaspell V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co. 4 5 Fed. R. 900 Glassington v. Thwaites, 2 Russ. 458 264, 267 Glnzhrook >: Gillatt. 9 Benv. 492 385 (ileason r. Florida, 9 Wail. 779 1008 Glegg »;. Legh, 4 .Madd. 193 211, 21(i, 225, 281 Glen V. Fant, 124 U. S. 123 1072 V. Gibson, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 634 570 Glenn v. Dinimock, 43 Fed. U. 550 665 523 15 365 237 5 395 782 Glenn >: Fant, 134 U. S. 398 773 V. Nuonan, 43 Fed. R. 403 665 V. Soule, 22 Fed. R. 417 430 v. Sumner, 132 U. S. 152 774, 775 V. United States, 4 Ct. CM. 501 902 Glenny v. Lnngdon, 94 U. S. 604 1069 Glossop v. Harrison, G. Cooper, 61 ; 3 Ves. & B. 134 447 Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 196 Gloucester Ins. Co. v. Younger, 2 Curt. 322 Glyn V. Scares, 1 Y. & C. 644 Glynn v. Houston, 1 Keen, 329 Godbolt r. Watts, 2 Anst. 543 Goddard r. Ordway, 94 U. S. 672 V. Wilde, 17 Fed. R. 845 Godden y. Kimmell, 99 U. S.201 813 2 1015 111 498 174 1052 367 11, 12, 214, 235 Godfrey v. Terry, 97 U. S. 171 213 Gold W. & W. Co. V. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199 818, 810 Gold & Silver 0. S. Co. i-. United States D. O. Co., 6 Blatchf. 307 257 Gold & Stock Tel. Co. v. Pearce, 19 Fed. R. 419 2-34 Golden v. Morning News, 42 Fed. R. 112 " 199, 842 Goldsmith v. Gilliland, 22 Fed. R. 865 166, 215 V. Holmes, 36 Fed. R. 484 56 Goldstein i\ New Orleans, 38 Fed. R. 626 843 Goldworthy r. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R. 769 828 Good V. Blewitt, 13 Ves. 397 121, 278 Good Hope Co. v. Railwav B. F. Co., 22 Fed. R. 635 ' 190, 841 Goodman v. Wliitcomb, 1 Jac. & W. 395, 441 Litchfield, 47 Fed. R. 816 r. Pendleton, 3 Johns. Ch. .520 646 United States, 35 Fed. R. 193 599, fill _ ,,. , 39 Fed. R. 267 598 — V. , 42 Fed. R. 3!'2 602, 610, 611 589 Goodnow 753 Goodrich (N. Y.) Goodwin -, 47 Fed. R. 267 Fox, 120 U. S. 775 -, 129 U. S. 601 '\ Allen, 3 Fisher's 599, 600, (i04 1044 487 Pat. 113 276 199 Goodvear Cas. 284 V. Bourn, 3 Blatchf. 266 r. Chatfoe, 3 Blatchf. 268 r. MuUee, 3 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 420 V. Providence Rubber Co., 2 Cliff. 351; 2 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 499 547, 510 V. Sawver, 17 Fed. R. 2 585, 586 V. Toby, 6 Blatchf. 180 2.34, 241, 244 Goodvear D. V. Co. u. Folsom, 3 Fed. R. 609 336, 377 TABLE OF CASES. Ivii 1 563 132 3 105 [References Goodvenr DV. Co. i". Osgood, 2 Bann. & A. Tat. Cas. 52U ; 13 Oti". (iaz. 825 I'.'H, 585, 5S0, 587 V. Wliite, 46 Fed. R. 278 770 Gordon, Ex parte, 1 Black, 503 698, 993 , Ex parte, 104 U. S. 515 096, 869 V. Calvert, 2 Sim. 2->> 446 V. Cheltenliam Hy. Co., 5 Beav. 229 383 V. Gilfoil, 99 U. S. 168 232 V. Gordon, 3 Svvanst. 400 145, 577 V. Hol)art, 2 Sumner, 401 6 V. , 2 Story, 243 554 V. St. Paul Harvester Works, 23 Fed. H. 147 222 Gorliam v. Gorhara, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 24 94 Gorman i-. Havird, 141 U. S. 206 37, 759, 1028 Gormley v. Bunyan, 138 U. S. 623 461, 479, 513, 515, 1085, 1090 V. Clark, 134 U. S. 338 11, 662 Gorse V. Parker, 36 Fed. R. 840 587 Gottfried v. Crescent Brewing Co., 22 Fed. R. 433 Gould V. Heade, 41 Fed. R. 240 V. Okeden, 4 Bro. P. C. 198 Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo Pet. 124 Grace v. American Cent Ins. Co., 109 U. S. 278 5:]6, 818, 1083, 1087 Graffam c. Burgess, 117 U. S. 180 277 Graham, Ex parte, 3 Wash. C 156 , Ex parte, 10 Wall. 541 V. Bayne, 18 How. 60 V. Boston, H. & E. R. R. Co., 118 U S. 161 39,679, 812 V. Coape, 9 Sim. 93 ; s. c. 3 .M. & Cr. 638 r. Mason, 4 Cliff. 88 V. .Meyer, 4 Blatchf. 129 r. Norton, 15 Wall. 427 ('. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 704 r. Stucken, 4 Blatchf. -JO i\ Teter, 25 Fed. R. 555 V. United States, 4 Wall. 259 953, 956 Or hame v. Cooke, 1 Cranch C. C. 116 209 Grand Chute v. Winegar, 15 Wall. 373 7, 24 Grant r. Grant, 3 Russ. 598 r. , 5 Russ. 189 V. Henry Clay Coal Co., 80 Pa St. 208 V. Phcrnix Ins. Co., 106 U. S. 429 1018, 1023 r. Phcrnix L. I. Co., 121 U. S. 105 156, 216. .504 V. . 121 U. S. 518 1024 V. Pvaymond, 6 Pet. 218 253, 686, 984, 985, 986 V. United States, 1 Ct. CI. 41 897 C. 657 698 1084 267, 268 251 231 704 578 , 45<5 18 941, 459 46(1 480 are to pages.] Grantlaud v. Memphis, 12 Fed. R. 287 297, 7tjO, 797 Gratiot v. United States, 13 Pet. 336 469 Grattan l: Appleion, o Story, 755 581, 582 Graveley r. Graveley, 42 Fed. R. 264 366 Graves v. Boston M. 1. Co , 2 Cranch, 419 24 V. Corbin, 132 U. S. 571 ; 10 S. C. Rep. 196 816, 848, 971 Gray v. Brignardello, 1 Wall. 627 576 (;. Campbell, 1 Huss. & M. 323 276 r. Chaplin, 2 Sim. & S. 267 120 r. Chicago, I. & N. R. R. Co., 1 Woolvv. 63 322, 323, 325, 338, 378, 653 V. Haig, 13 Beav. 65 294 V. Howe, 108 U. S. 12 965 r. James, Pet. C. C. 394 253 r. Larrimore, 2 Abb. C C. 542 130 V. Munroe, 1 McL.528 764 Grav Jacket, The, 5 Wall. 342 1081 -, 5 Wall. 370 1078 Grayson r. Virginia, 3 Dall. 320 28, 188 Great Falls Manuf. Co. v. Attorney Genl. 124 U. S. 581 897 Greatrex v. Greatrex, 1 De G. & Sm. (■)92 373 Greeley v. Commissioner, 6 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 675; 1 Holmes, 284 18 V. Smith, 3 Story, 658 297 Green, In re, 141 U. S. 325 702 V. Barney, 19 Fed. R. 420 235 r. Custard, 23 How. 484 843 V. Elbert, 137 U. S. 615 1058, 1076 V. Fisk, 103 U. S. 518 1023 I'. French, 5 N. J. L. J. 228 587, 588 V. Hanberry, 2 Brock. 403 353 V. Neal's Lessee, 6 Pet. 291 777 i: United States, 9 Wall. 6-55 486 V. , 17 Ct. CI. 174 903 f. , 18 Ct. CI. 93 934 V. Van Buskerk, 3 Wall. 448 10-52 V. Watkins, 6 Wheat. 260 770 I.: Winter, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) (;0 418. 428 Greene r. Bishop, 1 Cliff. 186 363, 562 V. Darling, 5 Mason, 201 4 V. Sisson, 2 Curt. 171 117, 127, 135 Greene County v. Daniel, 102 U. S. 187 704 Greenleaf r. Queen, 1 Pet. 138 310 Greenlee v. McDowell, 4 Ired. Fq. (N. C.) 481 672 Greenough r. Gaskell, 1 M. & K. 100 215 (ireenwalt v. Duncan, 16 Fed. R. 35 167, 292, 293 Greenwood v. Atkinson, 5 Sim. 419 313 V. Churchill, 1 M. & K. 559 1-59 V. Freiiiht (^o.. 105 U. S. 13 26, 161 Greer v. Mezes, 24 How. 268 952, 953, 950 Gregor v. Molesworth, 2 Ves. Sen. 1(")9 670, 671 Gregory v. Hartley. 1 1 3 U. S. 742 833 y. McVeigh, 23 Wall 294 1002, 1003 Iviii TABLE OF CASES. [Refereuces are to pages.] Gregory v. Moles worth, 3 Atk. 62(j 574 f. "Stetson, loo U. S. 579 130 Gregory C. M. Co. v. Starr, 141 U. S. •222 1093 Grejison v. Oswald, 1 Cox Eq. 343 209 Grent'ell v. Dean ot Windsor, 2 Beav. 544 453 Gresley v. Mouslev, 4 De G. & J. 78 578 Grew V. Breed, 12 Met. (Mass.) 369 309 Gridley v. Wvnant, 23 How. 500 118, 126 Gritlin, The, 4 Blatchf. 203 521 r. iNIerrili, 10 Md. 3G4 156 r. United States, 13 Ct. CI. 257 910, 911, 912, 913 V. Wilcox, 21 Ind. 370 737 Gritfing v. Gibb, 2 Black, 519 236 Griffith r. Griffith, 2 Ves. Sen. 400 446 V. Truckhonier, Pet. C. C 166 472 Grimes v. Frencii, 2 x\tk. 141 171 Grimley, In re, 137 U. S. 147 727 Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 303 102, 942, 945, 958, 962 Griswold v. Hazard, 141 U. S. 260 460 V. Hill, 1 Paine, 483 298, 302, 305, 576 Groom V. Chambers, 2 Mont. & A. 742 550 Gross V. United States Mortgatre Co., 108 U. S. 477 ^ 1004 Gross & P. Manuf. Co. v. Gerhard, 8 Reporter, 136 045 Grote r. Bury, 1 W. R. 92 442 (iroves r. Shiughter, 15 Pet. 449 777 (iruhb r. Clayton, 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 378 237 Grundv v. Young, 2 Cranch C. C. 114 ' 390 Guilbert r. Hawlcs, 1 Ch. Cas. 40 533 (Juion r. Liverpool L. & G. Ins. Co., 10'.) U. S. 173 1030 Gulf, C. & S. F. Rv. Co. V. James, 48 Fed. R. 148 ' 689 Gumbel v. Pitkin, 113 U. S. 545 1018, 1032, 1041, 1059, 1062 r. , 124 U. S. 131 42 (iunnell v. Bird, 10 Wall. 304 306 (iunthor r. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 10 Fed. II. 830 640 Gupp r. Brown, 4 Dall. 410 521 (jurnee v. Patrick County, 137 U. S. 141 850 (Jurney r. Atlantic & G. W. Ry. Co., 58 N. Y. 358 407 Guttman v. United States, 6 Ct. CI. Ill Guv V. Guy, 2 Beav. 460 (iuyon I'. Serrell, 1 Blatchf. 244 (iuyot v. Hilton, 32 Fed. H. 743 Gwin !•. Brcedlove, 15 Pet. 284 909 93, 327 570 I 464, 7i;7, 768 i 1069 II. Hack V. Chicago & G. S. Ry. Co. Fed. K. 356 814 Hadlev v. Baxendale, 9 Excli. 341 .390 Hatif" Spicer, 3 Caines (N. Y.), 190 484 Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 400 12 V. Walker, 14 How. 29 112, 113 Hasar, Ex jiarie, 104 U. S. 520 696 Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52 101 105, 106 Haight r. Proprs. of Morris Aqueduct, 4 Wash. 601 262, 482 Haines v. Carpenter, 1 "Woods, 262 155 c. , 91 U. S. 254 347 V. McLaughlin, 29 Fed. R. 70 637 Hake v. Brown, 37 Fed. I{. 783 573 V. , 44 Fed. R. 734 587, 639, 640, 641 Hakes v. Burns, 40 Fed. R. .33 814, 824 Halderman v. Halderman, Henipst. 407 224 Hale V. Aker, 132 U. S. 554 1004 V. Continental L. I. Co., 12 Fed. R. 359 199 V. , 16 Fed. R. 718 259 r. , 20 Fed. R. 344 201, 259 V. Frost, 99 U. S. 3b9 402, 405, 407 Hales V. Sutton, 1 Dick. 2(5 191 Hall V. Hoddesdon, 2 P. AVms. 162 497 V. Jordan, 19 Wall. 271 1093 V. Maltby, 6 Price, 240 149 r. I'itrat, 45 F\'d. H. 94 16 V. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 3 Dill. 515 713 i: United States, 9 Ct. CI. 270 9U0, 901 r. Wcare. 92 U S. 728 766, 1090 Hallctt V. Hallett, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 15 119 .333 191 371 325 278 353 847 91 397 582 446 12 663 762 283 8(14 347 560 482 675 r. , 2 Paige (N. Y.), 432 V. Sutton, 12 Sim. 145, ii. llalscv V. Brotherhood, 45 L. T. n. s. 640"' r. Carter, 6 Rob. (N. Y.) 535 Halsted r. Buster, 119 U. S. 341 Haly V. (joodson, 2 Meiiv. 77 Hamblin r. Chicago, B & Q. R. Co., 43 Fed. R. 401 Ilamerslev v. Lambert, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.)"508 Hamilton c. Accessory Transit Co., 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 46 I'. Baldwin, 41 Fed. R. 429 v. Brewster, 2 Moll. 407 r. Chouteau, 6 Fed. R. 339 V. Houghton, 2 Bligh P. C. 169 r. .Tones, 2 Havw. 291 i: Nevada, G. & S. M. Co., 33 Fed. K. 5<')2 /.. Walla "Walla, 44 Fed. R. 4 >: Walsh, 23 F'ed. H. 420 Hammacher r. Wilson, 32 Fed. R. 796 Hammerschlag Manuf. Co. r. Judd, 26 Fed. R. 292 Hammock v. Loan & Trust Co., 105 U. S. 77 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] lix Hammond v. Cleaveland, 23 Fed. R. 1 5(3 V. Jolinston, 142 U. S. 7:5 1004 Hancock v. Walsh, o Woods, 351 129 Hand i\ Hagood, lol U. S. cl.KX.\i 1022 Ilandford a. Storie, 2 Sim. & S. lOB 120, 5:1:3 Handley v. Stutz, 137 U. S. ;360 34, 1028, 102'J Handy v. Cleveland & M. R. R. ("<>., 31 Fed. R. 689 4o;J, 451 Hanna v. Maas, 122 U. S. 24 785 Hannah v. Hodgson, :30 Beav. 19 294 Hannauer v. Woodruff, 10 Wall. 482 987 Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 548 20 Hanover Nat. Bank v. Smith, 13 Blatchf. 224 813 Hanrick u. Barton, 16 Wall. 1G6 473 V. Patrick, 119 U. S. 156 1032 Hans V. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 106 Hanson v. Gardiner, 7 Ves. 305 381 Hapgood V. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 226 24 Hardcastle v. Smithson, 3 Atk. 246 122 Hardeman v. Anderson, 4 How. 640 1100 V. Harris, 7 How. 726 257 Hardenberg l: Ray, 33 Fed. R. 812 44 Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 756 150, 27:5, 276, 277 Harding, E.r parte, 120 U. S. 782 726 V. Cass County, 42 Fed. R. 652 35 v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 103 110, 547. 562 V. Pingey, 10 Jur. n. s. 872 Hare v Rose, 2 Ves. Sen. 558 Hargrave v. Hargrave, 8 Heav. 289 Harkness v. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476 Harland v. Bankers' & M. Tel. Co. 32 Fed. R. .305 217, 581 V. , 33 Fed. R. 199 428 V. United Lines Tel. Co. 40 Fed. R. 308 763 Harman v. Jones, Cr. & Ph. 299 356 Harmon, Ex parte, 131 U. S., App. l.wii 714 V. United States, 43 Fed. R. 560 98, 623, 624, 628, 629, 6:30, 631 V. , 43 Fed. R. 817 971, 1017 Harold v. Iron S. M. Co., :33 Fed. R. 529 Harpending v. Reformed P.D. Churcli, 16 Pet. 455 Harper r. Hill, 35 Miss. 63 V. Norfolk & M. R. Co., 36 Fed. R. 102 w. United States, 21 Ct. CI. -56 Harris v. Barber, 129 U. S. 366 718, l(i2S 1-. Barnett, 4 i'.latchf. 369 473 V. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 18 Fed. R. 833 824, 845 V. Dennie, 3 Pet. 292 853 r. Elliott, 10 Pet. 25 ■ V. Hess, 10 Fed. R. 263 174 643 550 200 813 117 38 617 Harris v. Ingledew, 3 P. Wms. 91 465 V. Johnston, 3 Cranch, 311 1 13 V. Pollard, 3 P. Wms. 348 305 V. Wall, 7 How. 693 511, 513, 516, 518 Harrington v. Holler, 111 U. S. 796 1022 Harrison v. Hogg, 2 Ves. Jr. 323 167, 220 V. Ni.xon, 9 Pet. 483 145, 1078 V. Rowan, 4 Wash. 202 16, 94, 108, 109, 117, 1:38 r. United States, 20 Ct. CI. 175 903 V. Urann, 1 Story, 64 535 Harrison's Case, 1 Cranch C. C. 159 744 Harshman 0. Knox County, 122 U. S. 306 716 Hart x\ Barney & S. Manuf. Co., 7 Fed. R. 543 429 V. City of New Orleans, 12 Fed. R. 292 714, 794, 795 V. Small, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 551 323 r. United States, 118 U. S. 62 901 Hartell c. Tilghman, 99 U. S 547 36, 515 Harter v. Kernochan, 103 U. S. 562 37, 38, 126, 1:32 Hartford F. I. Co. v. Bonner Merc. Co., 44 Fed. R. 151 16, 156, 684 Hartland v. Dancocks, 5 De G. & Sm. 561 5.50 Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672 1002 Hartog V. Memory, 116 U. S. 588 5:3-5, 5:36 Hartshorn v. Day, 18 How. 28 10-59 Hartwell v. Townsend, 6 Bro. P. C. 107 670 134 396 215 899 9:33 Harvey v. Cooke 4 Russ. 35 V. Lord, 10 Fed. R. 236 V. Morris, Rep. t. Finch, 214 V. United States, 3 Ct. CI. 38 V. ,113 U.S. 243 Harwood r. Dieckerhoff, 117 U. S. 200 1050 V. Raild. Co., 17 Wall. 78 131, 679 Haskins v. St. Louis & S. E. Ry. Co., 109 U. S. 106 1046 Hassall v. Wilcox, 115 U. S. 598 1029, 10:30 V. , 1.30 U. S. 493 412 Hatch V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 129 r. Eustis, 1 Gall. KiO 760, 762 r. Indianapolis & S. R. R. Co., 9 Fed. R. 8.56 561, 562 Hatfield r. Bushnell, 1 Blatchf. ;393 770 Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Woodb. & M. 63 580, 637, 638, 639 V. Scott, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 173 263 Hat Sweat Manuf. Co. v. Reinoehl, 102 N. Y. 167 ;36 V. Waring, 46 Fed. R. 87 5:32 Hat Trimmings Case, U. S. I). C. E. D. Pa., Dec. 8, 1891 783 Havemever v. Iowa County, 3 Wall. 294 ■ 778, 779, 976, 977. 987, 988 978 ] Havilali. The, 48 Fed. R. 684 ; 1 Cir. Gb7 ' Ct. App. 1 689, 1009 Ix [References Hawes v. Baniford, 9 Sim. 653 483 c: Oakland, 1U4 U. S. 450 26, 101, 343 Hawke v. Kemp, 3 Beav. 288 327 Hawkins c. Blake, 108 U. S. 422 lO'JG V. Crook, 2 P. Wins. 556 201, 203 '•. Glenn, 131 U. !S. ^19 TT'J r. Lus(M)inbe, 2 Swanst. 375 108 r. Willbank, 4 Wash. 285 046 Havvley v. Bennett, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 103 298 V. Donnelly, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 415 483 Hax v. Caspar, 31 Fed. R. 499 814, 816. 817, 850 Harden v. Androscoggin Mills, 1 Fed. ll 93 190 V. Oriental Mills, 15 Fed. K. 605 12 Haves v. Dayton, 8 Fed. K. 702 158, 165, 211, 212, 240 i: Fischer, 102 U. S. 121 509, 653, 655, 1023 r. Leton, 5 Fed. 11. 521 393 Hayne v. llayiie, 3 Rep. in Ch. 19 291 Hay ward v. Andrews, 106 U. S. 672 24, 114 Hazard i\ Credit Mobilier of Amer., 38 Fed. K. 195 453 i: Durant, 19 Fed. R. 471 95, 127, 430 Hazard (The) «•. Campbell, 9 Cranch, 205 1081 Head v. Godlee, Johnson, 536 667 r. Porter, 48 Fed. R. 481 897 Headman v. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 640 909 Hearn v. Tenant, 14 Ves. 136 053 Heath, In re, Petitioner, 144 U. S. 92 965, 960 V. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. 347 127, 128, 129,211, 212 r. , 9 Blatclif. 316 4, 8, 192, 2Stl, 294, 499, 523 . Wrigiit, 3 Wall. Jr. 141 365 Ileatlicote r. Nortli Staffordsliire Rv. Vo, 2 Macn. & G. 100 " 371 Heathfield r. United States, 8 Ct. CI. 213 899 Hel)ert r. Mutual L. I. Co., 12 I-Vd. R. 807 10, 159 Hcckman c Mackey, 32 Fed. R. 574 331 •Hedley v. Bates, L. R., 13 Ch. 1).49S 093 Hefner r. Nortii western L. I. Co., 123 U. S. 747 115, 160 Heidecker v. Red Star Line S. S. Co., 32 Fed. R. 706 840, 841 Ileidritter v. Klizabetli Oil Clotli Co., 112 U. S. 294 12, 13, 14 Ileilman ;;. Union Canal Co., 37 Pa. St 100 357 Heine '•. Levee Comm'rs, 19 Wall. 655 ' 20 Hemingway i". Stansell, lOf! U. S. 399 297, 302. ;^. 11, 1041 Heinnicnway v. Fisiier, 20 How. 255 1083 TABLE OF CASES. are to pages.] Henderson c. Cabell, 43 Fed. R. 257 839, 843 r. Carbondale C. & C. Co., 140 U. S. 25 337 i: Meggs, 2 Bro. C. C. 127 192 V. Moore, 5 Cranch, 11 1090 Hendrickson v. Ciiicago, R. I. & P. R. R. Co., 22 Fed. R. 569 842 Heningi'. United States Ins. Co., 2 Dill. 26 776, 778 Henley r. Philips, 2 Atk. 48 643 Heimessy v. Sheldon, 12 Wall. 440 1093 Henning v. Western Union Tel. Co., 40 Fed. R. 658 084 r. , 43 Fed. R. 97 45 Henry v. Ricketts, 1 Cranch C. C. 580 490, 657 V. Snttle, 42 Fed. R. 91 145 V. Travelers' Ins. Co., 34 Fed. R. 258 064 V. , 35 Fed. R. 15 494 i: , 45 Fed. R. 299 315, 310 c. United States, 22 Ct. of CI. 75 680 llenshaw r. Miller, 17 How. 212 770 r. Wel.s, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 508 442 Ilenthorn ;;. Doe, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 157 480 569 373 373 38 784 785 4 864 llentig V. Page, 105 U. S. 219 Hei)burn v. Auld, 5 Cranch, 2()2 V. Dunlop, 1 Wheat. 179 V Fllzey, 2 Cranch, 445 Herbert v. Butler, 14 Blatchf. 357 r. , 97 U. S. 319 V. Wren, 7 Cranch, 370 Hercules, Tlie, 20 Fed. R. 205 Heriot v. Davis, 2 Woodb. & M. 229 130, 132 Herman v. McKinney,43 Fed. R. 689 804 Herndon r. Ridgway, 17 How. 424 180, 192 Ilerrick v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 7 U. C. L. J. 240 343, 397 Herring v. Clobery, Cr. & Ph. 251 608 Hersch v. United States, 15 Ct. CI. 385 897 395 Hervey r. Fitzpatrick, Kay, 421 )\ Illinois Midland Ry. Co., 28 Fed. R. Ki.) r. , U. S. C. C, S D June 10, 188() r. Smitli, 1 Kav & J. 389 Hess c. Revnolds, 113 U. S. 73 420 Rl., 565 373 808, 809, 810, 817 310 1043 Ilewett V. Norton, 1 Woods, G8 Hewitt r. Filbert, HO U. S. 142 Ilevman r. Uhlman, 34 Fed. R. 680 200 Heyn r. Hevn, Jacob, 49 202, 205, 557 lleys r. Ast'ley, 9 L. T. n. s. 356 236 Hcvworth V. London, 1 Cab. & Kll. 3" 12 700 Ilibbcrt r. Ilibbert, 3 .Aleriv. 681 446 llibernia, The, 1 Sprague, 78 625 Hichens v. Congreve, 4 Russ. 562 120 Hickman v. Fort Scott, 141 U. S. 415 771, 793, 794 /•. Jones, 9 Wall. 197 785 TABLE OF CASES. [References Hickox V. Elliott, 28 Fed. T?. 117 1010 Hicks V. C()in[)t()n, 18 Cal. 200 337 V. Hicks, 3 Atk. 274 396, 433 V. Otto, 17 Fed. K. 539 283 V. , 22 Blatclif. ]22 606 V. Raincock, 1 Cox Eq. 40 218 V. Wrench, Madd. & G. 93 643 Hickson v. Lombard, L. K. 1 H. L. 326 151 Hide V. Haywood, 2 Atk. 126 643 Hier v. Abrahams, 82 N. Y. 519 365 Hiern v. xMill, 13 Ves. 118 171 Hijrhy v. Columbia Eubber Co., 18 Fed. R. 601 234 Hi-si'is, In re, 27 Fed. R. 443 431 i\ Jeiiks, 3 \7are, 17 353 Hijiinbotiiam v. Burnet, 5 Johns. Cli. (N. Y.) Iri4 211,499 Hisneras v. United States, 5 Wall. 827 9-38, 961, 963 Hildvard v. Cressv, 3 Atk. -303 277 Hiles V. Case, 14 Fed. R. 141; 9 Biss. 549 410 V. Moore, 15 Beav. 175 442 Hill u. Binnev, 6 Ves. 738 462 r. Bcmalfon, 2 W. N. C. (Pa.) 356 214 V. Chicago & E. Ry. Co., 129 U. S. 170 1046 V. , 140 U. S. 52 569, 1020, 1038, 1085 V. Glasgow R. Co., 41 Fed. R. 610 34 r. Gordon, 45 Fed. R. 276 180 r. Hnrdinir, 107 U. S 631 1078 r. Rinu'll, 8 Sim. 632 325 r. Smith, 32 Fed. R. 753 583 r. State, 1 Ala. 5-39 7-56 V. Tiioinpson, SMeriv. 622 3.58, 359, 361, 379 V. United States, 9 How. 386 370 r. , 8 Ct. Ci. 470 909, 911 Hiller r Wailroad Co., 70 N. Y. 223 841 Hills V. Exchange Bank. 105 U. S. 319 315 r. Uiciinioud & D. R. R. Co., 33 Fed. R 81 827 Hilton r. Barrow, 1 Ves. Jr. 234 288 r. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165 1060, 1061 r. Guvott, 42 Fed. R. 249 237, 241 Himely v. Rose, 5 Cranch, 313 1098 Hincklev, In re, 3 Fed. R. 556 450, 451 r. Gil man, C. & S. R. R. Co., 94 U. S. 467 449, 10.30 c. Morton, 103 U. S. 764 1067, 1068, 1098 V. Railroad Co., 100 U. S 153 432 447, 449, 4.50, 846 llinde r. Longvvorth, 11 Wheat. 199 1087 t\ Morton, 2 Hem. & M. 368 537 Hipp r. Babin, 19 How. 271 5, 7, 2! Hiriart r. Ballon, 9 Pet. 156 1053 IPrschl V. J. I. Case, T. M. Co., 42 Fed. R. 803 45, 819 Hitner v. Sucklev, 2 Wash. 465 191, 192 Ixi are to pages.] Iloadiey v. San Francisco, 94 U. S. 4 702 Hobbs r. McLean, 117 U. S. 567 581 V. United States, 17 Ct. CI. 189 900. 902 V. , 19 Ct. CI. 220 933, 935 Hobhouse v. Courtney, 12 Sim. 140 191, 192 Hobson c. Mc Arthur, 16 Pet. 182 311 Hodge V. Hudson River R. R. Co., 6 Blatcht". 85; 3 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 410 570 V. North Mo. R. R. Co., 1 Dill. 104 213,219 Hodges r. Mulliken, 1 Bland (Md.), 403 678, 57'.» 480 787 212 138 385 tlitz, Ex parte, 111 U. S. 766 718 i;. Smith, 1 Cox Eq. 3-57 ;•. Easton, 106 U. S. lOS Hodgkin v. Loiigden, 8 Ves. 2 Hudson t: Ball, 11 Sim. 4-39 V. Coppard, 29 Beav. 4 Hoe V. Boston Daily Advertiser Co., 14 Fed. R. 914 383 r. Kaiiler, 27 Fed. R. 145 1054 V. Wilson, 9 Wall. 501 119, 131, 135, 136, 1087 Hoey V. Coleman, 46 Fed. R 221 23, 688 Hoffman v. Duncan, 18 Jur. 69 1144 I--. Postill, L. R. 4 Cii. App. 673 266 Hogan V. Koss, 11 How. 294 1100 Hogg V. Kirby, 8 Ves. 215 357 V. Scott, L. R. 18 Eq. 444 362 Hoggart V. Cutts, 1 Cr. & Ph. 197 178 Holiorst r. Hamburg Amer. Packet Co., 38 Fed, R. 273 45, 189, 190, zOO V. Howard, 37 Fed. R. 97 297 Holbrook v. Worcester Batik, 2 Curt. 244 _ 2-55 Holcombe v. Johnson, 27 Minn. 353 434 V. McKusick, 20 How. 5-32 1021 Holden v. Hearn, 1 Beav. 445 262 Holderness v. Rankin, 2 De G. F. & J. 2.38 287 Hole V. Barlow, 4 C. B. n. s. 334 356 Holford u. Yate, 1 K. & J. 677 575 Holkirk V. Holkirk, 4 Madd. 50 533 Holladav Case, The, 28 Fed. R. 117 1049 Holland w. Brown, 35 Fed. R. 43 780 t: Challen, 110 U. S. 15 10, 779 c. Hyde. 41 Fed. R. 977 36 Hollander v. B;iiz, 40 Fed. R. 6-59 519 r. , 43 Fed. R. 35 519 Hollen, The, 1 Mason, 431 1015 Hollidav v. Piekhardt, 29 Fed. R. 853 165 Hollingshead's Case, 1 P. Wms. 742 396 Hoilingsworth v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 77 050, 654 r. , Wall. C. C. 141 653 Hollister r. Benedict & B. Mannf. Co. 113U. S. 59 96.370,897 Holnnn v. United States, 11 Ct. CI. 642 902 Holmes r. Jennison, 14 Pet .540 808. 1083 r. Oregon & C. R. Co., 5 Fed. R. 75 780 Ixii TABLE OF CASES. [References Holmes v. Oregon & C. R. Co., 5 Fed. K. 523 780 V. Sheridan, 1 Dill. 351 7G5 V. , 1 Dill. 421, n. 638 V. Sherwood, Itj Fed. R. 725; 3 McCra. 405 480 V. Trout, 7 Pet. 171 1080 Homan v. Siiiel, 2 Jones (Irish), 104 234 Home lus. Co. v. Barton, 13 Wall. 003 1000 V. Stanchfield, 1 Dill. 424 V. United States, 8 Ct. CI. 419 8,24 008, 911 8.j3 353 2«8 Hone V. Dillon, 29 Fed. R. 4(35 Hood V. Aston, 1 Kuss. 412 V. Clapham, 19 Beav. 90 V. Inman, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 437 146, 256 Hook v. Dorman, 1 Sim. & S. 227 216, 220 V. Payne, 14 Wall. 2-52 135 Hooper v. Winston, 24 111. 353 447 Hoover c. Montclair & G. L. R R. Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 4 425, 426 Hop Bitters Manuf. Co. v. Warner, 28 Fed. R. 577 664 Hope V. Hope, 4 De G. M. & G. 328 325 Hopkins v. xMcLure, 133 U. S. 380 1004 V. Orr, 124 U. S. 510 1084 V. Worcester & B. Canal Co., L. R. 6 Eq. 437 416 Hopkirk f. Page, 2 Brock. 20 116 Horn V. Lockharl, 17 Wall. 570 126 Horner i'. United States, 143 U. S. 570 965 Hornor v. Henning, 93 U. S. 228 8, 129 Hornsley i'. United States, 10 Wall. 224 938, 940, 941, 955 Horsburg r. Baker, 1 Pet. 232 277, 299 Horton v. White, 84 N. C. 297 395 Hosford V. Gerniania F. I. Co., 127 U. S. 399 983, 992 Hottenstein v. Conrad, 9 Kan. 4.35 441 Hottentot Venus, The, 13 East, 194 740 Hough V. Railway Co., 100 U. S. 213 777, 778 Houghton V. West, 2 Bro. Pc. 88 29-3,672 Houiditcli V. Marquis Donnegall, 1 Sim. & S. 491 312 House V. Mullen. 22 Wall. 42 138, 237, 545 Houser v. Clayton, 3 Woods, 273 820 Houston V. Moore, 3 Wheat. 433 10U2 Houston & T. C. It. Co. v. Shirley, 111 U. S. 358 805, 812, 818, 824 Houth V. Owens, 30 Fed. R. 910 290 Hovey v. McDonald, 109 U. S. l-'iO 4 10, 10.30. 1050, 1051 V. Stevens, 3 Woodb. & M. 17 580 Howard v. Bates County, 43 Fed. R. 276 35 V. Rail wav Co, 101 U. S. 837 127,600 V. Rhodes, 1 K.-on. •'iSl j 643 Stillman B. M. Co., 1.39 U. S. 199 Howards v. Selden, 5 Fed. R. 465 Howe V. Deuel, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 504 397 are to pages.] Howe V. Duppa, 1 Ves. & B. 511 218 V. Morion, 1 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 586 358 Howe Machine Co. v. Edwards, 15 Blatchf. 402 774 Howell V. Lord Coningsby, 1 Fowl. Ex. Pr. 161 659 V. United States, 7 Ct. CI. 512 902 V. Western R. R. Co., 94 U. S. 463 574 Howland v. Soule, Deady, 413 370 Hoxie V. Carr, 1 Sumner, 173 3, 127, 150 298, 299, 318 Hoyle, In re, 12 Chic. L. K 279 ; 9 Am. L. Rec. 65 740, 743 V. United States, 21 Ct. CI. 300 902 Hoyt, Ex parte, 13 Pet. 279 703, 704 V. Hammekin, 14 How. 346 522 V. Hovt, 27 N. J. Eq. 309 151 v. United States, 10 How. 109 469 Hubbard v. Bellew, 3 Fed. R. 447 12, 13 V. Turner, 2 McL. 519 2.50, 293 Hubbell r. De Land, 14 Fed. R. 471 227, 238 V. Warren, 8 Allen, 173 120 Hudgins v. Kemp, 18 How. 530 1046, 10.59, 1061 Hudson, The, 15 Fed. R. 162 858 Hudson V. Guestier, 6 Cranch, 281 1083 V. , 7 Cranch, 1 1079 V. Hudson, 3 Rand. (Va.) 117 291 i\ Maddison, 12 Sim, 416 154, 385 Huffman v. United States, 17 Ct. CI. 55 898 Hugcr V. South Carolina, 3Dall. 339 28 Huggins r. York Bldg. Co., 2 Atk. 44 ; 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 3 233, 300, 312 Hugh V. JNlcRae, Vh;\s-e'f Dec. 466 25, 397 Hughes, Ex parte. 114 U S. 548 641 V. Blake. 6 Wheat. 453 248, 249, 271 V. , 1 Mason, 515 248 V. Clerk, 6 Hare, 195 4'.)9 r. Jones, 3 De G. F. & J. 307 545 r. , 26 Beav. 24 664 V. Morden College, 1 Ves. Sen. 188 345, /■. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 18 Fed. R. 106 V. United States, 4 Ct. CI. 64 V. , 4 Wall. 232 Huguenin v. Baseley, 15 Ves. 180 Huidekojier v. Locomotive Works, 99 U. S. 258 403, 408 Hull V. Dills, 19 Fed. R. 657 9, 13 IluHett V. King of Spain, 2 Bligh N R. 31 Hulme V. Tenant, 1 Bro. C. C. 16 Humes v. Scruggs, 94 U. S. 22 Hummel )•. Moore, 25 Fed. R. 380 Huniphrcv, /•> parte. 2 Blatchf. 228 r. Baker, 103 U. S. 736 Hiimnhrevs v. Humphreys, 3 P. Wms. 348 ' -'79, 280 ,,. , 3 P. Wms. 395 243 V. liigledon, 1 P. Wms. 752 167 346 177 918 140 4 95 109 271 842 490 1099 TABLE OF CASES. Ixiii [References Humphreys v. Roberts, Setou's De- crees (4th ed), 173 384 f. Tate, 4 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 220 16(5 Humphrys v. Moore, 2 Atk. 108 643, (344 Hung Hang, Ex parte, 108 U. S. 552 719 Hunnicutt v. Teyton, 102 U. S. 333 784, 785, 942, 947 Hunt V. Blackburn, 127 U. S. 774 1076, 1077 V. Danforth, 2 Curt. 592 15 V. Jackson, 5 Blatchf. 349 95, 430 V. Lever, 5 Ves. 147 325 V. Oliver, 109 U. S. 177 1051 V. Rousmanier's Adni'rs, 8 Wheat. 174 3 V. , 1 Pet. 1 3, 4 0. Wickliffe, 2 Pet. 201 137 Hunter v. , 6 Sim. 429 337 V. International R. I. Co., 28 Fed. R. 842 587 V. Le Conte, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 728 485 V. Town of Marlboro', 2 Woodb. & M. 108 580 V. United States, 5 Pet. 172 15 Huntington, In re, 137 U. S. 63 748 V. Palmer, 104 U. S. 482 2G, 101 i-. , 8 Fed. R. 449 389 Huntress v. Epsom, 15 Fed. R. 732 586, 642, 684 Hurd V. Case, 32 111. 45 293 V. Elizabeth, 41 N. J. L. 1 95, 430 V. Gere, 38 Fed. R. 537 824 V. Moiles, 28 Fed. R. 897 14 Hurlburd v. Freelove, 3 Wis. 537 666 Hurst, Ex pane, 1 Wasli. 186 197 V. Hollingworth, 94 U. S. Ill 10.58 Hurt V. Hollingsworth, 100 U. S. 100 840 Huskins v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 37 Fed. R. 504 824, 827, 832 Hutciiinson v. Brock, 11 Mass. 119 91 V. Green, 6 Fed. R. 833 12, 13 ;;. Horner, 9 Jur. 615 325 Hy.le V. Fulger, 4 McL. 2-55 133 -^ r. Forster, 1 Dick. 102 191 V. , 1 Dick. 132 300 n Ruble, 104 U. S. 407 806, 814, 815 (,-. Woods, 94 U. S. 523 515 Hylton v. Morgan, 6 Ves. 293 374 Hyman r. Chales, 12 Fed. K. 855 690 V. Fames, 41 Fed. R. 676 782 V. Wlieeler, 33 Fed. R. 329 156 llynes v. Biiggs, 41 Fed. R. 468 33 Hyslop V. lloppock, 5 Beu. 447 187 lasigi V. Brown, 1 Curt. 401 768 Idaiio & O. L. I. Co. V. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 509 11, 969, 970, 1026, 10-54, 1060 Ide V. Ball Engine Co., 31 Fed. R. i.t01 289, 290, 372 Ilchester (Earl of), Ex parte, 7 \'es. 348 577 are to pages.] lUingworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. R. 141 18, 19,371 Illinois V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 33 Fed. R. 721 758,811 Illinois G. T. Ry. Co. v. Wade, 140 U. S. 65 235 Imperial Refining Co. v. Wyman, 38 Fed. R. 574 684, 849 Independent, Tiie, 9 Ben. 489 625 India Kul>ber Comb Co. v. Phelps, 8 Blatclif. 85 283 Indiana Southern R. R. Co. v. Liver- pool, L. & G. Ins. Co., 109 U. S 168 290, 1079 Indianapolis & St. L. R. R. Co. i: Ilorst, 93 U. S. 291 683, 773, 774, 778, 781, 801 Infanta, The, Abb. Adm. 263 522 Ingall, In re, 1-39 U. S. 548 1002 Ingham v. Pierce, 37 Fed. R. G17 587 Ingilby v. Siiafto, 33 Beav. 31 499 Ingle V. Jones, 9 Wall. 486 504 Inland & S. Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 136 U. S. 572 _ 1032 Innes v. Lansing, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 583 120 Insurance Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616 7,24 V. Barton, 18 Wall. 603 1090 V. Boon, 95 U. S. 117 771 V. Boykin, 12 Wall. 433 787 w. Brune, 9t) U. S. 588 231, 232 i: Comstock, 16 Wall. 2-58 702 V. Dunn, 19 Wall. 214 822 /'. Huchbergers, 12 Wall. 164 1093 V. Lanier, 95 U. S. 171 785 V. Morse, 20 Wall. 445 813 V. Weide, 9 Wall. 677 1090 Insurance Co. of Va. Valley v. Mor- decai,22 How. Ill 1086 Intermingled Cotton Cases, 92 U. S. 651 929 International T. C. C. v. Carmichael, 44 Fed. R. 350 158, 289, 293, 372 International T. C. L. Co. v. Maurer, 44 Fed. R. 618 209, 210 Interstate Commerce Commn. v. Bal- timore & U. R. R. Co., 43 Fed. R. 37 G39 Interstate Land Co. v. Maxwell Land Co, 139 U. S. 569 209 V. Maxwell, L. G. Co., 41 Fed. R. 275 941 Investment Co. v. Ohio & N. W. R. Co., 36 Fed. R. 48 425 V. , 41 Fed. R. 738 422 Iowa V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. R. 391 819 Iowa Homestead Co. v. Des Moines N. & R. R Co., 8 Fed. R. 97 2;(2, 335, 817, 843, 844 Iowa & Minn. Construction Co , In re, 10 Fed. R. 401 13 Irons r. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 17 Fed. R. 308 144 Ixiv TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Bank, Irons V. Manufacturers' Xat 6 Biss. 361 Irvine r. The Hesper, 122 U. S. 256 Irving r. Sutton, 1 Crancii C. C. 5t)7 Irwin r. Cummins, Henipst. 708 V. Dixion, 9 How. 10 355, 356 i-. Meyrose, 7 Fed. R. 533 (iTO, 671 Isnard v. Cazeaux, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 39o 867 513 623 89 Ives V. Grand Trunk Ry R. 176 Ivinson v. Hutton, 98 U J. 323 Co., 35 Fed. 781, 782 S. 79 17 Jacklin L-. Wilkins, Beav. 607 325 Jackson, In re, 9 Fed. R. 493 387 , In re, 40 Fed. R. 372 82 V. Allen, 132 U. S. 27 818, 844, 849 1-. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148 144, 145 V. , 10 Pet. 480 1069 r. Catur, 5 Ves. 688 881 r. Cliew, 12 Wheat. 153 777 c. Ivimey, L. E. 1 Eq. 693 5.34 V. Jackson, 2 Hogan, 238 420 V. Oglander, 2 Hem. & M. 465 236 V. Petrie, 10 Ves. 164 455, 458 V. Stiles, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 134 326 V. Strong, 1 McClel. 245 277 ;-. Virgil, 3 Johns. (N. Y.), 540 484 Jacob V. United States, Brock. 520 689 Jacob Brandon, Tiie, 33 Fed. R. 160 509 Jacobs V. liichards, 18 Beav. 300 287 Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. R. 454 25, 429 Jacques v. Collins, 2 Blatchf. 23 768 JafEray, Ex parte, 1 Low. 321 643, 644 Jaffrey v. Brown, 29 Fed. R. 476 563, 566 James v. Atlantic Delaine Co., 3 Cliff. 614 r. Campbell, 101 U. S. 3.56 90, 486 370, 897 466 r. Cordon, 1 Wash. 333 V. London & S. W. Co., 41 L. J. Excli. 187 694 V , L. R. 7 Kxcb. 287 694 V. McCorniack, 105 U. S. 265 1069 r. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R. 47 39 Jamieson t-. Willis, 1 Crancli C. C. 566 513 Janeway J'. Green, 16 Abb. Pr. (NY.), 215,;/. 395 Jarmon v. Wiswall, 9 C. F. Gr. (N. J.), 68 0(;5 Jarrold )-. Houlston, 3 Kav & J. 708 363 Jeanie Landles, The, 17 Fed. R. 91 626 Jecker v. Montgomerv, 18 How. 110 874 Jefferson v. Driver. l"l7 U. S. 272 833 Jefler.-;on Branch Bank r. Skelly, 1 . Pdack, 4:;6 513 Jcffervs r. P.aldwin, Ambl. 164 212 r. Smith, 1 Jac. & W. 298 39.'), 415 Jeffries v. Laurie, 27 Fed. R. 195 650, 652 Jenkins, Ex parte, 2 Wall. C. C. 521 727 V. Banning, 23 How. 455 1090, 1093 V. Eldredge, 3 Story, 181 149, 232, 463 I'. , 3 Story, 299 311, 314, 666, 668, 670 V. Greenwald. 1 Bond, 120 ; 2 Fisher Pat. Cas. 37 V. Smith, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y^ 171 Jenkinson v. Royston, 5 Price, 490 Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2 V. Dolan, 29 Fed. R. 861 V. Nugent, 1 Molloy, 134 V. Pearce, 1 Ves. Jr. 447 r. Philadelphia & R. R. R. Co., 29 Fed. R. 569 V. Pierce, 15 Blatchf. 42 V. Simpson, 1 Keen, 404 Jenour r. Jenour, 10 Ves. 562 Jerman v. Stewart, 12 Fed. R 618, 642, 644 Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734 112, 113, 230, 4-/5, 426, 427 V. . 21 Wall. 17 1050 r. Ross,7 Jolms. Ch. (N. Y^.), 315 356 Saunders, 2 Ves. Jr. 187 — . 2 Ves. Jr. 454 Berridge, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 271 370 196 250 1051 501, 562 181, 296 223 399 2c2 578 577 588, Jerrard 227 216 288 538 Jervis 357 Jessup V. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 36 Fed. R. 735 Jesuj) V. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 43 Fed. R. 483 289, 292, 295 V. Wabasli, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 663 347 i; , u. S. C. C, N. D. 111. 1889 565 Jesus College r. Gibb.s 1 Y. & C. 145 250 Jeter v. State, 1 RIcCord (S. C), 233 756 Jewell (.-. Knight, 123 U. S. 426 976, 978, 980, 991 Jewett V. Bradford, S 45 Fed. R. 801 r. Garreit, 47 Fed John Crosslev Sons v. 20 Fed. li. 352 John E. Mulford, The, 18 Fed. R. 455 624, 627, John Griffin, The, 15 Wall. 29 John Wells, Jr., The, 1 Sprague, 178 Johnasson v. Boniiote, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 298 Johns V. Jolins, 23 Ga. 31 Johnson, hi rr, 46 Fed. R. 477 r. Accident Ins. Co. of X. A., 35 Fed. R. 374 V. Hunker Hill & S. M. & C. Co., 4() Fed. R. (i44 V. Christian, 125 U. S. 642 r. C()nii)ton, 4 Sim. 47 r. Donaldson, IS Blatchf. 287 r. Harmon, 94 U. S. 371 64 B. & T. Co. 45, 55 R. 625 690 New Orleans, 17 632 482 626 224 441 748 849 Ilobart, 45 Fed. R. 542 804 42, 812 120 405 551, 552 782 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Ixv Jolinson V. Johnson, lo Fed. U. I'Jo IG, 813 r. Jumel, o Woods, tit) 7oS V. Keith, 117 U. S l'.»l) ^ ^ 1021 r. Mississippi & T. K. Co., 31 Fed. K. ool 582 i: Monell, Woohv. 390 833 V. Northey, Preo. in Ch. 134 ; 2 Vern. 407 liti2, 0G3 r. r. VV. & B. R. II. Co., 1 Am. L. J. 457 3y y- Feck, 2 Ves. Sen. 405 299 V. Powers, 139 U. S 156 95 V. , 13 Fed. R. 315 209 V. Risk, 137 U. S. 300 1004, 1005 V. St. Louis, L M. & S. Ry. Co., 141 U. S. G02 681 v. vSlirewsbury & B. Ry. Co., 3 De G. iM. & G. 914 307 V. The Coriolanus, Crabbe, 239 475 V. United States, 4 Ct. CI. 248 897 V. Waters, 111 U. S. 640 16, 34, 556, 679, 812 r. Watkins, 40 Fed. R. 187 582 r. Wilkins, 118 U. S. 228 1069 V. Wyatt, 2 De G. J. & 8. 18 3li3 Jolinson County (Comni'rs of) v. Thayer, 94 U. S. 631 777 Johnson R. R. Signal Co. v. Union S. & S. Co , 43 Fed. R. 331 192, 289, 2:14 Johnson S S. R. Co. v. North Brancli S. Co. 48 Fed. R. 191 769 Joimston I'. Donvan, 30 Fed. R. 895; Jones r. Lewis, 1 Cox Kq. 199 113 r. Massey, 3 Beav. 292 298 r. Morehead, 1 Wall. 155 255 V. Neale, 1 Hujihes, 268 517 V. Oregon Cent. R. R. Co., 3 Sawy. 523 518, 521, 522, 523 r. 1^0 well, 2 Mer. 141 93 r. Roberts, 12 Sim. 189 330 V. Segueira, 1 PhiU. 82 241 V. Slauson, 33 Fed. R. 6-32 156, 209 V. Smith, 40 Fed. R. 314 453, 780, 781 ,,. , 14 111. 229 293 V. United States, 1 Ct. of CI. 383 486, 912, 916 -, 4 Ct. of CI 197 -, 21 Ct. of CI. 1 -, 39 Fed. R. 410 929 609 598, 599, 603, 605 S5 171 985 V. Van Dusen, 130 U. S. 6: r. Van Zandt, 5 How. 215 Jopp ,y. Wood, 2 De G. J. & S 323 667 Jordan, Ex parie. 94 U. S. 248 119, 333, 335, 702, 1030 r. Agawani Woollen Co. 3 Cliff. 239 640 V. Cass County, 3 Dill. 185 705 V. Wells, 3 Woods, 527 435 Jorjiensen r. Casks of Cement, 40 Fed. R. 606 626 Josslyn V. Phillips, 27 Fed. R. 481 585, 821, 849 24 Blatehf. 274 r. Jones, 1 Black, 209 r. Roe, 1 Fed. R. 692 V. Todd, 5 Beav. 394 r. United States, 17 Ct. CI. 157 Joilie r. Jaques, 1 Blatchf. 618 Joll>*i;. Arbuthnot, 4 DeG & J. 224 Jones, Matter of, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 015 V. Alephsin, 16 Ves. 470 l: Andrews, 10 Wall. 327 814 Jov V. St. Louis, 138 U. S. 1 101)9 Judah i-. Iowa B. W. Co. 32 Fed. R 235 561 329 I Judson^ Ex parte, 3 Blatchf. 89 899 363 17 79 V. Barker, 11 Fed. R. 597 V. Boiles, 9 Wall. 364 r. Brittan, 1 Woods, 667 V. Buckell, 104 U. S. 554 v. Collier, 2 Anih. 730 V. Earl of Strafford, 3 P. 578 43:] 460 142, 201) 276, 316 3 271 1091 4 42, 199 Wm R. Co.- 41 V. Florida C. & I Fed. R. 70 V. Frost, 3 Madd. V. , 1 Jacob, 466 V. Garcia del Rio, 1 Turn. & R. 297 119 ;•. Great Western Ry.Co., 1 Ry. Cas. (Eng.) 684 I'. Greenolds, 1 Cranch C. C. 3;]9 V. Howells, 2 Hare, 342 '•. Jones, 3 Atk 217 c. Knowles, 1 Cranch C. C '•. Lamar, ;^9 Fed. II 585 V. La Vallette, 5 Wall. 579 VOL. 1. — e 539 3(5 220 220 120 389 512 313 310, 31:; 523 Air. 5(11 1025 813 494 , Ex parte, 3 Blatchf. 148 511 Jugiro, Ex parte, 44 Fed. R. 754 745, 753 In re, 140 U. S. 291 753, 1094 Julia, The, 2 Sprague, 164 874 Juneau Bank v. McSpedan, 5 Biss. 64 196, 491 Junker v. Fobes, 45 Fed. R. 840 K. 97 1041 Knil r. Wetmore. 6 Wall. 451 Kain r. Smith, 80 N. Y. 458 5:]5 Kaine. Ex parte, 3 Blatchf. 1 740, 745 , In re, 14 How. 103 745, 749, 750 Kaiser v. Kellar, 21 Iowa, 95 434 Kaitel v. Wylie, 38 Fed. R. 865 814, 823, 824, 827, 832 Kalanvizoo Wagon Co. v. Snavelv, 34 Fed. R. 823 811, 812 Kanawha Coal Co. ?•. Kanawha & O. Coal Co., 7 Blatchf. 391 115 Kane v. Northern Cent. R. H. Co. 128 U. S. 91 775 Kanouse v. Martin, 14 How. 23 850 r. , 15 How. 198 84:^, 100:5 Kansas r. Bradley, 26 Fed. R. 289 35 Kansas City & T. Ky. Co. r. Inter- State Lumber Co., 36 Fed. It. 9 839 Ixvi TABLE OF CASES. 565 22(3, 227 ()5;J 772 551 8115 302 280 705 [References Kansas City & T. Rv. Co. v. Interstate Lumber Co., 37 Fed. K. 3 810, 818, 842 Kansas City, F. S. & M. R. R. Co. v. Dauglitry, 138 U. S. 298 820, 824, 850 Kansas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Twombly, 100 U. S. 78 1088, 1090 Karr v. Jackson, 28 Mo. 310 480 Kauffman v. Kenuedy, 25 Fed. R. 785 190, 842 V. Walker, 9 Md. 229 Kay V. Marsliall, 1 Keen, 190 Kearnev, AV pur/c, 7 Wheat. 38 V. Case, 12 Wall 275 Kebel v. I'liilpot, '.» Sim. 614 Keenan v. Shannon, 9 N. B. R. 441 Keene v. Clarke, 5 l\ob. (N. Y.) 38 V. Meade, 3 Pet. 1 522, V. Wheatley, 9 Am. L. Reg. 33 Keep V. Indianapolis & St. L. II. R. Co., 10 Fed. R. 4-54 Keiley i'. Dusenbury, 10 J. & S. (N. Y.) 238 v.. , 77 N. Y. 597 Keithsburif Bridge Co. r. McKay, 42 Fed. R.427 Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610 131, 137, 1020, 1027 V. Stolzenbacb. 20 Fed. R. 47 237 Keiley, In re, 25 Fed. R. 268 727 V. Miss. Cent. R. R. Co., 1 Fed. R. 564 ; 2 Flipp. 581 V. Ypsilanti D. S. Manuf. Co., 44 Fed. R. 19 .351, Kellner *•. Mutual L. I. Co , 43 Fed. R. 023 Kellogg V. Forsvth, 2 Black, 571 Kelly, Jn re, 5 Fed. R. 840 405, 411 'r. Mutton, 17 W. R. 425 415 i: lieceiver of Green Bay & M. li. R. Co., 5 Fed. R. 846 405, 411 r. Viruinia Protection Ins. Co., 3 Hughes 449 843 Kelsey i: Hobby, 16 Pet. 209 2G7, 291, 3:U, 504 Kemmler, /» re, 130 U. S. 436 748, 1002 Kemna v. Brockbaus, 5 Fed. R. 702 3!t Kemp r. Mackrell. 3 Atk. 812 299 ' r. State, 10 Wis. 359 737 Kenipe's Lessee c. Kennedv, 5 Crancli, 173 " 726 Kenadny v. Edwards, 134 U. S. 117 1028 Kendall >: Beckett. 1 Russ. 152 186, 280 V. Stokes. 3 How. 87 102, 706 v. United States, 12 Pet. 524 706. 707, 808 V. , 107 C. S. 123 904 Kendig v. Dean, 97 II. S. 423 1.32, 537, .545 Kennedy t-. Baylor, 1 Wash. ( Va ) 162 46-_> r. Creswell, 101 (J S 041 248 r. Georgia State Bank. 8 How. 580 285, Oi 2, 1000 '• Gibson. 8 Wall. 498 .591 t. Green, 3 M. & K. 099 287 429 429 23 230 244 786 are to pages.] Kennedy t: Indianapolis, C. & L. R. Co. 3 F'ed. R. 97 435 V. St. Paul & P. R. R. Co., 2 Dill. 448 2, 422, 42-5, 427 Kennington v. Hougbton, 2 Y. & C. N. R. 630 288 Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U. S. 22 6ti8, 1084 Kennosba & R. R. R. Co. v. Sperrv, 3 Biss. 309 760, 702 Kensett v. Stivers, 10 Fed. R. 517 370 Kent V. Burgess, 11 Sim. 301 549 Kentucky v. Dennisun, 24 How. GO 27, 28, 29,089, 702, 713 >: Louisville Bridge Co., 42 Fed. R 241 35, 819, 821 Kenyon v. Knipe, 46 Fed. R. 309 804 Kentucky S. i\l. Co. v. Day, 2 Sawy. 408 144, 199 Kenwortliv v. Accunor, 3 Madd. 550 193 Keppell r.'Bailey, 2 M. & K. 517 138 Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 485 13, 822 Kerosene L. II. Co. v. Fisber, 1 Fed. R. 91 555, 556, 558 Kerr v. Clampitt, 95 U. S. 188 1090 V. Moon, 9 Wheat. 505 95 V. South Park Comm'rs, 117 U. S. 379 550, 551 Kerr'son v. Stewart, 93 U. S. 155 118 Kershaw v. Matbews, 1 Russ. 301 440, 441 Kessinger v. Vannatta, 27 Fed. R 890 848 Kessler ?'. Continental C. t^ I. Co., 42 Fed. R. 258 351 Ketcbuni, /n re. 1 Fed. R. 840 415 V. Driggs,6 McL. 13 222, 375 V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 4 McL. 1 070 Ketland v. Bissett, 1 Wash. 144 521, 522 Kettle r. Crary, 1 Paige (N.Y.), 417, ii. 121 Kettler v. United States, 21 Ct. CI. 175 897 Key City, Tlie, 14 Wall, 053 859 Keves r. Eureka C. M. Co., 45 Fed. R. 199 18 Keystone Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U S. 91 50'.), 1020 Kidd V. Horry. 28 Fed. R. 773 372 Kidwell r. Masterson, 3 Cranch C. C. 52 385 Kieffer, 'E.r j^nrto, 40 Fed. R. .399 748 Kitfin /•. Kittin, 1 P. Wnis. 705 396 Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 U. S. 505 217, 22v. V. Tbompson, 103 U. S. 168 807 (,. , MacAr. & M. 401 807 Kilbourne v. State Sav. Inst., 22 How. 503 1093 Kiluour r. New Orleans G. L. Co., 2 Woods, 144 15, 150. 172, 195, 215 Killian /■ Clark, 111 IT. S. 784 1063 V. Ebbintihaus, 110 U. S. 508 7, 21. 178 V. ,111 U.S. 798 1079,1092 TABLE OF CASES. Ixvii [References Kimherlv v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512 563 t: , l;JtJ U. S. 629 670, 671, 675, 676, 680 r. , 40 Fed R. 548 670,671, 675. 676, 680 Kine, Tn re, 46 Fed. R. 905 730 i: Eryant, 3 M. & C. 191 557 r. Dale, 2 111. 513 480 r. Dundee M. & T. I. Co., 28 Fed. R. 33 671, 675 V. King, 6 Ve.s. 172 ol)5 V. Ohio & M. Ky. Co., 7 Biss. 529 431 593 759 755 713 r. United States, 99 U. S. 229 KiiiiT (The) r. Butler. 3 Lev. 220 I'. Fniiicis, 2 V. R. 484 V. Lonl Conini'rs of Treasury, 4 Ad & Kl. 286 Kiii:. American L. & T. Co., 136 U. S. 89 40.5, 407, 408, 434, 567, 1030, 1084, 1095 V. , 138 U. S. 509 1084, 1095 V. Bass F. & M. Works, 140 U. S. 592 40.3, 408 Knickerbackcr v. De Freest, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 304 108 Knickerbocker L. I. Co. v. Pendleton, 115U. S. 339 10.35 Knight V. Knight, 3 P. Wms. 331 110, 111 V. Lord Plimouth, 3 Atk. 480 ; 1 Dick. 120 432, 434 r. Mattliews, 1 Madd. 566 259, 280 c. Watts, Coop. /.Cottenham, 257 458 846 176 514 246 370 1047 17 1004 1026 415 are to pages.] Knode v. Williamson, 17 W.all. 586 514, 520, 521 Knote v. United States, 95 U. S. 149 896 Knott V. Burleson, 2 (i. Gr. (la.) 600 209 Kno.x (•. Columbia L. I. Co., 22 Fed. 11. 378 671 V. Exchange Bank, 12 Wall. 379 1069 V. Smith, 4 How. 298 23 Knox County v. Harshman, 132 U. S. 14 669, 1050 V. , 133 U. S. 152 25 V. United States, 131 U. S. clxvi 1047, 1053, 1061 Koehler, Ex parte, 23 Fed. R. 529 427, 428 Kohl V. United States, 91 U. S. 367 799, 800, 808, 809 Koontz V. Northern Bank, 16 Wall. 196 418, 419, 4.34 Korn V. Wiebusch, 33 Fed. R. 50 227 Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U. S. 668 542 Kountze ;•. Omaha Hotel Co., 107 U. S. 378 1049 Kreager r. Judd, 5 Fed. R. 27 582 Kring v. Missouri, 107 U S. 221 724, 725 Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276 42, 141, 142, 335, 1030 Kurtz V. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487 736, 807, 1002 Laher v. Cooper, 7 Wall. 565 1086, 1090 Labette County Comm'rs v. United States, 112 U. S. 217 716 Lacey, E.v parte, 6 Ves. 625 3 Lackett v. Rumbaugh, 45 Fed. R. 23 200 Lacroix r. Lyons, 27 Fed. R. 403 840, 849 La Crosse R. R. Bridge, 2 Dill. 465 419 Lady Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 139 353 Lady Carrington v. Cantillon, Bunb. 107 191 R. Ladv Langdale v. Briggs, 4 W, 703 578 Ladv Pike, The, 21 Wall. 1 1080 , 96 U. S. 461 1099 Lafavette Co. v. Neely, 21 Fed. R. 738 14.5,148,161,447 Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404 144, 479 Laidly v. Huntington, 121 U. S. 179 814 Laimbeer v. Allen, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 648 485 Laird r. Indemnity M. M. Co., 44 Fed. R. 712 65 (;. Mayor of De Soto, 25 Fed. R. 76 714 Lake v. Austwick, 4 Jnr. 314 309 V. Philips, 1 Rep. in Ch. 110 463 Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Brown, 44 Fed. R. 539 297, 298, 665, 566 Lamaster v. Keeler, 123 U. S. 376 648, 794 Lamb v. Briard, Abb. Mm. 367 476 Ixviii TABLE OF CASES. [References Lamb v. Starr, Deady, 350 208, 241, 247 La Motlie Mamif. Co. v. National T. W. Co., 15 Blatchf. 4:]2 840 Lancashire v. Lancashire, 9 Beav. 259 549 Lancaster, In re, 187 U. S. 39^ 748 V. Collins, 115 U. S. 222 776, 1090 v. Lancaster, (3 Sim. 4o9 497 Land Co. of N. M. v. Elkins, 20 Fed. K. 545 114, 128, -.^77, .381 Lane, Ax parte, 6 Fed. R. 34 727 V. Hardwicke, 9 Beav. 148 2(J2 V. Morse, 6 How. I'r. (N. Y.) 394 483 V. Newdigate, 10 V'es. 192 37o ;;. Vick, o How. 464 777 La Nereyda, The, 8 Wheat. 108 1081 Lancshorough (Lord) v. Jones, 1 P. Wms. 325' 4 Lanford c. United States, 101 U. S. 341 896, 897 Langdale v. Briggs, 4 W. R. 703 578 Langdon v. Branch, 37 Fed. R. 449 153 V. Goddard, 3 Story, 13 147, 2-55, 25(5 r. Hillside C. & L Co., 41 Fed R. 609 Lange, Ex parte, 18 Wall. 163 72S Langlcy r. Hawk, 5 Madd. 46 r. Overton, 10 Sim. 345 Langston v. Boylston, 2 Ves. Jr. 101 480 397 351 3(i4 471 130 608 778 749 040 V. Wetherell, 14 M. & W. 104 Lanier v. Alison, 31 Fed. R. 100 11, 820 726 395 306 178, 180 483 354 V. Nash, 121 U. S. 404 537 Lansdale v. Smith, 106 U. S. .391 214 Lansing v. County Treasurer, 1 Dill. 522 • 714 Lanz V. Randall, 4 Dill. 425 39 Larison v. linger, 44 Fed. R. 49 792 Larman r. Tisdale, 142 U. S. 705 1063 Larned r. GrilKn, 12 Fed. R. 590 196, 229 Latliam r. Chafee, 7 Fed. R. 520 232 /•. , 7 Fell. R. 525 440 . Northern Fac. R. R. Co., 45 Fed. H. 721 357 Latham's Appeal, 9 Wall. 145 1044, 106.-J Latlirop V. Judson, 19 How. 66 1086 La Touclie v. Lord Dunsany, 1 Sch. &Lef. 1:17 288,295 Lau Ow Bew, I'etitioner, 141 U. S. 583 718,973,974 V. United States, 144 U. S 47 968, 969, 973, 975, 1026. 1045 Laurens, The, I Al)b. Adm. .508 650, 652 Lautz c. Gordon. 28 Fed. R. 26)4 295 La Vega v. Lapslcy, 1 Woods, 428 266. Lavender, 9 Ir. Eq. R. Cheves' Law (S. 452 481 Lavend 593 Law V. Gaultnev C.),7 " , Lawrence r. Berney, 2 Rep. in Ch. 127 ■ 663 V. Bowman, 1 .McAll. 419 374 V. Dana, 4 Cliff. 1 302, 363 are to pages.] Lawrence v. Gaultney, Cheves' Law (S. C.),7 V. Greenwich F. I. Co., 1 Paige (N. Y.) 587 V. Morgan's R. R. & S. S. Co., 121 U. S. 634 V. Smitli, Jacob, 471 302, 3(i4 r. United States, 2 McL. 581 471 V. Wiriz. 1 Wasli. 417 Lawrence Manuf. Co. r. Janesville Cotton Mills, 138 U. S. 552 062, 663 Law ton v Blitch, 30 Fed. R. 641 847 Layer v. Nelson, 1 Vern. 450 4 Lazensky v. Knigiits of Honor, .32 Fed. R. 417 847, 849 Lea V. Deakin, 13 Fed. R. 514 389 Leach r. Chandler, 18 Fed. R. 262 165 V. Kay, 2 FHpp. 590 League v. Egery, 24 How. 264 Leaiy, Matter of, 10 Ben. 197 i\ Miranda, 40 Fed. R. 607 Leatherberry v. Radclitfe, 5 Cranch C. C. 550 512, 515, 517 Leather Cloth Co. r. American L. C. Co., 10 Jur. N. s. 81 364,365 {•. , 11 H. L. C. 523 365 Leatlier Manufacturers' Bank v. Coop- er, 120 U. S. 778 37, 133, 816 Leavenworth v. I'epper, 32 Fed. R. 718 143, 145 Leavenworth County r. Barnes, 94 U. S. 70 770 Leavenworth Conntv Comm'rs '■. Chi- cago, R. I. & P. liy. Co., 134 U. S. 688 25, 118 Leddel's Ex'r v. Starr, 19 N. J. Fq 159 Lee, Ex parte, 4 Cranch C. C. 197 V. Blaiidy, 1 Bond, 3(Jl V. Brown, 4 Ves. 362 V. Lee, 1 Hare, 617 298, 299, 388 V. , 8 Pet. 44 1026 r. Milner, 2 Y. & C. 611 344 V. Simpson, 42 Fed. R. 434 640, 645 V. Watson, 1 Wall. 337 33 Lee County v. Rogers, 7 Wall. 181 Leech v. Bailev, 6 Price, 504 V. Kay, 4'Fed. R. 72 Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Wheat. 380 Leepcr r. Texas, 139 U. S. 462; 11 S. C. Rep. 577 542, 730, 73;; LelHngwell r. Warren, 2 Black, 599 Leftwich V. Lecann, 4 Wall. 187 Lcgard ;;. Dalv, 1 Ves. Sen. 192 — - V. Shefiield, 2 Atk. 377 Legrand v. Whitehead, 1 Russ .30'.) Leliigli Coal & Nav. Co. v. (\iitral R. H.of N. J., 35N. J. Kq. ■526 Lehigh Zinc & I. Co r. N. J. Zinc & I. Co., 43 Fed. R. 545 34, 157, 162, 388 Lehman r. McQuown, 31 Fed. R. 1.38 391, 440, 453 Leicester r. Leicester, 10 Sim. 87 538 442 602 474 581 778 250 609 462 1001 778 785 548 108 545 422 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Ixix Leicester (Earl of) v. Perry, 1 Bro. C. C. 305 227, 250 Leigh V. Leigh, Daiiiell's CIi. Pr. Sti'J 14;J v. Tlioiiiiis, 2 V'es. Sen. 312 ll'J, ooo c. Ward, 2 Vent. 72 102 Leiper v. Biukley, 1 Cranch C. C. 2!) 613 Leitch V. Cumpston, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 47G 6(55 Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 17G 937, 10«5 Lem Iling Dun v. United States, 49 Fed. 11. 145 1063 Leo V. Union Pacific liy. Co., 17 Fed. K. 273 101,381 r. , 19 Fed. R. 283 146 Leo Hem How, In re, 47 Fed. R. 302 719 Leonard v. Ozaik Land Co., 115 U. 8. 465 1050 V. United States, 18 Ct. CI. 382 903 Le Texier v. iVIargravine of Anspacii, 15 Ves. 159 172 Letters Rogatory, In re, 36 Fed. R. 306, 531 Levi V. Columbia Ins. Co., 1 Fed. R. 200 12, 13 Levine v. Taylor, 12 Mass. 8 91 Leving i\ Caverlj', Prec. in Ch. 229 109 Levy i\ Buriey, 2 Snmn. 355 475 Lewarne v. Mexican Int. Imp. Co., 38 Fed. R. 029 155, 157 Lewis ('. Baird, 3 McL. 56 241, 240 r. Bridgman, 2 Sim 465 305, 306 u. Cocks, 23 Wall. 46(3 7, 21, 25, 217, 229, 1087 V. Darling, 16 How. 1 132, 135 V. Fullarton, 2 Beav. 6 363 V. Sliainwald, 7 Sawy. 403 90, 455, 457, 458 Lewisburg Bank v Slieffey, 140 U. S. 445 569,1019,1020 Liciifield (Earl of) v. Bond, 5 Beav. 513 265 Life Insurance Co. v. Bangs, 103 U. S. 780 25, 237 Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams, 9 Pet. 571 703 f. Wilson, 8 Pet. 291 703, 712, 1021, 1090 Lilientlial v. Wallach, 37 Fed. R. 241 652 V. Washburn, 8 Fed. R. 707 248 Lillia y. Airev, 1 Ves. Jr. 277 582 Lincoln c. Baltelle, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 475 524 r. CI all in, 7 Wall. 132 786 Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529 9, 106, 688 Linder u. Lewis, 1 Fed. R. 378 206 Lindsay v. Lynch, 2 Sch. & Lef. 1 278 Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland (Md.) 236 578, 579 Linn v. Green, 17 Fed. R. 407 1<)8 Linton v. Mosgrove, 14 Fed. R. 543 3.50 Lip]iiiicott r. Shaw Carriage Co., 34 Fed. R. 570 581 Litchfield v. Ballou, 114 U. S. 190 23 Little V. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547 1066 V. District of Columbia, 19 Ct. CI. 323 911 V. Giles, 118 U. S. 596 536, 816 V. Gould, 2 Blatciif. 165 362, 363 V. Merrill, 62 iMe. 328 288 Littleficld r. Perry, 21 Wall 205 17, 113 Little Miami & C. & X. R. Co. v. United States, 108 U. S. 277 1083 Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566 39, 118 Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. S. Co. t-. Comm'rs of Emigration, 113 U. S. 33 Livingston v. Dorgenois, 7 Cranch, 236 703 199 V. Gibbons, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 94 V. Kane, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 224 538, 539 V. Pettigrew, 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 405 434 0. Story, 9 Pet. 632 499 V. , 11 Pet. 351 228 V. Woodworth, 15 How. 546 138, 570 Lloyd, In re, 10 Beav. 451 653 V. , 2 Dick. 460 109 Brewster, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 537 V. Gurdon, 2 Swanst. 180 V. Heatii, Busb. Eq. (N. C. V Johnes, 9 Ves. 37 117 150 353 I 39 357 312, 314, 317, 319 — r. Loaring, 6 Ves. 773 120 — y. London, C. & D. Ry. Co., 2 De G. J. & S. 568 ; 1 1 Jur. n. s. 380 344, 345 r. Smith, 13 Sim. 457 r. Spiliat, 3 P. Wms. .344 Lobsiger v. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 687 Locke V. Covert, 42 Hun (N. Y.), 484 V. United States, 7 Cranch, 3-39 Lockhart v. Horn, 3 Woods, 542 Lock wood r. Cleaveland, 6 Fed. R. 721 Locomotive E. S. T. Co. v. Erie Ry. Co., 10 Blatchf. 292 Loder t;. Phelps, 13 Wend. 48 Lodge r. Stoddart, 9 Reporter, 137 ■' V. Twell, 135 U. S. 232 116 643 902 429 482 206 290 570 729 364 1023 Loewcnstein v. Biernbaum, 8 W. N. C. (Pa.) 163 455 Logan V. Patrick, 5 Cranch, 288 142, 191 Loker v. Rolle, 3 Ves. 4 498, 499 London v. Bolt, 5 Ves. 129 331, 375 V. Corporation of Liverpool, 3 Anst. 738 226 V. Cox, L. R. 2 H. L. 239 692, 697, 698, 699 V. Levy, 8 Ves. 398 224, 498 v. Perkins, 3 Bro. P. C. 602 123, 157 London Packet. The, 2 Wheat. 371 1081 Loney, In re, 134 U. S. 372 729 Ixx TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Lonoudoni!.Ta.xingI)ist.l04 U. S. 771 1079 Louisiana v. Jurnel, 107 U. S 711 104, 871, 704 V. New Orleans, 102 U. S. 203 794 V. , 108 U. S. 521 1073 V. Pilsburv, 105 U. S. 278 '779 V. Steele, "^184 U. S. 230 105 Louisiana Bank v. Whitnev, 121 U. S. 284 ' 568, 1023 Louisiana Ins. Co. v. Nickerson, 2 Low. 810 Louisiana S. L. Co. r. Clark, 16 Fed. R. 20 ; 4 Woods, 169 V. Filzpatrick, 3 Woods, 222 Louisville P. W. Co. v. Collector, 49 Fed. R. 561 970, Louisville Underwriters, In re, 184 U. S. 488 46, Louisville, C. & C. R. R. Co. v. Let- son, 2 How. 497 Louisville, E. & St. L. R. R. v. Wil- son, 138 U. S. 501 406, 407, Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Ide, 114 U. S. 52 816, V. Palmes, 109 U. S. 244 1-. Wangelin, 132 U. S. 599 V. Woodson, 134 U. S. 614 Louisville, N. O. & T. R. R. Co. v. Mississijipi, 133 U. S. 587 Lousada ?'. Templer, 2 Russ. 565 Love V. Baker, 1 Ch. Cas. 67 Lovejoy r. Murray, 8 Wall. 1 r. United States, 128 U. S. 171 775, Lovell V. Cragin, 1.36 U. S. 130 38, Loveridge v. Earned, 7 Fed. R. 294 Lovett r. Prentice, 44 Fed. R. 459 Loving r. Fairchild, 1 McL. 333 Low V. Durfee, 5 Fed. K. 256 V. Hauel, 1 Wall. Jr. 345 Lowe V. Farlie, 2 Madd. 101 V. Lowe, 1 Tenn. Ch. 515 ('. Richardson, 3 Madd. 277 Lowell V. Lewis, 1 Mason, 182 Loweustein v. Glidewell, 5 Dill. 325 294 Lowndes r. Bettle, 33 L. J. Ch. 461 Lowther /•. Andover, 1 Bro. C. C. 396 Loyd r. Cardy, Prec. in Ch. 171 Lubiere ?•. Genou, 2 Ves. Sen. 579 Lucas V. Brooks, 18 Wall. 486 V. Lucas, 18 Ves. 274 2-58 Lucille, The, 19 Wall. 73 867, Luco V. United States, 23 How. 515 Lull V. Clark, 20 Fed. R. 454 558, Lumbrozo v. White, 1 Dick. 150 Luminary, The, 8 Wheat. 407 Lumley r. Wagner, 1 De G. M. & G. 604 Lung Chung v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co , 19 Fed. R. 254 Lundberg v. Albany & R. I. & S. Co., 82 Fed. R. 501 Lunt V. Davison, 104 Mass. 498 Lupton V. Stephenson, 11 Ir. Eq. 484 Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 V. The Merritt Hunt, Newh. 4 Lutterel's Case, Prec. in Ch. 50 93, Lu.xton r\ Stephens, 3 P. Wms. 373 Lyell V. Goodwin, 4 McL. 29 Lyman v. Brown, 2 Curt. 559 855 345 357 1010 687 88 1030 816 210 814 542 277 352 787 774, , 776 820, 1027 581 84 247 764 384 225 447 178 253 192, , 295 356 573 457 294 486 ,264 1023 959 ,561 483 482 360 687 769 715 443, 444 986 514, 518 354 683 197 237 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Ixxi LyiiKin V. & R. Co. v. Southard, 12 Bhitclif. 405. 645 Lyiicli i^. Bernal, 9 Wall. 315 942, 945, 952, 958, 1103 Lyon V. Donaldson, 34 Fed. H. 789 570 Lyster v. Stickney, 12 Fed. K. 609 279, ^ 584 Lytle, In rf, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 251 451 V. Arkansas, 22 How. 193 994 M. McAleer v. Clay County, 42 Fed. R. 655 714 McAllister v. Kuhn, 96 U. S. 87 1087, 1091 r. United States, 141 U. S. 174 750 McArtiiur v. Kellv, 5 Oiiin, 130 370 V. Scott, 113 U. S. 340 121, 123 Macaulay v. White S. M. Co., 9 Fed, R. 608 Macauley r. United States, 11 Ct. CI. r. , 11 Ct. CI. 693 McBrntney v. Usher, 1 Dill. 367 McBride r. Comm'rs of Pierce County, 44 Fed. R. 17 354, 856 V. Grand de Tour Plow Co., 40 Fed. R. 102 200 IVIcCabe v. Bellows, 1 Allen (Mass.), 209 160 McCall V. McDowell, 1 Abb. U. S. 212 737 I'. Towers, 1 Cranch C. C. 41 520 McCardle, E.r parte, 6 Wall. 318 722, 723 Ex parte, 7 Wall. 50(5 1088 McCargo v. Chapman, 20 How. 555 1022 McCartv & H. Trading Co. v. Glaen- zer, 30 Fed. R. 387 36 McCauley v. Kellogg, 2 Woods, 13 373 McCauU V. Braham, 16 Fed. R. 37 McCIane v. Boon, 6 Wall. 244 McClaskev. r. Barr, 42 Fed. R. 609 r. , 45 Fed. R. 151 V , 48 Fed. R. 130 301 915 900 839 36(5 1100 779 186, 187 781 McCloskey v. Barr, 38 Feil. R. 165 220, 227, 228, 230, 236, 240, 244 McClung V. SiUinian, 6 Wheat. 598 704, 706 McCluny v. Silliman, 3 Pet. 270 12 McClure v. United States, 116 U. S. 145 898, 1091 McCollum V. Eager, 2 How. 61 1023 McCorab V. Chicago, St L. & N. O. R. R. Co., 7 Fed. R. 426 111 V. Commissioners of Knox Co., 91 U. S. 1 1002, 1021 McConihay v Wright, 121 U. S. 201 8, 9 McCunville v. Gilmour, 36 Fed. R. 227 30, 32, 35 McCormick r. Chamberlin, 11 Paige (N. y.), 543 2(54 V. Gray, 13 How. 26 3:5 V. Jerome, 3 Blatchf. 486 383 McCortnick v. Knox, 105 U. S. 122 572 V. Sullivant. 10 Wiieat. 192 72(5 McCormick H. M. Co. v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41 44, 45, 189, 687 McCosker v. Brady, 1 Barb. (X. Y.) 329 395 McCoy V. Cincinnati, I., St. L. & C. R. R. Co., 13 Fed. R. 3 342, 373 V. Nelson, 121 U. S. 484 163, 164, 165 V. Rhodes, 11 How. 131 128 McCrary v. Pennsylvania Canal Co., 5 Fed. R. 307 389, 393 McCulloh V. Association H. S., 45 Fed. R. 479 420 McDonald. The, 4 Blatchf. 477 8(35 McDonald d. Edmonds, 44 Cal. 328 472 y. Hovey, llOU. S. 619 904,1037 V. Salem C. F. M. Co., 31 Fed. R. 577 40, 228, 240, 849 V. Whitney, 39 Fed. R. 466 071 McDonnell v. Eaton, 18 Fed. R. 710 131, 158 V. White, 11 H. L. C. 570 417 McElmurray v. Loomis, 31 Fed. R. 395 811 McElrath v. Mcintosh, 1 Law Rep. N. s. 399 370 V. Pittsburg & S. R. R. Co., 5 Pa. St. 189 571 V. United States, 102 U. S. 426 900, 901 v. , 12 Ct. CI. 312 901 McElroy v. Kansas City, 21 Fed. R. 257 357 McElwain v. Willis, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 505 ^ 225 McEvers v. Lawrence, Hoffm. (N. Y.), 1 72 429 McFaul V. Ramsey, 20 How. 523 1090, 1091 McFerran v. Taylor, 3 Cranch, 281 3 McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S. 662 104 McGarralian v. Mining Co., 96 U. S. 316 472 McGehee v. Polk, 24 Ga. 406 458 McGintus v. Erie County, 45 Fed. R. 1 12 McGoon V. Scales, 9 Wall. 23 542 McGowan v. United States, 20 Ct. CI. 147 899 McGowin v. Remington, 12 Pa. St. 56 307, 373 McGregor v. McGillis, 30 Fed. R. 388 839 Macgregor v. Macgregor, 9 Iowa, 05 570 Mc(iuire v. Commonwealth, 3 Wall. 382 1003, 1065, 1066 V. Eames, 15 Blatchf 312 3(;0 McHenry r. New York, P. & (). R. R. Co., 25 Fed. R. 65 834 Mclntire r. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504 704 Mack )•. Jones, 31 Fed. H. 189 453, 846 Mackall r. Casilear, 137 U. S. 550 171 r. Richards, 112 U. S. 369 1098 V. , 110 U. S. 45 1089, 1096, 1097, 1099 Ixxii TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] McKay v. Dibert, 5 Fed. II. 587 McKean v Delancy's Lessee, t Cranch, 22 McKee v. Travellers' Ins. Co., 41 Fed R. 117 V. United States, 10 Ct. CI. 208 V. , 10 Ct. CI. 231 McKeen v. Ives, 35 Fed. H. 801 McKedin v. Northern Pac. li. Co., 45 Fed. K. 4(U Macker v. Tliomas, 7 Wheat. 530 3.59, 382 777 147 '.)33 'j33 823 461 770, 1032 Mackett r. Comni'rs of Heme Bay, 24 W. K. 845 376 Mclvevvan v. Sanderson, L. R. 16 Eq. 316 243, 247 MoKim V. Voorhies, 7 Cranch, 249 347 Mackin r. United States, 117 U. S. 318 72(j, 981 McKinistry v. United States, 34 Fed. R. 211 610,617,618,619,620 McKiniiey v. Carroll, 12 Pet. 66 770 Mackintosh v. Flint & P. K. R. Co., 34 Fed. R. 582 315 McKnight r. Craig's Admr. 6 Cranch, 183 7G0, 762 V. United States, 98 U. S. 179 900 V. , 13 Ct. CI. 292 900, 901 Mackretii r. ¥ox, 4 Bro. P. C. 2-58 3 1-. Nicholson. 19 Ves. 367 188 McLaanlian c. Universal Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 170 1090 McLauglilin r. Bank of Potomac, 7 How. 220 1086 V. Swann, 18 How. 217 315 r. United States, 107 U. S. 526 15 McLean, In re, 37 Fed. R 648 490 , In re 9 Cent. L. J. 425 611 V. Clark, 23 Fed. R. 861 585 V. Lafayette Bank. 3 McL. 185 347 i-. ,3 McL. 415 156 y. _ 3 McL. 503 322, 323 McLennan >: Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co , 22 Fed. R. 198 767 McLish V. RolT, 141 U. S. 661 905, 1008, 1009, 1018 McMicken r. Perrin, 18 How. .507 665 V. United States, 97 U. S. 204 041, 946, 947 McMillin r St Louis & M. V. T. Co., 18Fed. R. 260 163,164,165 McMuUen v. United States, 24 Ct. CI 394 McNaniara >•. Dwyer, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 239 McNeill ". Cahill, 2 Bligh, 228 V. Town of Andes, 40 Fed. R 45 McNiel i: Ilolbrook, 12 Pet. 84 629 95 545 462 487, 766, , 1092 McNulta V. Locliridge, 12 S. C. Rep. 11 . 439,452 McNulty V. Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 46 Fed. R. 305 814 McQuillon, Ex parte, 3 West. Law Mo. 440 ; 9 PiHsb. L. J. 29 737 McRea r. Branch Bank of Ala., 19 How. 376 130, 132 McWiUianis Manuf. Co. v. Blundell, 11 Fed. R. 419 383 Mabey, The, 10 Wall. 419 1078, 1081 Maddux v. United States, 20 Ct. CI. 193 ' 899 Magniac i;. Thompson, 2 Wall. Jr. 209 210 Maguire v. Tyler, 8 Wall. 650 963 Malian v. United States, 14 Wall. 109 1091 Mabon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700 744 Mahoney Min. Co. v. Bennett. 4 Sawy. 289 ' 453 V. , 5 Sawy. 141 830 Maine v. Oilman, 11 Fed. R. 214 843 Mair v. Himalaya Tea Co., L. R. 1 Fq. 411 366 Malarin v. United States, 1 Wall. 282 952, 953, 961, Malcolm v. Montgomery, 2 Moll. 500 441 Mallack v. Gallon, 3 P. Wms. 352 573 xMallory Manuf. Co. v. Fox, 20 Fed. R. 409 455, 562, 650 Mallow V. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193 126, I28, 130, 137 Malone v. Richmond & D. R. R. Co., 35 Fed. R. 625 827, 831, 832 r. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 486 902 Maloy r. Duden, 25 Fed. R. 673 39, 834 Maltby V. Bobo, 14 Blatchf. 53 375 Maltz V. American Exp. Co., 3 Cent. L. J. 784 39 Manaton v. Moleswortb, 1 Eden, 18 172, 673 Manby r. Robinson, L. R. 4 Ch. 347 180 Manchester F. A. Co. i". Stockton, C. H. & A. Works, 38 Fed. R. 378 499 Mandeville v. Holev, 1 Pet. 136 1089 V. Riggs, 2 Pet. 482 121, 1062 Manhattan (^o. v. Evertson, 4 I'aige (N. Y.), 276 556 Manhattan I. W. Co. r. French, 12 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 446 357 Maniiattan L. I. Co. v. Broughton, 109 U. S. 121 5.37 Mann v. King, 18 Ves. 297 326 Manners i\ R()wlej% 10 Sim. 470 154 Maimers (Lord) u. Johnson, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 673 344 Manning. In re, 44 Fed. R. 275 65.3, 657 V. Amy, 140 U. S. 137 819 V. San Jacinto Tin Co., 9 Fed. R. 721 941 r. Weeks, 1.39 U. S. 504 340 Mansfield, C. & L. M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379 536, 584, 847, 849 Manufacturing Co. v. Bradiev, 105 U. S. 175 ' 8, 50, 129, 156 V. S.iliers, 6 Cent. L. J. 82 638 r. United States, 17 Wall. 592 901 Many, Ex parte, 14 How. 24 703 TABLE OP CASES. [Refereuces are to pages.] Ixxiii Many v. Beekman Iron Co., 9 I'aige, 189 111 V. Sizer, 1 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 31 3.j'.>, 3150 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, lo7 5, 102, 702 Marcliand v. Freilsen, 105 U. S. 42J 105:] i: Livandais, 127 U. S. 775 lu:]2 Mare r. Malacliy, 1 M. & C. 559 1 12 Margrave v. Le Hooli. 180, 192, 583 Marvin i>. Aultmaii, 46 Fed. R. 338 686, 707 r. Unitwl States, 44 Fed. R. 405 5'.)9, 001, 004, 005, GOT, 008, GIO, 611. 616, 617, 019 Mary, The, 8 Cranch, 388 lOSO Marye v. Parsons, 114 U. S. 325 20, 369 t: Strouse, 6 Sawy. 201 326 Maryland r. Baldwin, 112 U. S. 490 37 .Marv Lord, The, 31 Fed. K. 416 871 .Mason, Ex p'nie, 105 U. S. 090 7.39 , In re, 43 Fed. R. 510 651 V. Bogg, 2 Myl. & C. 443 120 V. Hamilton, 5 Sim. 19 t. Hartford, P. & F. R. R. Co., 10 Fed. R. 334 242, 209, 270, 279, 280 L-. , 19 Fed. R. 53 95, 305, 306 r. Lake, 2 Bro. P. C. 495 21(5 i: Muncasier, 3 Cranch C. C.403 G24 V. Northwestern Ins. Co., 106 U. S. 103 575 V. Rollins, 2 Biss. 99 367 f. United States, 136 U. S. 581 1032, 1035 Massa v. Cutting, 30 Fed. R. 1 34 Massauiiusetts v. Rhode Island, 12 Pet. 755 28, 29 Massachusetts Mut. L. I. Co. r. Chi- cago & A. R. Co., 13 Fed. R. 857 2-32, 233 Massachusetts & S. Const. Co. v. Township of Cherokee, 42 Fed. R. 750 1049 Massie v. Graham, 3 McL. 41 665, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674 V. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148 2, 352, 571 Massingill v. Downs, 7 How. 760 789,790 Masterson c. Herndon, 10 Wall. 416 1031, 1032 v. Howard, 18 Wall. 99 206, 1082 Matcalm v. Smith, 6 McLean, 416 115 iVlatteson u. Scofiehl, 27 Wis. 671 572 Matiiiaei v. Galitziti, L. R. 18 Eq. 340 571 Matthews v. Green, 19 Fed. R. 049 17 V. Ironclad Manuf. Co., 19 Fed. R. 321 382 V. Lalance & G. Manuf. Co., 2 Fed. R. 232 231, 248, 271 t: Offley, 3 Sumner, 115 475 V. Puffer, 10 Fed. R 006 196 r. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 568 196, 491 c. Warner, 6 Fed. R. 4<31 r. , 112 U. S. 600 Mattliewson v. Stockdale, 12 Ves. 270 363 Mattocks ('. Tremarn, 3 Johns Ch. (N. Y.) 75 Maury «. Mason, 8 Port. (Ala.) 213 V. Van Arnum, 1 Hill (\. Y.), 370 483 Ma.'t .Morris, The, 137 U. S. 1 859 Maxwell v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 34 Fed. R. 280 33, 190, 191 f. Kennedy, 8 How. 210 214 Maxwell Land Grant Case, 121 U. S. 325 940 , 122 U. S. .305 946, lOHO May, In re, 1 Fed. R. 737 652 I}. County of Fond du Lac, 27 Fed. R. 61)1 12 /•. County of Logan, 30 Fed. R. 2.50 12, 770 v. Junean Countv, 137 U. S. 408 680 (;. Mercer County, 30 Fed. R. 246 686 10, 173 10, 173 4-57, 4-58 251 Ixxiv TABLE OF CASES. 843 10b8 726, 745 566 313 21)2 715 [Refereuces May 1-. St. John, 38 Fed. R. 770 814 Mavberry v. Thompson, 5 How. 121 1U21 iMaver, In re, L. K. 3 I'. & M. 39 415 r. Denver, T. & F. VV. K. Co., 41 Fed. K. 723 V. Foiilkrt)d, 4 Wasli. 349 V. Walsh, 108 U. S. 17 Mayfield, In re, 141 U. S. 107 MaVliew r. West Virginia U. & O. L Co., 24 Fed. U. 205 Mavnard i*. Green, 30 Fed. R. 643 i: Poml'ret, 3 Atk. 468 Mayor, The, v. Lord, 9 Wall. 409 Mayor of London v. Bolt, 5 Ves. 129 331, 375 I'. Cox, L. H. 2 H. L. 239 692, 697, 698, 699 r. Levy, 8 Ves. 398 224, 498 Mayor ot New York v. Miln, 9 Pet. 85 1075 I^Iavor of York v. Pilkhigton, 1 Atk. 282 123, 157 V. , 2 Atk. 302 351 Mays i\ Rose, Freem. Cli. (Miss.) 703 399 ALizarredo v. Maitland, 3 Madd. 66 257 Meach v. Chappell, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 135 484 Mead v. Lord Orrery, 3 Atk. 235 445 Meade v. Beale, Taney's Dec. 339 5, 6, 7 r. Keanc, 3 Cranch C. C. 51 522, 523 V. United States, 18 Ct. CI. 281 ; 109 U. S. 146 Meath v. Board of Miss. Conim'rs, 109 U. S. 268 V. Phillips County, lOS 553 Mechanics' Bank r. Seton, 299 'Medley, Petitioner, 134 U. S. 160 724, 729, 751 Med.sker v. Bonebrake, 108 U. S. 66 Meier r. Kansas Pac. R. K. Co , 5 Dill. 4V6 Meigs I'. McClung, 9 Cranch. 11 Meissner r. Buck, 28 Fed. H. 161 Melius i;. Thompson, 1 t;iifE. 125 244,298, 301, 305 Mempliis r. Brown, 94 U. S. 715 1018, 1037, 1048, 1051 V. United States, 97 U. S. 293 705 JNIemphis Citv i-. Dean, 8 Wall. 64 228, 231 Mendenhall r. Hall, 131 U. S. 5-59 lo-^i, 174, 10:;8 Menzies r. Rodriguez, 1 Price, 92 385 Mercantile Trust Co. c Kanawha & O. Ry. Co., 39 Fed. U. 337 14, 399 i\ Missouri, K. & T. Uv. Co., 3(3 Fed. R. 22 ' .397 V. , 41 Fed. R. 8 398, 407, 424, 765 ?vIercor County >: Hacket, 1 Wall. 8.'\ 778 ^'prchants' Exchange Co. v. United States, 1 Ct. CI. 332 909 Merchants' Ins. Co. r. Allen, 121 U. S. 67 904 Levee 98 U. S. 11, 235 1 Pet. 16, 134, 523 563 451 102 287 are to pages.] Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Glendon Co., 120 xMnss. 97 467 r. State Nat. Bank, 3 Cliff. 201 768 Merchants' & M. Nat. Bank v. Kent Circuit Jildge, 43 Mich. 292 440 V. Wheeler, 13 Blatchf. 218 840 Merriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. S. 472 20, 278, 414, 415, 416, 705 r. Muhlenberg Countv, 120 U. S. 354 " 780 V. United States, 13 Ct. CI. 2-59 008 Merrill v. Dawson, Henipst. 563 511, 513, 515, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523 Merryfiekl v. Jones, 2 Curt. 300 889 i\lerryman, E.r jiarte, Taney, 246 737 Mersman r. Werges, 112 U. S. 139 55 Merwin r. Smith, 1 Green Ch. (N. J.) 182 565 Mesa V. United States, 2 Black, 721 961 Metal Stamping Co. v. Crandall, 18 Off. Gaz. 1:361 309 Metcalf v. Hervey, 1 Ves. Sen. 248 177, 178, 179, 211 V. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586 37, 42, 56 V. Williams, 104 U. S. 93 16 Metcalfe v. Metcalfe, 1 Keen, 74 305 V. Pulvertoft, 1 Ves. & B. 180 440 Metier r. Metier, 19 N. J. Eq. 457 499 Metropolitan G. &S. Exch. v. Chicago Board of Trade, 15 Fed. R. 847 385 Metropolitan R. R. Co. v. Moore, 121 U. S. 558 782 Meux V. Bell, 6 Sim. 175 179 Mexican Ore Co. '■. Mexican G. M. Co., 47 Fed. R. 351 42, 319 Mever v. Cadwalader, U. S. D. C. E. D. Pa., Dec. 8, 1891 783 V. Ilerrera, 41 Fed. R. 658 44 V. Johnston, 53 Ala. 237 425,426 Meyers v. Block, 120 U. S. 206 9, 391 '- V. Busbv, 32 Fed. U 670 254, 686 Micas r. Williams, 101 U. S. 5.56 1067 Michoud r. (iirod, 4 How. 503 569, 1019 IMii'klethwaite v. Atkinson, 1 Coll. 173 2.J8, 264 Middleton r. Bankers' & M. Tel. Co , 32 Fed. H. 524 561 V. Dodswell, 13 Ves. 266 441 V. Sherburne, 4 Y. & C. 3.58 549 Migliorucci v. Migliorucci, 1 Dick. 147 645 Milburn, /s.r /xtrte, 9 Pet. 704, ti. 745, 746 Miller r. Biichan;in, 5 Fed. R. 366 255 r. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 17 Fed. R. 97 83.3 V. Clark, 138 U. S. 223 34, 1028 Fed. ,47 Fed. R. 850 674 Gotten, 5Ga. 311 145 Dale, 92 U. S .473 956 Eastern Oregon G. M. Co ,45 45 227 Fenton, 11 P; ige (X. Y.). 18 Jamisoi ,9C. E. Green (N J.). 41 160 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Ixxv .Miller c. JoseF»li, 17 Wall. 0-35 10U2, 1003 V. Kent, IS Fell. K. uiJl 84y c. lAg'rett & M. Tobacco Co., 7 Fed. R. 01 533 V. Mc Kirov, 1 Am. L. Keg. 198 362 i: McKeiizie, 10 Wall. 5!S2 1040 t: Soott, 6 Phila. (Pa.) 4«4 490, 690 ('. Tobin, 18 Fed. 11. 609 839 c. Younsi, 2 Cranch C. C. 53 512 Miller's Adm. v. Norfolk & W. It. Co., 41 Fed. 11. 431 687 Miller-Magee Co. v. Carpenter, 34 Fed. R. 433 32, 208 Milligan, Ex parte, 4 Wall. 2 737, 739, 808, 978 r. Lalance & G. Manuf. Co., 21 Blatchf. 407 ; 17 Fed. H. 46.3 f. Milledge, 3 Cranch, 220 127 V. Mitchell, 1 M. & K. 446 Milliken v. Ross, 9 Fed. R 8.55 V. Selye, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 54 Millington v. Fox, 3 M. & C. 338 844 228, 246 353 781 483 580, 581 331 Mills, In re, 135 U. S. 263 V. Dennis, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 367 201, 262, 573 r. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481 479 V. Fry, 3 Ves. & B. 9 538 V. Hard, 32 Fed. R. 127 126, 157 V. Newell, 41 Fed. R. 529 805, 839 !'. Northern Ry. of 13. A. Co , 23 L. T. N. s. 719 — r. Scott, 9.3 U. S. 25 — c. United States, 19 Ct. CI. 343, 397 10, 77y rO 8'.t7, 901) 1033 Milner v. Meek, 95 U. S. 2-52 Miltenberger r. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 286 112, 402, 403, 40-5, 407, 408, 425, 426, 427, 441, 442, 443, 1045 Milvvard o. Wel-len. Tothill, 101 272 Milwaukee v. Koelfler, 116 U. S. 219 20 Milwaukee R. R. Co., Ex p'lr/c. 5 Wall. 188 703, 704, 1052 Milwaukee & M. R. R. Co v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 440 5ti9, 1019 (•. , 2 Wall. 510 397, 399, 453 Milwaukee & R. 1{. Canal Co. v. United States, 1 Ct. CI. 187 902 Mineau, /« re, 45 Fed. K. 188 . 744 Miner v. Markham, 28 Fed. R. 387 196, 199, 491, 842 Miners' Rank r. United States, 5 How. 213 1022 Mining Co. r. Taylor, 100 U. S. 37 771 Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall. 609 42, 141, 142. 308, 31:;, 319 Minturn v. Larue, Mc.\ll. 370 362 Minuse r. Cox, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 441 644 Mirzan. E.r pnrtp, 119 U. S, 584 748 Mississippi I'. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475 19. 95, 18."). I'.m, 370 Mi.<.: Piiiladelphia, 1 W. N. C. (Pa.) .37 356 Muscan H. M.Co. ?•. American II. M. Co., 1 Fisher I'at. Cas. 320 360 Musurave v. Parry. 2 Vern. 710 9-3, 354 Mnss(dr Morgan! 3 Hro. C.C. 74 678,679 Musselman y. Marquis, 1 Bush (Ky.), 463 357 Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355 784, 1038, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1053, 1054 Mutual L. I. Co. V. Champlin, 21 Fed. R. 85 805, 824 Myers v. Cunningham, 44 Fed. K. 346 686 r. Dorr, 13 Bktclif. 22 248, 271 r. Fenn, 5 Wall. 205 3:J3, 385 V. Murray, 43 Fad. K. 695 45, 819 V. State, 21 W. L. Enl. 404; 24 N. E. Hep. 43 651 Myrick v. Mioiiigan Cent. R. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102 777, 778 N. Nabob of Aroot v. East India Co., 3 Bro. C. C. 292 240 Nabob of the Carnatic i". East India Co., 1 Ves. Jr. 374 284 Nalder i-. Hawkins, 2 M. & K. 243 92, 93 Nanney r. Tottey, 11 Price, 117 306 Napier r. Lady Effingham, 2 P. Wms. 401 574 Nash c. Williams, 20 Wall. 226 485, 513 Nashua & L R. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. R. Co., 136 U. S. 356 39 Nashville C. & St. L. Ry. Co. i'. United States, 113 U. S. 261 898 National Bank c. Bank of Commerce, 99 U. S. 608 1043 t: Carpenter, 101 U. S. 567 214, 274, 284, 1085 l: Colby, 21 Wall. 609 297 0. Insurance Co., 95 U. S. 673 1084 V. , 104 U. S. 54 3, 16, 216, 221, 2211, 227, 240, 244, 297. 544, 1086 r. Kentucky, 9 Wall. 353 1086 v. Kimball, 103 U. S. 732 174, 389 v. .McGahan. 45 Fed. R. 280 1049 IV Omaha, 96 U. S. 737 1046 National C K. Co. r. Boston C. I. & H. Co., 41 Fed. R. 51 352 National Furnace Co. /;. Moline M. I. Works, 18 Fed. R. 863 198, 199 National Home v. Butler, 33 Fed. R. 374 340 National Manuf. Co. v. Meyers, 7 Fed. R. 355 250 National Mech. Banking Assoc. >: Mariposa Co., 60 Barb. (N. Y.) 423 453 National Trust Co. v. Miller, 33 N. J. Eq. 155 429 National Typographic Co. v. New York Typog. Co., 44 Fed. R. 711 Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 195 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Neal V. Foster, 34 Fed. R. 496 Ixxvii 45 1043, ]08(» Nauvoo i\ Ritter, 97 U. S. 389 1086 Nazro v. Cragin, 3 1)111. 474 763 Neafie v. Cheesbrough, 14 Blatchf. 313 772 Neagle, In re, 135 U. S. 1 648, 752, 753. 796, 836, 964, 1026 , 39 Fed. R. 833 G48, 796 287, 290. 291, 295 Neale v. Foster, 31 Fed. R. 53 827, 831 V. Neales, 9 Wall. 1 277 Nebraska City Nat. Bank v. Ne- braska City H. G. L. Co., 14 Fed. R. 763 213 Neediiam v. Smith, 2 Vern. 463 668 Neilson v. Lagow. 7 How. 772 994 Nellie Peck, The, 25 Fed. K. 463 626 Nellis r. McLanahan, 6 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 286 158, 165 V. Pennock Manuf. Co., 38 Fed. 11. 379 27.3 Nelson v. Barker, 3 McL. 379 337 r. Hennessey, 33 Fed. R. 113 817 V. Hill, 5 How. 127 156, 159 i\ United States, Pet. C. C. 235 621, 524 V. Woodruff, 1 Black, 156 515, 1087 Nereyda, La, 8 Wheat. 108 1081 Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 Woodb. & M. 34 126, 464 V. Sheldon, 6 How. 41 985, 993 V. , 7 How. 812 542, 777 Nessle v. Reese, 19 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 240 357 Nevada, The, 106 U. S. 514 1029 Neve V. Weston, 3 Atk. 557 234 Neves v. Scott, 13 How. 268 10, 779 Newall V. Wilson, 2 De G. M. & G. 280 359 Newbery v. James, 2 Meriv. 446 341 Newburgh (Earl of) v. Countess of Newburgh, 5 .Madd. 364 548 Newbury v. Marten, 15 Jur. 166 573 Newby v. Oregon Cent. Rv. Co., 1 Sawv. 63 '229, 243, 244 Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S 581 781, 1090 New England, The, 3 Sumn. 495 704, 870 New England Mut. L. I. Co. v. Odell, 50 Hun (N. Y.), 279 181 New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76 29, 107 New Hampshire Land Co. v. Tilton, 29 Fed. R. 764 642, 684 New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461 28 V. , 5 Pet. 284 28 V. , 6 Pet. 323 28. 199 New Jersey Cent. R. R. Co. v. Mills, 113 U. S. 249 131 Newman, Ex parte, 14 Wall. 152 703 y. Davenport, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 538 434 V. Moody, 19 Fed. R. 858 229, 336 New Orleans v. Gaines' Admr., 138 U. 8. 595 56, 1095 V. Louisiana Construction Co., 129 U. S. 45 1025, 1068 V. Morris, 105 U. -S. 600 3, 15, 23 V. . 3 Woods, 103 714 V. , 3 Woods, 115 795 y. New Orleans, M. & T. R. R. Co., 108 U. S. 15 1066 Ixxviii TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 20 Wall. 387 05^, 656 V. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91 38 New Orleans V. & B. Co. v. Stafford 12 How. 343 126, 127, 133, 134 New Orleans G. L. & B. Co. v. Dudley, 8 Paijie (X. Y.), 452 549 New Orleans Ins. Co. v. Albro Co., 112 U. S. 506 1047 New Orleans N. B. Assoc, v. New Or- leans Mut. Ins. Assoc, 102 U. S. 121 1001 New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Morgan, 10 Wall. 256 1018 New Orleans W. W. Co. v. Southern Brewing Co., 36 Fed. R. 833 779 New Orleans & IS. E. liy. Co. v. Jopes, 142 U. S. 18 786 Newport v. Bury, 23 Beav. 30 444 New Providence v. Halsey, 117 U. S. 336 536, 581 Newton v. Askew, 6 Hare, 319 196 V. Earl of Egnioni, 4 Sim. 574 120 New York r. Coimecticut, 4 Dail. 1 385 New York (Mayor of) v. Miln, 'a Bet. 85 1075 New York B. & P. Co. '•. Magowan, 27 Fe: Northcote, 1 Dick. 22 265 Northern Indiana R. R. Co. ;•. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 15 How. 233 130 Northern Pacific R. R. Co. i-. Aniato, U. S. S. C. April 11, 1892, 144 U. S. 968, 1007, 1026- i: , N. Y. L. J., Feb. 2, 1892 (U. S. C. C, 2d Cir. Jan , 1892) 1008, 1026, 1040 V. Burlington & Mo. R. R. Co., 2 McCra. 203 ; 4 Fed. R. 298 345, 357 >: Glaspel, 49 PVd. R. 482 r. Herbert, 116 U. S. 642 V. Mares, 123 U. S. 710 V. Paine, 119 U.S. 561 V. Roberts, 42 Fed. R. 734 r. St. Paul. M. & M. R. R. Co., 2 McCra. 260 ; 4 Fed. R. 688 389 r. , 47 Fed. R. 530 237 Northern R. R. Co. r. Ogdensburg & L C. R. R. Co.. 18 Fed. R. 815 288, 291 V. , 20 Fed. R. 347 288, 291 Northov r. Pearce, 1 Sim. & S. 420 374 Northinan v. Wade, 77 Ga. 651 37 North Star, The, 106 U. S. 17 8.')9, 863 Northwestern Fuel Co. r. Brock, 139 U. S. 216 1093 Norton, /■:>• parlfl, 108 U. S. 237 1018, 1021 r. European & N. A. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R. 865 5.36 r. Hepwortli, 1 Hall & Tw. 158 192, 305, 309 965 10V)0 778 684, 840 211 TABLE OF CASES. Ixxix [References Norton v. Slielby County, 118 U. S. 425 Norway, The, 1 Ben. 4'J:j ,2 Ben. 121 Norwood, J^jc parte, 3 Biss. 504 Nougue V. Clapp, 101 U. S. 551 840, 780 51 'J 520 95, 430 430, BT'J, 812 158, 105 Nourse v. Allen, 4 Blatclif. 370 Novello V. James, 5 De G. M. & G. 876 390 Novelty, The, Ben. 195 625, 626 Noyes *•. Canada, :^0 Fed. K. 665 200 V. W.illard, 1 Woods, 187 241, 241 Niidd V. Burrows, 91 U. S. 426 773, 774 Nuestra Senora de liegla, The, 17 Wall. 29 875, 1036 Nussbauni '•. Northern Ins. Co., 40 Fed. R. 337 687, 843 o. Oaks V. Hill, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 40 713 Gates V. National Bank, 100 U. S. 23'J 543, 778 Ober f. Gallagher, 93 U. S. 199 41, 56, 778, 843 O'C^ilhighan r. Cooper, 5 Ves. 117 613 Odorless Excavating Co. i'. Launian, 12 Fed. K. 788 360 O'Dowd V. liussell, 14 Wall. 402 1018, 1019, 1031, 1032. 1041 Oelrichs v. Spain, 15 Wall. 211 217. 229, 1087 Offeley I'. Morgan, Cary, 153 218 Ogilen V. Gibbons, Ilalst. Dig. (N. J.) 172 27'J Ogilvie r. Ilerne, 13 Ves. 563 2-37 v. Knox Ins. Co., 2 Black, 539 119, V. , 18 How. 577 988 i: , 22 How. 380 119, 129, 33:! Ogle i: Cook, 1 Ves. Sen. 177 550 V. Lee, 2 Cranch, 33 1098 V. Morgan, 1 De G. M. & G. 359 668 Oglesby v. Attrill, 12 Fed. R. 227 676 V. , 14 Fed. R. 214 277, 3.;8 Ogsbury r. LaFarge, 2 N. Y. 113 545 O'lLira r. MacCoiuiell, 93 U. S. l-'^O 92, 107, 109, 130, 187, 201, 202, 205, 20r,, 1089 V. Shcplierd, 3 Md. Ch. Dec. 306 314 Oiiio V. Ellis, 10 Ohio, 456 159 V. Frank, 103 U. S. 697 780 Oiiio Cent. R. R Co. i'. Central Trust Co., 133 U. S. 83 206, 575 Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416 ,543, 777, 779 Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286 39 Olcott V. Ilendrick, 141 U. S. 543; 12 S. C. Rep. 81 .567 • V. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678 777, 778 are to pages.] Oldfield IK Cobbett. 1 Phill. 013 331 Oldham c. Eboral, Coop. Sel. Cas. 27 308, 662 V. Oldham, 7 Ves. 410 458 Oleson V. Northern R. R. Co., 43 Fed. R. 112 162 i: , 44 Fed. R. 1 34 Oliver V. Decatur, 4 Cranch C. C. 458 217, 243 V. , 4 Cranch C. C. 592 304 r. Hamilton, 2 Anstr. 453 395 V. Piatt, 3 How. 333 117, 156, 159, 160 V. , 2 McL. 208 117 V. Rumford Chem. Works, 109 U. S. 75 114 Olney v. Tanner, 10 Fed. R. 101 95, 430, 439 Olyphant v. St. Louis O. & S. Co., 22 Fed. R. 179 405, 406 V. , 28 Fevl R- 729 412 Omaha Horse Rv. Co. v. Cable T. Co., 32 Fed. R. 727 (;. , 33 Fed. R. 689 O'.VIahoney v. Belmont, 62 N. Y. 133 847 313 V, , 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 223 Onderdonk v. Fanning, 2 Fed. R. 568 O'Neil r. Kansiis City^S. & M. R. Co., 31 F\nl. R. 663 Ord V. Huddieston, 2 Dick. 510 V. Noel, 6 Madd. 127 Oregon Iron Works, In re, 4 Savvy. 169 ; 17 N. B. R. 404 Oregon & T. Co. v. Northern Pac. \iy. Co , 32 Fed. R. 428 O'Reilly v. Campbell, 116 U. S. 418 451 451 652 639 229 672 23 Edrington, 96 U. S. 724 315 771, 1086 1046, 1062 212 602 Orendorf v. Budlong, 12 Fed. R. 24 Organ v. G;)r•. Hull, 9 Pet. G07 4G1, 479 c. Kiiicannon, 7 Pet. 399 1031 f. Norwood, 5 Cranch, 344 994 c. Tiernan, 10 Pet. 447 10G3 P. Paca V. Dutton, 4 Mo. 371 480, 481 Pacific Bank v. Mixter, 114 U. S. 463 1047, 1062 I'acific F.xpress Co. v. Malin, 132 U. S. 531 786, 788, 1027 r. Seibert, 44 Fed. R. 310 20, 23 Pacific Nat. Bank v. Mi.xter, 124 U. S. 721 764 Pacific R. R. V. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 289 37, 126.535, 5:16, 813 Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 1 35, 808, 810, 1086 Pacific R. R. of Mo. v. Atlantic & P. R. R. Co., 20 Fed R. 277 17, 118, 1-59 r. Ketchum, 95 U. S. 1 285, 1080 r. , 101 U. S. 289 1089 r. Missouri Pac. R R. Co., Ill U. S. 505 42, 141, 142, 147, 192, 209, 210, 215, 219, 2.37, 463, 678, 680 r. ,3 Fed. R. 772; 1 McCra. 647 192, 193 Pacific Railway Comm'n, In re, 32 Fed. R. 241 448, 490 Packer r. Boyd, 137 IT. S. 661 780 r. Ni.xon, 10 Pet. 408 981, 985 Packet Co. v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S. 559 210 Packington v. Packington, 1 Dick. 101 .386 Pagan v. Sparks, 2 Wasli. •)25 116 Page V. Fall River, W. & P. K. Co , 31 Fed. R. 257 39 V. Holmes R. A. Tel. Co., 18 Blatchf. 118; 2 Fed. U. 330 333, m\, 359, 666, 667, G72 Paine .-. Central Vt. R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 152 772 Pannell i-. Tayler, Turn. & R. 96 Pannill d. Eiiason, 3 Cranch C. 358 Paper Bag Cases, 105 U. S. 766 Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 663 459 '" 615 113 1002, 1021 Pargoud v. United States, 13 Wall. 156 909 V. , 13 Ct. CI. .337 909 V. , 13 Ct. CI. 349 909 Paris, Ex parte, 3 Woodb. & M. 227 621, 624, 628 Parish v. Ellis, 16 Pet. 451 1025 V. United States, 8 Wall. 489 909 V. , 1 Ct CI. 345 POO Bark o. Willis, 1 Cranch C. C. 357 Parker, Kx parte, 120 U. S. 737 , Petitioner, 131 U. S. 221 512 702 702, 71.3, il6 Bigler, 1 Fisher's I'at. Cas. Browning, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 638 4.30 575 325 12 — V. Dacres, 120 U. S.43 V. Francis, 9 Jur. 616, n. — r. Hall, 2 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 62 — r. Hal lock, 2 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 543, //. 12 — V. Hawk, 2 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 58 12 — v. llaworth, 4 Me. L. 370 474 — r. llotclikiss, 1 Wall. Jr. 269 196 — V. Judges of Circuit Court, 12 Wheat. 561 378, 681, 1052 — I'. Leigh, 6 Madd. 115 2!'3 — V. Morrell, 2 Pliill. 453 650 Nightingale, 6 Allen (Mass.) 341 Hep 718 154 519 56 . Nixon, Baldw. 291 . Ornisby, 141 U. S. 81 . Sears, 1 Fisher's I'at. Cas. 93 ;:60, 382 State, 16 Lea, 476; 1 S. W. 202 Town of Concord, 39 Fed. R. 733 541 V. Winnipiseoijee Lake C. & W. Co, 2 Black, 54o 229,355 I'arkersbiirg r. Brown, 106 U. S. 487 23 Parkhurst r. Kinsman, 2 Bhitchf. 72 315 a. , Blatchf. 78 383, 398 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Ixxxi Parkinson v. Laselle, 3 Sawy. 330 W'l V. Went worth, 11 Mass. 26 91 I'arks, Ex jKirte, 'Jo U. S. 18 725, 72tJ V. Booth, 11)2 U. S. W 25:], 564 V. Tenner, 12 How. ;W U«9 Tarniley v. Railroad Cos., o Dill. 25 3S'J Parrot c. Treby, Prec. in Ch. 254 581 Parrott *;. Alabama G. L. I. Co , 5 Fed. U. 3ltl lUJ, 842 Parsons r. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433 5 c. Charter Oak L. I. Co., 31 Fed. R. 305 399 1-. Denis, 7 Fed. K. 317 684 r. Howard, 2 Woods, 1 127, 135 ('. Lyman, 4 Blatclif. 432 115, 153 r. Robinson, 122 U. S. 112 569, 1023 Partee r. Thomas, 11 Fed. R. 769 277 Partridge v. Hayeraft, 11 Ves. 570 169, 265, 206 r. Usborne, 5 Russ. 195 672, 674 Paschal, />i re, 10 Wall. 483 650, 652 Patapsuo, The. 12 Wall. 451 1027 Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 5 Pet. 601 511,512 Patch v. Ward, L. R. 3 Ch. 208 575 Patchin i'. Hunter, 3S Fed. R. 51 816, 817 Patents Comm'r y. Wliiteley, 4 Wall. 522 Paton r. Majors, 46 Fed. R. 210 Patrick V. Isenhart, 20 Fed. R 339 Patriotic Bank c. Bank of Washing- ton, 5 Crancii C. C. 602 256, 264 Patterson v. Stapler, 7 Fed. R. 210 113,278 V. United States, 2 Wheat. 221 r. , 21 Ct. CI. 322 Paul r. Baltimore & O. & C. R. Co., 44 Fed. R. 513 /;. Lowry, 2 Cranch C. C. 628 V. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168 Paving Co. V. Mulford, 100 U. S. 147 1029 Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292 41 Pa.xton V. Douglas, 8 Ves. 520 376 ,.. , 19 Ves. 225 215 Payan v. United States, 15 Ct. CI. 56 931 Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425 9, 1.3, 15. 127. 135, 156 V. Niles, 20 How. 219 1030, 1032 Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 Mass. 4.52 341 Peachie v. Twyeerosse, Carv, 113 218 I'eake o. Highfield, 1 Russ. 559 4, 548 Peale v. Phipps, 8 How. 256 1043 V. , 14 How. 368 . 12 I'earne v. Lisle, Atnbl. 75 455, 456 Poarse v. Brook, 3 Beav. 3.37 481 Pearson v. The Alsaf a, 44 Fed. R. 385 188 ,: Ward, 1 Cox Eq. 177 4 Pease v. Peck, 18 How. .595 777 Peaslee r. Haberstro, 15 Blatclif. 472 6>;8 Peav '•. Schenck, Woolw. 175 292 294 Peck, Ex parte, 3 Blatchf. 113 490, 494. 511, 514, 515, 719 VOL. I. — / 706 4 '19 213 717 903 39 517 813 Peck , Frame, 9 Blatchf. 194 570 L\ Jenness, 7 How. 624 347 u. Peck, Mosely, 45 255, 261 r. Sanderson, 18 How. 42 1079 Pedrick v. While, 1 Met. (Mass.) 76 317 Pence v. United States, 1 Ct. CI. 195 909, 911 1-. West's Exrs., Pet. C. C. 351 271 r. , 3 Wash. 354 275 Pelham i-. Rose, 9 Wall. 103 978, 988 Peiham (Lord) v. Duchess of Kew- caslle, 3 Swanst. 289, n. 334, 659, 660 i\ , 3 Swanst. 293, n. 659 L\ Lord Harley, 3 Swanst. 291, n. 659 345 Pel ton V. National Bank, 101 U. S. 143 Pelzer Manuf. Co. v. St. Paul F. & M. I. Co., 40 Fed. R. 185 841 Pendleton v. Evans, 4 Wash. 336 204 V. , 4 Wash. 391 205 V. Fay, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 204 309, 314 Penfold V. Ramsbottom, 1 Swanst. 552 223 Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54 1083 Peninsular Iron Co. r. Stone, 121 U. S. 631 684, 849 Penn v. Calhoun, 121 U. S. 251 403 r. Ingraham, 2 Wash. C. C. 487 512 V. Klyne, Pet. C. C. 446 761, 762 V. Lord Baltimore, 1 Ves. Sen. 444 2, 571 Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. 65 756 Pen nock r. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1 686, 1087 u. , 4 Wash. 538 686 V. Gilleland, 1 Pittsb. 37 762 Peimoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 841 V. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1 103, 104, 105, 106 V. , 43 Fed. R. 196 103, 104 V. -, 43 Fed. R. 339 103, 104 Pennsylvania, The, 15 Fed. R. 814 864 Pennsylvania, .£x/jay,. 4 Pierpont c. Fowle, 2 Woudb. & M. 23 358, 360 867 488 496 086 800 388 793 484 1029 094 180, 187 241 275 004 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Ixxxiii Pierson v. Robinson, 3 Swanst. 139, n. 115 Pieters v. Thompson, G. Coop. 29i 588 Pii-ot r. Stace, 2 Dick. 4'.)(5 243 Pike V. Niciiolas, L. R. 5 Cli. 251 3Go Pilla V. German iScliool Assoc, 23 Fed. R. 700 840 Pillow V. Pillow, 5 Yers- (Tenn.) 420 172 IMiR'ers r. Robertson, 24 N. J. Kq. 348 203 Pimlar v. Smith, Madd. & G. 48 5.')1 Pine Grove v. Talcott, lU Wall. 606 777, 778 Pins-on, The, v. Bletlien, 11 Fed. R. (i07 ; 7 Sawy. 483 1013 Pinkerton v. Barnsley Canal Co , 3 Y. & ,J. 277, H. 483 V. Ledou.x, 129 U. S. 346 949, 952, 955 Pinkiis V. Peters, 5 Beav. 258 Pioneer, The, Biatchf. Prize Cas 61 Piquijinot '•. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 10 How. 104 Pirie r. Tvedt, 115 U. S. 41 Pitclier V. Helliar, Dick. 580 u. Hennessey, 48 N. Y. 415 Pitkin Conntv Mining Co. v. Markell, 33 Fed. R.'386 Pitman, Re, 1 Curt. 186 650, 652, 653 v. Uniteil States, 45 Fed. R. 159 610 Pitt 0. Earl of Arglass, 1 Vern. 441 675 V. Snowden, 3 Atk. 750 Pitts, In re, 9 Fed. R. 542 V. Edmonds, 2 Fislier's Pat. Cas 116 875 964 816 396 44 418 387 252 287 1065 415 148, 210 Fed. 820 V. Powledge, 56 Ala. 147 Piatt 0. Jerome, 19 How. 384 V. Jones, 96 N. Y. 24 V. Mead, 9 Fed. R. 91 V. Plioeni.x Assur. Co., c R. 730 Pleasants i'. United States, 35 Fed. R. 270 610 Plitt, E.r parte, 2 Wall. Jr. 453 609, 643, 644 Phinket v Penson, 2 Atk. 51 135 Plymouth (Countess of) v. Bladon, 2 Vern. 32 539 Plymouth G. M. Co. v. Amador & S. Canal Co., 118 U. S. 264 814, 816, 1058 Poe, Matter of, 5 Barn. & Adol. 681 693 Pdinde.xter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270 101 Polk's Lessee v. Wendul, 9 Crancli, 87 542, 777 Pollard V. Bailey, 20 Wall. 526 129 V. Vinton, 105 U. S 7 777 Pollers V. Black River Imp. Co., 113 U. S. 81 1003, 1037 Pomeroy's Lessee v. State Bank of Ind., 1 Wall. 592 785, 787, 1090 Pomroy v. Harter, 1 McL. 448 623 Pond r. Vermont Valley R. R. Co., 12 Biatchf. 2S0 40, 535 Poole, In re, 2 McArthur (D. C), 683 740, 743 V. Franks, 1 Moll. 78 643 Poole V. Thatchcrdeft, 19 Fed. R. 49 43, 811,812 Poor ('. Carleton, 3 Sumn. 70 382, 385, 386 Pope ('. Manufacturing Co., 87 N. Y. 137 841 Poppenhusen v. Falke, 4 Biatchf. 493 156, 165, 300 V. New York G. P. Comb. Co., 4 Biatchf. 184; 2 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 74 259, 370 Porter v. Foley, 21 How. 393 1060 V. Pittsburgh B. S. Co., 120 U. S. 649 403, 1085 V. Sabin, .36 Fed. R. 475 95, 131 V. United States, 20 Ct. CI. 307 934 Porter L. & W. Co. v. Baskin, 43 Fed. R. 323 194, 199 Portland (Countess of) v. Prodgers, 2 Vern. 104 91 Portland Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 441 899 Port Royal R. R. Co. v. Hammond, 58 Ga. 523 571 Portugal (Queen of) v. Glyn, 7 CI. & F. 466 498 Post u. Supervisors, 105 U. S. 667 542, 779 V. Toledo, C. & St. L. R. R. Co., 144 Mass. 341 ; 4 New Eng. Rep. 221 8 Postmaster-General c. Rice, Gilp. 554 471 r. Trigg, 11 Pet. 173 713 Potter V. Gardner, 12 Wheat. 499 116 V. Mack, 3 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 428 392 V. National Bank, 102 U. S. 163 486, 487 V. Potter, 1 Ves. Sen. 274 462 t'. Whitnev, 1 Lowell, 87 3-59 Potts V. Hahn,'32 Fed. R. 660 156 V. Leighton, 15 Ves. 273 447 V. Warwick & B. C. N. Co., Kav, 143 " 444 Poultnev ('. City of Lafayette, Ex parteju Pet. 472 90, 200, 248, 534, 713, 714 Powder Co. u. Powder Works, 98 U. S. 126 224 Powell V. Kane, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 265 484 r. Powell, Madtl. & G. 53 573 V. Waldron, 89 N. Y. 328 415 V. Wright, 7 Beav. 449 116 Power i: Baker, 112 U. S. 710 1052 0. Semmes, 1 Craneh C C. 247 490 Powys r. Blagrave, 18 Jur. 462 444 Poydras de la Laude v. Treasurer of La. 17 How. 1 1043 Pratt V. Fitzhugh, 1 Black, 271 1026 V. Northam, 5 Mason, 95 8, 11, 15, 235 Preble v. Bates, 40 Fed. R. 745 784 Prentice v. Pickersgill, 6 Wall. 511 1093 Prescott, E.r parte, 2 Gall. 146 609 President r. Maver, &c. of Elizabeth, 40 Fed. R. 799 716 Ixxxiv TABLE OF CASES. [References Preston v. Walsh, 10 Fed. R. 315 _ TiO, 387, 5 1*2 Preston's Heirs v. Bowmar, 6 Wlieat. 580 "77 Prevost V. Gorrell, 5 W. N. C. (Pa) 151 04U, 706 Price V. Abbott, 17 Fed. R. 500 394 V. Berrington, 3 Macn. & G. 486 151, 548 V. Coleman, 21 Fed. R. 357 147, 157, 160 V. , 22 Fed. R. 694 585 V. Morris, 5 McL. 4 517 V. Price, 2 Smith's Ch. Pr. 76 548, 549 V. State, 8 Gill (Md), 295 701 V. Yates, 19 Alb. L. J. 295 770, 780 Prime v. United States, 3 Ct. CI. 209 002 Prince v. Towns, 33 Fed. R. 161 645 Prince Albert v. Strange, 1 Macn. & G. 25 " 342, 363, 307 Pritchard v. Fleetwood, 1 Meriv. 54 396 V. Quinchaiit, Ambl 147 273 Proctor V. Brill, 16 Fed. R. 791 Protector, Tlie, 20 Fed. R. 207 , 11 Wall. 82 Prout V. Roby, 15 Wall. 471 Prouty V. Draper, 2 Story, 199 Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. i Manuf. Co., 109 U. S. 578 350. 871, 872 Provident Savings L. A. Soc. r. Ford, 114 U. S. 635 37, 42, 199, 200 Prudential Assur. Co. v. Knott, L. R. 10 Ch. 142 V. TlH.nias, L. R. 3 Ch. 74 Pruen v. Lunn, 5 Russ. 3 Public G. & S. E.x-change v. Western Un. Tel. Co., 16 Fed. R. 289; 11 Biss. 568 Public Schools v. Walker, 9 Wall. 603 Puetz V. Bransford, 31 Fed. R. 458 are to pages.] Putnam c. Ingraham, 114 U. S. 57 813, 816 r. New Albany, 4 Biss. 365 2, 263, 289, 292, 298 Q. Quackenlush v. Leonard, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 131 298 Quarles i'. Quarles, 2 Munf. (Va.) 321 579 Quebec S. S. Co. v. Merchant, 133 U. S. 375 778, 1026 Queen v. Twiss, L. R. 4 Q. B. 407 698, 699 Queen of Portugal v. Glyn, 7 CI. & F. 466 498 Quincy v. Steel, 120 U. S. 241 26, 161, 162 Quirolo V. Ardito, 1 Fed. R. 610 544 584 853 1010 128, 131 637 Hill 371 179 307 821 (). , 32 Fed. R. 318 Pullan V. Kinsingcr, 2 Abb. U. S. 91 Pullen V. United States, 7 Ct. CI. 507 PuUiam v. Christian, 6 How. 209 r. Puliiam, 10 Fed. R. 53 1079 253. 295 36 370 909 5f,9, 1023 12, 235, 542 Pullman P. C. Co. v. Speck, 113 U. S 84 a-s-i i;. Texas & P. Rv. Co., 11 Fed. R. 625; 4 Woods, 317 372 Pulteney v. Shelton, 5 Ves. 147 325 Purcell V. British L. & M. Co., 42 Fed. R. 405 45 V. Miner, 4 Wall. 519 672 Purdy V. Rapalye, N. Y. Chancery, 1835 451 Purefoy v. Purefov, 1 Vern. 29 213 Pusev r. Piisev, rVorn. 273 23, 36Y,373 Putnam r. Dav, 22 Wall. 60 670 V. Hollander, 6 Fed. R. 882 1-.9, 105, 216 R. 40 Rabaud r. De Wolf, 1 Paine, 580 Rachel, The, r. United State.*, 6 Craiich, 529 1088, 1093 Radcliffe, Ex parte, 1 Jac. & W. 639 396, 440 Radford v. Folsom, 14 Fed. R. 97 232 V. , 123 U. S. 725 1037,1043, 1044, 1002, 1063 Raffety v. King, 1 Keen, 601 138 Haht V. Attrill, 106 N. Y. 423 414 IJailroad v. Johnson, 15 Wall. 8 1032 Railroad Comm'rs v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. R. 82 807 Railroad Co., E.r parte, 95 U. S. 221 294, 295,310,311,633, 702, 870, 1023, 1044 V. Barron, 5 Wall. 90 780 V. Blair, 100 U. S. 661 1043 V. Bradleys, 7 Wall. 575 569, 1019, 1044 V. Ellerman, 105 U. S. 106 25, 343, 344 543 778 1088 39 121 839 777, 778 V. Falconer, 103 U. S. 821 V. Gladmon, 15 Wall. 401 V. Cirant, 98 U. S. 398 r. Harris, 12 Wall. 65 i: Howard, 7 Wail. 392 V. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5 V. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357 V. National Bank, 102 U. S. 14 643, 777, 778 V. Orr, 18 AVall. 471 120, 135 V. Pollard, 22 Wall. 341 486 V. Schutte, 100 U. S. 644 10-30 V. Swasey, 23 Wall. 405 509, 1023 V. Trook, 100 U. S. 112 1027 V. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507 _ 702 Railroad Companies r. Chamberlain, 6 Wall. 748 42, 662 Railway Co., AV parte, 101 U. S. 711 703 — . 103 U. S. 794 702, 763 c. Ailing, 99 U. S. 463 533, 1065 TABLE OF CASES. [References Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120 fi68 V. Ramsey, -22 Wall. 322 818 r. Twoinbly, 100 U. S. 78 1088, lU'JU r. Wliittoii's Adiiir., lo Wall. ■ 270 y, 39 Railway R. M. Co. v. North Hudson Co. K. Co., 2(5 Fed. K. 411 GG5 Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192 773 Rainerf. Haynes, Hempst. GS9 512, 514, 51(3 Raines v. United States, 11 Ct. CI. 648 909 Ralston, Ex parte, 119 U. S. 613 1003, 1048, 1053, 1061 Ramsdell v. United States, 2 Ct. CI. 508 908 Ramsay v. United States, 21 Ct. CI. 443 898 Rand v. United States, 36 Fed. R. 671 617 V. Walker, 117 U. S. 340 814, 817 Randall n. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., 109 U. S. 478 775 V. Howard, 2 Black, 585 1R8, 21 4, 236, 4:'.6 767 V. Venable, 17 Fed. R. 163 Rando!j)h, Ex parte, 2 Brock. 41 c. Barrett, 16 Pet. 138 V. Dickerson. 5 Paige (N. Y.), 517 V. Robinson, 2 N. J. L. J. 171 Randolph's Kx'r v. Qiiidnick Co., 135 U. S. 457 16, 25, 314, 780 Ranliin r. Hiiskisson, 4 Sim. 13 389 V. State, 11 Wall. 380 1002, 1021 Ransom v. Davis, 18 How. 295 119, 334 Rantin c. Robertson, 2 Strobli. Law (S. C), 36lJ Rashleigh v. Master, 1 Ves. Jr. 201 Ratclift'e r. Winch, 16 Bcav. 576 Rateau o. Bernard, 3 Blatchf. 244 470 279 309 292 209 643 376 38, 353 Rattray v. George, 16 Ves. 232 332 Ravosies v. United States, 21 Ct. CI. 243 910 Rawlings v. Lambert, 1 Johns. & H. 45S 388 Rawlins v. Dalton, 2 Y. & C. 447 234 Rawson v. Lyon, 15 Fed. R. 853 85 > Ray V. Knowlton, 11 Biss. 360 620 V. Law, 3 Cranch, 179 569,670, 1019 (. Smith, 17 Wall. 411 1087 Ravner v. Julian, 2 Dick. 677; 5 Madd. 144, n. 220 Raynes i-. Wyse, 2 Meriv. 472 456 Rea V. Missouri, 17 Wall. 532 1090 Read v. Bertrand, 4 Wash. 558 512 V. Consequa, 4 Wash. 174 191, 202, 276, 384, 387, 388 V. , 4 Wasli. 335 263, 264 I'. Miller, 2 Biss. 12 12 V. Read, 1 Ch. Cas. 115 456 Reay v. Berlin & J. Env. Co., 30 Fed. R. 448 276 Ixxxv are to pages.] Reay <;. Ravnor, 19 Fed. R. 308 27G, 277, 316 Rector v. Lipscomb, 141 U. S. 557 1029 Rfdding V. Wilkes, 3 Bro. C. C. 401 168 Hedlield r. Parks, 130 U. S. 623 1054 Red River Cattle Co. v. Needliam, 47 Fed. R. 358 1098 Reed v. Carusi, Taney, 72 362 r. Holliilay, 19 Fed. R. 325 363 c. Reed, 31 Fed. R. 49 811, 814 Reeder v. Seely, 4 Cow. 548 42.) Reedy v. Scott, 23 Wail. 352 316, 317 Rees V. Watertown, 19 Wall. 107 20 Reese River S. i\l. Co. v. iVtwell, L. R. 7 ICq. 347 278 Reeve v. Parkins, 2 Jac. & W. 390 353 Reeves r. Vinacke, 1 McCra. 213 11 Reifsnider v. American I. P. Co., 45 Fed. R. 433 190, 199, 842 Reily v. Lamar, 2 Cranch, 344 1045 Reineman v. Ball, 33 Fed. R. 692 814 Reinitz, In re, 39 Fed. R. 204 748 Reinstadler v. Rehls, 33 Fed. R. 308 208 Reissner v. Anness, 12 Off. Gaz. 842; 3 Bann. & A. Pat. Cas. 148 226, 227, 241, 244, 248 ,,. , 13 Off. Gaz. 7 248 Relief F. L Co. v. Sliaw, 94 U. S. 574 3 Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457 37, 126, 813,820, 822,834 Remsen v. Remsen, 2 Johns. Cii. (N. Y.) 495 432 Renard v. Levinstein, 2 Hem. & M. 628 114 Renaud r. Abbott, 116 U. S. 277 1043 Rentier v. Howland, 2 Cranch C. C. 441 513 Rensselaer & S R. R. Co. ". Benning- ton & R. R. R. Co., 18 Fed. R. 617 347, 349 Republican River Bridge Co. v. Kan- sas Rac. R. Co., 92 if S. 315 1090 Reubens v. Joel, 13 N. Y. 488 5 Rex V. Francis, 2 T. R. 484 755 Reyburn ;'. Consumers' G. F. & L. Co., 29 Fed. R. 561 406, 414 Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354 217, 220, 1087 Reynolds, In re, Slielf. on Lun. 417 94 ('. Adden, 136 U S. 348 39, 40 V. Crawfordsville First Nat. Bank, 112 U. S. 405 10, 270, 271, 534, 779 V. Iron S. M Co.. 33 Fed. R. 354 387 V. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254 14, 400 Reynoldsdii /■. Perkins, Ambl. 564 117 Rhine v. United States, 15 Ct. CI. 59 931 Rhinelander y. Sanford, 3 Day (Conn.), 279 108 Rhoades v. Selin, 4 Wash. 715 519. 520, 521, 522 Rhode Island r. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657 107 13 Pet. 23 28. 200, 273 Ixxxvi TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Rlioile IslanJ r. Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 'no i'2t), "^27, 243, 245, 2:48, 250 t-. , 1.-, IVt. 2;!o 28 i-. , 4 11uw. 51)1 28 Kibon L\ Kailiuad Cos., 10 Wall. 446 130, 131 Kicard v. New rrcvidence, 5 Fed. R. 433 687 Ricardo v. Gareias, 12 CI. & Fin. 368 238 V. Marileiiliead Local Board of Healtli, 2 H. & N. 257 698 Kite V. Minnesota & H. W. R. R. Co., 21 How. 82 1060, 1069 Rich R. — V. Brav, 37 Fed. R. 273 r. Kicketts, 7 Blairhf. 230 Riciiards v. Ciiesapeake & O. R Co., 1 Hiiglies, 28 V. Evans, 1 \'es. Sen. 39 V. Mackall, 113 U. S. 539 V. , 124 U. S. 183 V. Rock Uapids, 31 Fed. R 505 /•. Salter, 6 Johns. Cii. (N. Y.) 445 Richardson r. Boston, 1 Curt. 250 l: Golden, 3 Wash. 109 Green, 130 U. S. 104 Hardwick, 106 U. S 252 Richard.-: Mnnins /•. Denis, 1 IJhitchf. 238 4'-.5 V. Freeland, 14 Int. Rev. Rec 28 371 333 145 1044 168 845 178 804 521 1002 487 332 451 442 849 278 678 811 850 511 495 458 580 Roberdeau v. Rous, 1 Atk. 544 210 Roberts, Ex parte, 6 Pet. 216 703, 704 , 15 Wall. 384 1045 , In re, 24 Fed. R. 132 727 u Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. R. 433 822 V. Cooper, lU How. 373 1049 L-. , 20 How. 467 1097, 11)98, 1099 t: Graham, Wall. 578 1086 r. Harnbv, 3 M. & W. 120 698 c. Nelson, 8 Blatclif. 74 843 c. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80 736, 753, 1086 V. United States, 92 U. S. 41 931 v. Williams, 12 East, 33 145 Robertson v. Carson, 19 Wall. 94 ; Chase's Dec. 475 41, 113, 115, 132, 135 V. Hill, 6 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 465 360 Robinson, Ex parte, 19 Wall. 505 650, 703 , 6 McL. 3-55 7^15 V. Anderson, 121 U. S. 522 537 V. Bags of Sugar, 35 Fed. R. 603 627 V. (Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212 6 V. Cathcart, 2 Cranch C. C. 590 187, 366, 373 V. Hadley, 11 Beav. 614 c. Iron Ry. Co., 135 U. S. 522 V. Lorti Byron, 1 Bro. C. C. 588 442 174 4, 373 486 r. Mandell, 3 Cliff. 169 ('. Mutual Ben. L. I. Co., 16 Blatcht. 194 772 r. Nati(mal S. Y. Co , 12 Fed. R. 361 ; 20 Blatchf. 513 199 V. Norton, 10 Beav. 484 538 V. Phiiadelpliia, &c. R. R. Co., 28 Fed. R. 340 494 c. Satterice, 3 Sawy. 134 270, 321, 0-J2 V. Taylor, 42 Fed R. 803 395, 444 /•. Thompson, 2 Ves. & B. 118 218 Robison v. Hardv, 38 Fed. R. 49 827, 828, 829 Robson V. Dodds, L. R. 8 Eq. .301 343 Roche V. Morgell, 2 Seh. & Lef. 72] 226 liochester c. Lee, 1 Macn. & G. 467 53.'> 1-. , 2 De G. M. & G. 427 553 Roddam v. Hetiierington, 5 Ves. 91 458, 460 Roddin V. United States, 6 Ct. CI. 308 912 Rodgers v. Rodgers, 1 Paige (N. Y'.), 424 284 Roemer ;;. Bernheim, 132 U. S. 103 668 c. Newman, 19 Fed. R. 98 234 V. Simon, 91 U. S. 149 1060 V. , 95 U. S. 214 252 Rogers r. Durant, 10(1 U. S. 644 1097 V. Goore, 17 Ves. i:'.0 271 V. Law, 21 How. 526 1099 r. Muiiiner, 6 \\\'w\ 597 729 r. Oxford, W. & W. Ry. Co., 2 De G. & J. 662 34.3 '.•. Reissner. 31 Fed. R. 592 287, 295 V. , 31 Fed. R. 270 665 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Ixxxvii Rogers v. Ritter, 12 Wall. 317 108G V. United States, 141 U. S. 548 773 v. Van North wick, 45 Fed. R. 513 i:J2, 814 V. Vosburgh, 4 Joiins. (Jli. (N. Y.) 84 370, 538, 539 Rogers L. & M. Works v. Erie Ry. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 379 373, 374 Rollins i: Chaffee County, 34 Fed. R. 91 55 Rolston I'. Missouri Fund Comtn'rs, 120 U. S. 390 102 Roniaine v. Union Ins. Co., 28 Fed. R. (i2o 199, 200 Roman i\ United States, 11 Ct. CI. 7G1 901 Romero v. United States, 1 Wall. 721 955 Roosevelt v. Columbus, C. &I. C. Ry. Co.,U. S. C. C.,N. D. 111., Nov. 15, 1882 565 Root V. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189 6, 7, 17, 18, 114 Roscius, Tlie, 1 Brown's Adm. 442 517 llnse V. Calland, 5 Ves. 186 582 • V. Gannel, 3 Atk., 439 496 Woodruff, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 547 Rosenbach v. Dreyf uss, 1 Fed. R. 371 V. , 2 Fed. R. 23 Rosenbaura c. Bauer, 120 U. S. 450 r. Council Bluffs Ins. Co., 37 FeL 215 432 Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Pet. 222 073 Sampson r. .Tohnson, 2 Cranch C. C. 107 768 Samuel, The, I Wheat. 512, 1080 r. Jones, 2 Hare, 246 043 San Antonio v. Mehafl'y, 96 U. S. 312 10*)0 San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co., /» rp, 44 Fed. R. 145 814, 815 are to pages.] Sanders v. King, 6 Madd. 61 247 Sandford v. Sinclair, 8 Paige (N. Y ), 373 441 Sandilands r. Innes, 3 Sim. 263 95 Sands v. Smith, 1 Dill. 290 833 San Jacinto, The, 30 Fed. R. 2G6 625 San Jose Indiano, The, 2 Gall. 311 628 San Mateo Co. v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 116 U. S. 138 1066 Santa Maria, The, 10 Wheat. 431 1093, 1095, 1099 Sanxter v. Foster, Cr. & Ph. 302 356 Sapphire, The, 11 Wall. 164 302, 811 , 18 Wall. 51 1099 Sarah & Caroline, The, Blatchf . Prize Cas. 123 875 Sargant v. Read, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 600 442 Sargent v. Larned, 2 Curt. 310 257 Sargent Manuf. Co. v. Woodruff, 5 Biss. 444 360 SauU V. Browne, L. R. 10 Ch. 64 851 Saumarez v. Saumarez, 4 M. & C. 331 112, 115, 153 Saunders, The, 23 Fed. R. 303 869 Saunders r. Gould, 4 Pet. 392 978, 985 V. Logan, 2 Fisher, 167 570 V. Smith, 3 M. & Cr. 711 362 Savacool r. Boughton, 5 Wend. 170 729 Savage, Petitioner, 134 U. S. 170 751 V. Carroll, 1 Ball & B. 548 108, 462, 548 V. Carter, 9 Dana (Ky.), 409 291 Savannah Nat. Bank i\ Haskins, 101 Mass. 370 3 Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267 651, 654. 655, 727 Sawin v. Kenny, 93 U. S. 289 775, 787 Sawyer, In re, 124 U. S. 200 24, 351, 725, 727 r. Gill, 3 Woodb. & M. 97 192 r. Kellogg, 9 Fed. R. 601 582 r. Uakman, 11 Blatchf. 65 804 Saxby v. Easterbrook, L. R. 3 C. P. 1) 339 371 Sayle v. Graham, 5 Sim. 8 317 Savlcs V. Dubuque & S. C. Rv. Co., OFed. R. 516 ' 12 r. Erie By. Co., 2 N. J. L. J. 212 271 r. Lake Snore & M. S. Ry. Co., 9 Fed. R. 515 12 V. Northwestern Ins. Co., 2 Curt. 212 199, 200, 842 V. Oregon Central Rv. Co., 6 Sawy. 31 " 12 Saylors v. Saylors, 3 lleisk. (Tenn.) 525 333 Scaldewell v. Stormesworth, 1 Cal. Ch. 5 183 Scarborough f. Pargoud, 108 U. S. 5(57 1038 Scatterwood v. Edge, 1 Salk. 229 854 Schandler Bottling Co. v. Welch, 42 Fed. R. 561 24, 351 r. , 45 Fed. R. 283 351 Scharff v. Levy, 112 U. S. 711 83 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Ixxxix 909 G35 586 Sclieile r. Brakell, 11 TV. R. 706 341, 366 Schell V. Cocliran, 1U7 U. S. 6'2.j 798 V. ])()(lye, 1U7 U. S. 629 1U92 Scliell's Exrs. v. Touclie, 138 U. S. 562 619 Sclierraehorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 Dall. 360 353, 375, 379, 382, 387 Sclilesinger v. United States, 1 Ct. CI. 16 Schloss V. Hewlett, 81 Ala. 266 Suhmieder v. Barnev, 19 Blatchf. 143 ; 7 Fed. R. 451 Sclinadig v. Flesclier, 29 Fed R. 465 833 Schneider t>. Lizardi, 9 Beav. 461 388 Solioerken v. Swift & C. & B. Co., 7 Fed. R. 469 474 Scliollenberger, Ex parte, 96 U. S. 369 189, 702, 713 School District v. Insurance Co., 101 U. S. 472 1073 School District of Ackley v. Hall, 106 U. S. 428 10.59, 1062, 1068 Schreiber i\ Siiarpless, 17 Fed. R. 589 12 V. , 110 U. S. 76 770 Schreiner v. United States, 6 Ct. CI. 359 909 Schuchardt v. Babbidge, 19 How. 239 865 Schulenburg, Ex parte, 25 Fed. R. 211 197 Schwab, Ex parte, 98 U. S. 240 703, 704 Schwabacker v. Reilly, 2 Dill. 127 490, 690 Schwanzel v. Holenshade, 3 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 196 Schwarz, In re, 14 Fed. R. 787 347, 570 352, 387 1029 779 860 871 Schwed V. Smith, 106 U. S. 188 Scipio V. Writrht, 101 U. S. 665 Scobel i;. Giles, 19 Fed. R 224 Scotland, The, 105 U. S. 24 Scotland County v. Hill, 112 U. 183 Scotson V. Gaury, 1 Hare, 99 Scott V. Beclier, 4 Price, 34G r. Dunbar, 1 Moil. 442 v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106 V. Platel, 2 Phill. 229 r. Texas L. & C. Co., 41 Fed. R. 225 45, 805 V. United States, 18 Ct. CI. 1 902 Scottish Anier. .Mortgai^e Co. i^ Fol- lansbee, 14 Fed. R. 125 4 Scratch nier v. Foulkard, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 125 Sea Ins. Co. v. Stebbins, 8 Paige (N. y.), 565 Seaman, lie, Shelf, on Lun. 146 Searl v. School District, 124 U. S. 197 808, 810 Searles v. Jacksonville, P. & M. R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 621 3.33, 337, 378, 442 Searls v. Worden, 13 Fed. R. 716 654, 655 Seat V. United States, 18 Ct. CI. 458 898 785 381 341, 395 581 10, 11 444 332 484 396 Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208 1029 Seavey v. Seymour, 3 Cliff. 439 749, 752 Secombe, Ex parte, 19 How. 9 703 V. Campbell, 18 Blatchf. 108 238 Secor V. Singleton, 9 Fed. R. 809 ; 3 McCra. 230 221, 222, 244 V. , 41 Fed. R. 725 311,314, 315, 318 V. Toledo, P. & W. R. R. Co., 7 Biss. 513 431 Secretary v. McGarrahan, 9 Wall. 298 716 Secretary of Treasury, In re, 45 Fed. R. 396 799, 801 Seddon V. Virginia T. & C. S. R. Co., 36 Fed. R. 6 813 Sedgwick v. Cleveland, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 290 318 V. Place, 3 N. B. R. 35 395 Segee i-. Thomas, 8 Blatchf. 11 175, 192, 199, 200 Seibert, C O. C. Co. v. Manning, 32 Fed. R. 625 36 Seitz r. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580 257, 463 Sellers r. Corwin, 5 Ohio, .398 7«8 V. Dawson, 2 Dick. 738 538 Sellon V. Lewen, 3 P. Wms. 239 264 Selma & M. R. Co. v. Louisiana Nat. Bank, 94 U. S. 2-53 1069 Semmes v. United States, 91 U. S. 21 1017 Senhouse i'. Earl, 2 Ves. Sen. 450 574 Seraphis, The, 37 Fed. R. 436 861 Sere v. Pitot, Cranch, 332 55, 56, 461 Serensen v. Is'orthern Pac. R. R. Co., 45 Fed. R. 407 780 Sergeant v. Biddle, 4 Wheat. 508 523 Serle v. St. Floy, 2 P. Wms. 386 273 Serrano v. United States, 5 Wall. 451 940, 941 Sessions v. Johnson, 95 U. S. 347 787 V. Romadka, 21 Fed. R. 124 Seventh Nat. Bank v. Shenandoah Iron Co., 35 Fed. R. 436 Se.xton V. Seelye, 39 Fed. R. 705 Seybert v. Pittsburg, 1 Wall. 272 Seymour v. Freer, 5 Wall. 822 573 414 814 778 1046 8 Wall. 202 131, 138 V. Hazard, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 1 455, 4.56 r. Phillips & C. Constr. Co., 7 Biss. 460 42 Shaft (.-. Phoenix Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y. 544 .321 Shaftoe r. Sliaftoe, 7 Ves. 171 4-56 Shainwald i-. Lewis, 6 Fed. R. 766 148, 376, 377, 397, 759 V. , 8 Fed. R. 878 4-33, 443, 444 V. , 108 U. S. 1.58 814 Shales v. Barrington, 1 P. Wms. 481 582 Shampeau r. Comiecticiit River Lum- ber Co.. 37 Fed. R. 771 687 Shankwiker ;•. Reading, 4 McL. 240 517 Sharon v. Hill, 20 Fed. R. 1 15 V. , 22 Fed. R. 28 232, 244, 248 xc TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Sliaron v. Hill, 23 Fed. K. 353 144 V. , 24 Fed. K. 720 051 V. Terry, 3G Fed. K. 837 14, 34, 213, 3U5, 300, 307, 347, 820 Sharp V. Asliton, 3 Ves. & 15. 144 388 V. Carter, 3 P. Wins. 375 660 V. Keissiier, 20 Biatclif. 10 244 Shaver v. Hardin, 30 Fed. H. 801 816 Shaw V. Bill, 95 U. S. 10 314, 315 r. Coster, 8 I'aige (N. Y.), 339 178 r. Railroad Co.,^100 U. S. 605, 118, 426 . , 101 U. S. 657 1060 c. Rhodes, 2 Russ. 539 433 l: United States, 9 Ct. CI. 301 912 Shaw Stocking Co. v. Mack, 12 Fed. R. 707 345, 364 Shedd V. Fuller, 36 Fed. R. 009 822, 823 Sheffield v. Duchess of Buckingham, 1 West, 682 573, 574 Sheffield Canal Co. v. Sheffield & R. Ry. Co., 1 Phill. 484 070 Sheffield Water Works v. Yeonians, L. R. 2 Ch. 8 122, 345 Shell ty i: Bacon, 10 How. 56 977 V. Guy, 11 Wheat. 361 777 Siieldon V. Fortescue Aland, 3 P. Wnis. 104 679 r. Gill, 8 How. 441 55 V. Keokuk N. L. Packet Co., 8 Fed. R. 769 160, 209 Shtldrick v. Cockcroft, 27 Fed. R. 579 821 Shelton v. Piatt, 139 U. S. 591 ' 20 V. Pepper, 133 U. S. 626 579, 1046 r. Tiffin, 6 How. 163 39, 40 V. Vankleeck, 106 U. S. 532 677 Siiejiherd v. C(>inuiis.>iioners of Ross Count V, 7 Ohio, 271 661 Shephard, In /^ 3 Fed. R. 12 465,490, 769 r. Morris, 4 Beav. 252 149 Sheppard v. Akers, 1 Tenn. Ch. 326 2(J5 Sheriff v. Sparks, West, 130 574 Shernuin, In re, 124 U. S. 304 702 r. Champlain Tr. Co., 31 Vt. 162 474 V. Nutt, 35 Fed. R. 149 369 Sherwood v. Ray, 1 Curt. Fee 173 699 Sheward v. Sheward, 2 Ves. & B. 116 497 Shickle v. South St. Louis Foundry Co., 22 Fed. R. 105 158,165 Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130 23, 124, 125, 130, 149, 150, 172,277,292, 333 /•. McCluiig,0 W. Va. 79 385 r. Thomas, 17 How. 3 34, 1029 V. , 18 How. 253 16, 152, 153, 200 Shiphrooke (Lord) >•. Lord Hinchin- brook, 13 Ves. 387 330 Shirley r. Karl Ferrers, 3 P. Wms. Short V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. R. 114 44, 189, 827, 828, 832 V. , 34 Fed. R. 225 827, 832 Shreveport v. Holmes, 125 U. S. 694 1079 Shrewsbury r. United States, 9 Ct. CI. 263 911, 934 Shutte V. Thompson, 15 Wall. 151 511, 514, 516, 518 Shuttleworth v. La3'cock, 1 Vern. 245 213 Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488 1079,1094,1097 Sichel V. Kaphael, 4 L. T. n. s. 114 460 Sickels V. Borden, 4 Blatchf. 14 384 V. Mitchell, 3 Blatchf. 548 370 Sickles V. Gloucester Co., 3 W^all. Jr. 186 Sidnev v. Perry, 2 Dick. 602 Sieboid, Ex parte, 100 U. S. 371 725, 506 243 726, 729 686 904 Shoecraft )•. Blnxham, 121 U. S. 730 Shoemaker *-. National Mech. Bank, 1 Hughes, 101 496 55 386 1-. , 1 Biatclif. 445 Sierra v. United States, 9 Ct. CI. 224 Sieveking r. Behrens, 2 M. & Cr. 581 180 Sifford's Case, 5 Am. L. Reg. 659 649 Sigel r. Phelps, 7 Sim. 239 92 Silliman v. Hudson River Bridge Co., 1 Black, 582 988 Silsby V. Foote, 14 How. 218 686, 774, 775, 1090 V. , 20 How. 290 1038 Silver v. Bishop of Norwich, 3 Swanst. 112 414 v. Ladd, 6 \VaII. 440 1048 Silverhill v. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 610 908 Silvey v. United States, 7 Ct. CI. 305 931 Simmons, In re, 45 Fed. R. 241 748 i: Saul, 138 U. S. 429 24 Simms V. Guthrie, 9 Cranch, 19 126, 128 Simons, E.r parte, 32 P^ed. R. 681 633 V. United States, 19 Ct. CI. 601 899 Simonson r. Jordan, 30 Fed. R. 721 823 Simpson, E.r jxtrte, 15 Ves. 476 147 Siiujison V. Brooks, 3 Blatchf. 456 587 V. Fogo, 1 J. & H. 18 ; 6 Jur. N. s. 949 209 V. Sadd, 10 C. B. 26 639 Sims (■. Hundley, 6 How. 1 487, 766, 1090 r Schult, 40 Fed. R. 143 637, 638 Sinclair v. James, 1 Dick. 277 268 Singer Co. v. Union Co., 1 Holmes, 253 367 Siniier Manuf. Co. v. Wright, 141 U. S. 696 lOGO Sin^'leton r. Singleton, 8 B. Mon. (Kv.)340 678 r. Touchard, 1 Black, 342 952, 959 Sioux City & I). M R. R. Co r. Chi- cago M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. R. 770 37 Sioux City & St. P. R. R. Co. v. United States, 30 Fed. R. 610 711 Sire ;;. EUithorpe A. B. Co., 137 U. S. 679 1093 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] XCl Siren, The. 7 Wall. 152 95, 9(3, 102 .sir William Peel, The, 5 Wall. ol7 874 S zlm- /•. Many. IG How. 98 1098, 10'J9 SkL-ffiniiton i\ , 4 Ves. 6Q 18(3, 280 I^kerrett's Minors, 2 Uogan, 192 3o4 !Skiii>lv r. Atlantic, i\I. & O. K. II. Co., 8 Hughes, 320 33.3, 405, 40(3, 425 Skillern's Exrs. v. May's Exrs., (3 Cranch, 267 977, 1095 Skip V. Harwoo.l, 3 Atk. 564 (353 Skriiie v. Powell, 15 Sim. 81 ; 9 Jur. 1054 497 Slack V. Walcott, 3 Mason, 508 307, 308 Slacum I'. Pomery, Crancli, 221 1087 Slaughter-House Cases, 10 Wall. 273 347, 511, 1050, 1052 Slavers, The, 2 Wall. 383 1078 Slessinger c. Buckingham, 17 Fed. R. 454 257, 3G9 Slidell V. Grandjean, 111 U. S. 412 941 Sliiigsby V. Hale, 1 Ch. Cas. 122 G70 Sloane v. Anderson, 117 U. S. 275 813, 814,81(5 Sloo c. Law, 3 Blatchf. 450 341 Smale v. ilitchell, 143 U. S. 99 109(3 Small v. Attwood, 1 Younge, 407 121 I'. Montgomery, 17 Fed. K. 865 199; 842 ('. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 134 U. S. 514 • 1058 Smart v. Flood, 49 L. T. n. s. 467 446 Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 108 U. S. 666 1073 Smitii, Ex parte, 1 Atk. 139 484 c. Adams, 130 U. S. 167 970, 1021 i;. Babcock, 3 Sumner, 583 267, 282, 283 r. Black, 115 U. S. 308 566 i: Bryon, 3 Madd. 428 217 V. Burnham, 2 Sumii. 612 149, 463 r. Chicago & N. W. Ky. Co., 38 Fed. R. 321 638 *;. Clarke, 2 Dick. 455 380 r. Coleman, 2 Cranch C. C. 237 515 V. Craft, 123 U. S. 486 976, 981, 991 c. Crosby Lumber Co., 46 Fed. R. 819 828, 831 r. Cummings, 1 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 152 360,-382 r. Dav, L. R. 13 Ch. D. 651 392 c. , L. R. 21 Ch. D. 421 390 r. Earl Brownlow, L. R. 9 Eq. 241 122, 154 V. East India Co., 1 Phill. 50 215 r. Elv, 15 How. 137 992 r. Ga'le, 137 U. S. 577 1087 i: Green, 37 Fed. R. 424 112 c. Greenhow, 109 U. S. 669 33 V. Jackson, 1 Paine, 453 704 r. Johnson. 4 Blatchf. 252 363 r. Kernochen, 7 How. 198 55, 777 >: Lvon, 138 U. S. 315 46, 813 i: Marshall, 2 Atk. 70 187 i: McCullough, 104 U. S. 25 418. 419, 422, 425, 42(5 V. Potter, 3 Wis. 432 461 19 36 121 Smith V. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 398 9, 24 V. Redden, 5 llarr. (Del.), 321 4»1 1-. St. Louis Mut. L. I. Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. 599 258 V. Schwed, 6 Fed. R. 455 351, 381 V. Searle, 14 Ves. 415 263 r. Skogit Co. Comm'rs, 45 Fed. R. 725 V. Smith, L. R. 20 Eq. 500 V. Standard L. M. Co., 19 Fed. R. 825 Swormstedt, 16 How. 288 (;. The Wm. L. Norman, 49 Fed. R. 285 854 >\ Trabue, 9 Pet. 4 1022 f. United States, 5 Pet. 291 466, 469 V. , 94 U. S. 97 1079 r. , 19 Ct. CI. 690 915 V. Vaughan, 10 Pet. 366 985 V. Ridg. t. Hardw. 251 451 c. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167 692, 693, 700, 701, 869, 1028 l: Woolfolk, 115 U. S. 143 277, 287, 330 Smith M. P. Co. v. I\[cGroarty, 186 U. S. 237 780, 1029 Smvth V. Craig, 3 Watts & S. 14 774 V. Strader, 12 How. 327 1040 Snavely c. HarkraJer, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 112 160 Snead v. McCoull, 12 How. 407 276, 2«4 Snell V. Hyat, 1 Dick. 287 109 V. Insurance Co., 98 U. S. 85 3 Snow, In re, 120 U. S. 274 726 y. United States, 118 U. S. 346 807, 967, 970 Snyder v. Fiedler, 139 U. S. 478 486 r. Marks, 109 U. S. 189 20 V. Sickles, 98 U. S. 203 953 ('. Wise, 10 Pa. St. 157 480, 481 Socie'te' Anonyme, &c. v. Western Dis- tilling Co., 42 Fed. R. 96 Socie'te Fonciere, &c. v. Milliken, 135 U. S. 304 Socola V. Grant, 15 Fed. R. 487 Soden v. Soden, 13 Ves. 118 Sohier r. Williams. 1 Curt. 479 Somerset (Duke of) v. Cookson, 3 P. Wms. 389; 1 Lea. Cas. in Eq. 821 3(37, 373 Sommerville v. French, 1 Cranch C. C. 474 656, 657 Somerville's Exrs. v. Hamilton, 4 Wheat. 230 978 Sonstiby r. Keeley, 7 Fed. R. 447 543 Soulard v. United States, 4 Pet. 511 987 Soule V. Chase, 1 Rob. (N. Y.) 222 484 V. Corning. 11 Paige (N. Y.). 412 588 V. United States. 100 U. S. 8 470 Southard v. Bradv. 36 Fed. R. 560 8-59 i: Russell, 1(3 How. 547 671,673 Southern Express Co. r. St. Louis, I. M. & S. liv. Co., 10 Fed. R. 210 ' 378, .893. 572 V. , 10 Fed. R. 869 373, 393 652 687 150 171 116 28. xcu Southern Pacific R. U. Co. v. Califor- nia, 118 U. S. 109 35, 819 V. Wijrjrs, 44 Fed. K. 333 _ ^ 15 Southey v. Sherwood, 2 Meriv. 435 341, 364 South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. •JbO 5-42, 778, 779 Southwestern Brush E. L. & P. Co. c. Louisiana E. L. Co., 45 Fed. R. 893 359, 383 Southworih r. Howard, 11 Rep. 46 811 V. Keid, 3(5 Fed. li. 451 814, 827, 849 Sowles, In re, 41 Fed. R. 752 652 V. First Nat. Bank, 46 Fed. R. 513 36 V. Witters, 43 Fed. R. 700 8(3, 819, 823, 824 r. , 46 Fed. R. 497 649 Si):ieth v. Barney, 22 Fed. R. 828 164 Si)aii'ord i: Goodell, 3 McL. 97 658 Spain (King of) v. Macliado, 4 Russ. 225 Spalding v. Keely, 7 Sim. 377 r. Manasse, 131 U. S. 65 V. People, 2 How. 66 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Stacy 138 381 771 1047 Spanish Consul, Matter of, 1 Ben. 225 531 Spangier !-•. Atcheson, T. & S. F. R. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 305 816, 823 Si)arliawk v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 401 369 Spark ('I'lie) v. Lee Cliio Chum, 1 Sawy. 713 1013 Sparkman v. Higgins, 1 ^?latchf. 205 387 Si)aulding v. Tucker, 2 Sawy. 50 585, G40, 641 Spearing i^. Lvnn, 2 Vern. 376 664 Spccht, c Howard, 16 Wall. 564 778 Spiegle V. ^Mereilith, 4 Biss. 120 21 Spencer v Lapsley, 20 How. 264 1090 Siierry v. Erie Rv. Co., 6 Blatchf. 425 ' 229, 251 Spicer v. United States, 5 Ct. CI. :!4 934 Spies V. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131 339, 997, 1000, 1002 Spill V. Celluloid Manuf. Co., 28 Fed. R. 870 587, 639 Si)ink V. Francis, 19 Fed. R. 670 351 r. , 20 Fed. R. 5(;7 351 Spooner r. McConnell, 1 McL. 337 19, 355, 369 Spottiswoode r. Clarke, 2 Piiill. 154 .363 Spratt i: Binkes, 5 Ves. 587 116 Sprague v. Jones, 9 Paige (N. Y.), 395 665 Spring r. South Carolina Ins. Co., 6 Wiieat. 519 1051 ,;. , 8 Wheat. 268 179 Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 V. S. 49 844 Springer v. United States, 102 U. S. 586 "1086 Sqiiair r. Lookout Mt. Co., 42 Fed. R. 729 162 Stace V. Mabbot, 2 Ves. Sen. 552 552 Farnham, 2 How. Pr. (N.Y.) 26 483 Stafford r. Brown, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 360 337, 483, 655 V. Bryan, 2 Paige (X. Y.), 45 674 V. Howlett, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 200 316 V. Union Bank, 16 How. 135 703, 1050 V. , 17 How. 275 1050, 1052 Staines v. Morris, 1 Ves. & B. 8 580 Stallings c. Goodloe, 3 Murph. (N. C.) 159 674 Stanbrough v. Cook, 38 Fed. R. 369 806, 814, 816, 817 Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 42 Fed. R. 295 Standen v. Edwards, 1 Ves. Jr. 133 Stanley v. Robinson, 1 Russ. & M. 527 V. Sullivan, 71 Wis. 585 Stanton v. Alabama & C. R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 506 395, 425, 426, 562 224 552 251 660 31 Fed. R. 585 Embrey, 93 U. S. 548 United States, 4 Ct. CI 419, 425, 426, 427 232 456 908, 912 V. , 37 Fed. R. 252 594, 595 Stapilton v. Stapilton, 1 Atk. 2 172 Stapleton i'. Foreign Vineyard Assoc, 12 W. R. 976 341 Stapylton v. Scott, 13 Ves. 425 174, 288 Starin v. New York, 115 U. S. 248 35, 816,819 Starr v. Stark, 1 Sawy. 270 237 Starten v. Bartholomew, 6 Beav. 143 92 State (,'. Barstow. 4 Wis. 567 756 1-. Buller, 47 Fed. R. 415 237 V. Chandler, 2 Ilarr. (Del.) 553 732 V. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 27 Fed. R. 497 807 r. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. R. 391 819 V. Chue Fan, 42 Fed. R. 865 807 V. Coosaw Min. Co., 45 Fed. R. 804 822, 823, 843 V. Davis, 100 U. S. 257 979 V. Day L. & C. Co., 41 Fed. R. 228 807 V. Delaware & A. Tel. & P. Co., 47Fed. R. 6.33 705,811 V. (ileason, 14 Fla. 109 755 V. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 33 Fed. R. 721 758,811 r. Kirkpatrick. 42 Fed. R. 689 836 V. Kupfurle, 44 Mo. 154 755 V. Lorry, 7 Haxt. 95 733 r. Weed, 21 N. H. 262 729 State Bank v. St. Louis R. F. Co., 122 U S 21 991 f. State, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 272 755 State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U S. 575 20, 174, 175, 389,778 State Savings Assoc, v. Howard, 31 Fed. R. 433 40 TABLE OF CASES. XClll [References Stead's Exrs. v. Course, 4 Cranch, 403 244, 248, 249 SteHiii Gaujie & L. Co. v. McUoberts, 2(5 Fed. H. 705 146, 1G2 Steamship Co. o. Tugmaii, 106 U. S. 118 38,144,818 Stearns r. Pa^v, 1 Story, 204 23(3, 24() V. United States, 6 Wall. 589 938 Stebbiiis v. Duncan, 108 U. S. 32 515 V. St. Anne, 11(3 U. S. 886 151 Steel V. Katliburn, 42 Fed. K. 390 54 V. Smelting Co., 10(5 U. S. 447 24 Steever y. Rickman, 109 U. S. 74 597, Oil Stegner v. Blake, 30 Fed. R. 183 5U9, 510 Steiger v. Bonn, 4 Fed. R. 17 197, 491 V. Heidelberger, 4 Fed. R. 455 ; 18 Blatclif. 420 232 Stein V. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209 475, 511 Steinbach r. Stewart, 11 Wall. 5(56 958 Steines v. Franklin County, 14 Wall. 15 668 Steplien v. Beall, 22 Wall. 329 128 v. ('iiii, 4 Ves. 359 193 Stephen Morgan, Tiie, 94 U. S. 599 1079 Stephens r. Bernavs, 42 Fed. R. 488 486 V. , 44 Fed. R. 042 32, 30, 57 V. Monongahela Bank, 111 U. S. 197 964 V. Overstolz, 43 Fed. R. 771 9 V. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 47 Fed. It. 530 840, 850 Stephenson v. Wilson, 2 Vern. 325 3 Stevens v. Cooper, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.)425 463,494 V. Davison, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 819 415, 416 V. Fuller, 136 U. S. 468 655, 727 V. Guppy, Turn. & R. 178 079 V. Niciiols, 130 U. S. 230 818 (;. Railroads, 4 Fed. R. 97 532, 533 v. Richardson, 20 Blatchf. 53 ; 9 Fed. R. 191 821 i\ Sharp, 6 Saw v. 993 12 v. Westwood, 25 Ala. 716 406 Stevenson v. Anderson, 2 Ves. & B. 407 180. 182, 192 V. Barbour, 140 U. S. 48 1070, 1077 i: Magowan, 31 Fed. R 824 253 Stewart r. Chesapeake & O. Canal Co., 1 Fed. R. 361 126, 171 u. , 5 Fed. R. 149 546, 643 V. Drasl.a, 4 McL. 5(53 171, 175, 215 i'. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61 41, 119, 333, 843, 1029 V. Graham, 19 Ves. 313 456 V. Gray, llempst. 94 479 (K Ingle, 9 Wiieat. 526 718 V. Justices of St. Clair Co. Court, 47 Fed. R. 482 684, 089, 714 V. Salmon, 97 U. S. 861 1099 V. The Sun, 36 Fed. R. 307 645 c. Townsend, 41 Fed. \i. 121 512, 516, .517, 518 r. Wyoming C. R. Co., 128 U. S. 383 786 729 371 522 942 8 473 are to pages.] Stillwell & B. Manuf. Co. v. Phelps, 130 U. S. 520 776 Stimpson r. Brooks, 3 Blatchf. 456 587 V. Rogers, 4 Blatchf. 333 113 ('. Westchester R. R. Co., 3 How. 553 718 Stirrat v. Excelsior Manuf. Co., 44 Fed. R. 142 102, 211 Stitt V. Huidekopers, 17 Wall. 384 1059 Stockdale v. Onwhyn, 5 Barn. & C. 173 364 Stocksdale v. United States, 39 Fed. R. 62 632 Stockton V. Bishop, 2 How. 74 1052 Stockton Laundry Case, 26 Fed. R. 611 Stockton & H. Ry. Co. v. Leeds & T. Ry. Co., 2 Fhill. 666 Stockwell V. United States, 3 Cliff. 284 Stoddard v. Ciianibers, 2 How. 284 Stone 0. Chisolm, 113 U. S. 302 V. Palmer, 28 :Mo. 539 V. South Carolina, 117 U. S. 430 814, 822, 850 V. Wishart, 2 Madd. 64 443, 444 Stoiiehouse v. Starishaw, Chan. Cal. xxix 3 Stonemetz P. M. Co. v. Brown F. M. Co., 40 Fed. R. 72 163, 165, 211 Stoner v. Ellis, Ind. 152 473 Stonington, The, 25 Fed. R. 621 869 Storms V. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co., 5 Dill. 486 224, 250 Story, Ex parte, 12 Pet. 339 298, 1096 V. Derby, 4 McL. 100 363 V. Holcombe, 4 McL 306 304 V. Jersey City & B. P. P. R. Co., 16 N. J. Eq. 13 371 V. Livingston, 13 Pet. 359 138, 501, 5(52, 1097 Stovall V. Banks, 10 Wall 583 509, 1019 Strachan v. District of Columbia, 20 Ct. CI. 484 899 Strafer i^. Carr, 6 Fed. R. 466 586 Strange v. Collins. 2 Ves. & B. 163 284 Stranger, The, 1 Brown's Adm. 281 Strasburger v. Beecher, 44 Fed. R 209 Strauss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. U. 467 642, 645 Strawberry Hill r. Chicago, M. & Sts. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R. 5(58 215 Streat r. Steinam, 38 Fed. R. 548 504 Street i: Ferry, 119 U. S. 38o 1029 V. Street; 1 Turn. & R. 322 Striblev v. Hawkie, 3 Atk. 275 Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 010 Strode v. Stafford Justices, 1 Brock. 162 1039 Strong V. United States, 34 Fed. R. 17 61(5, 617, 618, 619, 620 ;;. , 40 Fed. R. 183 100, 969 V. Willey, 104 U. S. 512 229 487 804 587. 456 4 965 XCIV TABLE OF CASES, [References Strothcr c. Hutcliinson,4 Bing. N. C. 80; 5 Scott, :J40 ; G Dowl. 288 775 Siuait f. liuulwaie, loo U.S. 78 448,449, 042, 645 f. Gay, 127 U. S. 518 5tj(i, 507 r. Lairil, 1 Crancli, 200 804 V. United States, 18 Wall. 84 909 Stubbs c. Sar^'on, o Beav. 408 328 Studd r. Acton, 1 H. HI. 408 657 Stupp, In re, 12 BlatcUf. 501 717, 745 Sturgess v. Cary, 2 Curt. 50 19 r. llarrold, 18 How. 40 1058 Sturr f. Beck, i;];] U. S. 541 905 Sturt r. Mellisb, 2 Atk. 010 3 Stnrz l: De La Hue, 5 Kuss. 322 361, 379 Stuwesant Bank, In re, 5 Ben. 50i5; o'n. B. R. 272 445 Suess V. Noble, 31 Fed. K. 855 24, 351 Suffblk (Earl of J v. Gfeen, 1 Atk. 4.30 4, 406 Sugden r. Hull, 28 Ik-av. 203 389 Sugg V. Tliornton, 132 U. S. 524 1008 Sullivan v. Portland & K. li. K. Co., 94 U. S. 806 214 (,-. Kedfield, 1 Paine, 441 162, 108, 360, 361, 379 r. Tuck, 1 Md. Ch. SCO Sully V. Drennan, 113 U. S. 287 1:;2 Sulzer c. Watson, 39 Fed. K. 414 774 Summcrlin v. Fronterizac S. M. & M. Co., 41 Fed. II. 249 513 Sunnyside, The, 5 Ben. 162 030 Superior City r. Kipley, 138 U. S. 93 55 Supervisors c. Durant, 9 Wall. 736 715, 794 1099 773 339, 804 r. Kennicott. 94 U. S. 498 r. , 103 U. S. 554 V. Kogers, 7 Wall. 175 r. United States, 4 Wall. 435 705 V. , 18 Wall. 71 778 Surget V. Hyers, llenipst. 715 344 Sutro r. Simpson, 14 Fed. R. 370 843 Sutton i\ Bancroft, 23 How. -320 1093 c. .Jones, 15 Ves. 5b4 444 Mandeville, 1 Cranch C. C. 115 Suydam r. Beals, 4 McL. 12 V. Broadna.x, 14 Pet. 07 V. Truesdale, 6 McL. 459 519 201, 260 9 267, 283, 291 v. Williamson, 24 How. 427 778 Swaby r. Dickon, 5 Sim. 029 418 Swain >:. Boylston Ins Co., 37 Fed. R. 706 813 Swann v. Ringgold, 4 Cranch C. C. 238 024, 627 507, io:;o I'. Wright's E.xrs. 110 U. S. 590 Swartwout, Ex parfc,i Cranch, 75 710, Swatzcl r. Arnold, Woolw. 383 280 Sweeney r. Coffin, 1 Dill. 73 199, 8*20 V. Lomme. 22 Wail. 208 1050 r. United States, 17 Wall. 75 9.T) r. , 5 Ct. CI. 285 935 935 363 383 105 777, 778 899 are to pages.] Sweeney v. United States, 8 Ct. CI. 134 Sweet V. Maugham, 11 Sim. 51 Swift V. Jenks, 10 Fed. R. 641 r. , 29 Fed. R. 642 V. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 543, 776, Swift Co. V. United States, 111 U. S. 22 Switzer v. Home Ins. Co., 46 Fed. R. 50 586 Swope V. Leffingwell, 105 U. S. 3 1007, 1068 856, 1049, 1053, 1097 Sydolph V. Monkston, 2 Dick. 609 265 Syers v. Brighton Brewery Co., 11 L. T. N. S. 500 343, Sykes c. Hastintrs, 11 Ves. 363 V. United States, 8 Ct. CI. -3.30 Synionds r. Duchess of Cumberland, 2 Cox Eq. 411 r. Greene, 28 Fed. R. 834 Syracuse, The, 30 Fed. R 830 637, 638 Szvwauski's Heirs i". Zunts, 20Fed. R. 361 374 Sydney, The, 47 Fed. R. 260 397 444 916 276 34 T. Tainter ?.'. Clark, 5 Allen (Mass.), GG Tait v. United States, 5 Ct. CI 638 Talbot V. McGee, 4 Monr. (Kv.) 375 287, V. Scott, 4 Kay & J. 96 Tallman v. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co , 45 Fed. R. 150 180, 190, 842, 846, Talmadge v. Pell, 9 Paige (N.Y.), 410 267, V. , 7 N. Y. .328 Tameling v. United States F. & E. Co., 93 U. S 644 Taner v. Ivie, 2 Ves. Sen. 466 93, Tanfield r. Irvine, 2 Russ. 149 Tappan r. Smith, 5 Biss. 73 Tappen r. NoriuMU, 11 Ves. 563 Tarble's (\i.-e, 1.3 Wail. 397 Tarleton c. Barnt'S, 2 Keen, 032 231, Tarlton v. Briscoe, 1 A. K. Marsh, 67 Ta.-ker r. Small, 3 M. & C. 63 Tathani r. Wright, 2 Russ. & M. 1 Tayloe v. Merchants' F. J. Co., 9 How. 390 2, 16, 171, Taylor, Ex pnit>', 14 How. 3 704, r. Barclay, 2 Sim. 213 210, /•. Carrvi; 20 How. 583 12, 13, /•. Davis, 110 U. S. 330 r Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 408 37, 100. 120, 214, 215, 218, 219, 220, r. Life Assoc, of Amer., 3 Fed. R. 405 44.5, r. Luther, 2 Sumner. 228 259, V. Uldhani, Jacob, 527 541 932 293 395 849 291 429 046 583 440 318 93 736 242, 247 481 113 652 306 713 541 854 434 02, 225 4!6 4C.:; 443 TABLE OF CASES. XCV [References Taylor v. Person, 2 Hawks (N.C.) 2'.)8 G74 (•. Pliilndelpliia & U. K. R. Co., 7 Fed. H. .ITT 405, 42'>, 428, 443 V. — , 9 Fed. II. 1 425, 426, 443 V. riiillips, 2 Ves. Sen. 2."] 574 V. Robertson, 27 Fed. R. 537 5G3 Salmon, 4 .Mjl. & C. 134 119, 120 V. Savage, 1 How. 2«2 1033 V. ,^2 How. 3'.to 10:!3 V. Shew, 54 N. Y. 75 822 V. Trask, 7 Cow. 249 729 f. United States, 3 How. 197 482 V. , 45 Fed. R. 531 599, GOO, 001, 602, 603, 607 i\ Wrench. 9 Ves. 315 276 Tavlor County Court v. Baltimore & O. R. R. Co., 35 Fed. R 1(31 814, 832 Taylour v. Roehford, 2 Ves. Sen. 281 112 Tazaymon v. Twonihley, 5 Sawy. 79 1014 Tazewell County v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 12 Fed. R. 752 26, 101 Teasdale v. Branton. 2 Hayw. 377 700 Tebbetts v. United States," 5 Ct. CI. 607 609 Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. 2 2-52, 686 Tefft r. Sternberg. 4 Fed. R. 2 13, 14 Tehou V. First Nat. Bank, 39 Fed. R 577 Teibeltnan v. Packard, 109 U. S. 121 Tempest v. Ord, 2 Meriv. 55 Ten Cases v. United States, 34 Fed. R. 100 481 Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 2-37 35, 806 979 V. Snced, 96 U. S. 69 Tennessee C. L. & T. B. Co. v. Wal ler, 37 Fed. R. 545 Terbell ;•. Lee, 40 Fed. R. 40 Terre Haute & I. R. R. u. Struble, 109 U. S. 381 1091 Terrell v. Allison, 21 Wall. 289 660 Territory v. Lock wood, 3 Wall. 236 759 Terry, Ex parte, 128 U. S. 289 651, 653, 655, 725, 727 . /// re, 36 Fed. R. 419 651, 6.53 , 37 Fed. R 649 6-56 ■. Little, 101 U. S. 216 8, 129 r. McLure, 103 U. S. 412 284, 544 V. Sharon, 131 U. S. 40 V. Tuliinan, 92 U S. 156 Te.xas v. Chiles, 21 Wall. 488 V. Day L. & C. Co., 41 Fed R. 228 r. Wiiite, 7 Wall. 700 28 Te.xas E.xpress Co. r. Te.xas & P. Ry. Co , 6 Fed. R. 426 Texas Transp. Co. v. Seeligson, 122 U. S. 519 817, Te.xas L. & C. Co. v. Scott, 1-37 U. S. 436 1068 Te.xas & P. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Tr. Co., 45 Fed R. 5 ;i8i *•. Kirk, 111 U. S. 4-!6 1042 V. .Marshall, 13(' U. S. 393 17, 19, 31, 344 819 36 418 21 824 566 are to pages.] Te.vas & P. Ry. Co. v. :Muri)hv, 111 U. S. 488 1037, 1048 u. Southern Pac. Ky. Co., 137 U. S. 48 1004 Te.xas & St. L. Ry. Co. ': Rust, 17 Fed. R. 275 27, 4-52, 4.5.3, 844, 846 Thackrah v. Haas, 119 U. S. 499 15 Thales, The, 3 Ben. 327 863 Thames & M. M. I. Co. i: Continen- tal Ins. Co., 37 Fed. R. 286 267 Thatcher c. Powell, (i Wheat. 119 777 Thayer v. Life Assoc, 112 U. S 717 1-30 V. Wales, 9 Blatchf. 170; 5 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 130 187, .359 V. , 5 Fisher's Pat. Cas, 448 199 Theberath v. Rubber & C. H. T. Co., 5 Baiin. & A. Pat. Cas. 584 248, 271 Third Ave. Sav. Bank v. Dimock, 24 N. J. Eq. 26 283 Tiiomas, In re, 3 N. B. R. 7 387 , 35 Fed. R. 337 517, 557, 561 , 35 Fed. R. 822 518 , Matter of, U. S. 1). C, D. Col. Oct. 14, 1861 737 V. Brigstocke, 4 Russ. 64 453 r. Brownville, F. K. & P. R. R. Co., 109 U. S. 522 118 y. Chicago & C. S. Ry. Co., 37 Fed. R. 548 609 c. Dawkin, 1 Ves. Jr. 452 443 V. Harvie's Heirs, 10 Wheat. 146 671, 673 V. Lloyd, 25 Beav. 620 578 V. Peoria & R. I. Ry. Co., 36 Fed. R. 808 407 17. United States, 15 Ct. CI. 335 689, 912 i: Woold ridge, 23 Wall. 283 1023, 1067 Thomas Huston El. Co. r. Sperrj^ El. Co., 46 Fed. R. 75 155. .334 Thompson, The, 3 Wall 155 875 Thompson, E.r parte, 1 Flipp. 507 729 V. Allen County, 115 U. S. .550 8, 19, 20, 416 V. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 1021 129 486 807 i, 29 373 843 619 376 — i\ Butler, 95 U. S. 694 788, 1026, 1027 — V. Geary, 5 Beav. 131 385 — v. Goulding, 5 Allen (Mass.), 81 665 — V. Maxwell, 95 U. S. 391 670, 674, 675 — I'. Perrine. 103 U. S. 806 543, 778 — V. , 106 U S. 589 778 — V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 136 U. R. 287 418, 432, 4.52 — V. Railroad Cos., 6 Wall. 134 5, 9. 537. 840 — V. Riggs, 5 Wall. 633 785 — /-. Scott, 4 Dill. 508 95, 4:;0 — c. Selden, 20 How. 194 1090 — r. Smith, 2 Homl, 320 46-5, 466, 558 — V. , 1 Dill. 458 660 XCVl TABLE OF CASES. [References Tliompson v. Thompson, 1 Turn. & V. Ch. Tr. 51o 3-31 V. , 7 Bcav. 350 532 t: Took, 1 Dick. 115 298 V. United States, 103 U. S. 480 715, 71G V. Williams, 1 Jones Eq. (N. C ) 176 357 Tiiornson v. Dean, 7 Wall. -342 569, 1010 V. Eastwood, L. U. 2 App. Cas. 215 151 V. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327 778, 779 V. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104 202, 204, 205, 237, 1054, 1080 Thorley's C. F. Co. v. Massani, L. II. 6 Ch. 1). 582 371 Thornburi^h v. Savage Min. Co., 1 Pacific L. M. 2i)7 188, 199 Thorne v. Towanda Tanning Co., 15 Fed. R. 280 231, 232 Thornhill r. Thornhill, 14 Sim. 600 443 Thoroton r. Blackborne, 2 W. Kel. 7 573 Tiiorp V. On; 2 Cranch C. C. 335 517 Tiiorpe ;•. Macauley, 5 Madd. 218 225 V. Mattingley, 1 riiill. 200 771, 1035 V. Simmons, 2 Cranch C. C. 195 511, 515 Thouron v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Hy. Co., 88 Fed. K. 673 833 Thring v. Edgar, 2 Sim. & S. 274 246 Thruslon v. Mustin, 3 Cranch C. C 335 353 Tiernan v. Jackson, 5 Pet. 592 469 Tifft V. Iron Clad Manuf. Co., 16 Blatchf. 48 347 Tilden v. Hlair, 21 Wall. 241 777 Tilford r. Oaklev, Ilempst. 197 16 Tilghman :•. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136 563 r. Work, ;]9 Fed. R. 680 671, 673 Tillson V. United States, 100 U. S. 43 898, 933 Tilton r. Cofield. 93 U. S. 163 689 Tinsley v. Lacy, 1 Hem. & .M 747 362 Tintsman v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 6 1027 Tioga 11. R. Co. r. Blossburg & C. R. R Co., 20 Wall. 137 779, 780 Tippecanoe Countv (Comm'rs of) v. Lucas, 93 U. S. f08 1002, 1018, 1019 Tipping r. Eckersley, 2 Kav & J. 264 341 Titterton r. Oshorne, 1 Dick. 350 138 Titus r. United Stales, 16 Ct. CI. 276 903 Tobin V. WalUinshaw. McAll. 26 130 I'. Wilson, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 67 179 Tod: D:iniel, If, Pet. 521 1031 r. (iee, 17 Ves. 273 212 Toland >: .Spragiie, 12 Pet. -300 188, 200 Tolson V Lord Fiizwilliani, 4 Madd. 403 223 Tome ?•. Dubois, 6 Wall. 548 1086 Tomkin v. Letbbridge, 9 Ves. 178 "^ 263 Tomjinson r. Ward, 2 Conn. 396 441, 445 Toinliiison & W. Manuf. Co. i'. Shatto, 34 Fed. R. 380 10 are to pages.] Tom Tong, Ex parte, 108 U. S. 556 752 988, 993 Tonkin v. Lethbridge, G. Coop. 43 308, 316 Tookey v. Harding, 1 Fed. R. 174 473 Tooker v. Tliompson, 3 McL. 92 511, 514, 515, 517 Toronto Genl. Trust Co. i'. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 37 95 r. S. K. Martin Lumber Co., 37 Fed. R. 727 841 Torrey v. Grant Locomotive Works, 14 Blatchf. 269 821, 845 Toulmin v. Hamilton, 7 Ala. 362 214 V. Reid, 14 Beav. 499 288 Tourton «;. Flower, 3 P. Wms. 369 167, 219, 220 Towle V. Pierce, 12 Met. (Mass.) 329 127 130, 145 Townley v. Deare, 3 Beav. 213 549 Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall. 326 942, 945 v. Ives, 1 Wils. 216 550 r. Todd, 91 U. S. 452 779, 7hO V. United States, 22 Ct. CI. 207 593 V. , 1 U. S. L. J., 534, h. 624 Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426 1032 V. Torrey, 2 Blatciif. 275 383 Ti'ade Auxiliary Co. v. Vickers, L. R. 16 Eq. 303 898 Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82 365, 979 Trafton r. Nougues, 4 Savvy. 178 819 Transatlantic Co. v. Pietroni, Johns. 604 Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 691 Trapnall r. Richardson, 13 Ark. 543 Travis v. Waters, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 85 Treadwell v. Seymour, 41 Fed. R. 579 687, V. , U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y., Oct. 29, 1889, N. Y. L. J., Oct. 30, 1889 Treat v. Jemison, 20 AVall. 652 V. , 131 U. S. cx.xxv Trccothick r. Austin, 4 Mason, 16 Tredway i-. Sanger, 107 U. S. ;>23 Tremaine r. Hitchcock, 23 Wall. 518 275. 276, 284 Tremolo Patent, The, 23 Wall. 518 27(i Trenton, The, 4 Fed. R. 657 Trenton Banking Co. r. Rossell, 1 Green Ch. (N. J.) 492 Trevelyan i: Charter, 9 Beav. 140 Trial, The, Blatchf. & H 94 Triebcrt r. Burgess. 11 Md. 452 Trigg r. Conway, llenij)st. 711 Trimmer v. Bayne, 9 \'es. 2tl9 Triplett v. Bank of Wasiiington, 3 Cranch C. C. 646 Tripp V. Santa Rosa Street R. R. Co., 144 U. S. 126 1043 Trotter v. Trotter, Jacob, 533 057 Trov Iron & Nail Factorv v. (^orning, 6 Blatchf. 328 ' 255, 257, 662 395 210 790 299 763 767 1076 1077 128 55 864 551 664 623 441 770 4 768 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. C()ri)in,. , 29 Fed. R. 17 190, 191, 198 c. , 30 Fed. K. 523 212 c. , 32 Fed. R. 591 15 r , 39Fed. R. 71(} 284 V. Ames, 99 U. S. 35 20a V. Anderson, Cooke (Tenn), 143 740 r. Arizona, 120 U. S. 479 982 V. Armejo, 131 U. S., App. Ixxxii 1044, 1062 V. Atherton, 102 U. S. 372 147 f. Auditors of Brooklyn, 8 Fed. R. 473 714 V. Anguisolu, 1 Wall. 352 937, 941, 955, 956, 962 r. Averill, 130 U. S. 335 635 i: Avery, 13 Wall. 251 987 e. Ay res, 9 Wall. 608 932, 1052, 1066 r. Babbitt, 104 U. S. 767 1089 V. Bailey, 9 Pet. 267 978, 985 c. Barber, 140 U. S. 164 600, 016,617, 618, 619, 620 v. , 110 U. S. 177 601, 617, 618 c. Bassett, 21 How. 412 940 V. Batchelder, 9 Int. Rev. Rec. •. Hill, 25 375 V. Hilliard, 3 McL. 324 V. Hirsh, 100 U. S. 32 V. Hodge, 13 How. 478 r. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158 V. Hollis, 43 Fed. R. 248 V. Houston, 48 Fed. R. 207 V. Howland, 4 Wheat. 108 r. Huffmasier, 35 Fed. R. 81 r. Huggett, 40 Fed. R. 636 V. Huglies, 1 1 How. 552 V. Humason, 8 Fed. R. 71 v. Hunt, 105 U. S. 183 p. Iniieraritv, 19 Wall. 595 V. Insley, 130 U. S. 203 V. Ins. Cos., 22 Wall. 99 V. Irvine, 98 U. S. 450 V. Jackalow, 1 Black, 484 V. Jaeol)i, 4 Am. L. T. Rep. 148 057 V. Jailer of P'ayette Countv, 2 Abb. U. 8. 265 "g90, 749 V. Jellico Mt. C. & C. Co., 43 Fed. R. 898 31, 383, 389 V. , 46 Fed. R. 432 81 V. Jolms, 4 Dall. 412 479 V. , 1 Wasii. C. C. 363 479 V. Johnson, 1 Wall. 326 955, 962 — V. , 124 U. S. 36 ; 8 S. C. Rep. 446 98 V. Jones, 109 U. S. 513 799 V. ,119 U.S. 477 935 i: , 131 U. S 1 ; 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 669 31, 58, 97, 98, 898 r. , 134 U. S. 483 617 V. , 8 Pet. 375 469, 470 r. Jordan, 113 U. S. 418 898 V. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375 981 V. Kane, 23 Fed. R. 748 431 V. Kaufman, 90 U. S. 567 898, 899, 909 r. Kentucky River Mills, 45 Fed. R. 273 32 V. King, 7 How. 833 1083 V. Knight, 14 Pet. 301 764 V. Knight's Admr. 1 Black, 227 941, 954, 955, 958 V. , 1 Black. 488 952. 1079 V. Knox, 128 U. S. 230 618, G:]Q V. Kuhii, 4 Cranch C. C. 401 469 Laliette County, 7 Fed. R. 705, 715, 716 - V. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624 983, 992 ■ r. Lafontaine, 4 Cranch C. C. ■•^ 457 ■ V. Lamar, 116 U. S. 423 706 ■ V. Lancaster, 5 Wheat. 434 984 • V. Larkin, 18 How. 557 941, 952, 955, 956, 1086 ■ r. Lawton, 110 U. S 146 903 V. Le Bris, 121 U. S. 278 983, 991 V. Lee, 1()0 U. S. 196 96, 102 V. Lee County, 2 Biss. 77 716 V. Liddle, 2 \Vash. 205 465 V. Linn, 15 Pet. 290 821 318 TABLE OF CASES [References are u United States v. Lippitt, 100 U. S. 663 901, 903 V. Loiiglirey, 43 Fed. R. 449 187 c. Louisiana, 123 U. S. 32 91, 902, y08 r. , 127 U. S. 182 902, 903, 908 1-. Louisville & C. Canal Co., 4 Dill. 601 337, 378 V. Lucero, 1 N. M. 422 942 c. Lynch, 137 U. S. 280 967 V. Lynde, 44 P>d. H. 215 804 V. Macon (\)untv, 99 U. S. 582 705 V. .Mann, 2 Brock. 9 050, (352 V. Marich, 44 Fed. H. 19 398 V. Martin, 2 Faine, 08 469 V. Maxwell, 3 Dill. 275 687 V. McCarthy, 18 Fed. H. 87 488 V. McClay, 4 Cent. L. J. 255 729 V. McDerniott, 140 U. S. 151 97, 616, 617, 620 r. McDonald, 128 U. S. 471; 93 C. Kep. 117 98,899 V. McKee, 91 U. S. 442 933 V. McLaugnlin, 24 Fed. K. 823 258, 264 V. McLemore, 4 How. 286 370 V. McMasters, 4 Wall 680 952 V. McHae, L. R. 4 Eq. 327 216 V. , L. R. 3 Ch. App. 79 216 V. Memphis & L. R. R. Co., 6 Fed. R. 237 052, 655 V. Mexican Nat. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R. 269 31 /•. Minnesota & N. W. R. R. Co., 18 How. 241 1065, 1066 V. .Minor, 114 U. S. 233 140, 175 r. Mississippi & R. R. B. Co., 3 Fed. R. 548; 1 McCra. 601. 355 i'. Mitchell, 2 Wash. 478 475 r. Moonev, 116 U. S. 104 32, 57,872 r. Moore." 3 MacAr. 226 933 >: Moreno, 1 Wall. 400 937, 946, 955 r. Morjian, 11 How. 154 786 ,.. , lai II. S. clxiv 1086 r. Morillo, 1 Wall. 706 946, 962 /•. Morrison, 4 I'et. 124 777 r. Mvers, 2 Brock. 516 15 r. Nashville, C. &, St. L. Ry. Co., 118 U. S. 120 12 >: Nelei-rh, 1 Black, 298 955 r. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 381 705 >: , 17 Fed. R. 483 714 r. Norsch, 42 Fed. R. 417 15, 147 r. Nortiiway, 120 U. S. 327 982 V. Nve, 21 How. 408 910 V. , 4 Fed. R. 888 687 >■ O'Keefe, 11 Wall. 178 902 I'. One Case, 1 I'aine, 400 518 V. One Case of Silk, 4 Ben. 526 854 V. One Horse, 7 Ben. 405 59:1 V. Osio, 23 How. 273 954, 955 V. Oswego, 28 Ked. R. 55 714 f. Pacheco, 20 How. 261 062 V. Palmer, 128 U. S. 262 897 V. I'arrott. McAll. 271 351, 382, 380 to pages.] nited States v. Parrott, McAll. 447 321, 322, 518, 519, 523 — V. Patterson, 26 Fed. R. 509 651 — V. , 29 Fed. K. 775 725, 750, 751 — V. , 15 How. 10 942, y47, 948, 1078 — i: , 3 McL. 53 633 — V. Paxion, 40 Fed. R. 136 776 — V. Pearson, 24 Biatclif. 453 706 — V. Peralta, 19 How. 343 940 — V. Perchman, 7 Pet. 51 466, 937 — V. Perot, 98 U. S. 428 940, 951 — V. Perrin, 131 U. S. 55 976, 992 — V. Peters, 3 Dall. 121 693, 870 — V. , 5 Crancii, 115 703 — V. Philadelphia & R. R. R. Co., 123 U. S. 113 774, 775 — V. Phillips, 6 Pet. 776 1066 — V. , 121 U. S. 254 1044 — V. Pico, 22 How. 406 938, 940 — i: , 23 How. 321 991 — f. , 5 Wall. 536 942, 945, 953 — i^. Pile, 130 U. S. 280 991 — i: Pings, 4 Fed. H. 714 522 — V. Pinson, 102 U. S. 548 469 — V. Poinier, 140 U. S. 160 616 V. Port of Mobile, 12 Fed. R. 768 705 — V. Pratt Coal & Coke Co., 18 Fed. R. 708 92, 109, 143, 144, 159, 162, 175, 213, 215, 820 — V. Price, 2 Wash. 356 522 V. Pugh, 99 U. S. 265 1091 V. Radowitz, 8 Hep. 263 468 V. Halston, 17 Fed. R. 895 623, 631 V. Ramsay, 120 U. S. 214 898 V. Ratlibone, 2 Paine, 578 774 r. Rauscher, 119 U, S. 407 981 V. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297 5 i: Rendinsj, 18 How. 1 941, 942,947 V. Reid, 12 How. ;;61 V. Reisinger, 128 U. S. 398 V. Hepentigny, 5 Wall. 211 Ringgold, 8 Pet. 1.50 Ritchie, 17 How. 687 983 937,941, 942, 947 624 942, 945, 947, 948, 962 Rocha, 9 Wall. 6.39 951 Bosiers, 23 Fed. K. 658 727 Rose, 23 How. 262 940 , 14 Fed. R 681 687 Rosenburgh, 7 Wall. 580 987 Russell, 13 Wall. 623 897 St. Charles Co., 31 Fed. 442 646 440 — r. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co Fed. H. 414 — V. S,\mpe\reac, Hempst. 118 072. 673, 675, 677 — r. Sanborn, 28 Fed. R. 299 637, 638, 640 — V. Sansistevan, 1 X. H. 583 942 — V. Savings Bank, 104 IJ. S. 728 899 — V. Schofield, 132 U. S. 337 ; 10 S. C. Rep. 106 632 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] CI United States v. Scliolfielcl, 1 Crancli C. C. \3d 656 V. Sclmrz, 102 U. S. 378 102, 146, 701, 706, 707, 708, 712, 716 V. Scott, :3 Woods, 38-1 462 V. , 25 Fed. \i. 470 466 V. Scroggins, 3 Woods, 529 658 V. Seton, 10 Pet. 30J 953 V. Slieriniin, 98 U. S. 565 796, 798 r. Smith, !)4 U. S. 214 1091 0. , 3 Cranch C. C. 66 624 i: , 1 Woodl). & M. 184 622, 629, 632, 636 /•. , 85 Fed. R. 490 469 ,. , 44 Fed. R. 405 624 r. , 4 Day, 121 514, 516 V. Snyder, 14 Fed. R. 554 471 I!. Soutiierii Pac. R. R. Co., 40 Fed. U. 611 211 r. Spie^'el, 116 U. S. 270 981, 989 V. State Hank, 96 U. S. 30 900 r. vStetlVns, 100 U. S. 82 979 V. Stephenson, 1 McL. 462 821 V. Stone, 14 Pet. 524 993 r. , 2 Wall. 525 759 '•. , 100 U. S 525 470 V. Strobach, 4 Woods, 592 632 V. Sturgis, 14 P>d. R. 810 687 . Sntherland, 19 How. 363 955 0. Sutter, 21 How. 170 940, 947, 948, 954, 955 V. Sutton, 47 Fed. R. 129 1008 r. Tavlor, 44 Fed. R. 2 804 r. Ten Kyek, 4 McLean, 119 688 V. Teschinaker, 22 How. 392 954, 955 V. Tetlow, 2 Low, 159 764 V. The (Jhvmorgan, 2 Curt. 236 1015 r. The Nuestra Senora De Regla, 108 U. S. 92 1099 V. Tlie Pessy, 1 Cranch, 103 1088 V. The Reindeer, 2 Clitf. 57 854 r. Tiiotnpson, 98 U. S. 480 12, 285, 781 V. , Gilp. 014 702 );. Three Hundred Barrels of Al- cohol, 1 Ben. 72 V. Tlirockniorton, 98 U. S. 61 626 162, 947 490 515 V. Tilden, 25 Int. Rev. Rec. 352 V. , 10 Ben. 170 V. , 10 Ben. 566 514, 515. 719 V. Township of Oswego, 28 Fed. R. 55 714 V. Tread well, 15 Fed. R. 532 584 V. Trinidad C. & C. Co., 187 U S. 160 15, 175 V. Tuthill, 136 U. S. 652 592, 595 c. Tvler, 7 Cranch, 285 970 V. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 91 U. S. 72 r. , 98 U. S. 569 2 Dill. 527 4 Dill. 479 713 135, 140, KiO, 705 704, 714 715 United States v. Vaca, 18 How. 556 941 t: Vallejo, 1 Black, 288 955 V. , 1 Black, 541 9-55 V. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 109 598, 699, 000, 601, 603, 005, 006. 607, 608 V. Van Zandt, 2 Craacli C. C. 338 4C9 V. Vigil, 13 Wall. 449 940 V. Vilialonga, 23 Wail. 35 933 V. Waddell, 112 U. S. 76 981 V. Wallace, 116 U. S. 398 618 V. , 40 Fed. R. 144 632 V. , 46 Fed. R. fM) 794 V. Wailamet & C. M. W. R. Co., 42 Fed. R. 351 12 V. Waters, 133 U. S. 208 592, 682 V. Watkins, 97 U. S. 219 938. 940, 955 V. Wayne, Wall. C. C. 1-34 6-55 V. Whitcomb M. B. Co., 45 Fed. R. 89 White, 23 How. 249 , 17 F'ed. R. 561 729 V. Wiggins, 14 Pet. 334 V. Wilder, 13 Wall. 2-54 V. , 14 Fed. R. 393 V. Wilkinson, 12 How. 246 V. Williams, 4 Cranch C. C. 372 V. , 15 Int. Rev. Rec. 199 V. , 6 Mont. 379 V. Williamson, 3 Am. Law Reg. 57. 947, 962 140, 171, 175, 215 466 903 618 471 490 48>s 461 7.50 V. , 4 Am. Law Reg. 5 734, 750 i: Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 987 V. , 1 Black, 267 938, 940, 952 V. , 1 18 U. S. 86 21, 22 r. , Bald w. 78 481 V. Windom, 137 U. S. 6.36 706, 707, 711, 712, 713 V. Yates, 6 How. 605 200, 1066 r. Yorba, 1 Wall. 412 938, 940, 941, •'62 V. Young, 94 U. S. 2-38 717, 932, 1065 United States Annunciator Co. v. Sanderson, 3 Blatchf. 184 383 United States M. A. Assoc, v. Barry, 131 U. S. 100 774 United States Trust Co. ;;. New York W. S. & B. R. Co , 25 Fed. R. 800 403 V. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. (^o., 42 Fed. R. 343 14 Universities of (). & C. r. Richardson, 6 Ves. 689 358 University College r. Foxcroft, 2 Rep. in Ch. 244 305 Upshur County v. Rich, 135 U. S. 467 808, 810 Urlin V. Hudson, 1 Vern. 332 231, 232, 234 Urner v. Kaytoii. 17 Fed. R. 539 562 r. , 17 Fed. R. 845 662 Utterson v. Mair, 2 Ves. Jr. 95 395 Uvedale v. Uvedale, 3 Atk. 117 644 Cll TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Uxbridge (Lord) v. Staveland,! Ves. Sen. 56 145, 175, 21G 258 Vaigneur v. Kirk, 2 Desaus. (S. C.) 040 548 Vail V. Knapp, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 299 852 Vallandigliain, Ex parte, 1 Wall. 243 5, 717 , Ex parte, U. S. D. C. D. Oliio 737 , Trial of, 45 746 Vallette v. Whitewater Valley Canal Co., 4 McL. 192 15, 115 Van Allen, In re, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 225 430 Van Alst r. Hunter 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 148 552 Van Antwerp v, Ilulburd, 7 Blatchf. 420 199 Van Beil v. I'rescott, 82 N. Y. 630 3G5 Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151 19 Vance v. Campbell, 1 Black, 427 686 Vancouver)'. Bliss, 11 Ves. 458 580 Van Duzee v. United States, 41 Fed. K. 571 599, GOO, 602, 603, 605, 606, 607 Van Uyck v. McQuade, 85 N. Y. 616 419, 429, 430 Vane v. Lord Barnard, 2 Vern. 738 354 Van Gelder v. Sovverby Bridge Soc. L. U., 44 Ch. 1). 374 114 Van Home, Matter of, 7 Paige, 46 453 Van Hook v. Tlirockiuorton, 8 Paige, 83 660 Vann r. Barnett, 2 Bro. C. C. 158 440 Van llooreliecke r. United States, 46 Fe^t, 19 How. 182 1098 Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313 702, 807 c. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39 28, 107 Virginia Comni'rs, Ex parte, 112 U. S. 177 1042, 1044 Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 269 102, 105, 371 , 114 U. S. 325 369 Voce v. Lawrence, 4 McL. 203 611, 515, 516 Von Hoffman v. Quincy,4 Wall. 535 706 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] cm Von Roy v. Blacknian, 3 Woods, 98 180 Voorliees v. Coombs, 4 Vrooui, -482 775 Vose V. Phil brook, 3 Story, 3o5 127 V. Reed, 1 Woods, 647 oUG Voss I'. Luke, 1 Cranuh C. C. 831 G6G, t)o7 w. 14 Wabash Cases, 29 Fed. R. 161 Wabasli & E. Canal Co. v. Beers, 1 Black, 54 569, 1019 c. , 2 Black, 448 120 Wabash R. R. Co. v. McDaniels, 107 U. S. 454 1091 Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Cen- tral Trust Co., 22 Fed. R. 138 295, 397 V. , 22 Fed. R. 269 419 V. , 22 Fed. R. 272 25, 397 V. , 23 Fed. R. 513 293, 397, 705, 814 Wade 1-. United States, 21 Ct. CI. 141 931 Wagner u. Baird, 7 How. 234 11, 12, 235 V. Drake, 31 Fed. R. 849 845 V. Mears, 3 Sim. 127 332 Wagstaff V. Bryan, 1 Russ. & M. 28 306 W linwriglit v. Waterman, 1 Ves. Jr. 313 Waite, In re, 1 Low, 321 Wake V. Parker, 2 Keen, 70 Wakelee v. Davis, 44 Fed. R. 532 Wakelin v. Waltlial, 2 Ch. Cas. 8 Walburn v. Ingilby, 1 M. & K. 61 Walcot V. Walker, 7 Ves. 1 Walden v. Bodley, 14 Pet. 156 173, 175, 237, 283, 545 V. Bodley's Heirs, 9 How. 34 1099 V. Skinner, 101 U. S. 577 15, 126 Walden's Lessee r. Craig's Heirs, 14 Pet. 147 760, 761, 762 Wales V. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564 725, Walker v. Easterby, 6 Ves. 612 116 643, 644 91, 92 542 680 167 364 742 Jackson, 2 Atk. 625 722, 748 646 4 649 813 513, V. Lea, 47 Fed. R. 645 V. O'Neill, 38 Fed. R. 374 805 V. Parker, 5 Cranch C. C. 639 520, 523 V. Powers, 104 U. S. 245 153, 160, 214, 225 V. Smith, 21 How. 579 370 • v\ State Harbor Comm'rs, 17 Wall. 648 542 V. United States, 4 Wall. 163 102') V. Wild, 1 Madd. 528 440, 447 Walkley v. Muscatine, 6 Wall 481 20 Wall, Ex parte, 107 U. S. 265 703 V. Thomas, 41 Fed. R. 620 124, 127, 129, 130 Wallace v. Anderson, 5 Wheat. 291 759 I'. Douglas, 103 N. C. 19 6-33 V. Holmes, 9 Blatchf. 65 128 V. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146 2, 419, 425, 426 Wallace v. Wallace, Halst. Dig. (N. J.) 173 2-J8 Waller o. Harris, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 167 572 Wallis V. Hodgeson, 2 Atk. 56 465 Wallworth v. Holt, 4 M. & C. 619 116, 12U Walmsley v. Child, 1 Ves. Sen. 343 177 Walser v. Seligraan, 13 Fed. R. 415 24 Walsh V. Memphis, C. & N. W. R. R. Co., 6 Fed. R. 797 132 V. Preston, 109 U. S. 297 129 V. Trevannion, 16 Sim. 178 573 Walsington v. Nevin, 128 U. S. 578 1068 Walter A. Wood Co. v. Skinner, 139 U. S. 293 1004, 1005 Walton V. Coulson, 1 McL. 125 108 V. Crowley, 3 Blatchf. 440 364 V. Herbert, 3 Green Ch. (N. J.) 73 176, 184 V. Johnson, 15 Sim. .352 376, 430 V. United States, 9 Wheat. 651 784, 785 Wanata, The, 95 U. S. 600 856, 1053 Warburton v. London & B. Ry. Co., 2 Beav. 253 388 Ward V. Arredondo, 1 Paine, 410 126 V. , Hopk (N. Y.) 213 572 V. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430 789, 790, 978 860 1025 547 V. , 21 How. 572 0. Gregory, 7 Pet. 633 V. Hill, 4 Gray (Mass.), 593 r. Seabry, 4 Wash. 426 Wardle v. Claxton, 9 Sim. 412 Ware v. Grand Junction W. W. Co. 2 Russ. & M. 470 V. Regent's Canal Co., 3 De G & J. 212 V. Ware, 42 Ga. 408 Waring v. Crane, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 79 191 375 (1 Warmouth, Ex parte, 17 Wall. 64 344 395 93, 94 698, 758 Warner v. Norton, 20 How. 448 1090 Warren, The, 25 Fed: R. 782 864 Warren, Ex parte, 10 Ves. 622 390, 440 V. Fake, 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 430 897 V. Furstenheim, 35 Fed. R. 691 770 V. Moodv, 9 Fed. R. 673 285, 689 V. Younger, 18 Fed. R. 859 707 Warthen v. Brantley, 5 Ga. 571 160 Wartnaby v. Wartnaby, Jacob, 377 94, 95 Washburn & M. Manuf. Co. v. Cincin- nati B. W. F. Co., 42 Fed. R. 675 499 V. Colwell S. B. F. Co., 1 Fed. R. 225 334 V. Freeman Wire Co., 41 Fed. R. 410 499 V. Haish, 4 Fed. R. 900 359 V. Scutt, 22 Fed. R. 710 2.32, 287 Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 3 How. 413 1079, 1083, 1099 Washington Co. Nat. Bank v. Lee, 112 Mass. 521 467,468 Washington Ins. Co. v. Slee, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 365 298 CIV TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Washington Market Co. v. Dist. of Col., 137 U. S. 62 1066 Washington K. K. v. Bradleys, 10 Wall. -Am 29S, 1088 Wasluugtou & G. K. R. Co.,/Hre, 140 U. S. yi 703, 1093 V. McDatle, 135 U. S. 554 775 Waskern v. Diamond. Hempst. 701 515 Watenuau v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252 113, 114, 131 Waters v. Barrill, 131 U. S. Ixxxiv 1043 r. Campbell, 5 Sawv. 17 730 l: Carroll, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 102 445 Waterton v. Croft, 5 Sim. 502 192 Waterville v. Van Sl^ke, 115 U. S. 290 1068 V. , 116 U. S. 699 970, 978, 979, 990 Watkins, Ex parte, 3 Pet. 193 719, 726, 727, 740 V. Atchison, 10 Hare, App. xlvi 497 V. Stone, 2 Sim. 49 226 V. United States, 9 Wall. 759 470 Watson (!. Smith, 7 Fed. R. 350 251 V. Sutherland, 5 Wall. 74 23, 856 V. Tarpley, 18 How. 517 777, 779 Watt V. Starke, 101 U. S. 247 547, 551, 552 Watts V. Waddle, 1 McL. 200 126 y. , 6 Pet. 389 542, 1084 Wavelet, The, 25 Fed. R. 733 033 Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 795, 976 Weale v. West Middlesex W. W. Co., 1 Jac. & W. 358 123 Weaver v. Alter, 3 Woods, 152 289, 291 Webb, The, 14 Wall. 406 856 Webb, In re, Siielf. on Lun. 417 94 V. Byng, 8 De G. & M. 633 578 V. Dill, 18 Abb. I'r. (N. Y.) 264 S25 v. Pell, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 368 676 c. Powers, 2 Woodb. & M. 497 254, 363, 364 V. United States, 20 Ct. CI. 487 901 V. Vermont Cent. R. R. Co., 9 Fed. R. 70.3 13 Webber v. Bishop, 18 Fed. R. 49 821, 845 V. Humphreys, 5 Dill. 223 43, 811, 812 Weber v. Lee County, 6 Wall. 210 655 V. Travelers' Ins. Co., 45 Fed. R. 705, 714 820 993 777 840 13 Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54 V. , 14 How. 488 I'. Crotiiers, 1 Dill. 301 Webster Loom Co. v. Higgins Blatchf. 349 283 V. , 43 Fed. R. 673 501, OW, V. Short, 10 (Jff. Gaz. 1019 294 Wedekind r. Southern Pacific Co., 36 Fed. R. 279 82.3 Weed V. Kellogg, 6 McL 44 5^2 Weeks v. Weeks, 106 N. Y. 620 419 Weeth V. New England Mortgage Co., 106 U. S. 605 976 Weide v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 3 Chic. L. N. 353 765 Welch V. MandeviUe, 7 Cranch, 152 1021 Weller v. J. B. Pace Tobacco Co., 32 Fed. R. 860 814, 816 Welles V. Graves, 41 Fed. R. 459 129 Wellesley v. Welleslev, 4 M. & Cr. 554 220, 225 Wellford v. Miller, 1 Cranch C. C. 485 519 Welling f. La Bau, 34 Fed. R. 40 563 V. , 35 Fed. R. 3U2 570 V. McGregor, 13 Wall. 108 1022 Wells V. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 15 Fed. R. 561 ; 8 Sawy. 600 146 r. Southern Mmn. Ry. Co., 1 Fed. R. 270 406 V. Strange, 5 Ga. 22 174 V. Wilkins, 116 U. S. 398 1061 V. Wood, 10 Ves. 401 383 Wenberg v. Cargo of Mineral Phos- phate, 15 Fed. R. 285 865 Werder, In re, 15 Fed. R. 789 415 Wert ;;. Skip, 1 Ves. 218 663 Wescott V. Fairfield, Pet. C. C. 45 38 West V. Duncan, 42 Fed. R. 430 115, 130 V. Home Ins. Co., 18 Fed. R.622 087 V. Randall, 2 Mason, 181 121, 122, 127, 135, 155, 157, 224 V. Smith, 3 Beav. 306 337 Westhrook's Trusts, In re, L. R. 11 Eq. 252 336 Westcomb v. Westcomb, 1 Dick. 233 109 Westcott V. Cady, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 334 309 Western Air Line Constr. Co. v- Mc- Gillis, 127 U. S. 770 1053, 1061 Western Metropolis, The, 12 Wall. 389 1081 Western Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 108 U. S. 510 ^ 15 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Atlantic & P. Tel. Co., 7 Biss. 367 422 V. Brown, 32 Fed. R. 337 44, 814, 817 V. Burlington & S. W. Ry. Co., llFed.R. 1 382 17. Rogers, 93 U. S. 565 1026 v. St. Joseph & W. Ry. Co., 3 Fed. R. 430 367, 382 V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 3 Fed. R. 423 367 V. , 3 Fed. R. 721 382 W'estinghouse v. Carpenter, 43 Fed. R. b\)4 18, 361, 388 Westinghouse A. B. Co. v. Carpenter, 32 Fed. R. 484 17, 18 Westiev V. Williamson, 2 Moll. 458 643 Weston V. Charleston, 2 Pet. 440 808, 1002 V. Empire Assur. Co., L. R. 6Eq. 23 149 (.' Ilaggerston, G. Coop. 134 665 West Portland Homestead Assoc, v. Lownsdale, 17 Fed. R. 205 230 TABLE OF CASES. cv [References West Wisconsin Ry. Co. v. Folej', 94 U. S. 100 lO'JS Wetherill v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 1 Batin. & A. Pat. Cas. 485 Wetinore v. St. Paul & P. R. R. Co. 3 Fed. R. 177 V. Scovell, 3 Edw. (N. Y.) 515 V. United States, 10 Pet. 647 12 545 342 405, 46(3 Wiialen v. Slieridan, 10 Fed. R. 661 784 Wheaton v. Love, 1 Cranch C. C. 451 512, 516 Wheeler v. Cloyd, 134 U. S. 537 1029 V. Harris, 13 Wall. 51 1023, 10(31 1-. iMcCormick, 8 Blatchf. 267; 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 433 52, 232, 234, 241, 244, 247, 250 V. Sedgwick, 94 U. S. 1 1080 V. Williamson, 4 Ara. Law Reoj. 5 740, 741 Wheeling & B. Bridge Co. v. Wheel- ing Bri Ige Co., 138 U. S. 287 1019 Whelan v. Kevf York, L. E. & W. R R. Co., 35 Fed. R. 849 827, 832, 833, 834 Whipple V. Cumberland C. M. Co., 3 Storv, 84 037, 639 -- — {•."Hutchinson, 4 Blatchf. 190 384 Wliistler /•. Webb, Bunb. 53 117 Whitbeck v. Edgar, 2 Barb. Ch. (N Y.) lOG 138, 100, 213 Whitbread v. Brockliurst, 1 Bro. C. C. 404; 2 Ves. & B. 154, « 226 White V. Arthur, 10 Fed. R. 80 798 V. Bishop of Peterborough, 3 Swanst. 109 414 V. Boyce, 21 Fed. R. 228 23 V. Bromley, 20 How. 235 481 V. Buloid, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 164 2.t5 V. Crow, 110 U. S. 183 25 v. Foljambe, 11 Ves. 337 582 V. Hess, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 544 4.s3 V. Hillacre, 3 Y. & C. 597 120 V. Keokuk & D. M. Ry. Co., 52 Iowa, 97 435, 453 V. Lisle, 3 Swanst. 342 548, 551 V. National Bank, 102 U. S. 658 778 V. St. Guirons, Minor (Ala.), 331 405, 460 V. Turk, 12 Pet. 238 985 y. United States, 1 Wall. 660 955 V. , 19 Ct. CI. 4.36 909 r. Wliitman, 1 Curt. 494 232 White's A dm. v. United States, 1 Black, 501 703, 947 Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146 7, 10, 11 Whitehouse i'. Partridge, 3 Swanst. 365 456 Wiiitelegg V. Whitelegg, 1 Bro. C. C. 57 381 Whiteside v. Prendergast, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 471 453 Wliitesides i'. Laffertj', 3 Humph. ( Ten n.) 150 ' 433 Whitfield, Ex parte, 2 Atk. 315 440 are to pages.] Wliitfield V. Fausset, 1 Ves. Sen. 392 177 Whitford V. Clark Co., 119 U. S. 522 512 Whiting f. Bank of the U. S., 13 Pet. 6 299, 569, 574, 670, 671, 675, 677, 678, 1019 Whitman v. Hubbell, 30 Fed. R. 81 34, 39, 118 Whitmore, Ex parte, 1 Dick. 143 456 Whitney, Ex parte, 13 Pet. 404 703 V. Belden, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 140 576 V. Buckman, 26 Cal. 447 V. Cook, 99 U. S. 607 V. , 131 U. S. cxcvii V. Huntt, 5 Cranch C. C. 120 V. Schufelt, 1 Uen. 594 V. United States, 18 Ct. CI. 19 395 1067 1093 517 729 904, 931 Whitney Nat. Bank v. Parker, 41 Fed. R. 402 151 Whiton V. Albany Ins. Co., 109 Mass. 30 467 Whittelsey v. United States, 5 Ct. CI. 4-52 902 Wiiittemore r. Amoskeag Nat. Bank, 134 U. S. 527 35 V. Cutter, 1 Gall. 429 253 ;'. Farriiigton, 76 N. Y. 4-52 3 Whittenton Manuf. Co. v. Memphis & (). R. P. Co., 19 Fed. R. 273 840 Whittingham v. Burgoyne, 3 Anst. 900 219 V. Wooler, 2 Swanst. 428, n. 392 Whittlesey i\ Delaney, 73 N. Y. 571 429 Whorewood v. Whorewood, 1 Ch. Cas. 250 680 Whyte V. Gibbes, 20 How. 541 1095 Wickliffe v. Hill, 3 Litt. ( Ky.) .330 466 V. Owings, 17 How. 47 228, 1083 Wiijgins V. Gray, 24 How. 303 970, 988 Wieti^ins Ferry Co. v. Oliio & M. Rv. t^o. 142 U. S 396 1084, 1088 Wight, In re, 134 U. S. 136 337, 794 Wigton r. Hrainerd, 28 Fed. R. 29 586 Wilco.x V. Henry, 1 Dall. 69 91 V. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498 Wilde V. Gibson, 1 H. L. C. 605 Wilder V. McCormick, 2 Blatchf. 31 102 151 164, 209 V. Virginia, T. & C. S. & I. Co., 46 Fed. R. 676 814, 815, 816 Wildridge v. McKane, 2 Moll. 545 453 Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422 357 r. Fry, 1 Mer. 244 110 ('. Jordan, 3 Wash. 226 385 Wilkinson v. Belshcr, 2 Bro. C. C. 272 332 V. Culver. 25 Fed. R. 639 430 V. Dobbie, 12 Blatchf. 298 3-53 V. Fowkes, 9 Hare, 193 313 Willan r. Willan. 10 Ves. 72 675 Willard <•. Tavloe, 8 Wall. 557 4. 127 V. Wood.' 135 U. S. 309 11.773,779 Willcox r. Bellaers, Turn. & R. 491 582 William Bagfaioy, The, v. United States, 5 Wall. 377 1078 William Cox, The, 9 Fed. R. 072 584, 865 CVl TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Williaflis, Tn re, 37 Fed. R. 32-3 637, 638 V. Bank of U. S., 11 Wlieat. 4U 1031 V. Bankliead, 19 Wall. 503 120, 131 V. Benedict, 8 How. 107 790 V. Boston & A. K. K. Co., 17 Bhitchf. 21 252 V. Bruffv, 102 U. S. 248 1098 V. Clatiiti, 103 U. S. 753 1050 V. Consier, 131 U. S. 390 1080 V. Cooke, 10 Ves. 406 301 f. Conwin, Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) 471 203 265 147 — c. Davies, 1 Sim. & S. 426 — V. Douglas, 5 Beav. 82 — V. Empire Transp. Co., 1 N. J. L. J. 315 229, 230 V. Gibbes, 20 How. 535 267 — V. Hintermeister, 26 Fed. R. 889 399 — V. Jackson, 107 U. S. 478 545 — V. Massachusetts Ben. Assoc, 47 Fed. K. 533 823 — V. Mellisli, 1 Vern. 117, n. 677 — V. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684 118, 333, 335, 450, 567, 1030 — V. Nottawa, 104 U. S. 209 635, 536, 537 — V. Price, 4 Price, 156 548 — r. United States, 137 U. R. 113 480 — V. , 138 U. S. 514 106, 130, 150, 151 — v. Walker, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 291 179 134 V. Williams, 9 Mod. 299 Williams, M. & R. Co. v. Raynor, 7 Biss. 245 Wjlliamson r. Berry, 8 How. 495 V. (iordon, 19 \'es. 114 573, (•. Suvdaiu, 6 Wall. 723 V. Wi'lson, 1 Bland (Md.), 418 846 777 ', 574 778 432, 443 Williamsport Bank i-. Knapp, 119 U. S. 357 976, 989 Willings V. Conseqna, Pet. C. C. 301 521 Willis r. Bucher, 3 Wash. C. C. 369 472 Wilson, Ex /mttf. 114 U. S. 417 725, 726 , //) jv>, 140 U. S. 575 726 V. Barnov, 5 Hun (N. Y ), 257 452 ),'. Barnum, 1 Wall. Jr. 342 550 >: , 8 How. 258 976, 979, 986, 988 V. Blair, 119 U. S. 387 1029 r. Citv Bank, 3 Sumner, 422 1 15, 132, 144 V. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401 33, 1018, 1053 . Everett. 139 U. S. 616 1084, 1091 r. Fine, :}8 Fed R. 789 687 r. (;aines, 103 U. S. 417 210 V. (iinger, 2 Dic-k. 521 550 V. Greenwood, 1 Swanst. 471 401, 443, 444 V. Hurst, Pet. C. C. 441 762 V. Kno.x County, 43 Fed. R. 481 1>5 r. Koontz, 7 Crancli, 202 235 V. Luke, 1 Vict. L. R. 127 363 Wilson V. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572 1086 V. Riddle, 123 U. S. 608 550, 551 V. Rousseau, 4 How. 646 114 V. Sandtord, 10 How. 99 36 V. Seligman, 10 Rejjorter, 651 297 V. StoUey, 4 McL. 272 381 V. , 4 McL. 275 145, 275 V. Todd, 1 M. & C. 42 134 V, Union Sav. Assoc, 30 Fed. R. 521 816 V. United States, 1 Ct. CI. 318 9ti9 I'. Watson, Pet. C. C. 269 762 V. Western Union Tel. Co., 34 Fed. R. 561 44, 813, 822 V. Wilson, 1 Jac & W. 459 138 Wilson S. M. Co. v. Jackson, 1 Hughes, 295 514 Wilson's Heirs v. Life & Fire Ins. Co., 12 Pet. 140 1031, 1040 Wilton V. Jones, 2 Y. & C. 244 118 Winans v. Eaton, 1 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 181 360 V. New York & E. R. R. Co., 21 How. 88 518, 522, 523 Winherg v. Berkeley Co. R. R. & L. Co., 29 Fed. R. 721 823 Winchell v. Coney, 27 Fed. R. 482 839 Winchester v. Loud, 108 U. S. 130 814 Winchester (Bishop of) r. Fournier, 2 Ves. Sen. 445 548, 579 Winder v. Caldwell, 14 How. 4.34 759, 760 237 588 Windsor i: McVeigli, 93 U. S. 274 Winegar v. Cahn, 29 Fed. R. 676 Wing V. Fairhaven, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 363 379, 392 Winn r. Jackson, 12 Wheat. 135 1021 V. Patterson, 9 Pet. 663 466 Winnemans r. Edgington, 27 Fed. R. 324 844 Winnisimmet Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. CI. 319 901, 903 Winslow V. Nayson, 113 Mass. 411 392 Winter v. Ludlow, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 464 135, 188 r. Simonton, 3 Cranch C.C. 104 523 <\ Swinburne, 8 Fed. R. 49 37, 42 Wintermute i: Smith, 1 Bond, 210 624 Winters v. Etiiell, 132 U. S. 207 1023, 1038 Wintliorp r. Royal Exchange Assur. Co., 1 Dick. 282 ^ 646 Winthrop r. Murray, 7 Hare, 150 533 r. Union Ins. Co., 2 Wash. 7 521 Winthrop Iron Co. r. Meeker, 109 U. S. 1H0 1018, 1020, 1023 Wirt r. Hicks, 46 Fed. R. 71 163 Wiscart (;. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321 904 Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265 29, 91 Wisdom V. Memphis, 2 Flipp. 285 714 Wise V. Allis, 9 Wall. 737 686 Wi.«er v. Blachly, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 488 674 Wisner v. Barnet,4 Wash. 631 110, 127,214 TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] evil Wiswell V. Starr, 48 Me. 401 443 Withenbury i-. United States, 5 Wall. 819 1025 770 GtJ6 604 Otio 504 il84 818 705 164, Witters v. Foster, 26 Fed. R. 737 V. Sowles, 31 Fed. R. 5 V , 32 Fed. R. 130 v. , 32 Fed. R. 765 V. , 43 Fed. K. 405 Woloott V. Aspen M. & S. Co., 34 Fed. R. 821 811, 812 I'. Watson, 46 Fed. R. 529 828 Wolf V. Cook, 40 Fed. R. 432 689, 763 V. Insurance Co., 1 Flipp. 377 584 V. Usher, 3 Pet. 269 Wolff V. Arcliibald, 14 Fed. R. 309 V. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 358 Wollensak c. Reilier, 115 U. S. 90 168, 214 Wolverton v. Lacey, 18 Law Rep. 672 765 Womersley I'. Merritt, L. R.4 Eq.695 277 Wood, Matter of, U. S. C. C. S. D. N. Y., July, 1891 199 V. Beadell, 3 Sim. 273 375 V. Cleveland Rolling Mill, 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 550 12 v. Denis, 18 How. 407 37 r. Dumnier, 3 Mason, 308 121, 155 V. Griffith, 1 Meriv. 35 667 V. Guarantee T. & S. D. Co., 128 U. S. 416 403. 414 I!. Lide, 4 Cranch, 180 1043, 1053 c. Mann, 1 Sumner, 506 227, 228, 238 V. , 2 Sumner, 316 464, 501, 502 V. Richards, 131 U. S. xcviii 1053 V. Swift, 81 N. Y. 31 179 i\ United States, 10 Pet. 342 482 V. Weimar, 104 U. S. 786 1086 V. Wood, 4 Russ. 558 440 Wood Count V v. Lackawanna I. & C. Co., 'jS U. S. 619 1086 Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall 333 1066, 1067 Woodbury, In re, 7 Fed. R. 705 608 Woodman r. Missionarv So'j. of M. E. Church, 124 U. S. 101 1004 Woodruff V. Dubuque & S. C. R. R. Co., 30 Fed. R. 91 250 V. iVorth Bloomfield G. M. Co., 18 Fed. R. 7.53 345, 355 /'. , 45 Fed. R. 129 ().-)4 Woodrum v. Clay, 33 Fed. R. 897 814, 817 Woods, Fn re, 143 U. S. 202 975 V. Lindvall, 48 Fed. R. 73 785, 787 V. Monroe, 17 Mich. 238 4 V. Morrell, 1 Jolins. Ch. (N. Y.) 103 146, 255, 265 V. Woods, 10 Sim. 197 319 i>. Youii-r, 4 Crancl), 237 1090 Woodward ik Brown, 13 Pet. 1 1059 r. Hall, 2 Cranch C. C. 235 510 r. Jewell, 140 U. S. 247 1027 V. Woodward, 1 Dick. .33 314 Woodworth v. Edwards, 3 Woodb. & M. 120 380 V. Hall, 1 Woodb. & M 389 387 V. , 1 Woodb. & M. 248 473 v. Rogers, 3 Woodb. & M. 135 387 V. Sherman, 3 Story, 171 045 V. Stone, 3 Story, 749 316 WooUam v. Hearn, 7 \'es. 211 545 Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. R. (550 38, 107, 839 Woolsey v. Judd, 4 Duer (N. Y.j, 379 342 Wooster v. Blake, 7 Fed. R. 816 247 v. Clark, 9 Fed. K. 851 504 v. Gumbirnner, 20 Fed. R. 167 558, 561 V. Handy, 23 Fed. R. 49 680, 585, 586, 587,588, 641, 642 V. Hill, 44 Fed. K. 819 037 V. Sidenbergii, U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y. Nov. 6. 1889 499 Worcester v. Truman, 1 McL. 483 653 Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14 654, 655, 1085 Works V. Junction R. R., 5 McL. 425 355, 309 Wormald v. De Lisle, 3 Beav. 18 145 Wormley v. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421 37, 120 Wormser v. Dahlman, 16 Blatclif. 319 820 Worswick Manuf. Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 30 Fed. R. 625 642 Worthington r. Jeffries, L. R. 10 Ct. C. P. 379 609 r. Scribner, W?) Mass. 487 215 Wortley v. Birkhead, 2 Ves. Sen. 571 672 Wray v. Hutchinson, 2 M. & K. 235 279, 2^0 ('. United States, 19 Ct. CI. 154 903 Wren v. Kirton, 11 Ves. 377 432 V. Spencer O. M. Co., 18 Off. Gaz. 857 270 V. Weild, L. R. 4 Q. B. 730 371 Wright V. Atkyns. 1 Ves. & B.313 376 r. Castle, 3 Meriv. 12 533 V. Dame, 1 Met. (Mass.) 237 220, 499 r. HoUingsworth, 1 Pet. 105 1090 V. Howard, 1 Sim. & S. 190 581, 583 ;•. Merchants' Xat. Bank, 1 Flipp. 5()8 39(; V. Tatliam, 2 Sim 459 497 r. Wells, 1 Per. C. C. 220 843 Wroe r. Clayton, 10 Sim. 183 650 Wrottcsley v. Bendish, 3 P. Wms. 235 402 Wvoh V. Meal, 3 P. Wms. 310 111, 112 Wylie v. Coxe, 15 How. 415 229, 1087 Wynne r. Lord Newborough, 1 Ves. jr. 164; 3 Bro. C. C. 88 ' 418, 428 V. , 15 Ves, 283 443, 444 Wythe V. Palmer, 3 Sawy. 412 240 cvm TABLE OF CASES. [References are to pages.] Young V. Keighly, 16 Ves. 348 Yale Lock Manuf. Co., v. Colvin, 14 Fed. K. 209 585, 586 Yarbrough, Er parte, 110 U. S. 651 726 Yates 1-. Arden, 5 Crancli C. C. 526 278 V. Hanibly, 2 Atk. 237 133 V. Hardy, Jacob, 223 265 Yearian v. Horner, 36 Fed. R. 130 814 Yeatnian v. Bradford, 44 Fed. R. 536 25, 42 Yeaton v. Lenox, 8 Pet. 123 153, 1098 V. United States, 1 Cranch, 281 1088 Yick Wo t: Crowley, 26 Fed. K. 207 347, 357 Yonley v. Lavender, 21 Wall. 276 13 York V. White, 10 Jur. 168 120 York (Arclibishop of) v. Stapleton, 2 Atk. 136 280 York (Mayor of) v. Pilkington, 1 Atk. 282 123, 157 v. , 2 Atk. 302 351 York County v. Central R. R., 3 Wall. 107 523 Young, In re, 7 Fed. R. 855 230, 439 V. Brvan, 6 Wlieat. 146 56 V. Co'lt, 2 Blatfhf. 373 290 V. Cushing, 4 Biss. 456 129, 131 V. Davidson, 5 Craucli C. C. 515 513 V. Everest, 1 Russ. & M. 426 644 V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 9 Fed. R. 348 765 V. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51 254, 382, 3«5, 569 672 V. Martin, 8 Wall. 354 785, 787 — V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 29 Fed. R. 273 639, 640, 849 — V. Montgomery & E. R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 606 451, 452, 453 — V. Parker's Admr., 132 U. S. 267 833 — V. Pott, 4 Wash. 521 — V. United States, 95 U. S. 641 295 932, 1090 431 341 665 V. Wempe, 46 Fed. R. 354 Yovatt V. Winyard, 1 Jac. & W. 394 Yow r. Townsend, 1 Dick. 59 Yturbide's Exrs. v. United States, 22 How. 290 961, 963 Yuba Countv v. Pioneer G. M. Co., 32 Fed. R. 183 41, 189 Yuengling v. Joinison, 1 Hughes, 607 323, 377, 379 V. Schile, 12 Fed. R. 97 362 Zanibrino v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R. 449 45, 189, 190 Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S 617 964, 1027 Zeigler v. Hopkins, 117 U. S. 683 1061 Zeller v. Switzer, 91 U. S. 487 1021 Zive ('. Peck, 13 Fed. R. 475 570 Zodiac, The, 5 Fed. R. 220 863 Zunkel v. Litciifield, 21 Fed. R. 196 502, 503 CITATIONS. [referencks are to pages.] U. S. CONSTITUTION. Art. I. § 0. 456, 4U1. § 0. 736. III. -27. § 1- 5- ^ 2. 5, 100, 107, 756. IV. § 1. 946. Page. Art. V. Amendment. 731, 981. XI. " 5,9.5,100,106, 107, 371. XIV. " 31,57,730,731, 732, 733, 754. U. S. REVISED STATUTES. Page. Page. Page. 1. 482, 514. §566. 771, 861. §609. 339. 103. 489. 567. 804. 614. 1017. 186. 757. 568. 804. 615. 804. 358. 766. 569. 804. 616. 804. 363. 590, 593. 571. 60. 617. 339. 364. 591. 572. 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 618. 339. 365. 590. 66, 66, 67 68, 69, 629. 31, 32, 872. 366. 591. 71, 72, 73 74, 75, 631. 568, 866, 1015. 368. 632. 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 632. 1015, 1016. 380. 591. 85. 635. 1016. 531. 60,61,62,64,66,68, 583. 596, 622. 636. 689, 1016. 69, 73, 77, 78, 584. 596, 622. 639. 827. 83, 85. 687. 803. 641. 720, 807, 837. 532. 59, 60. 588. 803. 642. 719, 837. 633. 60, 61. 691. 329, 340. 643. 719, 720, 806, 836, 534. 62. 592. 339, 340. 979. 535. 63. 693. 339, 340. 648. 771. 536. 63. 594. 339, 340. 649. 771. 538. 69. 595. 339, 340. 650. 976. 540. 72. 596. 339, 340. 651. 976. 541. 74. 697. 339. 662. 976. 542. 74. 698. 339, 340. 657. 61, 670. 543. 75. 699. 339, 340. 658. 61, 62, 6,3, 64, 66, 544. 76. 600. 339, 340. 68,69,71,72,7.3, 545. 77. 601. 339. 74, 75. 77. 78, 80, 546. 78. 602. 339. 83, 8», 85. 547. 79, 80. 603. 3;;9, 340. 664. 61. 548. 89, 81, 83. 604. 58, 339. 671. 690, 622. 549. 84. 606. 339. 672. 696, 622. 550. 85. 606. 339. 674. 1010. 563. 57, 872, 873. 608. 59, 60. 684. 58. ex CITATIONS. Page. Page. Page. §685. 58. §786. 657. §882. 465. 6St). 58. 787. 648, 656, 690, ' •96. 883. 467. 687. 27, 28. 7i^8. 648, 690. 884. 467. 688. 30, 689, 694, 702, 793. 192. 885. 467. 869. 798. 602. 886. 466, 468. 691. 969. 800 to 882. 776. 887. 470. 0'.t2. 568, 969. 820. 980. 888. 471. 69.3. 971, 975. 824. 585, 588, 594, 889. 471. 695. 969. 825. 588. 890. 471. 696. 969. 826. 589. 891. 472. 697. 971, 975. 827. 589. 892. 473. 698. 970. 828. 598, 599, 600, 601, 893. 474. 700. 771. 602, 603, 605, 006, | 894. 474. 701. 1082, 1092. 607, 608, 609, 611. 895. 475. 702. 969. 612,617,618 619. 890. 475. 703. 1039. 829. 489, 598, 605, 620, 897. 476. 705. 1039, 1083. 622, 623, 624 625, 898. 476. 707. 935, 966, 969. 627, 628, 629 630, 899. 476. 708. 100, 1037, 103 9. 631, 632. 900. 477. 709. 905, 907, 993, 1025, 830. 629, 633. 901. 477. 1082, 1097. 831. 592, 611, 634. 902. 477. 710. 995, 1073. 832. 620. 903. 478. 716. 30, 689, 701, 704, 833. 612, 634. 904. 478. 717. 834. 634. 905. 479, 481. 1\1. 455. 835. 592. 906. 480. 718. 180, 323, 377. 836. 692. 907. 481. 719. 336, 337, 338, 378. 837. 592, 634. 908. 481. 720. 178,347,371. 838. 591, 593. 909. 482. 721. 12, 776. 839. 590, 613. 911. 183, .384, 489, 656, 723. 7, 372. 840. 596, 613. 688, 74C , 1040. 724. 464, 768. 841. 596, 635. 912. 384, 489, 688, 749, 725. 376, 482, 494 , 650, 842. 596, 613, 635. 1040. 654. 843. 596, 613, 635. 914. 508, 603, 683, 689 726. 781. 844. 596, 613, 635, ( 336. 775, 80C . 737. 124. 845. 590, 613, 636. 915. 763. 738. 194, 571, 570. 846. 596, 604, 614, 836. 916. 648, 794. 740. 40. ■ 848. 616, 617, 618, 619, 917, 89. 741. 46. 620. 918. 90. 742. 40. 848. 637. 919. 872. 743. 47. 849. 640. 921. 765. 744. 47. 850. 640. 922. 180. 745. 48. 854. 604. 923. 658, 873. 747. 177, 198. 221, 240. 855. 604, 007. 938. 873. 751. 30, 719, 724. 858. 256, 257, 486. 939. 873. 752. 719. 859. 489. 940. 873. 753. 720. 723, 724 729, 860. 488. 911. 857. <.m. 989. 801. 461. 945. 482. 751. 739, 743. 8(;2. 461, 507. 948. 689. 75."). 745, 749. 863. 4, 490, 498, 50r ,510, 949. 1074. 75f). 749. 802, 951. 954. 177, 247, 273, 281 757. 749. 864. 4, 498, 510, 86 2. 330. 68 -. 689. 758. 749. 865. 4,498,504,510,862. 955. 302, 305, 769. 759. 750. 8()6. 4, 495, 518. 956. 709, 1033 im. 743, 744, 750. 867. 4, 500, 706. 9()6. 796. 7(il. 750. 8(58. 491, 495. 967. 788, 790. 7'i-'. 719. 8(i9. 492. 908. 582, 805. 7<;3. 75'' 870. 492. 969. 583. 701. 75 r 871. 492. 970. 873. 7<'.5. 752, 753. 872. 493. 983. 585, 044, 645. 7t;(). 745, 753 873. 493. 984. 644. 768. 753. 874. 493. 985. 649, 795, 796. 783. 657. 875. 529 530, 581. 986. 649. 784. 657. 876. 490, 637. 987. 781,797. 785. 657. 877. 490. 988. 797. ( CITATIONS. CXI Page. Page. Page. §989. 797. § 1082. 915. § 4627. 873, 875. 990. 455, 764, 855. 1083. 915. 4628. 873. 991. 764. 1084. 915. 4629. 873, 875. 992. 764. 1086. 933. 4630 to 4645. 873. 993. 795. 1087. 929. 4646. 589, 873. 994. 796. 1088. 929. 4647. 589, 873. 995. 609, 864. 1089. 100, 935. 4648. 590, 873. 997. 1017, 1042, 1043, 1090. 933. 4649. 590, 873. 1053, 1076. 1091. 933. 4650. 873. 998. 1016, 1017. 1092. 935 4651. 873. 999. 1003, 1043. 1093. 934. 4652. 873. 1000. 1003, 1017, 1046. 1750. 263, 483. 4777. 979. 1001. 1047. 1778. 862. 4799. 58. 1003. 1005. 1909. 969. 4886. 301, 379. 1004. 1040. 1979. 850. 4887. 361, 379. 1005. 1041, 1061. 2010. 757. 4W»8. 113, 820. 1007. 795, 1047. 2011. 609. 4'.t(i2. 464. 1008. 648, 1037. 2012. 609. 4915. 18. 1009. 875, 1036. 2013. 596, 609, 622. 4917. 570. 1010. 1092, 1093. 2014. 609. 4918. 290, 313, 577. 1011. 964. 2139. 983. 4919. 113, 114,685. 1012. 1046. 2326. 8, 1019. 4920. 252, 684, 685. 1014. 600, 607, 619. 3220. 898, 899. 4921. 113, 114,345,358 1017. 995. 3224. 20, a 70. 570. 1025. 983, 992. 3228. 899. 4922. 484. 1030. 602. 3490. 57. 4969. 684, 687. 1042. 620. 3636. 368. 4970. 345, 361. 1044. 979. 3637. 368. 5013. 262, 482. 1049. 876. 3744. 471. 5141. 396. 1050. 876. 4063. 457. 5191. 396. 1051. 876. 4064. 457. 5195. 396. 1053. 877. 4065. 457. 51<.i7. 990. 1054. 877. 4066. 457. 5198. 990. I 1055. 877. 4071. 526, 529, 531. 5201. 396, 980. 1056. 877. 4072. 52(i, 529, 531. 5205. 396. 1057. 877. 4073. 526, 529, 531. 5209. 979, 980, 982. 1058. 877. 4074. 526, 529, 531. 5219. 151. 1059. 87, 878, 896, 901, 4092. 1013 5234. 394, 396. 903. 4093. 1013 5235. 394, 396. lOGO. 87, 879, 901, 903. 4094. 1013 5236. 394, 396. 1001. 879, 903. 4095. 1013 5237. 368, 394. 10G2. 879, 903. 4096. 1013 5239. 8. 1063. 880, 901. 4251. 854. 5242. 764. 1004. 880. 4613. 873. 5298. 049. 1065. 880. 4614. 873. 5300. 649. 1006. 880. 4615. 873. 5339. 981, 082. 1067. 87, 880. 4(511). 873. 5347. 982. 1068. 881, 902. 4617. 873. 5392. 980. 10()9. 901, 902. 4618. 873, 874. 5438. 632, 992. 1071. 914. 4619. 873. 5440. 992. 1072. 99, 904. 4620. 873. 5467. 983, 992. 1074. 914,923. 4621. 873. 5480. 983. 1075. 914. 4022. 873. 5508. 981. 1076. 920. 4623. 873. 5512. 980. 1077. 914. 4624. 873. 551.5. 980, 993. 1078. 914. 4625. 873. 5595. 689. 1080. 915. 4626. 873, 875. 5590. 689, 991. 1081. 915. CXll CITATIONS. U. S. STATUTES AT LARGE. Vol. 1. p. 81, Chap. 20, § 14. 740. 82, § 1<>. 720. 88, 20. 507. § 30. 506. 276, 36, § 2. 506. 332, 20. 609. Vol. 2. p. 156, Cliap. 31, § 6. 984. § 25. 506. 244, 40, § 2. 506. Vol. 4. p. 278, Chap. 68. 794. 632, 57. 720. 659, 80. 760. 728, 161. 9yi. Vol. 5. p. 518, Chap. 188, § 6. 506. 539, 257. 720. Vol. 9. p. 631, Chap. 41. 940, 946. 922, 937, 938. Vol. 10. p. 308, Chap. 103. 939, 944. 1031, 937, 939. Vol. 11. p. 374, Chap. 1. 939. Vol. 12. p. 71, Chap. 167. 9.39. 172, 59. 939. 209, 83. 939. 355, 41. 9.39. 755, 81. 7.36. 887, 66. 939. Vol. 13. p. 125, Clinp. 123. 9.39. Vol. 14. p- 385, 482, Cliap. 28. 721, §1. 7 736. 722 42. 558, 196. 811. 588, 118. 939. 734, V 736. OL. 15. p 275, Chap. 47. 939. 342, 152. 939. 438, 26. 939. Vol. 16. p 64, Chap. 14. 939. 291, 292. 939. 373, Res. 38. 9.39. 740, Art. 6. 973. Vol. 17. p. 196, Chap. 255. 508, 763. § 5. 775. 509, 2'.6, § 4. 704. Vol. 18. p. 15, Chap 24. 65. 27, 80. 965. 53, 214. 8.3. ■72, 285. 631. § 1. 629. 75, 286. 85. 76, 287. 77. 113, 3.33, § 8. 482. 157, 130, §8. 720. 192, 893. 883. 195, 401. 59. § 1. 60. §5. 59,60. §6. 60. 251, 463. 64. 252, 468. 876. 253, 469. 970. 315, 77. 547, 549, 969. § 1. 964. § 3. 869. 816, 80. 964. 333, 95. 596, 602, 631, 63 § 1. 615. § 4. 704. § 6. 615. § 6. 615. § 7. 631. CITATIONS. CXlll p. 335, Chap. 114, § 5. 371, loO. 798, §«• 470, 137, § 2. §3. §4- §5. §6. §7. §8. §i^- 480, 148. 80. 481, 149. 884 970. 807, 836. 818, 826. 835. 845. 200, 228, 535, 847. 840. 838. 194, 571, 576. 1033. Vol. 19. p. 4, Chap. 11. 7-3, 77. 61, 147. 61. 68, 156. 394, 396. 90, 186. 984. 206, 304. 263, 482. 230, 44. 60, 61. 240, 69. 531. 706 §2. 701. Vol. 20. p. 27, Chap 27. 85. 30, 37. 488. 101, 169. 77. §1. 52. §2. 52. §3. 52. §0. 52. 14.5, 263, § 15. 649. 166, 269. 64. 171, 319. 885. 173, 322. 75. 17-5, 326. 68, 69. §1. 49. §2. 49,69 §3. 49. 175, 326. §4. 50. § 5. 50. § 6. 50. §7. *50. §8. 51. § 9. 51. 206, 359. § 17. 80. 259, 9. 85. 263, 20. 73. §1. 51. §2. 51. § 3. 52. §4. 52. §5. 52. 277, 39. §1. 477. § 2. 478. § 3. 478. 280, 43. 63. 318, 97. 80,81,83 320, 99. 966. 324, 115. 884. p. 327, Chap. 125. § 12. 981, 989. 354, 176. 1017. § 2. 1016, 1047. 355, 177. 66. §1. 66. 415, 183. 445, 555. 592, 31. 939. Vol. 21. 4. Chap. 8. 992. 10, 18. § 1. 80, 81, 83 41, 49. 62. 43, 52. 610. 45, 59. § 1. 66. 62, 17. 63. §4. 47. §5. 47. §6. 47. §7. 47. §8. 47. 63, 155, 18. 76, 77. §1. 53. §2. 53. § 3, 53. §4. 53. §7. 53. § 8. 53. 120. 64, 65, 66. §1. 48. §2. 48. 175, 203. 79, 80. §1. 53. §2. 53,80. §3. 53. §4. 54. §5. 54. §7. 54. §8. 54. § 9. 54. § 10. 54. 198, 213. 80, 81, 83, 252, 234. 935. 284, 243. 890. 308, Resol 44. 482. 324, Chap. 45. 84. 326, 62. 83. 330, 71. 73. 502, 138. 32, 366. §7. 32. 504, 1.39. 894. 507, 144. 67, 68. § 5. OS. §6. 68. 511, 154. 64. Vol. 22. 32 Cliap 48. 74. 58^ 126. 974. 101, 218. 71. VOL. I. — h CXIV CITATIONS. p. 172, Chap. 312. 64, 65. § 5. 65. 176, 351. 77. 344, 436. 634. 402, 25. 80. 469, 95. 890. 48.5, 116. 929. 58-5, 141. 895. 603, 143. 596, 597 611. 635, Rcsol. 5. 891. 826. 974. Vol. 23. 1, Cliap. 18, 22, 35, 48, 50, 57, 72, 75, 115, 242, 280, 283. 332, 437, 443, 52. 64. 102, 106 121. §18. 177. § 8. §9. 179. § 8 220, 334 46, 59, 60. § 2. 60. §4. 47. ' 982. 83. 83. (•)3. 870. 00, 60, 83. 83. GO. 06, 83. 620, 974. 893. 7. 80. § 2. 80. 25. 892, 929. 164. 31, 728. 353. 751. 355. 966, 969, 970. Vol. 24. 8, Chap. 80, 83, 106, 127, 214, 253, 274, 308, 336, 379, 400, 406, 423, 424, 428, 430, 442, 605, 28. 94. 421, §4. 870. 422. 581. 745. 848. 902. 903. 928. 931. 104. 137. 139. 269. 271. 273. 279. 315. 359. 60. 62. 71. 61. 610. 617, 61. 78. 369. 75. 61. 69. 618. r3. §1- §2. §6. 61. 71. 63, 64. 3. 64. 31, 58, 87, 004, 929. 96, 97. 96. 882. 100. 98. 98, 99. p. 505, Chap. 359, § 7. §8. §^»- §10. §12. § 13. § 14. § 15. 509, 552, 881, 373. 596. 438, 44:!, 545, 655, 671, 676, 690, (•)93. 783, 855, 99. 915. 100, 969, 1039. 100, 602, 1037, 1039. 882. 883. 883. 100, 583. 610, 622, 629. 30, 32, 189, 21.3, 228, 805, 806, 818. 826, 835, 838, 840, 845, 850. § 1. 32, 44, 54. 434, 804. 2.30, 436, 584. 35, 39. 31. 44.5, 555. §2. §3. H. §5. §7. p. 78, Chap. 151, 357, 857, 388, 389, 392, 433, Vol. 25. 58. 71. 127. 65. 129, §1. 72. 261, §1. 85. 728. ' 31, 58, 790, 800. 729. 789, 791. §1. 789, § 1. §2. §3. §7. 788. 792, 793. 67. 50. 50. 50. 792. 82, 66, 67. § 2. 49. 817, §1. 66. 866. 32, 43, 826. §2. 434. §3- 869. 67 36, 430, 819. 6S. 4'. I. 49. 49. §«• 891, §1. 7-3. 1069. 636. 113. 59,60.78,85. § .5. loco. §6. 1042. 1047, 10-50. 1060, 1074. 114. 970. §5- 1039. 48. 63. 59, 73, 76, 79 58, 339. 804 168. 180. §21 §22 20,5. 6:;. 2:-^6. 8-50, 971, 10 333. 60. §17. §18. 382. 369 §10. 85. 80. 81, 82, 8.3. 80, 81. 82, 83. 704. CITATIONS. cxv Vol. 26. p. 826 Ciiap 517 §6. 718, 866, 869, 966, 968, 969, 972, 3, Chap . 5. 83. 1007, 1026, 1036. 14, 23, § 2. 79. §3. 79. §7. 1007, 1017, 1018, 1039, 1050. §4. 52. §10. 1007, 1082, 1083, §5. 79. 1092. 17, 28. 61. §11- 866, 1008, 1939, 45, 65, § 3. 85. <5 4. 52. 1048, 1082, 1083, 1092. 5} 6. 85. §12. 30, 689, 704, 870, 67, 161, §2. 76. 1008. §3. 76. §13. 967, 1008, 1083. §4- 51. §14. 969. 71, 165. 78. §15. 58, 339, 1008, 7:^, 167, § 1. 69,70. 1010, 1083. §2. 51. 851, 680 . S9L ). §4. 70. 854, 539 . 87, 937. 939. 106, 202. 72,73. §1- 943, 951, 954. 129, 403. 66. §^- 943. §2. 48. §3. 943. 138, 407. 31. §4. 953. §15. 971, 1037, 1046, §5- 953. 1074. §6. 88, 944, 945, 947, 180, 631. 59. 948, 949, 950, 209, 647. 31, 46, 368. 967. § 5. 188, 189. §7. 88, 944, 960, 957. 212, 650. 635. §8- 88, 89, 945, 946, 212, 651. 64. 947, 948. 217, 656, § 16. 63, 339. §9. 959, 961. 225, C(J4, § 16. 58, 86, 339. §10. 951, 960, 961. 316, 664. 802. §11. 94.5,947,948,949. 369, 818. 72, 73. §12. 948, 961, 9.57. 474, 922. 84. §13. 945, 946, 958. 767, 262. 64, 6-5. §14. 946,946,951,957, 826, 517, § 2. 598, 1040. 961. << 4. 1005, 1015. §15. 944. §5. 875, 965, 1006, §19. 943, 913. 1042. 1084, 551 31. 1119, 566 . 63. U. S. EQUITY RULES. [See pages 1253-1277.] Page. P.^GE. Page. 2. 200, 322. 15. 186, 187, 6.58. 27. 146, 2.66. 3. 324. 16. 186, 188. 28. 274. 4. 322, 324, 653. 17. 200. 29. 242, 249, 274, 311, 5. 322, 336. 18. 201,202,206,217,239, 30. 274. 6. 324, 328, 3.36. 241. 260, 463. 31. 221,2.34,240. 7. 183, 18-5, 659. 19. 202, 204, 463. .32. 210,217,226,241,254. 8. 579,647,650,653,657, 20. 143. .33. 242, 248, 271. 659. 21. 143,160,168,169,171, 34. 220, 223, 224, 225. 9. 669. 377, 441, 457, 496. 3.5. 245, 249, 275. 10. 647, 653. 22. 124. 161. 36. 211,212,246. 11. 185. 23. 176. 37. 211,212,246. 12. 183, 184, 185, 201. 24. 17fi, 21.5. 38. 222, 243, 270, 534. 13. 187. 25. 000. 39. 211. 216, 228, 241,250 14. 186. 26. 116, 140, 2-56. 258, 261. cxvi CITATIONS. Page. Paoe. Page. 40. 171. 59. 263. 77. 557, 560, 561. 41. 170, 171, 173, 256. 60. 282. 78. 506, 560. 42. 170. 61. 264. 79. 447, 558. 43. 171. 62. 261. 80. 560. 44. 216, 258, 261. 63. 265. 81. 560. 45. 26U, 275. 64. 266. 82. 555, 561, 562, 65( 46. 281. 65. 266. 83. 662, 668. 47. 124. , 66, 242, 270, 534. 84. 504. 48. 121. 67. 149, 501, 503, 504, 506, 85. 664. 49. 118. 507, 508, 517, 534. 86. 577. 60. 134. 68. 506, 509. 87. 92, 94, 107, 108. 51. 115, 132. 69. 504, 506, 534. 88. 667. 52. 137, 234, 544 70. 498, 500. 90. 601. 53. 137, 544. 72. 294. 91. 202, 482. 55. 323, 874, 377. 73. 554, 579. 92. 575, 579, 647. 56. 186, 304. 74. 555. 93. 1050. 57. 315, 319. 75. 555, 557, 558. 94. 26, 160, 177, 343. 58. 303, 314. 76. 561. U. S. SUPREME COURT RULES. [See pages 1292-1310.] Page. Page. Page. o 'J. 683. 14. 853, 1059. 26. 1073, 1074, 1075. 4. 786. 15. 858, 1035, 1063. 27. 1072. 5. 183, 188, 1040. 16. 853, 1063, 1066, 1077. 28. 1064. 6. 321. 1067, 1068, 1069, 17. 853, 1077. 29. 1048, 1049. 1073, 1078. 18. 853, 1064, 1078. 30. 1079. 8. 1040, 1043, 1054, 1055, 19. 853, 1064, 1075. 81. 1072. 1056, 1057, 1069. 20. 1072, 1075, 1077, 1078. 82. 1073. 9 1040, 1057, 1058, 1063. 21. 1064, 1073, 1076, 1077, 33. 1057. 10. 597, 641, 650, 1058, 1078. 34. 752, 753, 1051. 1071. 22. 1078. 35. 1043, 1053, 1059, 1076 11. 1056. 28. 1092, 1093. 36. 1042, 1051. 12. 858. 24. 583, 596. 37. 973. 13. 4bn, 853. 25. 504. U. S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULES. [See pages 1311-1327.] Page. Page. 10. 786. 17. 1064. 11. 868, 1076, 1077. 20. 1064. 18. 86«. 21. 1078. 14. 10.-.J, 1055, 1056, 1057, 22. 1063, 1064. 10.-i8. 28^ 584,641, 1071. 15. 1056. 24. 1064, 1076, 1077, 107 16. 1058, 1075. Page. 25. 1078. 26. 1072. 29. 1079. 80. 1092, 1093. 81. 588. 34. 1057. CITATIONS. CXVll U. S. ADMIRALTY RULES. [See pages 1278-1291.] Page. 1. 851. 2. 854. 5. 856. 7. 854. 9. 853. 10. 856, 8G4. 11. 855, 856. 22. 851, 873. 2.3. 851, 860. 24. 860. 25. 856. 26. 855, 856. 27. 859. 28. 859, 860. 29. 855. 31. 860. 32. 860, 861. 34. 865. 36. 859. 37. 854, 855. 41. 864. 42. 864. Paqk. 43. 865. 47. 855. 48. 859. 49. 868. 52. 868, 1056. 53. 860. 54. 871. 55. 872. 56. 872. 57. 871. 69. 858. U. S. COURT OF CLAIMS RULES. [See pages 1329-1348.] Page. 1. 913. 2. 913. 3. 913. 4. 913. 5. 913. 6. 913. 7. 904, 905, 906. 8. 905. 9. 905. 10. 905. 11. 905. 12. 90.5. 13. 906. 14. 924. 15. 910. 16. 910, 911. 17. 911. 18. 911. 19. 923. 20. 923. 21. 92.3. 22. 923. 23. 924. 24. 916. 2-5. 916. 26. 916. 27. 916. 28. 916. 29. 916. 30. 917. 31. 917. 32. 918. 33. 918. Page. 34. 918. 35. 918. 36. 918. 37. 918. 38. 919. 39. 919. 40. 919. 41. 919. 42. 919. 43. 919. 44. 920. 45. 920. 46. 920. 47. 920. 48. 920. 49. 920. 50. 921. 51. 924, 925, 926. 52. 92.5. 53. 925. 54. 925. 55. 925. 56. 92.5. 57. 926. 58. 926. 59. 926. 60. 926. 61. 926. 62. 926. 63. 921. 64. 921. 05. 921. 66. 921. Page. 67. 921. 68. 922. 69. 922. 70. 906. 71. 906. 72. 906. 73. 911. 74. 924. 75. 924. 76. 929. 77. 930. 78. 930. 79. 930. 80. 930. 81. 9.30. 82. 936. 83. 936. 90. 924. 93. 906. 94. 906. 95. 906. 96. 907. 97. 907. 99. 922. 100. 926. 101. 922. 102. 923. 103. 923. 104. 923. 105. 908. 106. 928. 107. 908. CXVlll CITATIONS. RULES ON APPEALS FROM COURT OF CLAIMS. Page, 1. 9;36. 2. 930. [See pages 1328, 1329. J Page. 3. 936. 4. 936. 5. 936. RULES OF COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. [See pages 13-49-1352.] Page. Page 1. 2. 3. 948, 94H, 9G0. 949, 960. 950. 4. 5. 6. 954. 904. 954. Page. 7. 950. 8. • 950. FEDERAL EQUITY PRACTICE. CHAPTER I. JURISDICTION. § 1. Equitable Jurisdiction in General. — Equity is that system of jurisprudence wliich was administered by the High Court of Chancery of England in the exercise of its extraordinary juris- diction,^ and which has been amplified and extended by the more modern decisions of the English and American courts. It owed its origin to a desire upon the part of the English sovereigns and their chancellors to supplement the deficiencies and soften the rigors of the common law ; and whereas the well-springs of this were such of the customs of the German tribes as had been brought with them from their Fatherland by the Jutes and Angles ; ^ those of that, which was administered at first ex- clusively by ecclesiastics, are in the canon, which was itself derived from the greatest monument of the genius of ancient Rome, the civil law.^ Since the time of Nottingham, before whom each succeeding chancellor had decided the cases brought before him in accordance with his own notions of what was proper, or in the language of Selden,* measured justice out by the length of his foot, the same respect has been paid to pre- cedent in the courts of equity and common law. But the rules regulating the remedies administered by the former are much more plastic. And even at the present time cases often occur where judges sitting at equity, with the approval and assistance of the profession, invent and adopt new remedies suited to a state of society and of civilization unknown and not anticipated when the procedure in chancery first assumed the form that §1. ^ Mitford's Pleadings; Bispham's ^ Langdell's Equity Pleading, Intro- Equity, § 1. dilation. 2 Holmes' Com. Law. « Selden's Table Talk, Title Equity. VOL. I. — 1 2 JUEISDICTION. [chap. I. it still substantially retains.^ The chronicles of the growth and development of equity abound with names well known to the students, as well of general history as of jurisprudence. Among them Wolsey, More, Bacon, Clarendon, Somers, and Erskine are the most familiar to the former, while the members of the profession look back with especial admiration upon the careers of Nottingham, Hardwicke, Eldon, Westbury, Kent, Story, and Taney. Although originally no one could seek then- aid who was not denied justice by the courts of common law ; yet after he had once shown a title to their assistance, courts of equity would almost always give a suitor complete relief in the matter about which he complained.^ And now that since the time of Mansfield the courts of common law have, abandoning their former jealousy, in many instances of their own accord as well as under the compulsion of statutes, accepted doctrines first created by courts of equity ,'' the latter have not felt obliged to relin- quish the jurisdiction which they formerly acquired.^ One of the marked characteristics which distinguish equity from the common law, is that, while the latter, as a general rule, acts against and exercises control over property alone ; has but a very limited and merely incidental power, mostly borrowed from chancery, to enforce obedience to a personal command, its procedure being founded upon the theory that the parties to an action owe no obedience to the court ; ^ and is consequently restricted in its operation when the property which is the subject of a contention is beyond the reach of its process: equity acts directly against and exercises complete control over persons, and does not lose jurisdiction when the parties are subject to its process, because the property over which it thereby assumes control is beyond the territory under those laws whence its own power is derived.^^ 5 Kennedy v. St. Paul & Pacific Rail- ^ Langdell's Eq. PI. § 40. road Company, 2 Dillon, 448; Wallace i* Archer v. Preston, 1 Eq. Cas. Ab. V. Looniis, 97 U. 8. 14G ; Joy (;. St. Louis, l."3, pi. 3, cited and followed in Arglasse 138 U. S. 1,50. V. Muschanip, 1 Vernon, 75; s. c. 1 G 1 Fonblanque's I^quity, b. i. chap. i. Vernon, 135 ; Penn v. Lord Baltimore, § 3, vote (/); Motteux v. The London 1 Vesey Sr. 444; RLissie v. Watts, li Assurance Co., 1 Atk. 545; Tayloe v. Cranch, 14H ; Muller v. Dows, 04 U. S. The Merchants' Fire Ins. Co., 9 How. 444, at pages 449-450. The authorities 390" 405. 'ire well collected in a learned opinion by ^ Moses y. IVLacferlan, 2 Burrow, 1005; ^udge, subsequently Chief Judcc Henry Dickerson v. Coljrrove, 100 U. S. 578. E. Davies, in Gardner v. Ogden, 22 N. Y. » Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Bissell, 327. Cf. Carpenter r. Strange, 141 U. S. 365. 87, 106 ; cited w/ra, § 325. § 2.] SURVEY OF THE JUEISDICTION OF COURTS OF EQUITY. 3 § 2. General Survey of the Jurisdiction of Courts of Equity. — The jurisdiction of courts of equity is exercised either for the protection of rights which the common law does not recognize ; or for the prevention or redress of wrongs for which the common law affords no adequate remedy. A full consideration of this topic is beyond the scope of this treatise. The following sum- mary, although imperfect, may occasionally assist the reader. The rights which a court of equity alone respects are : the rights of beneficiaries under a trust,^ either express or implied, — which latter term includes those which are resulting^ or constructive:'^ the right to be relieved from an obligation wliich has been en- tered into, or to recover a right which has been lost by accident, — whicli expression is said to include the cases where one has become subject to a penalty or forfeiture,'^ or has lost a document the possession of which was essential to his success in a legal action,^ and is also often used to bolster up a weak equity of another kind — ; ° by mistake, — which must be mutual, material, and not caused by the negligence of the part}' seeking relief," and which, if solely of a point of law, will very rarely release one from his contract obligations — ;^ by fraud, whether actual^ or constuctive ; ^'^ or by duress r^^ and the rights of those who are justly entitled to compel election under a will, or an adjustment of § 2. 1 Sturt V. Mellish, 2 Atk. 610 ; page 286 ; Stephenson v. Wilson, 2 New Orleans i'. Morris, 105 U. S. 600. Vern. 325. 2 Dyer i'. Dyer, 2 Cox Eq. Cas. 92 ; 8 Hunt v. Ronsmanier's Admrs., 8 Hoxie V. Carr, 1 Sumner, 187. Wheaton, 174, 215; s. c. 1 Peters, 1, 14; 8 National Bank v. Insurance Co., Snell v. Insurance Company, 98 U. S. 104 U. S. 54, 64-71. 85; Pitcher v. Hennessey, 48 N. Y. * 1 Spence Eq. 629, 630; Bisphani's 415; Adair v. Brimmer, 74 N. Y. 539; Eq. § 178. Mortgages are included Relief Fire Insurance Co. v. Shaw, 94 under this head, Mitford's PI. 118-276; U. S. 574; Allen v. Galloway, 30 Fed. Story's Eq. Jur. § 89. R. 466 ; Cooper v. Phibbs, L. R. 2 H. 5 Savannah National Bank v. Haskins, L. 170 ; Elliott v. Sacket, 108 U. S. 132, 101 Mass. 370 ; Donaldson i'. Williams, 142. 50 Mo. 408; Story's Eq. Jur. §84; 9 Cobbeltiom v. William, Chan. Cal. Bispham's Eq. §§ 176, 177. II.: Stonehouse v. Starishaw, Chan. Cal. 6 Story's Eq. Jur. §§90-99; Bispham's XXIX.; Bief v. Dyer, Chan. Cal. XI ; Eq. §§ 182, 183. Cases where this head Bacon v. Bronson, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) of equity is invoked for relief against a 194; Jones v. Bolles, 9 Wall. 364. defective execution of a power are in- lO Mackreth (•. Fox, 4 Bro. P. C. 258; eluded here. E.r parte Lacey, 6 Ves. 625 ; Villa v. Rodri- ' Bispham's Eq. § 191 ; Whittemore v. guez, 12 Waif. 323, .339. Farrington, 76 N. Y. 452 ; McFerran _ r. n Nicholls i'. Nicholls, 1 Atk. 409; Taylor, 3 Cranch, 281; Elliott v. Sack- Gould v. Okeden, 4 Bro. P. C. 198; Ba- ett. 108 U. S. 132; Duke of Beaufort v kcr i\ Morton, 12 Wall. 150. Neeld, 12 Clark & Finnelly, 248, at 4 JURISDICTION. [CIIAP. I. liabilities,^^ — under which terra are included set-off,^^ contribu- tion,^* exoneration,^^ and marshalling of securities.^'' The cases where the jurisdiction of equity is exercised merely for the sake of the remedy are where its interposition is needed to assist in obtaining a judgment at law by compelling a discovery from a defendant,^" or the perpetuation of the testimony of witnesses,^^ or their examination abroad,^'-* when it is feared that, on account of death, illness, or absence, they cannot be obliged to attend upon the trial ; to satisfy a judgment out of propert}' of a debtor which cannot be reached by an execution ; "^^ to prevent a threatened breach of a right,^^ or compel the performance of a duty ,^2 the commission or omission of which, respectively, would inflict such an irreparable injur}^ upon a person, that a judgment for damages, or the cumbrous legal process of ejectment, replevin, detinue, or account render, would be no adequate remedy for the loss thereby occasioned ; to prevent a needless multiplicity of suits ;^^ and to compel the cancellation or execution of instru- ments,^* the existence or want of wliicli is a cloud upon, or an apparent flaw in a person's title, or would render it diflicult for him to resist an unjust demand, or to dispose of property by sale. § 3. Constitutional Provisions affecting the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. — The Constitution of the United States provides that, " The judicial power" of the United States " shall extend to 1- Arnold I'. Kempstcad,! Ambler, 4GG; Dursley r. Berkcle.v, 6 Ves. 2ol. See Jones V. Collier, 2 Ambler, 730; Herbert U. S. Rev. Stat. §§ 8G3-867. V. Wren, 7 Crancli, 370, 378. i'-* Moodalay v. Morton, 1 Bro. C.C. 469. 13 Chapman v. Derby, 2 Vcrn. 117; -" Angell i". Draper, 1 Vern. 399 ; Seot- Lord Lanesboroufrh v. Jones, 1 P. Wms. tisli American ^Mortgage Co. v. Follans- 325 ; 2 Story's Equity Jurisprudence, bee, 14 Fed. II. 125. § 1433; Story, J., in Greene v. Darling, -^ Robinson r. Lord Byron, 1 Bro. C.C. 5 Mason, 201 ' 207-213. 588 : Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 1* Layer v. Nelson, 1 Vern. 45G ; How- 9 Wlieat. 738. ards V. Selden, 5 Federal Reporter, 4G5, -- Stribley v. Ilawkie, 3 Atk. 275; 473. Huguenin I'. Baseley, 15 Ves. 180 ; Hunt 15 Gallon V. Hancock, 2 Atk. 425; v. Rousmanier's Admrs., 1 Tot. 1; Wil- Walker v. Jackson, 2 Atk. G25 ; Bank lard y. Tayloe, 8 Wall. 557. of U. S. V. Beverly, 1 How. 134, 151. '^^ Freeman v. Pontrell, Chan. Cal. !•; Aldrich v. Cooper, 8 Ves. 394; XIII.; Earl of Bath v. Sherwin, 4 Bro. Trimmer f. Bayne, 9 Ves. 209; 1 Story's P. C. 373; Woods v. Monroe, 17 Mich. Eq. Jur. § G33. 238 ; Cummings v. National Hank, 101 U. 1' Finch V. Finch, 2 Ves. Sr. 492; 8.153; Dodge r. Briggs, 27 Fed. R. IGl. Moodalay v. Morton, 1 Bro. C. C. 4G9; 24 pierce v. Webb & Stalker, note to Brown v. Swann, 10 Pet. 497, 500: Ryan v. Mackmath, 3 Bro. C. C. 15; Heath v. Erie Rv., 9 Blatchf. 316. ., Peake v. Highfield, 1 Russ. 559, and cases 18 Earl of Suffolk v. Green, 1 Atk. 450 ; cited ; Bunce v. Gallagher, 5 Blatchf. C.C. Pearson v. Ward, 1 Cox Eq. 177 ; Lord 481 ; Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210. § 4.] DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAW AND EQUITY IN FEDERAL COURTS. 5 all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority ; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls ; to all Cases of Admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction ; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party ; to Controversies between two or more States ; between a State and Citizens of another State ; between Citizens of different States ; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects." 1 But " the Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, com- menced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreicrn State." ^ " In all cases affectino- Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction," ^ although " such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish " * may also have original juris- diction thereof.^ " In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions and under such Regula- tions as the Congress shall make."^ In no other cases can it have original jurisdiction.^ § 4. The Distinction bet-wreen Law and Equity in the Federal Courts. — The fact that those who framed the Constitution thought it necessary to separately mention law and equity, when blocking out the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, has caused many judges to think, and even to say in their opinions, that it was thereby evidently intended that these branches of the law should always be kept apart.^ The better opinion, however, § 3. 1 Tlie Constitution, art. iii. § 2. " Marbnry r. INIadison, 1 Cranch, 137; ■■^ Eleventh Amendment to tlie Consti- Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 Wall. 243. tutinn. § 4. 1 Parsons c. Bedford, 3 Pet. 43.'3 ; 3 The Constitution, art. iii. § 2. Bennett v. Butterwortli, 11 How. 669, i lb. § 1. 674 ; Hipp v. Babin, 19 How. 271, at page ° Ames y. Kansas, 111 U. S. 440; BiJrs 277; Fenn v. Holme, 21 How. 481,480; I'. Preston, 111 U. S. 252 ; United States v. Costs in Civil Cases, 1 Blatchf. C. C 652. Kavara, 2 Dallas, 297 ; Gittings v. Craw- 654 ; Butler r. Young, 1 Flippin, 276, 278; ford, Taney's Decisions, 1 ; St. Luke's Meade v. Beale, Taney, 339, at page ?.61 ; Hospital V. Barclay, 3 Blatcbf. 259 ; Gra- Thompson v. Railroad Companies, 6 Wall. ham V. Stucken,4 Blatchf. 50. 134; Reubens v. Joel, 13 N. Y. 488, at 6 The Constitution, art. iii. § 2. page 497. 6 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. seems to be that this distinction between law and equity is en- forced by the Constitution only to the extent to which the Seventh Amendment forbids any infringement of the right of trial by jury, as fixed by the common law.^ Yet, although a great number of the States of the American Union, and even England itself, has fused together the two systems, in the courts of the United States, w^hile the same judges have jurisdiction in each, the common law and equity are still as distinct as they were in the time of Coke and Bacon. § 5. General Rules affecting the Jurisdiction in Equity of the Federal Courts. — The jurisdiction in equity of the Federal courts is, subject to the limitations of the Constitution, substantially the same as that of the English Court of Chancery ; ^ although, in the absence of special statutory authority, they do not exercise those powers not judicial which were exercised over the persons and estates of infants, idiots, lunatics, and charities by the Lord Chan- cellor, as the representative of the sovereign and by virtue of the latter's prerogative as parens j^atrice? It was said by Chief Jus- tice Taney that the Constitution of the United States grants only judicial power at law and in equity to its courts ; that is, powers at that time understood and exercised as judicial, in the courts of common law and equity in England. "And it must be construed according to the meaning which the words used conveyed at the time of its adoption ; and the grant of power cannot be enlarged by resorting to a jurisdiction which the Court of Chancery in Eng- land, centuries ago, may have claimed as a part of its ordinary judicial power, but which had been abandoned and repudiated as untenable on that ground, l)y the court itself, long before the Con- stitution was adopted." 2 The same judge also said that it was undoubtedly true, in regard to equitable rights, that the power of the courts of chancery of the United States is, under the Con- - Mr. Justice Matthews in Root r. Kail- ^ pQ^itain ?•. Ravenel, 17 How. .3G9, at way Co., 105 U. S. 189, 206. Compare papc o91 ; Loring t-. Marsh, 2 Clifford, Ex parti; Boyd, 105 U. S. 647. 409, at page 492; In re Barry, 42 Fed. K. § 5. ^ Robinson i\ Campbell, .3 Wlieat. 113; In re Burrus, Petitioner, 13(5 U. S. 212, at page 221 ; Fenn v. Holme, 21 580. But see the Late Corporation of How. 481, at page 484; Meade r. Beale, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Taney, 339, at page ?>CA ; Gordon v. Ho- Day Saints v. United States, 13G U. S. bart, 2 Sumner, 401, at page 405; Fletcher 1, 51, 56; s. c. 140 U. S. 605. V. Morey, 2 Story, 5-55, at page 507 ; Root ^ ^ Chief Justice To.ney in Fontain v. V. Railway Company, 105 U. S. 189, at Ravenel, 17 How. 360, 394, 395. page 207. § 5.] EXTENT OF FEDERAL EQUITABLE JURISDICTION. 7 stitution, to be regulated by the law of the English chancery ; that is to say, the distinction between law and equity as recognized in the jurisprudence of England is to be observed in the courts of the United States, in administering the remedy for an existing right. The rule applies to the remedy and not the right ; and it does not follow that every right given by the English law, and which at the time the Constitution was adopted might have been enforced in the Court of Chancery, can also be enforced in a court of the United States ; the right must be given by the law of the State or of the United States.* The Revised Statutes of the United States provide that : " Suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States in any case where a plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law." ^ The Supreme Court has construed this statute substantially as fol- lows : The effect of the provision of the Judiciary Act is that whenever a court of law is competent to take cognizance of a right, and has power to proceed to a judgment which affords a plain, adequate, and complete remedy, without the aid of a court of equity, the plaintiff must proceed at law, because the defendant has a constitutional right to a trial by jury.^ " This enactment certainly means something ; and if only declaratory of what was always the law, it must, at least, have been intended to empha- size the rule, and to impress it upon the attention of the courts."" " It would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to state any gen- eral rule which would determine, in all cases, what should be deemed a suit in equity as distinguished from an action at law, for particular elements may enter into consideration which would take the matter from one court to the other ; but this may be said, that, where an action is simply for the recovery and pos- session of specific real or personal property, or for the recovery of a money judgment, the action is one at law. An action for the recovery of real property, including damages for withholding it, has always been of that class." ^ Accordingly, a suit in equity to enforce a legal right can be brought only when the court can 4 Meade v. Beale, Tanej, 339, 361. 212 ; Killian v. Ebbinghus, 110 U. S. 568, 6 U. S. R. S. § 723. 573. <* Hipp V. Babin, 19 How. 271 ; Insur- ^ N. Y. Guaranty Co. v. Memphis ance Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616, G21 ; Water Co., 107 U. S. 205, 214, j>er Grand Cliute v. Wine^ar, 15 Wall. 373, Bradley, J. 375; Lewis v Cocks, 23 Wall. 466, 470 ; » Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. Root I'. Railway Co. 105 U. S. 189, 146, 151 ; per Mr. Justice Field. 8 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. give more complete and effectual relief in kind or in degree on the equity side than on the common-law side ; as, for instance, by compelling a specific performance, or the removal of a cloud on the title to real estate ; or preventing an injury for which damages are not recoverable at law, as in Watson v. Sutherland, 5 "Wall. 74 ; or where an agreement procured by fraud is of a continuing nature, and its rescission will prevent a multiplicity of suits." ^ " l]y inadequacy of the remedy at law is here meant, not that it fails to produce the money, — that is a very usual result in the use of all remedies, — but that in its nature or char- acter it is not fitted or adapted to the end in view." ^'^ There may consequently be cases over which the English courts of chancery would have taken jurisdiction, which are not cognizable by the Federal courts when sitting at equity.'^ " The adequate remedy at law which is the test of equitable jurisdiction in these courts, is that which existed when the Judi- ciary Act of 1789 was adopted, unless subsequently changed by Congress." ^^ Whether the equitable jurisdiction is lost when a statute of the United States gives the same or adequate relief at law, — as, for example, in the case of discovery, — has not yet been settled. ^-"^ If a statute of the United States creates a new right, the remedy will be in equity if the relief thereby afforded is in analogy with a species of relief ordinarily given by equity alone.^^ Thus, it has been held that a suit to enforce the individual liability of stockholders or directors to creditors of a corporation,^^ or to determine the question of the right of possession to land under § 2326 of the Revised Statutes when there are conflicting claims to patents before a land ofiice,^^ must be brought in equity. A suit under § 5239 of the Revised 9 Buzard v. Houston, 119 U. S. 347, Berney, 14 Fed. R. 2G8; Post v. Toledo, 351, 352 ; per Gray, J. C, &c. R. R. Co., 144 Mass. 341 ; 4 New 10 Thompson v. Allen County, 115 U. S. England Rep. 221. 550, 5.54; /«r Miller, J. " Edgell v. Haywood, 8 Atk. 354; '1 Buzard v. Houston, 119 U. S. 347, Ilornor v. Ilenning, 93 U. S. 228; Terry 352. f. Little, 101 U. S. 21G; Manufacturing 1-! McConihay i-. Wright, 121 U. S. 201, Co. v. Bradley, 105 U. S. 175; Doe v. 206; per Mattiicws, J. Waterloo Min. Co., 43 Fed. R. 219. 1^ Compare Vauglian v. Central Pacific ^^ Ilornor v. Ilenning, 93 U. S. 228 ; R. R. Co., 4 Sawyer, 280; Pratt i-. Nor- Terry v. Little, 101 U. S. 216; Manufac- thani, 5 Mason, 95; Peters v. Prevost, 1 turing Co. v. Bradley, 105 U. S. 175; Paine, 64 ; Home Ins. Co. v. Stanclifield, Stone v. Chisolm, 113 U. S. 302. 1 Dill. 424 ; Markey v. Mut. Ben. Life i'' Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co., 43 Fed. Ins. Co., Ins. L. .L 5-37; Heath v. Erie ^R. 219. Railroad Co., 9 Blatchf. 310; Drexel v. § 6.] EFFECT OF STATE STATUTES ON FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY. 9 Statutes to recover of a director of a national bank the damages sustained in consequence of excessive loans siiould be brought on the common-law side of the court. ^" § 6. State Statutes cannot impair the Jurisdiction nor regulate the Practice of Federal Courts of Equity. — Xo State statute giving one of its courts — ■ for example, a court of probate — exclusive jurisdiction of a certain class of litigation can impair the juris- diction of the Federal courts. ^ No State statute enlarging the powers of courts of common law can impair the jurisdiction of a Federal court of equity .^ No State statute diminishing or de- stroying an equitable remedy, or in any way regulating the prac- tice in courts of equity, can have any effect upon the jurisdiction or practice of the Federal courts.'^ Such are statutes requiring a mortgagor to tender the debt secured by his mortgage before filing a bill to redeem the mortgaged premises ; * requiring a bill to foreclose a mortgage given to secure a judgment to show that execution has been issued under the judgment and returned unsat- isfied ;^ requiring leave to be obtained from a State court before a suit can be brought to enforce a judgment therein entered,^ or the presentation of a claim to the comptroller before a suit can be brought against a city ; " requiring a bond to be given l)efore an injunction can be granted ; ® or regulating the form of the security then required or the proceedings to enforce the same ; ^ authorizing persons to agree upon a statement of facts, and to stipulate that the court take jurisdiction to try a cause and ren- der a decree without pleadings ; ^^ authorizing the examination of a party before trial ; ^^ providing that a county can only be sued in a specified State court ; ^^ forbidding a foreign corporation to '' Stephens v. Overstolz, 43 Fed. R. ^ Dow v. Cliainherlin, 5 McLean, 281. 771. 6 riielps V. O'Brien County, 2 DilL 518. §6. 1 Suydani )•. Brondnax, 14Pet. G7 ; " Gamewell Fire Alarm Tel. Co. v. Hull ;;. Dills, 19 Fed. R. G57. Mayor, &c. 31 Fed. R. 312. ■■^ McConiliay v. Wright, 121 U. S. 201, ^ Bein v. Heath, 12 How. (U. S.) 108, 20G ; and cases cited. 178. 3 Boyle V. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 648 ; Bein v. 9 Bein v. Heatli, 12 How. (U. S ) 168 ; Heath, 12 How. (U. S.) 168, 179; Noonan Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 437 ; Meyers V. Lee, 2 Black, 499, 509; Thompson v. v. Block, 120 U. S. 206, 211. Railroad Companies, 6 Wall. 134 ; Cowles ^'' Nickerson ;■. Atchison, T., & Santa V. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 118; Payne v. Fe R. R. Co., 1 McCrary. 383. Hook, 7 Wall. 425 ; Railway Company r. n Dravo i: Fabel, 132 U. S. 487. Whitton's Administrator, 13 Wall. 270, i- Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 Wall. 285 ; Smith v. Railroad Company, 99 U. S. 118 ; Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S 398. 629. * Gordon r. Ilobart, 2 Sumner, 401. 10 JUKISDICTION. [chap. I. sue until it lias complied with a statutory condition ; ^^ and, at least when the suit is brought in a district not including the State that passed the statute, one that permits a debtor to file a bill to compel the return or cancellation of securities for a usurious debt, without payment or the offer of payment of the amount borrowed with lawful interest.^* § 7. State Laws creating new Rights are enforced by Federal Courts of Equity. — If, however, the customary ^ or statute ^ law of a State has created a new right, the Federal courts will en- force the same at law or equity, if it falls within the remedies authorized by either branch of their jurisdiction. Such are statutes giving a mortgagor or his judgment creditors a certain time wiihin which to redeem land after a foreclosure sale;^ au- thorizing a suit to set aside the probate of a will, or a will itself, for fraud ;** authorizing a person in possession of land, and un- molested,^ or even one out of possession of vacant land,^ to sus- tain a bill to determine and quiet the title to the same ; but not a State statute authorizing one out of possession of land to obtain possession of the same when occupied by another through a suit triable without a jury ; *" imposing on stockholders individual liabil- ity to the creditors of their corporations ; ^ making an assessment for opening streets a lien upon abutting lands, which can be fore- closed by the city or its assignee ; ^ authorizing the appointment of a receiver under certain conditions, whicli in the Federal courts must then also be performed ; ^'^ authorizing a bill for a partition of an equitable claim to land the legal title to which is in the i'^ Bank of British North America v. v. Crawfordsville First National Bank, Barling, 44 Fed. R. 041. 112 U. S. 40.5. " Matthews v. Warner, 6 Fed. R. 461, ^ Brine r. Insurance Company, 96 U. S. 465; affirmed without passing on this 627; Orvis r. Powell, 08 U.S. 176,178; point, 112 U. S. 600. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Com- § 7. 1 Neves v. Scott, 13 How. 268, pany v. Cushman, 108 U. S. 51. 271 ; Gaines c Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10, 20 ; * Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503, 519, Ellis V. Davis, 109 U. S. 485; Lorman 520. V. Clarke, 2 McLean, 568, 577 ; Nichols ^ ciark r. Smith, 13 Pet. 195. V. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716, 729. « Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15. 2 Clark V. Smith, 13 Pet. 195; Fitch ^ Whitehead r. Sliattuck, 138 U. S. 14G. V. Creighton, 24 How. (U. S.) 159; Brine ** Borland v. Haven, 37 Fed. R. 394. V. Insurance Company, 96 U. S. 627 ; ^ Fitch v. Creighton, 24 How. (U. S.) Mills V. Scott, 99 U. S. 25 ; Van Norden 159. V. Morton, 99 U. S. 378; Cummings v. ^'' Flash v. Wilkerson, 22 Fed. R. 689; National Bank, 101 U. S. 153, 157; Hoi- Fechheimer v. Baura, 37 Fed. R. 167; land V. Challen, 110 U. S. 15; ReynoWs T. & W. M. Co. v. Shatto, 34 Fed. R. 380. But see Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106. § 8.] STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATION. 11 United States ;^^ authorizing an injunction to be granted in a new class of cases ; ^^ empowering a guardian with the permission of the State court to mortgage his ward's estate, but not clauses providing that such a mortgage can only be foreclosed in the court which authorized its execution ; ^^ creating and providing for the enforcement of a mechanic's lien ; ^^ and authorizing a court of equity after the destruction of the public records to enter a decree establishing and confirming the title of a landowner.!^ A State statute cannot give a Federal court jurisdiction in equity of a case in which there is an adequate remedy at law.^'^ Thus, a State statute cannot authorize a bill in equity in a Federal court to obtain possession of land held adversely to the complainant ; ^" or a creditor's bill by a complainant who has not obtained a judg- ment upon his claim.^^ Whether a mortgagee must sue at law or in equity to recover from one who by a covenant with the mort- gagor has assumed the mortgage, when the suit is brought in the District of Columbia, depends upon the law of the forum, not on the law of the place where the deed and mortgage Avere made, and the land situated.^^ When a State statute creating a new liability provides a special remedy, such liability can be enforced in the Federal courts in no other manner.^^ When a State statute creates a new liability and provides that it can only be enforced in a specified State tribunal, the Federal courts will enforce the liability, and reject the clause respecting the exclusive jurisdiction.-^ § 8. state Statutes of Limitation. — Federal courts of equity usually follow by analogy State statutes of limitation,^ especially in foreclosure suits ^ and suits against executors and adminis- ^1 Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. 2° Fourth National Bank v. Francklvn, Ruckcr, 28 Fed. R. 220. 120 U. S. 747; Flour City Nat. Bank v. 1- Cummings v. National Bank, 101 Wechselberg, 45 Fed. R. 547. U. S. 153, 157 ; Lanier v. Alison, 31 Fed. ^i Davis v. James, 2 Fed. K. G18. 11. 100. § 8. 1 Wagner v. Baird, 7 How. 234, 13 Davis r. James, 2 Fed, R. 618. 258 ; Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503 ; God- 1* Idalio & Oregon Land Improvement den v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201 ; Meath v. Co. V. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 509. Phillips County, 108 U. S. 553 ; Kirby v. 15 Gormley v. Clark, 1.34 U. S. 338. L. S. & M. S. K. R., 120 U. S. 130 ; Pratt 10 Wliitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 14G ; v. Northam, 5 Mason, 95, 112 ; per Story, Scott V. Neely, 140 U. S. 100. J. ; Norris v. Haggin, 136 U. S. 38G. 1" Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. - Cleveland Insurance Company t-. 146. Reed, 1 Biss. 180; Reeves v. Vinacke, 1** Scott r. Neely, 140 U. S. 106. 1 McCrary, 213, 217; per Nelson and i» Willard v. Wood, 135 U. S. 309, 31-3. Dillon, JJ. 12 JURISDICTION. [CIIAR I. trators ; ^ but, at least when their jurisdiction is not concurrent with courts of law,'* they do not consider themselves bound by such statutes.^ It has been said that a Federal court of equity will never follow a State statute of limitation when thereby manifest wrong* and injustice would be wrought.*^ A State statute of limitation cannot bar the United States." The rule that a State is not affected by laches or a statute of limitation cannot aid a creditor of a State when suing one of its debtors.^ Otherwise the courts of the United States in actions at common law not founded upon Federal statutes, are bound by State statutes of limitation.^ The effect of such a statute upon actions at common law to enforce riglits created by Federal statutes, such as patents and copyrights, lias been the subject of conflicting adjudications.^^ § 9. Property in the Custody of a State Court. — A court of the United States, tlirough a spirit of judicial comity, will usually refuse to interfere with property in the custody of a State court.^ a Piilliam r. rulliiim, 10 Fed. R. 53 ; Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503. * Wagner v. Baird, 7 How. 284, 258; Godden V. Kinimell, 99 U. S. 201. - Kirby v. L. S. & M. S. H. R., 120 U. S. inO, 137 ; Etting v. Mar.x's Execu- tor, 4 Fed. R. G73; Stevens v. Sharp, Sawyer, 993. 6 Fogg V. St. Louis, 11. & K. R. R. Co , 17 Fed. R. 871, 873; Story's Eq. Jur. § 1521. 1 United States v. Tliompson, 98 U. S. 486 ; United States v. Nasliville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 118 U. S. 120 ; United States V. Beebe, 127 U. S. 3.38 ; United States r. Insley, 130 U. S. 203; United States v. AValiamet & C. iM. Wagon Road Co., 42 Fed. R. 351. 8 Cressey v. Meyer, 138 U. S. 525. 3 U. S. R. S. § 721 ; McCIuny >: Silli- man, 3 Pet. 270; Amy v. Dubuque, 98 U. S. 470. ^' Tiiat they do not affect such actions was held in Collins v. Peebles, 2 Fisiier's Pat. Cas. 511, per Mr. Justice Swayne; I'arker v. Ilallock, 2 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 5J3. «., prr Mr. Justice Grier ; Read i: Miller, 2 Biss. 12, prr McDonald, J. ; Wetherill v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 1 Ban. & A. 485, 490, per McKennan, J. ; An- tliony V. Carroll, 2 Ran. & A. 195, 1,97, per Shepley, J.; Sayles r. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., 9 Fed. R. 515, j^tr .Mr. Justice Harlan ; Sayles r. Dubuque & S. C. Ry. Co., 9 Fed. R. 51G, per Dillon and Love, JJ. ; Wood V. Cleveland Rolling Mill, 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 550, per Mr. Justice Swayne and Sherman, J. ; May v. County of Fond du Lac, 27 Fed. R. 691, per Dyer, J. ; May v. County of Logan, 30 Fed. R. 250, per Jackson, J. ; McGinnis r. Erie County, 45 Fed. R. 1, per McKennan and Acheson, JJ. See also Schreiber V. Sharpless, 17 Fed. R. 589. Cmitrn, Parker v. Hawk, 2 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 58, per Leavitt, J. ; Parker v. Hall, 2 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 62, note, j>er McLean and Lea- vitt, JJ. ; Rich V. Ricketts, 7 Blatchf. 230, per Hall, J. ; Sayles v. O. C. R. R. Co., 6 Saw. 31, per Deady, J. ; Hayden ??. Ori- ental Mills, 15 Fed. R. 605, per Lowell and ('olt, JJ. See McClung v. Silli- man, 3 Peters, 270; Butler r. Poole, 44 Fed. R. 586 ; and infra, § 375. §9. 1 Hagan r. 'Lucas, 10 Pet. 400; Taylor r. Carryl, 20 How. 583 ; Peale )'. Phipps, 14 How. 308 ; Levi v. Columbia Insurance Company, 1 Fed. R. 206; Hub- bard V. Bellew, 8 Fed. R. 447 ; Union Mu- tual Life Ins. Company v. University of Cliicago, 6 Fed. R. 443; Hutchinson v. Green, 6 Fed. R. 833, 8-36-839 ; Hamilton V. Chouteau, 6 Fed. R. 3-39; Heiilritter V. Elizabeth Oil-cloth Company, 111 U. S. 294 But see Dwight v. Central Vermont R. R. Co., 9 Fed. R. 785. § 9.] PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF A STATE COURT. 13 Even if tlie custody of the State court were acquired by fraud, a court will not usually interfere so long as the State court retains its hold upon the property .^ It has been held too late to raise this objection to the jurisdiction of the State court after the trial of an action at common law.^ This rule did not prevent the filing of a bill in equity against an administrator or an executor durhig the pendency of probate proceedings in a State court;"* nor the appointment of a receiver over property held by executors holding letters testamentary from a State court, who had dis- agreed and could not act together ; ^ nor the filing of a bill to set aside or stay proceedings uj)on a judgment in a State court ;*^ nor, under the Judiciary Act of 1875, the removal to a Federal court of a suit in equity in the course of which a State court had ap- pointed a receiver," or had taken property into its possession under a common-law writ.^ Property is deemed to be in the cus- tody of a court from the time when a suit or action seeking to have it put there has been actually begun, either by levy under a writ in a proceeding m rem, or by the filing of a bill ])raying the appointment of a receiver and the service of process.^ Where the sheriff held property under summary foreclosure proceed- ings under the statutes of Georgia, it was held to be in the custody of the State court.^*^ Property continues in the custody of the State court until tlie cause is practically terminated, although no formal termination is absolutely essential. ^^ Where the trustee of an insolvent debtor had failed to claim property until a levy was made thereon under a judgment obtained by a foreign creditor in a Federal court, a decree was entered upon a petition of intervention by the trustee, setting aside the levy upon con- ^ Attleboroiigh National Bank i\ N. 583; Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil-cloth W. Manuf. & Car Co., 28 Fed. R. 113. Company, 112 U. S. 291; Levi r. Colum- 3 Gilnian v. Perkins, 7 Fed. 11. 887. bia Insurance Company, 1 Fed. K. 20G ; * Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425 ; Yonley Hubbard v. Bellew, 3 Fed. R. 447 ; Union V. Lavender, 21 Wall. 27(3; Chapman v. Mutual Life Insurance Company i\ Uni- Borer, 1 Fed. R. 274; Hull v. Dills, 19 versity of Chicago, Fed. R. 443; Hutch- Fed. R. 657. inson v. Green, 6 Fed. R. 833. But see 6 Ball V. Tompkins, 41 Fed. R. 48G. Dwight v. Central Vermont R. R. Co., 9 See infra, § 240. Fed. R. 785 ; Webb v. Vermont Central 6 Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U. S. 80 ; R. R. Co., 9 Fed. R. 793 ; Owens v. Ohio Sahlgard v. Kennedy, 2 Fed. R. 295. Central R. R. Co., 20 Fed. R. 10. " In re Iowa & Minnesota Construe- ^'' Tefft r. Sternberg, 40 Fed. R. 2. tion Company, 10 Fed. R. 401. ii Buck v. Piedmont & A. Life Insur- ** Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 485 ance Company, 4 Fed. R. 849; Andrews 491, 492. V. Smith, 5 Fed. R. 833. 9 Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. (U. S.) 14 JUEISDICTION". [chap. I. Jition that the trustee pay the costs of the seizure, and file in the Federal court an order from the State court authorizing him to take possession of such property.^^ It has been held that when property on which a sheriff has levied is seized by the marshal in a Federal action of replevin, the sheriff's remedy is a petition in the nature of an interpleader addressed to the Federal court, not a bill for an inj unction. ^^ This rule is not applicable in those cases wdiere the courts of the United States exercise superior jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States.^^ If the suit be first begun in a Federal court, that court will maintain and enforce its right to the custody of the property .^^ In one case, where a receiver had been appointed, in a suit begun in a State court, after a bill filed in a Federal court praying relief concerning the same property had been dismissed by a decree, the Federal court subse- quently opened the decree, and a})pointed a receiver of the prop- erty upon the filing of a supplemental bill at the same term.^^ Property of a debtor brought within the custody of a Federal court by seizure under process issued u[)on its judgment, remains in custody to be applied in satisfaction of the judgment, notwith- standing the death of the judgment debtor, and the institution in a State court of proceedings to administer his estate.^^ § 10. Property in the Custody of a Federal Court. — The rules wiiicli apply between State and Federal courts also regulate con- flicts as to jurisdiction between different Federal courts.^ § 11. Illustrations of Equitable Jurisdiction in the Federal Courts. — The following instances where Federal courts of equity have assumed, and where they have refused, to take jurisdiction in equity, the subject-matter and the parties being within their jurisdiction, although Ijy no means exhaustive, may be useful to 1^ Gailinger v. Pliilippi, 13:5 U. S. 246, " Rio Grande R. R. Co. v. Gomila, 132 257. U. S. 478, 481. i-i Pickett V. Tiler & Stowell Co., 40 § 10. i Hurd v. Moiles, 28 Fed. R. 897 ; Fed. 11. 313. Central Trust Co. v. East Tenn., Va. & " Tefft V. Sternberg, 40 Fed. R. 2, 6, (ia. R. Co., 30 Fed. R. 895. But see Wa- prr Mr. Justice Speer, citing Covell v. basil cases, especially Atkins v. W. St. L. Heyman, 111 U. S. 17G. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R. 1(51 ; Central 15 Ileidritteri'. Elizabeth Oilcloth Co., Trust Co. v. W. St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 112 U. S. 294; Covell v. Ileynian, 111 Fed. R. G18 ; U. S. Trust Co. o. AVabash, U.S. 176; Sharon y. Terry, .30 Fed. R. St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 42 Fed. R. 343; 337. ., Mercantile Tr. Co. v. Kanawha & O Ry. '■' Union Trust Company v. Rockford, Co.. 30 Fed. R. 337 ; Reynolds v. Stock- R. I., & St. L. K. R. Co., G Biss. 197. ton, 140 U. S. 254, 272. ^ 11.] EQUITABLE JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 15 the practitioner. It has been held that a bill in equity will be sustained when filed by the United States to enforce its priority of payment out of a trust fund,^ to cancel a land patent,^ or a patent for an invention ^ which had been obtained by fraud,'* or a land patent which had been by a mistake of law issued in violation of a statute,^ or, it seems, a certificate of naturalization obtained by fraud ; ^ by a municipal corporation to enjoin the sale on execution of property held by it in trust ; ' by a legatee against an executor,^ and by one of the next of kin against an administrator and his sureties,^ to recover the complainant's share of a decedent's estate ; by a married woman to recover money which belongs to her separate estate ; ^^ by a single man to have declared null and void a paper purporting to be a marriage con- tract executed by him ; ^^ to set aside a contract obtained by fraud; ^2 to set aside a land patent issued in violation of a stat- ute ; ^^ to reform an instrument which was executed by mistake ; ^^ to set aside a conveyance obtained for a grossly inadequate con- sideration from a man in a state of intoxication, partly caused by the acts of the defendant ; ^^ by the beneficiary of a trust against his trustee and a debtor of the trust estate ; ^^ by the holder of a corporate bond to enforce his lien upon the tolls pledged to secure its payment ; ^' by a stockholder in a corpora- tion to recover its money fraudulently misappropriated by its directors ; ^^ by a stockholder against a corporation to compel the retransfer of stock fraudulently transferred to another ; ^^ and to § 11. 1 Hunter v. United States, 5 Pet. ^ United States v. Norscli, 42 Fed. R. 172. 417. 2 Moffat V. United States, 112 U. S. 24 ; ^ New Orleans v. Morris, 105 U. S. 600. United States >: Trinidad Coal & Coke » Mayer i\ Foulkrod, 4 Wash. C.C. 349. Co., 137 U. S. 160. 9 Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425; Pratt i;. 3 United States v. Am. Bell Telephone Northam, 6 Mason, 95. Co., 128 U. S. 315; United States v. Gun- ^ Hunt v. Danfortii, 2 Curt. 592. ninpc, 18 Fed. R. 511 : s. c. 22 Fed. R. n Sliaron v. Hill, 20 Fed. R. 1. 653. Contra, Attorney-General v. Rumford ^- Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210. Clieniical Works, 2Ban.& A.298; United is Southern Pac. \i. Co. v. Wiggs, 43 States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co., 32 Fed. R. 333. Fed. R. 591 ; United States v. Frazer, 22 i* Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S. 577. Fed. R. 106. i^ Thackrah r. Haas, 119 U. S. 499. < Moffat I'. United States, 112 U. S. ^^ United States i-. Myers. 2 Brock. 516. 24 ; United States v. Gunning, 18 Fed. R. i' Vallette v. White Water Valley Ca- 511 ; s. c. 22 Fed. R. 053. nal Co., 4 McLean, 192. 5 Mullan r. United States, 118 U. S. is Gindrat v. Dane, 4 Cliff. 260. 271 ; McLaus^lin v. United States, 107 i^ Kilgour v. New Orleans Gas-Light U. S. 526 ; Western Pacific Railroad Co. Company, 2 Woods, 144. V. United States, 108 U. S. 510. 16 JUKISDICTION. [chap. I. compel tlie transfer of stock to its equitable owner,^*^ unless it has been acquired unconscientiously or for speculative purposes,^^ or the stock is of a kind that can be readily bought in open mar- ket ; to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of a i)atent-right;2^ to compel specific performance of a contract to issue an insurance policy, and in the same suit to compel pay- ment of the ])olicy ; '-^^ in Virginia, a bill by a creditor of an insol- vent firm which is disposing of its assets in fraud of creditors, filed in behalf of the other creditors as well as himself, and pray- ing the appointment of a receiver, an injunction against any interference by others with the firm assets, and the distribution of those assets among the creditors equally ; -"* a bill by a trustee and his beneficiary to obtain possession of land subject to the trust; 2^ to recover from a bank money of the plaintiff deposited by a third person in the latter's name ; ^^ to enjoin a township from setting up as a defense to an action upon bonds issued by it the accidental omission of the town seal thereon ;^^ to enforce a decree for the payment of money, at least when made by another court of equity ; ^^ to enforce tlie payment of alimony directed to be paid in the final judgment or decree of a State court ; -^ to set aside a judgment obtained by accident, mistake, or fraud ;^'^ to set aside an award by arbitrators upon allegations of misconduct not apparent on the face of the award, not affecting the jurisdiction of the arbitrators ; ^^ a bill by a creditor of a decedent to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of his estate made after his death by the order of a court ;^'^ by a judgment creditor to apply to the satisfaction of his debt any interest which his debtor may liold in a patent or copyright,^^ or in a license to use 2' Meclianics' Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. ^o Union Stock Yard's Bank v. Gilles- 299. pie, i;J7 U. S. 411, 420; National Bank v. -' Mississippi & IMissouri Railroad Com- Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54. pany v. Cromwell, 01 U. S. 643; Foil's -" Bernards Townships. Stebbins, 109 Ai)peal, 91 Pa. St. 4:J4, 438; Randolph's U. S. 341. Executor v. Quidnick Company, 13-5 U. S. -^ Shields r. Thomas, 18 How. 253, 2G2. 457. But see Tilford v. Oakley, Hemps. 197. •^■^ Hall f. Pitrat, 45 Fed. 11. 94. •-•' Barber i-. Barber, 21 How. 582. '•^ Tayloe v. The Merchants' Fire Ins. Cf. Johnson v. Johnson, 13 Fed. R. 193; Co., 9 How. 390; Ilibert v. Mutual Life Bowman i-. Bowman, 30 Fed. R. 849. Ins. Co , 12 Fed. R. 807 ; Bru^iser v. State »' Metcalf v. Williams, 104 U. S. 93, 95. Investment Ins. Co., 6 Saw. .304. "' Hartford Fire Ins. Co. i\ Bonner -'■» Fink V. Patterson, 21 Fed. R 002. Mercantile Co., 44 Fed. R. 151, 156. 25 Harrison v. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. ^- Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640. 202. 33 Ager v. Murray, 105 ^^ -=* *2Q. § 11.] EQUITABLE JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 17 a patented invention ; ^ in the absence of any statutory restric- tions, by the resident taxpayers in a county to prevent an illegal disposition of the moneys of the county, or the illegal creation of a debt which they in common with other property-holders of the county may otherwise be compelled to pay ;^^ for an injunc- tion against irremediable injury to property pending an action of ejectment, though filed by a party out of possession ; ^'^ under special circumstances, to compel specific performance of a rail- road lease and a guaranty of the covenants therein contained ; '^' and of an agreement to allow any railway company to use a rail- way track on equitable tcrms,^'^ but not of an agreement by a rail- way company with a city to keep its principal office in such city ; ^^ to compel an accounting by persons standing in a trust relation to the plaintiff,'^^ and by those against whom an action for account render would lie at common law,*^ namely, guardians in socage, bailiffs, receivers, and merchants in their dealings with each other ; '^^ but not otherwise '^^ unless the accounts are mutual, or very complicated and intricate,^'^ or the accounting is supplemental to some other equitable relief.^^ For example, an account will not be decreed against the infringer of a patent upon a bill filed after the term of the patent has expired.**^ But a bill filed only a few days before the expiration of a patent may be sus- tained, if it is possible to obtain equitable relief during the life of the patent;'*' unless under the practice of the court no in- 3i Matthews v. Green. 19 Fed. R. G49. ^^ Root r. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189; 35 Mr. Justice Fielil in Cranipton i'. Consolidated Safety Valve Co. v. Asliton Zabriskie, 101 U. S. GOl, 009. Valve Co., 26 Fed. R. 319 ; Lord i>. Wliite- 3'^ Erhardt r. Boaro, 113 U. S. 537. head, &c. Macli. Co., 24 Fed. R. 801. 37 Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. St. L., A., ** Gaines v. New Orleans, 17 Fed. R. & T. H. R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290. 16 ; s. c. 4 Woods, 213; John Crossley 38 Joy V. St. Louis, 138 U. S. 1. Sons v. New Orleans, 20 Fed. R. 352 ; 39 Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Marshall, 13G Baker v. Biddle, Bald. 394 ; Blakeley v. U. S. 393. Biscoe, Hemps. 114. But see Lord v. 1" P. R. R. of Mo. V. A. & P. R. R. Co., Whitehead, &c. Maeh. Co., 24 Fed. R. 20 Fed. R. 277; Fowle v. Lawrason, 5 801; Adams v. Bridgewater Iron Co., 26 Pet. 494, 502 ; Littlcfield v. Perry, 21 Fed. R. 324, and cases cited. Wall. 205. ■^^ Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. « Mitchell t'. Manufacturing Co, 2 788; Root y. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189. Story, 648; Ivinson v. Button, 98 IT. S. ^(^ Root v. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 189; 79 ; Fowle v. Lawrason, 5 Pet. 494, 502. Brooks v. Miller, 28 Fed. R. 615, 617. ■1-2 Bispliam's Equity, § 481 ; 1 Co. Litt. «' Beedle v. Bennett, 122 U. S. 71 ; 90b; 1 Co. Litt. 172 a ; Bacon's Abridg- Clark v. Wooster, 119 U. S. 322, 324; ment. Account A ; Buller's Nisi Prius, AVestinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Cai-pen- 127 ; Earl of Devonshire's Case, 11 Coke, ter, 32 Fed. R. 484, jxr Brewer, J. ; Kittle 89, V. De Graaf, 30 Fed. R. 689, per Coxe, J. ; VOL. I. — 2 1^ JURISDICTION. [chap. I. junction could possibly have been obtained before the expiration of the patent ; ^^ and also, perhaps, even when the bill has been filed after the expiration of the patent, if the infringing articles were made during its life.'^^ The Revised Statutes provide that " Whenever a patent on application is refused, either by the Commissioner of Patents or by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon appeal from the Commissioner, the applicant may have remedy by bill in equity ; and the court having cognizance thereof, on notice to adverse parties and other due proceedings had, may adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in his claim, or for any part thereof, as the facts in the case may appear. And such adjudication, if it be in favor of the right of the applicant, shall authorize the Commissioner to issue such patent on the applicant filing in the patent-office a copy of the adjudication, and otherwise complying with the requirements of law. In all cases, where there is no opposing party, a copy of the bill shall be served on the Commissioner ; and all the expenses of the pro- ceeding shall be paid by the applicant, whether the final decision is in his favor or not." °'^ The Commissioner of Patents is not a necessary party when there is a party to oppose the bill,°^ but when the patent has been issued and assigned, the assignee is a neces- sary party .^^ The Commissioner of Patents, if he resides in the District of Columbia, cannot be made a party to a suit in a Cir- cuit Court of the United States.^^ It has been held that the statute docs not authorize an injunction against the issue of a Adams i-. Bridgewatcr Iron Co., 20 Fed. Railway Co., 105 U. S. 180; American R. .324; Brooks (;. Miller, 28 Fed. R. 01.5, 1) K. B, Co. v. Rutland Marble Co., 2 617; Westinghouse Air Brake Co. I". Car- Fed. R. 350, Am. 1). R. B. Co. r. Sliel- penter, ;32 Fed. R. 484. A bill was dis- don, 1 Fed. R. 870 , Crossley r. Derby missed when the patent expired between Gas-Light Co., 4 L. J Ch. n. s. 25. But tlie service of the subpaMia and the re- see Westinghouse v. Carpenter, 43 Fed. turn (lay, on special circumstances being R. 894; and infra, §§ 210. 230. shown. American Cal)le Ry. Co. v. Chi- =' U. S. R.' S. § 4915; Rnnstotler v. cago City Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R. 522. Atkinson, 23 Off. Gaz. 1025; Greeley v. ^« Clark r.Woostcr, 119 U. S.. 322, .324; Commissioner, Fisher, 075; s. c. 1 American Cable Ry. Co. ?-. Citizens' Uy Holmes, 284, ./vr/wr^e'Arkell, 15 Blatchf. Co., 44 Fed. R. 484; Keyes v. Eureka 437; Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U. S. 128. Con. Manufacturing Co., 45 Fed. R. 199 ; ^i Butler (;. Shaw, 21 Fed. R. 321; American Cable Ry. Co. v. Chicago City Graham v. Tcter, 25 Fed. R 555. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R. 522. ^-' Graham v. Tetcr, 25 Fed K. 55.5. •»'•» N. Y. Belting & Packing Co. v. Ma> ^^ lUingworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. R. 141, gowan, 27 Fed. R. Ill; citing Root v. 145. § 12.] WHEN THERE IS NO JURISDICTION IN EQUITY. 19 patent by the Commissioner to some one other than the plaintiff.^* A bill to take an acconnt of general average and decree contriliu- tion has been sustained.^*^ It has been held that the jnrisdiction in equity to open a closed account exists when equity would have had jurisdiction were the account still open, notwithstanding a remedy at law exists.^^ " It is possible that one who holds land under grant from the United States, who has done everything in his power to entitle him to a patent (which he cannot compel the United States to issue to him), and is deemed the legal owner, so far as to render the land taxable to him by the State in which'it lies, may be considered as having sufficient title to sus- tain a bill in equity to quiet his right and possession." ^' " To give a court of equity jurisdiction, the nature of the relief asked must be equitable, even when the suit is based on an equitable title." ^^ The inadequacy of the remedy at law which will justify relief in equity, does not consist merely in its failure to produce the relief sought, — that is a not unusual result of all remedies, — but that in its nature or character it is not fitted or adapted to the end in view.^^ § 12. Illustrations of Cases vrhere the Federal Courts have refused to assume Equitable Jurisdiction. — Equity will not entertain a bill to restrain the President of the United States from carrying into effect an unconstitutional act of Congress, in the discharge of duties " purely executive and political." ^ Nor a bill filed by a State to protect rights which are purely political, even though its rights of property may be thereby incidentally affected.'^ Nor a bill by a citizen of the United States to enforce an " abstract right " which the complainant asserts, and which he may never practically exercise ; as, for example, the right to remove an obstruction from a navigable river, when he does not allege that he is about to navigate the river. ^ Nor a bill filed by a coupon- 5< IllinC,S; United States v. Wilson, 13 Hipp V. Babin, 10 ITow. 271 ; Lewis 118 U. S. 8G; Speigle v. jMeredith, 4 Biss. V. Cocks, 23 Wall. 46G; Ellis i-. Davis, 120. 22 JUKISDICTION. [chap. I. complainant's rights are purely equitable,^* or, in the absence of a State statute authorizing such a suit, when he is not in possession of the land.^^ Nor, usually, to restrain the seizure or compel the them tlie accommodations furnished by said cars while travelling upon such rail- roads ; that unless your orator pays the taxes so illegally imposed upon it, your orator believes and fears that said de- fendant will, unless restrained therefrom by this court, levy upon and seize, in order to force from your orator said ille- gal taxes, said sleeping and drawing- room cars while the same are in actual use and running attached to said express trains ; that thereby the travelling public will be discommoded, the carriage of pas- sengers interstate will be prevented, your orator and said railroad companies may become harassed by many suits for dam- ages by passengers for not furnishing them the accommodations they con- tracted for, tiie credit and reputation of your orator for furnishing comfortable accommodations — which credit and rep- utation are of great value to it, and have been established by strict attention to business, and at great expense and trouble for many years — will be broken up, and tiie goodwill of said business greatly impaired ; and thereby your ora- tor will suffer great and irreparable injury.' " In No. 1082, complainant averred that the comptroller had issued liis warrant to the sheriff of the county of Davidson, Tennessee, and the sheriff by his deputy, one Ilobson, ' has by force, and pre- tending to act under said warrant, seized upon the sleeping car " Wetumpka," belonging to your orator, and now holds the same in their possession , that said car is reasonably worth §8000 ; that said Ilobson has advertised and threatens to sell said car to satisfy said illegal and preteniled tax ; that s-ild sleei)ing car of your orator when seized was being usi'd by your orator in tiie carrying on of in- terstate commerce as aforesaid, and was in use as an instrument of interstate con)merce, and was in Tennessee only by virtue of such use. and was therefore not liable to be taken in satisfaction of said tax, even if it had been a valid tax. That the railroad companies over whose lines of road your orator operates cars are common carriers, and are obliged by law to take upon their trains and carry all who properly present themselves for carriage, whether they are travelling be- tween points wholly within Tennessee or not; that such passengers, travelling lo- cally in Tennessee, sometimes apply for sleeping car accommodations in your or- ator's cars attached to such train, and if your orator is obliged to receive them on its cars, then the State of Tennessee by such tax act forces your orator to pay such privilege tax, and take out such license, or to cease carrying on the in- terstate commerce in which it is now engaged ; that said defemlants have de- manded said -SSOOO from your orator, and have declared that they will force your orator to pay the same ; that they now threaten to sell said car so seizeil by them, and your orator believes will do so unless restrained by this honorable court ; that said car is very valuable, but will not bring its full value at a forced sale, and your orator fears that it will be sold for a small amount not sufficient to pay said tax, and your orator believes and fears that said defendants, unless re- strained by this lionorable court, will thereupon proceed to enforce the collec- tion of said tax so illegally claimed, by distraining ami seizing upon your ora- tor's other cars, and that the proceed- ings threatened by defendants for the collection of said taxes will greatly harass your orator. Your orator fur- ther shows that all its sleeping cars aforesaid, running through the State of Tennessee, are attached to through ex- ])res8 trains on the roads of the said rail- road companies ; that prior to their arrival in Tennessee seats and berths have al- ways l)een sold by your orator to ])ersons travelling from other States into Ten- " Frost V. Spitley, 121 U. S. uo2. -.I" United States r. Wilson, 118 U. S. 80 ; Frost v. Spitley, 121 U. S. 552. §12.] WHEN THERE IS NO JURISDICTION IN EQUITY. 23 return of personal property,^^ unless its loss by the owner would result in irreparable injury by the destruction of his business and commercial credit,^'^ or by rendering it impossible for him to man- age liis farm,^^ or on account of its unique value ,^^ or if it be held in trust.2^ That the value of the property is so great that the complainant is unable to give the bond required in an action of replevin, affords no ground for the interference of equity .^^ Nor can a bill be sustained which seeks to recover damages for a conversion ;''^^ or for a fraudulent misrepresentation ; ^^ or for a fraudulent conspiracy .^^ " In cases of fraud and mistake, as under any other head of chancery jurisdiction, a court of the United States will not sustain a bill in equity to obtain only a decree for the payment of money by way of damages, when the like amount can be recovered in an action sounding in tort or for money had and received." ^° Nor to collect a note from its maker 26 or an indorsee^*" Nor to collect the amount of an in- nessee; that your orator has at all times contracts with passengers to give tlieni the accommodations furnished by said cars while travelling upon said roads ; that unless your orator pays the taxes so illegally imposed upon it, your orator believes and fears that the said defend- ants will, unless restrained therefrom by tills court, sell said car so already levied on, and if it does not bring enough to satisfy said tax will levy upon and seize, in order to force from your orator said illegal tax, its sleeping cars while they are in actual use and running attached to said express trains; that thereby the travelling public will be discommoded, tiie carriage of passengers interstate will be prevented, your orator and said rail- 1"' Knox V Smith, 4 How. 298; Van Norden v Morton, 99 U. S. 878. But see Crane v. McCoy, 1 Bond, 422. 1^ Watson V. Sutherland, 5 Wall. 74; North V. Peters, 138 U. S. 271. '^ Breeden v. Lee, 2 Hiiglies, 484. 1^ Pusey V. Pusey, 1 Vern. 27^^ ; Duke of Somerset (;. Cookson, 3 P. Wins. 389; s c. 1 Leading Cases in Equity, 821. -0 New Orleans v. Morris, 105 U. S. 600. ■■21 In re Oregon Iron Works, 4 Saw. 1G9, 170; s. c. 17 N. B. K. 404. road companies may become harassed by many suits by passengers for damages for not furnishing them the accommoda- tions they contracted for, the credit and reputation of your orator for furnish- ing comfortable accommodations — wiiich credit and reputation are of great value to it, and have been established by strict attention to business, and at great ex- pense and trouble for many years — will be broken up, and the good-will of said business greatly impaired, and thereby your orator will suffer great and irrep- arable injury.'" See also Keithsburg Bridge Co. v. McKay, 42 Fed. R. 427 ; Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 44 Fed. R. 310; Hoey v. Coleman, 46 Fed. R. 221, 223. 22 Dumont v. Fry, 12 Fed. R. 21. 23 Russell ('. Clark, 7 Cranch, 09 ; White V. Boyce, 21 Fed. R. 228. 24 Ambler v. Choteau, 107 U. S. 586. 25 Buzard v. Houston, 119 U. S. 347, 352 ; per Gray, J. ; citing Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487, 500 ; Ambler v. Choteau, 107 U. S. 586; Litchfield v. Ballou, 114 U. S. 190. 26 Dowell V. Mitchell, 105 U. S. 430. 2- Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130. 24 JUEISDICTION. [chap. I. surance policy.^ Nor a bill filed by an insurance compan) after a loss has occurred, to obtain the cancellation of a policy procured by fraud.^'^ Nor, except in a very extraordinary case, a bill to enjoin slanders or libels.^^ Nor, it has been said, a bill to enjoin criminal proceedings.^^ Nor a bill to enjoin the removal of an officer of a State or municipality .^2 Nor a bill to compel a public officer to perform a ministerial duty.^s ^or a bill by the assignee of a cause of action to enforce for his own use the legal right of his assignor, when he seeks the aid of equity merely ujtun the ground that he cannot maintain an action at law in his own name.3* Nor a bill by a private citizen to set aside a land-patent of the United States, on account of fraud ujjon the government used in its procurement,''^ although if fraud were then practised u))un the plaintiff he might have relief u])on the ground of cs- toppel.^*^ Nor a bill filed by a creditor for himself alone to ap[)ly equitable assets to the ])aymcnt of his debt, unless he has obtained a judgment for his claim in a court of the same State or judicial district, and had the return of an execution issued thereon unsat- isfied,'^' — not even, it has been held, when it is shown that the debtor is insolvent, and has no property which can be reached by legal proccss,^^ — unless to enforce a trust or equitable right.^^ Nor, in the absence of a State statute authorizing such a pro- ceeding, a bill to set aside the probate of a will on account of mistake, undue infiuencc, forgery, or other fraud.*^ Nor to enjoin an action at law to which the complainant has a clear legal defense.*^ Nor to set aside or enjoin proceedings to enforce a 28 Graves v. Boston Marine Ins. Co. 2 35 gteel v. Smelting Co., lOH U. S. 447. Cranch, 419. *; yj^el v Smelting Co., lOG U. S. 447, -9 Home Ins. Co. r. Stnnclifield, 1 Dill. 454. 424; Insurance Co. ;.•. Bailey, l:j Wall. 3? pagg „ Beanregara, 90 U. S. 110; 016. Smith v. Bailroad Co., 99 U. S. 398; 3" Francis v. Flinn, 118 U. S. 385; Walser r. Seligman, 13 Feil. R. 415. Baltimore Car Wlieel Co. ?;. Bemis, 29 38 Walser r. Seligman, 13 Fed. R. 415. Fed. R. 95. Contra, Kmack r. Kane, 34 But see Case v. Beauregard, 101 U. S. Fed. R. 40 ; Fougcres v. Murbarger, 44 688, at page 690. Fed. R. 292. See § 223. »» Case r. Beauregard, 101 U. S. 088, 31 In re Sawyer, 121 U. S. 200; Sness at pnge 0!!0. V. Noble, 31 Fed. K. 855. But see M. •*' Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503; F.l- Schandler Bottling Co. r. Welch, 42 Fed. lis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 485, Sinunons v. R. 501 ; infra, § 211. Saul, 138 U. S. 439. 3-i In re Sawyer, 121 U. S. 200. ■»' Grand-Chute r. Winegar, 15 Wall. 33 Craig f. Leitensdorfer, 123 U. S. 189. 373; Francis r. Flinn, 118 U.S. 385; 3< Ilayward r. Andrews, 100 U. S.072; Hapgood r. Hewitt, 119 U. S. 220. See New York Guaranty Co. ;,•. Memphis Dre.x<;l c. Bernev, 122 U. S. 211. Water Co., 107 U. S. 205. § 12.] WHEN THERE IS NO JURISDICTION IN EQUITY. 25 judgment at law because of fraud ; unless the complainant had a defense to the action upon the merits,'*^ aj^(j either the fraud was extrinsic to the matter tried and not in issue in the former suit, nor then known to the complainant, or some unconscientious advantage was taken of the successful judgment debtor during the progress of the suit without any fault or negligence upon his part.''^ Nor to set aside a judgment at law^-^ or a decree in e(iuity ^'^ for an omission to serve a party to the same, except per- liaps when the record shows an apparent service. It was held by Chief Justice Chase that an insolvent cannot maintain a bill for the ajipointment of a receiver to distribute his assets among his creditors.*-* It has been said that a receiver, assignee in bank- ruptcy, or assignee under a voluntary general assignment, each of whom represents creditors as well as the debtor, cannot maintain a bill to enforce a collateral obligation given to a creditor or to a body of creditors by a third person for the ptjyment of the debts of the insolvent.*' A bill was dismissed, which sought to enforce specific performance of a contract containing a power of revoca- tion by the defendant.*^ So was a bill to compel the transfer of corporate stock, which the complainant obtained for an inadequate consideration, and which he wished to use for purely speculative pur{)oses and to gain thereby an unconscientious advantage.*^ In the absence of statutory authority, a private individual cannot file a bill to obtain the forfeiture of a corporate franchise.^'^ Nor can a corporation be enjoined from acting beyond its legal powers at the suit of a business rival not one of its stockholders.^^ Nor can a stockholder file a bill, founded upon rights which may properly be asserted by his corporation, against it and other parties, unless there exists "as the foundation of the suit some action or threatened action of the managing board of directors *-^ White >'. Crow, 110 U. S. 183. Con- Co. r. Central Trust Co., 22 Fed, R. 272. tra, Mills v. Scott. 43 Fed. R. 452. See Beach on Receivers, § 327, « Life Ins Co. r. Banjrs, 103 U. S. *' Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. R. 454. 780, 782 , Cragin r. Lovell, 109 U. S. VM. «s Express Co. r. Railroad Co., 'JU U. S. See Kno.x County v. Ilarshman, 133 U. S. 191. 152, Leavenworth County Comm'rs v. « M. & M. R. R. Co. r. Cromwell, 01 Chicago, R. I. & P R'y Co 134 U. S. U. S. 643. See Foil's Appeal, iU I'a. St. 688. 434; Randolph's E.xecutor v. Quidnick « Lewis V. Cocks, 23 Wall. 4G0. Company, 135 U. S. 457, 45'.). *s Yeatman t-. Bradford, 44 Fed. R. 536. 5' Gaylord v. Fort Wayne M. Ik C 46 Huuh v. McRne, Chase's Dec. 4(5G. R. R. Co., 6 Biss 28G. Cn,ifrn, Bras,«ev r. N. Y. & N. K. R. R. Co., ^i Railroad Co v. Ellcrman, 105 U. S, 19 Fed. R. GG3; Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. 1G6. 26 JURISDICTION, [chap. I. or trustees of the corporation which is beyond the authority con- ferred on them by their charter or other source of organization ; or such a fraudulent transaction completed or conteniphxted by the acting managers, in connection with some other party, or among themselves, or with other shareholders, as will result in serious injury to the corporation, or to tlie interests of the other shareholders; or where the board of directors, or a majority of them, arc acting for their own interest, in a manner destructive of the corjjoration itself, or of the rights of the other shareholders ; or where the majority of shareholders themselves are oppres- sively and illegally pursuing a course in the name of the corpora- tion which is in violation of the rights of the other shareholders, and which can only be restrained by the aid of a court of equity. Possibly other cases may ai'ise in which, to prevent irremediable injury or a total failure of justice, the court would be justified in exercising its powers; but tlie foregoing may be regarded as an outline of the principles which govern this class of cases. But in addition to the existence of grievances wliicli call for this kind of relief, it is equally important that before the shareholder is permitted in his own name to institute and conduct a litigation which usually belongs to the corporation, he should show to the satisfaction of the court that he has exhausted all the means within his reach to obtain, within the corporation itself, the redress of his grievances, or action in conformity to his wishes. He must make an earnest, not a simulated effort with the man- aging body of the corporation to induce remedial action on their part, and this must be made apparent to the court. If time per- mits, or has permitted, he must show, if he fails with the direc- tors, that he has made an honest effort to obtain action by the stockholders as a body, in the matter of which he comjilains. And he nuist show a case, if this is not done, where it could not be done or it was not reasonable to require it." ^^ Analogous rules regulate a suit by a stockholder to set aside a contract l)y the corporation as beyond the powers conferred in its charter.^-^ 6-' Ilawes I'. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450, 752. See also Equity Kule 94, and infra, 4G0, 401; /*pr Miller, J. See also Hunt- §§70,87,207. ington V. Palmer, 104 U. S. 482; Green- ^'^ Dimpfell v. Oliio & Mississippi K. R. wood V. Freight Co., 105 U. S. 13; De- Co., 110 U. S. 209; Tazewell i-. Farmers' troit V. Dean, 100 U. S. 537; Quincy Loan & Trust Co., 12 Fe.l. R. 752; V Steel, 120 U. S. 241 ; County of Taze- (Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S. 13. well V. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., 12 Fed. R. § 14.] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 27 Where a stockholder filed a bill against the corporation, the directors, and another stockholder, charging that the individual defendants had entered into a conspiracy to do an unlawful and fraudulent act, in furtherance of their individual interests, which would destroy or seriously impair the value of the property of the corporation; that the individual defendants held among them- selves seven-tenths of the stock, and had procured a vote of the stockholders authorizing the corporation to carry out the project, and prayed an injunction to prevent this, the bill was held good on demurrer, although it showed no previous effort to obtain redress, from the directors or stockholders, when no outsider was made a party defendant.^^ It has been said that a court of equity has no power to seize a man's property, and through its officers complete a bridge in pursuance of a contract Avhich he has made.^^ Nor is it a sufficient ground for the interference of a court of equity that the evidence in a cause is voluminous and tedious.^^ § 13. Federal Courts •which have Jurisdiction in Equity. — The equitable jurisdiction of the Federal courts, from which category the courts of the Territories and of the District of Columbia are here excluded,^ is in the Supreme Court, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, the Circuit Courts, the District Courts, the Court of Claims, and the Court of Private Land Claims. § 14. Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. — The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction both at law and equity in all cases affecting ambassadors, other ])ublic ministers and consuls, and those in which a State is a party. ^ The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over controversies to which a State is a party is exclusive, except as regards controversies between a State and its citizens, or between a State and citizens of other States.^ In suits to which a State is a party the practice in equity is followed.^ The Supreme Court has exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits against ambas- sadors or other public ministers, or their domestics or domestic servants, as a court of law can have consistently with the law of nations ; and original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction of all suits 5^ Barr v. Pittsburgh Plate-Glass Co., § 13. i See Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 40 Fed. R. 412. Wall 434. 55 Te.\as & St. Louis Ry. Co. c: Rust, § 14. i Const, art. iii. 17 Fe: Brailsford, 2 Dall, 402 ; Kentucky v. Dennisou, 24 How. 266. 28 JUEISDICTION. [chap. I. brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or iu which a consul is a party.* A State may file a bill against another State to settle and estab- lish a disputed boundary.^ In such a suit the United States has an interest in the controversy, and the attorney-general on his application may intervene and appear on behalf of the United States and adduce proofs and be heard in argument without making the United States a party in the technical sense of the term ; but he has no right to interfere in the pleading or evi- dence or admissions of either of the States ; and in such a suit the judgment cannot be either for or against the United States.^ Written authority from the governor of a State is sufficient to authorize a suit on behalf of the StateJ In a suit by a State against another State the service of a subpccna sixty days before the return day is sufficient.^ Service should be made on both the governor and the attorncy-g-cncral.^ In one case a subpa3na served upon the governor by leaving a copy at his house and there showing the original to the secretary of state, was held sufficient.^*' The filing of a pleading by the attorney-general of a State who has been admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the United States is an appearance on behalf of such State.^^ The rules con- cerning the time for pleading in suits between individuals do not apply to suits between the different States.^^ The State of Massa- chusetts was allowed to answer an amended bill of the State of Rhode Island one year after the filing of such amended bill.^^ If the State fail to appear, or if the State withdraw its api)ear- ance, no coercive measures will be taken to compel its appear- 4 U. S. R. S. § G87. ^ New Jersey ?•. New York, (5 Peters, s State of New Jersey v. Rtiite of New 323. York, 3 Peters, 4(31 ; s. c. 5 I'eters, 284 ; ^ Ciiisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419 ; s. c. (j Peters, 323; Massachusetts v. Grayson r. Virginia, 3 Dallas, 320 ; New Klioile Island, 12 Peters, 755; Rhode Jersey r. New York, 3 Peters, 4fil ; s. c 5 Island V. Massachusetts, 13 Peters, 23; Peters, 284; Commonwealth of Kentucky Florichi v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Rhode r. Dennison, 24 How. GO. Island V. Massachusetts, 15 Peters, 233; i' Huger v. South Carolina, 3 Dallas, s. c. 4 How. 5'.)1 ; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 3.39. How. fiGO; Florida v. Georgia, 17 Plow. i' State of New Jersey i-. State of New 478 ; Virginia r. West Virginia, 11 Wall. York, 6 Peters, 623. 39; Missouri r. Iowa, 10 How. 1; Ala- i- State of Rhode Island v. State of bama v. Georgia, 23 How. 50-j ; Missouri Massachuseits, 13 Peters, 23. 1-. Kentucky, 11 Wall. .39.5. i-' State of Rhode Island i-. State of ^ Florida r. Georgia, 17 How. 478. Massachusetts, 13 Peters, 23. " Te.xas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 719. § 14.] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 29 ance, but the complainant may be allowed to })roceed ex parte}^ A State cannot maintain a bill in equity to protect a purely political right. ^^ A State cannot obtain an order or judgment compelling the governor of another State to return a fugitive from labor or justice.^*^ In a suit to settle a disfjuted boun- dary, the most appropriate mode of proceeding is by bill and cross-bill.^" A State cannot sue one of its own citizens in the Supreme Court of the United States.^^ The allegation that a defendant corporation is " a body politic in the law of and doing business in the State of California" is insufficient to establish that the defendant is a California corporation, and is insufficient to show that the defendant is not a Pennsylvania corporation.^^ A State cannot sue another State to collect bonds and coupons of the defendant which have been assigned to the plaintiff by its own citizens in order that it may collect them and pay the proceeds to the assignors.^*^ A suit by a State to collect a judgment for penalties obtained in one of its own courts against a foreign cor- poration cannot be maintained in the Supreme Court of the United States.-^ A State may sue for an injunction against the collection by citizens of other States of certain bonds of the United States which are the property of such State, and for the delivery to it of such bonds, and for a declaration that the contract under which the defendants claim a title to such bonds is void.'^^ A State may maintain a bill against citizens of other States to enforce its title to a railroad.^'^ The fact that a State is a stockholder in a corporation by or against whicli a suit is Ijrought does not make the State a party to such suit.-^ The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is explained in the final chapter of this work. Incidental to such appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court lias ])owcr in certain limited cases " State of Massacliusetts v. State of ^o Xew Hampshire i'. Louisiana, 108 Rhode Island, 12 Peters, 755; Oswald i-. U. S. 7(3. New York, 2 Dallas, 415 ; Chisliolm v. -^ Wisconsin v. Telican Insurance Co., Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419. 127 U. S. 2G5. 15 Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50. -- Texas v. Wiiite, 7 W^-ill. 700, 741-743. i« Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Den- -^ State of Florida v. Anderson, 91 nison, 24 How. GG. U. S. 667. 1" Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. GOO. -^ The Bank of the United States i-. iS Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 10 The Planters' Bank of Georgia, 9 Wheat, Wall. 553. 904. 1^ Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 10 Wall. 553. 30 JUEISDICTIOK [chap. I. to issue writs of prohibition,-^ mandcwius,^^ habeas corpus^' scire facias, and other writs.-^ § 14 a. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of Appeal. There are nine Circuit Courts of Appeal, one in each circuit.^ Their jurisdiction is exclusively appellate, and will be explained in the concluding chapter of this work. Incidental to such appellate jurisdiction, they have the power to issue writs of scire facias and all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which are neces- sary for the exorcise of their respective jurisdiction and agree- able to the usages and principles of law.^ § 15. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States. — The Circuit Courts of the United States have original cognizance, concurrently with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or peti- tioners ; suits in which there is a controversy between citizens of different States, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value aforesaid ; or a controversy between citizens of the same State, claiming land under grants of differ- ent States, or a controversy between citizens of a State and for- eign States, citizens or subjects, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value afore- said : 1 and, irrespective of the value of the matter in dispute, of cases commenced by the United States or l)y direction of any officer thereof against national banks, or cases for winding up the affairs of any such 1)ank;- and all suits authorized bylaw to be brought l)y any jjcrson to redress the deprivation, nnder color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, of any right, privilege, or immunity, secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law providing for equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, whether 25 U.S. R, S. § r,88. Sce/n/5Y,.§§?>m,.3fi2. 2 u. S. R. S. § 710; 26 St. at L. 829, 25 U. S. R. S. § GS8. See hi/m, §§ :^G1, § 12. See infra, §§ ;^61_S(!8. 363, ?AU. § 15. 1 24 St. at L. cli. .37.1, p. 552. 2' U. S. R. S. § 751. See infra, §§.066, 2 04 St. at L. cli. 37.'3, § 4, p. 552. See 367, 368. Armstroiiff r. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. R. 209; 2S U.S. R.S. § r,88. See /»rw.§§ HGl, .365. Armstronp v. Trautmnnn, .36 Fed. R. 275 ; § 14 a. 1 26 St. at L. ^29, § 12. McCoiivillo v. Gilmour, 36 Fed R. 277. § 15.] JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT. 31 such suit was originally brought in one of them or removed there according to law from a State court ;^ of suits against the United States, to collect claims of more than $1000 and not exceeding $10,000, for money only, founded upon the Constitution of the United States or any law of Congress, except for pensions, or upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the government of the United States ; or for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort in respect of which claims the plaintiff would be entitled to redress against the United States, in a court of law, equity, or admiralty, if the United States were suable, — except war claims, and except other claims, which, before March 3, 1887, were rejected or reported on adversely by any court, department, or commission authorized to hear and determine the same : * of proceedings to condemn for national public uses land within their respective districts ; ^ of suits to recover penalties under the act forbidding the importation of persons under a contract to perform labor ; ^ of suits to enforce and prevent violations of the acts to pro- tect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints, " the act to prevent the unlawful occupation of public lands, ^ and the act to execute provisions of the treaties with China ; ^ proceedings to review the decisions of the general appraisers ^'^ and under certain special statutes. Formerly Circuit Courts of the United States had jurisdiction, without regard to the value of the matter in dis- pute, of all suits at law or in e(piity arising under the patent, trade- mark, or copyright laws of the United States, or under any act providing for internal revenue or revenue from imports or ton- nage, or under the postal laws, or under any of the laws relating to the slave and cooley trade ; of suits by the assignees of debent- ures for drawback of duties ; of proceedings by the writ of quo tvar- ranto prosecuted by a district attorney of the United States for the removal from office of any person holding office contrary to the 3 U. S. R. S.§629;24St. atL.ch.373, 7 26 St. at L. 209; U. S. v. Jellico § 5. Mountain Coke & Coal Co., 43 Fed. R. * 24 St. at L. 505 ; U. S. v. Jones, 131 898; s. c. ■\(j Fed. R. 432. See American U. S. 1. See infrn, § m. Biscuit & Manuf. Co. v. Klitz, 44 Fed. R. ° 2d St. at L. ch. 728, p. 357. See infra, 721, 725, 720. § 381. " 8 23 St. at L. 321. 6 23 St. at L. 3.32 ; U. S. v. MexMcan 9 24 St. at L. 409. Nat. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R. 269. See U. S. i'> 26 St. at L. 138 ; Fn re Rlumlein, 45 V. Rector of tlie Cliurch of tiie Holy Trin- Fed. R. 236 ; In re DieckerlioiT. 45 Fed. ity, 36 Fed. R. 303 ; U. S. v. Craig, 28 Fed. R. 235 ; In re Dowling, 45 Fed. R. 412. R. 795 : 26 St. at L. 1084. 32 jURiSDicTiox. [chap. I. Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, except a member of Congress or of a State legislature ; and of suits to recover posses- sion of any office except that of elector of President or Vice Presi- dent, representative or delegate in Congress, or member of a State legislature, authorized by law to be brought, wherein it appeared that the sole question touching the title to such office arose out of the denial of the right to vote to any citizen on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. ^^ Whether the Act of 1887 has deprived the Circuit Courts of this jurisdiction is under the authorities a doubtful question. ^^ It has been held at circuit that those courts still have jurisdiction, irrespective of the value of the matter in dispute, of suits at law or in equity arising under the patent and coin'right laws ; ^'^ of suits at law or in equity arising under the revenue laws ; ^^ and of actions at common law bj^ the United States or an officer thereof, including in this term a re- ceiver of a national bank appointed by the comptroller. ^'^ No Cir- cuit Court of the United States has cognizance of any suit, except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action, in favor of any assignee or of any subsequent holder, if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made.^*^ § 16. Matter in Dispute. — The value of the matter in dispute must ordinarily exceed, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of two thousand dollars, ^ This signifies not the amount of any contingent loss or damage which one of the parties may sustain by a decision against him, but the amount in dispute between the parties in the pending suit.^ Thus, the reason that, on ac- count of its probative force, the judgment may operate as an estojipcl in a subsequent proceeding, does not increase the value 11 r. S. R. S. §§0-29,2150, 3213; 18 St. 642; United States v. Kentucky River at L. 478. Mills, 45 Fed. R. 273. Contra, United 1- 24 St. at L. 552 ; Act of Marcli 3, States v Iluifniaster, 35 Fed. R. 81. 1887, cli. 373, §§ 5 and 0. i« Act of March 3, 1887, § 1, 24 St. at 1-^ Miilor-Magee Co. v. Carjjenter, 34 L. cli. 373, p. 552, as amended by act of Fed. R. 433. See United States i'. iMooney, Ausrust, 13, 1888, 25 St. at U. p. 433. 116 U. S. 104, 107. § 10. 1 Act of IMarch 3, 1887, § 1, 24 " Ames V. Ilager, 30 Fed. R. 129. St. at L. ch. 373, p. 552. 15 Armstrong f. Kttlesohn, 36 Fed. R. - Ross v. Prentiss, 3 How. 771, 772; 209; Armstrong v. Trautmann, 36 Fed. Elgin i\ Marsliall, 100 U. S. 579 ; Bruce y. R.27o; McConville r. Gilmour, 36 Fed. M.^& K. R. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514. K. 277 ; Stephens v. Bernays, 44 Fed. R. "^ § 16] MATTER IN DISPUTE. 33 of the matter in dispute.^ Where the suit is upon a demand on which the law hquidates the damages for a default, the amount of the damages as liquidated hy the law, not the amount named in the; plaintiff's pleading, is the value of the matter in dispute ;* but where the alleged cause of action is one in which the law does not liquidate the damages, the amount for which the plain- tiff demands judgment is alone to be considered,^ unless it clearl\- appears that the amount named is merely colorable and beyond the amount of a reasonable expectation of recovery.*^ Thus, in an action of debt on a bond of one hundred dollars, the prin- cij)al and interest arc put in demand, and no more can be recov- ered except costs, though the plaintiff lay his damages at ten thousand dollars. The value of the matter in dispute cannot, therefore, exceed one hundred dollars with interest and costs." But in an action for false imprisonment ^ or assault and battery, the law prescribes no limitation to the amount which can be recovered ; and the amount claimed by the ])laintif¥ is the sole criterion to which resort can be had in settling the question of jurisdiction.^ Where a defendant's counterclaim has been dis- missed and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, the amount of the counterclaim added to the amount recovered by the plain- tiff is the matter in dispute.^° The value of property sued for is not always the matter in dispute. ^^ Where a complaint con- tains several counts, each for a separate sum alleged to be due, and disputed l)y the defendant, the aggregate of the sums con- stitutes the value of the matter in dispute. i- The value of the matter in dispute in a suit for an accounting has been said to be the amount of the disputed items of the account. ^'^ In a suit for an injunction the amount in dispute is the value of the 3 Elgin V. Marsliall, 106 U. S. 579 ; 9 Wilson v. Daniel. 3 Dall. 401, 407; Bruce o. M. & K. R. R. Co., 117 U. S. 514. Barry v. Edmunds, IIG U S. 550, 5G0. i Wilson V. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401, 407 ; But see Maxwell v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550, 560. R. Co., 3 Fed. R. 280. ■' Smith V. Greenhow, 109 U. S. 669; i^ Dushane r- Benedict, 120 U. S. G30 : Wilson i: Daniel, 3 Dall. 401, 407 ; Barry See Lovell v. Cragin, 130 U. S. 130, 140 , r. Edmunds, IIG U. S. 550, 5G0 ; Gorman infra, § 385. V. Havird, 141 U. S. 200. n Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27, 29 ; « Lee V. Watson, 1 Wall. 337 ; Bow- per Gray, J. man v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 115 i- Armstrong v. Ettlesohn, 36 Fed. R. U. S. 611, 61G; Smith v. Greenhow, 109 209; Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 Fed. R. U. S. 669. 885. 887. " Wilson ('. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401, 407. ^^ McCormick v. Gray, 13 How. 20. 8 Hynes v. Briggs, 41 Fed. R. 4G8. VOL. I. — 3 34 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. object to be gained by the bill, not merely the amount of dam- ages already suffered by the complainant.^"* Thus, in a suit to enjoin the use of a trademark and compel an account of profits, the value of the matter in dispute is the value of the trade- mark, not the amount of profits which the defendant has do- rived from its iise.^° In a suit to enjoin the use of a railway by a party not its owner, the value of the use of the railway, not the value of the railway, was held to be the value of the matter in dispute. ^^ In a suit to cancel a paper pur})orting to be a marriage contract, the amount of the provision which the woman would lie entitled to receive from her husband, were thi contract held binding, is the value of the matter in dispute.^" In a suit to quiet title, the value of the property affected is the value of the matter in dispute. ^^ The value of the subject-mat- ter in an appeal in a suit by a taxjmyer to enjoin the levy of tax for payment of bonds is the amount of the whole tax levy which it is sought to be enjoined.^'-' In a stockholder's suit to enforce a cause of action belonging to his corporation, the value of the matter in dispute was held to be the value of the corpo- rate right sought to be enforced, not the value of the plaintiff's interest therein.-'*^ Where a number of plaintiffs, claiming under the same title and having a common interest in the relief sought, unite in a suit, action, or proceeding, their united interests con- stitute the matter in dispute.-^ Where, however, a suit is brought by one for himself and all others of a class similarly situated, the aggregate interest of all those who join with him, not that of the whole class, constitutes the matter in dispute." The iu- » iMississippi & Mo. R. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485; Market Co. r. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112; Symonds r. Greene, 28 Fed. R. Sai; Wliitman r. llubbell, CO Fed. R. 81. li Symonds v. Greene, 28 Fed. R. 834. 1'' Oleson V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 41 Fed. R. 1. '^ Sliaron r. Terry, '-](> Fed. R. .3.37. ^^ Leliigh Zinc & Iron Co. '■. N. J. Zinc & Iron Co., 4:3 Fed. R. 545. 13 Brown r. Trousdale, V)S U. S. 389. But see Murpliy r. East Portland, 42 Fed. R. 308 ; American Fertilizer Co. v. Board of Agriculture of North Carolina, 43 Fed. li. (;00. ■^'> Hill .. Glasgow R Co , 41 Fed. R. GIO. -1 Shields r. Thomas, 17 IIow. 3; Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112; Davies V. Corbin, 112 U. S. 3(); Fstcs r. Guiiter, 121 U. S. 183 , Lovett r. Prentice, 44 Fed. R. 4.59. See Gibson v. Shufeldt, 122 U. S. 27 ; Clay v. Field, 1:]8 U. S. 404, 479. -- Bruce r. Manchester & K. R. R. Co ., 117 U. S. 514. 51G; IMassa v. Cuttinsr, 30 ¥vt\. R. 1 ; Adams v. Board of County Comm'rs, McCahon (U. S. C. C D. Kan.), 235; Rich v. Bray, 37 Fed. R. 273; John- son V. V/ators, lli U. S. G40; Handley r. Stutz, 1.37 U. S. 300, .309. Miller v. Clark, 188 U. S. 223. But see Brown r. Trous- tlale, 138 U. S. 3^9; Hill v. Glasgow R. Co., 41 Fed. R GIO. § 17.] SUITS UNDER CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE U. STATES. 35 tcrest excluded from consideration includes interest accrued on a demand before the suit was brouglit.^^ Coupons when attached to a bond upon which suit is brought are considered as interest, and excluded from consideration when determining the juris- diction.2^ It has been held that notarial fees for presentation and protest of a note, though paid before suit brought, are costs, not damages, and cajinot be considered in estimating the value of the matter in dispute.^'* The fact that part of plain- tiff's claim is barred by tiio statute of limitations will not divest the court of jurisdiction.'^*^ An admission by the defendant in liis pleading of part of the plaintiff's demand will not divest the court of jurisdiction.-'' § 17. Suits arising under the Constitution or Laws of the United States. — A suit arises under the Constitution or a law of the United States whenever its correct decision depends on the con- struction of either.^ " When a proposition has once been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, it can no longer be said that in it there still remains a Federal question. Move cor- rectly it is said that there is no question, State or Federal."^ When either party is a corporation chartered by Congress, the case is one arising out of a law of the United States.^ Not, how- ever, when the S(^le corporate party derived its charter from a Territorial law.* Suits to which national banks are parties are exempted from the operation of this rule, except cases commenced by the United States or by direction of any ofiicer thereof, or cases for winding up the affairs of any such bank.'^ Tliis cx- 23 Moore v. Edsrefield, 32 Fed. R. 498. 24 Howard v. Bates County, 43 Fed. R. 276. 25 Baker r. Howell, 44 Fed. R. 4i:] ; U. S. C. C. D. Nebraska, Caldwell and Dundy, J.I. 20 Harding v. Cass County, 42 Fed. R. 652. 2' Fuller V. Met. Life Ins. Co., 37 Fed. R. 16.3. § 17 1 Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264,379; Tennessee r. Davis, 100 U. S. 2J7, 264; Starin v. New York, 115 U. S. 248, 257 ; Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. California, 118 U. S. 109, 112. But see Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Louisville Bridge Co., 42 Fed. R. 241. 2 Brewer, J., in Kansas v. Bradley, 20 Fed. R. 289, 290. See Starin r. New York, 115 U. S. 248, 257; Southern Pa- cific R. R. Co. V. California, 118 U. S. 109, 112. 3 Osborn v. U. S. Rank, 9 Wheat. 738, 823; Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 1 ; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Denver, S. P. & P. R. R. Co., 1 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 584. •* Adams Express Co. v. Denver & R. G. R. R. Co., 16 Fed. R. 712. 5 Act of March 3, 1887, § 4, 24 St. at I oh. 373, p. 5-52. See Armstrong v. Kttle- sohn, 36 Fed. R. 209 ; Armstrong i-. Traut- mann, 36 Fed. R. 275; McConville v. Gilmour, 36 FeiL R. 277 ; Whittemore v. Amoskcag Nat. ]5ank, 134 U. S. 527; First Nat. Bank v. Forest, 40 Fed. R. 705; 36 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. ception leaves the Circuit and District Courts with jurisdic- tion over cases commenced after the Act of 1887.^ It has been held that a case does not arise under the laws of the United States, though brought to enjoin the infringement of a patent, when the defendant admits the validity of the patent, and rests his defense upon an alleged license from the plaintiff.' A suit to determine the title to a patent the validity of which is not disputed does not arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.^ A suit to set aside a land patent solely on ac- count of fraud has been held not to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.^ Where, however, the decision of a case depends upon the construction of a patent for an inven- tion or a land patent, or upon the construction of the land laws, mining laws, or patent laws, the suit arises under the laws of the United States. ^*^ A suit to enjoin a receiver appointed by a Federal court has been held to arise under the laws of the United States. ^^ A suit to recover property taken by a receiver of a national bank under color of a law of the United States arises under the laws of the United States.^^ A suit upon a marshal's bond arises under the laws of the United States. ^^ A suit against a marshal for levying under a writ upon property claimed by a stranger to the suit on which the writ issued 1)ut Avhich tlie marshal claims belonged to the defendant to the writ, arises under the laws of the United States ; ^^ but a suit against a marshal for a levy upon goods which he docs not claim to be the property of a person named in the writ docs not arise under the P'.'irmers' Nat. Bank v. McEIIiinncy, 42 ^ Montgomery Palace Stove Car Co. Fed. K. 801 ; Sowles v. First Nat. Bank of v. Street Stable Car Line, 40 Fed. R. St. Albans, 46 Fed. R. 513. See § 19. 329. G Stephens v. Bernays, 44 Fed. R. 642. '■> Holland r. Hyde, 41 Fed. R. 977. " Kartell v. Tilghman, 99 U. S. &47 ; lO Dunton v. Mutli, 45 Fed. R. 390,395; Wilson V. Sandford, 10 How. 99; Al- Jones U.Florida C. & P. R. Co., 41 Fed. bright V. Teas, 106 U. S. 61o; IMe Tile R. 70; Murray v. Bluebird Min. Co. Ld. Manuf. Co. v. Hyatt, 125 U. S. 40; Feli.v 45 Fed. R. 385; Cheesman v. Shrevc, 37 r. Scharnweber, 125 U. S. 54; McCarty Fed. R. 3(5. & Hall Trading Co. v. Glaenzcr, 30 Fed. " Evans v. Dillingham. 43 Fed. R. 177. R. 387. But see Smith r. Standard Laun- But see 25 St. at L. cli. 866, § 3, p. 434 ; dry Mach. Co., 19 Fed. R. 825; Conti- /«/m, §251. nental Store Service Co. v. Clark, 100 ' i- Sowles r. Witters, 43 Fed. R. 700. N. Y. 365; Hat Sweat Jlanuf. Co. i'. 13 Teibelinan r. Pnckard, 109 F. S. Reinoehl, 102 N. Y. 167; Puelz u. Brans- 421; Bachrack v. Norton, 132 U. S. ford, 32 Fed. R. 318; St. Paul Plow 337. Works V. Starhng, 127 U. S. .370; Sei- '-* Rock r. Perkins, 139 U. S. 028. But bert C. O. Cup Co. v. Manning, 32 Fed. NSee Buck r. Colbath, 3 Wall. 531. R. 025. § 18.] CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES. 37 laws of the United States.^^ A suit on a judgment recovered in a coui-t of the United States is not necessarily a suit arising under the laws of the United States.^^ A case does not arise under the laws of the United States simply because a Federal court has decided in another suit the questions of law which arc involved.'" No Federal question is raised by an answer that is bad in sub- stance without reference to the Federal question which it seeks to plead.'^ § 18. Controversy between Citizens of different States. — A controversy between citizens of diilerent States is one in which every party u})on one side is a citizen of a different State from every party ujjon the other.' The citizenship of formal parties with no real interest in the controversy does not affect the jurisdiction.^ Such are the hus- band of the plaintiff when made a defendant to a suit against another to enforce the trusts of a marriage settlement ; ^ a State in a suit by it for the use of one of its citizens brought upon a bond given by an administrator ; * an agent ^ or attorney "^ of a corporation when a defendant to a suit against it which seeks no relief against him ; the sheriff and the commissioners of a})praisal summoned by him when defendants to a suit to enjoin a corpora- tion from prosecuting condemnation proceedings." In determining between whom the controvei'sy exists, the court is not bound by the title of the cause, or the form of the pleadings, but should examine the record, ascertain the matter in dispute, and arrange the parties on opposite sides of the same according to the facts, no matter what their technical place as plaintiffs or defendants may be.*^ In a suit by taxpayers against 15 Buck r. Colbath, 3 Wall. .53. 3 Wormley r. Wormley, 8 Wlient. 421. i« Provident Savings Society r. Ford, '^ Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 11.8.400. 114 U. S. 635; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 See also Northman v. Wade, 77 Georgia, U. S. 580. See Winter v. Swinburne, 8 651. Fed. n. 40 ; and infra, § 21. ^ Wood r. Davis, 18 How. 467 ; Brown '^ Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. v. Murray Nelson & Co., 43 Fed. Iv. (114. Cooper, 120 U. S. 778, 781. « Brown r. Murray Nelson & Co., 43 1^ Fitzgerald v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Fed. R. 014. Co., 45 Fed. R. 812. " Sioux City & I). M. Ry. Co. v. Chi- § 18. 1 Blake v. McKim, 103 U. S. 830. cago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. R. 770. •^ Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457 ; Bar- ** Removal Cases, 100 U. S. 457, 468; ney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205; Barter v. Pacific R. R. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 280; Kernochan, 103 U.S. 562; Maryland r. Barney f. Latham, 103 U. S. 205 ; Carson Brtldwin, 112 U. S. 400; Wormley v. Hyatt, 118 U. S. 270,286; Brown v. V. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 421; Taylor r. Murray Nelson & Co., 43 Fed. R. 014; Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 4'J9. See inj'ra, § 51. Anderson v. Bowers, 40 Fed. R. 708. 38 jURisDiCTiox. [chap. I. county officers and holders of county bonds to enjoin payment of the bonds, the defendant officers are presumed to be on the same side of the controversy as the comphiinants.^ When at the time a bill is filed the court has no jurisdiction, jurisdiction cannot subsequently be conferred by an amendment strikinir out a party plaintiff who was properly and necessarily made such at the commencement of the suit;^'^ but in one case the court retained jurisdiction by allowing an amendment which made one of the original plaintiffs a defendant.!^ When they are not indispensable parties, jurisdiction may be retained upon a discontinuance or dismissal as regards defendants who are citi- zens of the same State as the plaintiff.^^ 19, Citizenship. — If there arc no other grounds of jurisdic- tion, the Federal courts do not take cognizance of a controversy between two aliens ; ^ or of one between a citizen of the District of Columbia,^ or a citizen of a Territory, and a citizen of a Statc.^ A suit brought by a State against one of its own citizens, or against a citizen of another State, cannot, independently of other grounds, be maintained in a Federal court.^ If one of the parties sues or is sued as receiver,'^ or as an executor or administrator,^ his own citizenship, not that of those whom he represents, is the test in determining the jurisdiction. When an infant sues by his next friend or special guardian, the citizenship of the infant alone is to be considered." A corjioration is conclusively pre- sumed to be composed of citizens of the State or nation which chartered it, or from wliich it derives its powers.^ A municipal corporation is treated as a citizen of the State within which it i^ situated.'^ The same princiide has been applied at circuit to aa 9 Ilarteri;. Kernochan, 103 U. S. 5G2; Coal Co. r. Blatchfonl, 11 Wall. 172; Anderson v. Bowers, 40 Fed. H. 708. Browne r. Browne, 1 Wash. 429; Harper 1' Anderson r. Watt, i:J8 U. S. 6'.)4. v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., m Fed. K. 102. 11 Conolly V. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556. " Woolridge v. McKenna, 8 Fed. K. 1-2 Beebe v. Louisville, N. O. & T.' K. 650. Co., 3'J Fed. E. 481, 484. ^ Louisville C. & C. K. R. Co. r. Let- §10. 1 Mossman y. llifr^^inson, 4 Dall. son, 2 How. 407 ; Marsliall /•. P.altiniore 12; Rateau v. Bernard, ;} I'.latchf. 244. & O. R. R. Co., 16 How. ;514 ; Muller r. - Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Crancli, 445; Dows, 04 U. S. 446; Steamship Co. r. Wescott i\ Fairfield, Pet. C. C. 45 ; Bar- Tu<,Mnan, 100 U. S. 118. For an able ney >■. Baltimore, 1 Hnglies, 11^. criticism of these rulings, see the address 3 New Orleans r. Winter. 1 Wheat, 01. of Hon. Alfred Russell before tlie Ameri- •1 Alabama v. Wolffe, IS Fed. R. 80(3. can P.nr Association in Aujjust, 1801 (25 ^' Davies c. Lathrop, 12 Fed. R. 353, • American Law Review, 77(), 79.5-803). Farlow v. Lea, 2 C. L. R. 320. -> ° Cowles v. Mercer County, 7 Wall. ^ Bradford v. Williams, 3 How. 570; 118. § !?•] CITIZENSHIP. 39 unincorporated association authorized by statute to sue and be sued under the name of one of its officers. ^'^ A corporation char- tered by two or more States is usually treated for the purposes of jurisdiction as a citizen and resident of that one of them within whose limits the suit is brought ; ^^ but a different rule would seem to apply to a corporation formed by the consolidation of two or more corporations chartered by different States.^- A national bank is deemed a citizen of the State in which it is lo- cated. ^^ The filing of a declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States does not terminate a party's alienage, although he is permitted by the laws of the State of his residence to vote and hold office. ^^ Residence is not conclusive evidence of citizenship. ^5 An exercise of the right of suffrage by a citizen 1^ Fargo V. L. N. A. & C. R. U. Co., 6 Fed. R. 787 ; VVhitnum v. Hubbt4I, 30 Fed. R. 81 ; Maltz i". American Express Co., 3 Central L. J. 784 ; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. IMassacliusetts, 10 Wall. 566. Contra, Dinsniore v. Pliila. & R. Co., 8 Central L. J. 157 ; and see Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677. 11 0. & M. R. R. Co. V. Wheeler, 1 Black, 28(5 ; Hallway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270 ; Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444. See Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 05 ; Graham v. B. H. & E. R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 161 ; Pa. R. R. Co. v. St. L. A. & T. H. U. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290; Nashua & Lowell R. R. Co. v. Boston & Lowell R. R. Co., 136 U. S. 356; Fitzgerald y. IMissouri Pac. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. R. 812 ; Moore «. C. St. P. M. & O. R. R. Co., 21 Fed. R. 817 ; C. St. P. M. & O. R. R. Co. V. Dakota Co., 28 Fed. R. 219 ; Page v. Fall River W. & P. R. Co., 31 Fed. R. 257 ; Johnson v. P. W. & B. R. R. Co., 1 Am. L.J. 457 ; James r. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R. 47 ; Central Trust Co. V. St. Louis & S. T. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R. 551. 12 Nashua & Lowell R. R. Co. v. Boston & Lowell R. R. Co., 13(i U. S. 356. See Paul V. Baltimore & 0. R. R. Co , 44 Fed. R 513. » 24 St. at L. ch. 373, § 4, p. 554 ; First Nat. Bk. V. Forest, 40 Fed. R. 705 : Farm- ers' Nat. Bank v. RIcElhiiiney, 42 Fed. R. 80. See § 17. 1* Lanz r. Randall, 4 Dill. 425; Maloy V. Duden, 25 Fed. R. 073. i'^ Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163, 185 ; Reynolds v. Adden, ]o6 U. S. 348, 352 ; Kemna v. Brockhaus, 5 Fed. R. 762, 763- 764, 766-767 ; per Dyer, J. : — " The general rule ujjon the subject of citizenship is well settled. It is that, 'in order to give jurisdiction to the courts of the United States, the citizenship of tlie party must be founded on a change of domicile, and permanent residence in the State to which he may have removed from another State. Mere residence is prima facie evidence of such change, although when it is e.xplained and shown to have been for temporary purposes, the pre- sumption is destroyed. The intention is to be collected from acts.' Lessee of Butler v. Farnsvvorth, 4 Wash. 101 ; 1 Abbott (U. S.) Pr. 211. 'If a citizen of one State think proper to change his domicile, and to remove himself and family . . . into another State, with a bona Jide intention of abandoning his former place of residence, and to become an inhabitant or resident of the State to which he removes, he becomes, immedi- ately upon such removal, accomi)anied with such intention, a resident citizen of that State within the meaning of the provision of the Constitution rela- tive to the jurisdiction of the fed- eral courts, and may maintain an ac- tion in the Circuit Court of the State which he has abandoned. . . . Time in relation to his new residence, occupation, a sud-. AmlrL'w^, 10 Wall. ;327 ; Krippendorf r. Ilyile, 110 U. S 270; Pacific II. K. of iMo. v. Mo. P. K. R., Ill U. S. 505, 522; Dewey v. W. F. G. C. Co., 123 U. S. .32'J; Gmnbel >: Pitkin, 124 U. 3. 131 ; Seymour v. Phillips & C. Con- struction Co., 7 liiss. 400. But see Christ- mas V. Kussell, 14 Wall. 00. - Miller, J., in Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Comj.any, 2 Wall. COO, 6:^3. 3 Clarke r. Mathcwson; 12 Pet. 104. 4 Morgan La. & T. U. 11. & St. Co. r. Texas Central Ky. Co., 1:17 U. S. 171. See iiifni, § 172. ■'' Dunn r. Clarke. 8 Pot. 1; Freeman V. Iluwe, 24 How. 450, 4G0; Jones v. An- drews, 10 Wall. 327 ; Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276; Johnson v. Chris- tian, 125 U. S. 042. 6 Pacific K. li of Mo. r. Mo. P. P. P., Ill U. S. 505, 522; Foster r. Mansfield, C. & L. M. P. Co., 30 Fed. R. 027. " Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company, 2 Wall. GOO. ** Railroad Companies ;•. Chamberlain, 6 Wall. 748. 9 Rosenbaum v. Council Bluffs Ins Co., 37 Fed. R. 724; Abraham z\ Nortli German F. Ins. Co., 37 Fed. R. 731. 1' Winter r. Swinburne, 8 Fed. Ix. 40. See Provident Savings Society v. Ford, 114 U. S. 035; Mctcaif y. Watertown, 128 U. S. 580; supra, § 17. 11 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. r. Houston & T.-C. r.y. Co., 41 Fed. R. 115. 1- Yeatman r. Bradford, 41 Fed. R. 530. § 21.] ANCILLARY JUrJSDICTlOX. 43 Converscl}', there is a similar limitation upon the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. This is well explained in the following ex- tract from an opinion by Bradley, J. : " The question presented with regard to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is, whether the proceeding to procure nullity of the former judgment in such a case as the present is or is not in its nature a separate suit, or whether it is a sujjplementary proceeding, so connected with the original suit as to form an incident to it, and substantially a con- tinuation of it. If the proceeding is merely tantamount to the common-law practice of moving to set aside a judgment for irreg- ularity, or to a writ of error, or to a bill of review, or an aj)])eal, it would belong to the latter category, and the United States court could not properly entertain jurisdiction of the case. Other- wise, the Circuit Courts of the United States would become in- vested with power to control the proceedings in the State courts, or would have appellate jurisdiction over them in all cases where the parties are citizens of different States. Such a result would be totally inadmissible. On the other hand, if the proceedings are tantamount to a bill in equity to set aside a decree for fraud in the obtaining thereof, then they constitute an original and in- de})cndent proceeding, and according to the doctrine laid down in Gaines v. Fuentes,^'^ the case might be within the cognizance of the Federal courts. The distinction between the two classes of cases may be somewhat nice, but it may be afiirmed to exist. In the one class there would bo a mere revision of errors and irregu- larities, or of the legality and correctness of the judgments and decrees of the State courts ; and in the other class, the investi- gation of a new case arising upon new facts, although having relation to the validity of an actual judgment or decree, or the party's right to claim any Ijeneiit by reason thereof." ^^ Proceed- ings supplementary to execution under the judgment of a State court authorized by State statutes against a judgment debtor or third persons cannot be instituted in or removed to the Federal courts, although a creditor's bill may be.^-^ A petition, after judgment in a State court, by plaintiff in ejectment to have the defendant's damages allowed to him, is a mere incident to the 13 02 U. S. 10. See Arrowsniith v. Poole r. Tliatelierdeft, 10 Fed. R. 49; Gleasnn, 129 U. S. 86. Biiford >■. Strntlier, 3 MeCrary, 253; s. c. » Bnrrow r. Hunton, 99 U. S. 80, 82. 10 Fed. R. 100; Flash v. Dilion, 22 Fed. 15 Webber v. Humphreys, 5 Dill. 223 ; R. 1. 44 JUKISDICTI0J7. [chap. I. ejectment suit, and the Federal courts can take no jurisdiction of it.16 § 22. Limitations upon Jurisdiction by Residence. — The Ju- diciary Act of 18S7 limits the jurisdiction of tlie Circuit Courts of the United States as follows : " But no person sluill be arrested in one district for trial in another in any civil action before a Circuit or District Court; and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant ; but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different States, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant." ^ A decision in the California circuit construed this act as depriving the Circuit Courts of all jurisdiction, whether originally or by removal, over foreign corporations or other persons who are inhabitants of other districts.^ The other Circuit Courts, however, declined to follow this decision; 2 and it was finally overruled by the judges who made it.* The interpretation seems to be established that, when the jurisdiction depends upon the existence of a Federal ques- tion, or because a party is an alien, or upon grounds other than the citizensliip of the parties, the defendant must be sued in the district which lie inhabits ; ^ but when the jurisdiction depends upon the citizensliip of the parties, none of whom are aliens, the suit may be brought in the district in which either the plaintiff or the defendant resides.*^ Whether a corporation can have a residence 15 Chapman v. Barger, 4 Dill. 557. & McCormick H. INI. Co. r. Walthers, § 22. 1 Act of March 3, 1887, § 1, 24 134 U. S. 41, 43; St. Louis V. & II. U. St. at L. 552 ; as amendetl, 25 St. at L. Co. v. Terre Haute & I. K. Co., '.]?, Fer other subject-matter of a fixed character lies partly in one district and partly in another, within the same State, may be brought in the Circuit or District Court of cither district; and the court in which it is brought shall have jurisdic- tion to hear and decide it, and to cause mesne or final process to be issued and executed, as fully as if tlie said subject-matter were wholly within the district for which such court is constituted." ^' Pi'ior to the act of 1887 special statutes regulated in this respect the Federal courts in the districts of Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee.^** 11 Smith r. Lvon, 133 U. S. 315. » 2G St. at L. 209. See Appendi.K. 1-^ Ames r. IIoMfrbaum, 42 I'Vd R. 341. '^ u. S. 11. S., § 740. See infra, § '.(7. lo U. S H. S., § 741. 1^ In re Louisville Underwriters, 134 V U. S. K. S., § 742. U. S. 488. 18 AUib(imo. — 2Z St. at L. 18-19, after § 22.] LIMITATIONS UPON JURISDICTION BY RESIDENCE. 47 Recent statutes also regulate the Federal courts in the north- eastern division of the southern district of Geor<2:ia, and the diviiling the Nortliorn District of Ala- bama into Northern and Soutiifrn Divis- ions, provides : — "§ 4. That all civil suits, not of a local character, which shall be hereafter •brought in the circuit or district court of United States fur the northern district of Alabama, in either of said divisions, against a single defendant, or where all the defendants reside in the same divis- ion of said district, shall be brought in the division in which the defendant or defendants reside ; but if there are two or more defendants, residing in different divisions, such suit may be brought in either division ; and all mesne and final process, subject to the provisions of this act issued in either of said divisions, may be served and executed in either or both of the divisions." Georgia. — 21 St. at L. 62-G3 (1st Supp. U. S. k. S. 507-508), after altering the boundaries of the Southern District of Georgia, and dividing it into Eastern and Western Divisions, provides that : — " § 4. All suits not of a local nature in the circuit and district courts against a single defendant, inhabitant of said State, must be brought in the division of the district where he resides ; but if there are two or more defendants residing in different divisions of tiie district, such suits may be brought in eitlier division. All issues of fact in said suits shall be tried at a term of the court held in the division where the suit is so brouglit. " § 5. Prosecutions for crimes or of- fences hereafter committed in either of the subdivisions shall be cognizable within such division ; and all jirosecu- tions for crimes or offences heretofore committed within eitlier of said coun- ties, taken as aforesaid from the north- ern district, or committed m the southern district as hitherto constituted, shall be commenced and proceeded with as if this act had not been passed. " § 6. Civil actions or proceedings now pending at Savannah in said southern district, which would under this act be brought in the western division of said district, may be transferred, by the con- sent of all the parties, to said western division ; and in case of such transfer, all papers and files therein, with copies of all journal entries, shall be transferred to the deputy clerk's office at Macon, and the same shall be proceeded with in all respects as though it was originally commenced in the western division. " § 7. In all cases of removal of suits fron) the courts of the State of Georgia to the courts of the United States in the southern district of Georgia, such removal shall be to the United States courts in the division in which the county is situ- ated from which the removal is made ; and the time within which the removal shall be perfected, in so far as it refers to, or is regulated by, the terms of the United States courts, shall be deemed to refer to the terms of the United States courts in stich division. " § 8. All grand and petit jurors sum- moned for service in each division shall be residents of such division. All mesne and final process, subject to the pro- visions hereinbefore contained, issued in either of said divisions, may be served and executed in either or both of the divisions." Indiana. — U. S. R. S. § 743. '• In the district of Indiana all actions of which the circuit and district courts have juris- diction may be instituted in said courts, respectively, held at New Albany and Evansville, in the first instance, by filing the proper pleadings or other papers in the offices of the deputy clerks perform- ing the duties of clerks of said courts respectively , and all proper and lawful process shall issue therefrom in the same manner as from other circuit and district courts in like cases." lou-a. — U. S. K. S. § 744. " In the dis- trict of Iowa all suits not of a local nature in the district court against a single de- fendant, inhabitant of such State, must be brought in the division of the district where he resides ; hut if there are two or more defendants, residing in different di- visions of the district, such suits may be brought in either division, and duphcate writs may be sent to the other defend- 48 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. districts of Kansa.s, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Dakota^ South Dakota, and Washington. ^^ ants. The clerk issuing the duplicate writ sliall indorse tliereon that it is a true copy of a writ sued out of tlie court in the proper division of tlie district ; and the original and duplicate writs, when executed and returned into the office from which they issue, shall constitute and be proceeded in as one suit. All issues of fact in such suits shall be tried at a term of the court held in the division where the suit is so brought." 21 St. at L. 155 (1 Supp. U. S. R. S. 536) : " § 1. That the circuit court of the United States in and for the district of Iowa shall hereafter be held at the times and places provided by law for lioUling the United States district court in and for said district. Causes removed from any court of the State of Iowa into said circuit court within said district shall be removed to the circuit court in the di- vision in which such State court is held, unless the parties thereto shall otherwise agree, or the court, for good cause, shall otherwise order. " § 2. That all civil suits not of a I'ocal nature which shall be hereafter brought in the circuit or district court of the United States in said district must be brought in the division of the district 1^ The act creating the northeastern division of the southern district of Geonjia provides that " all civil suits not of a local nature must be brought in said northeast- ern division, where the defendant resides in said northeastern division of the South- ern Federal judicial district of Georgia. But if there are two or more defendants, some residing in the northeastern division and others residing in any other portion of said southern district of Georgia, the action may be brought in any one of the divisions in which any one of the defend- ants resides. When the defendant is a non-resident of either division, action may, if plaintiff is a citizen of the district, be brouglit in that division where the de- fendant may be found. Cases removed from any of the courts of the State of Georgia to the circuit courts of the United States shall be removed to the circuit where the defendant or defendants re- side ; but if there are two or more de- fendants residing in different divisions, the plaintiff may sue in either one of the divisions in which a defendant resides. All issues of fact triable in either of said courts shall be tried in the division where the defendant or one of the defentlants resides, unless by consent of both parties the case shall be removed to some other division. Where the defendant is a non- resident of the district, suit may be brought in any division where property or the defendant is found." Keutucki/. — U. S. R. S. § 745. " In the district of Kentucky the clerks of the cir- cuit and district courts, respectively, u{)on issuing original process in a civil action, shall make it returnable to the court nearest to the county of the residence of the defendant, or of that defendant whose count}- is nearest a court, if he have in- formation sufficient, and shall immedi- ately, upon payment by the plaintiff of his fees accrued, send the papers filed to the clerk of the court to which the process is made returnable; and when- ever the process is not thus made return- able, any defendant may, upon motion, on or before the calling of the cause, court in tlie division in which said court is held." 25 St. at L. ch. 168, p. 671. The act dividing the district of Kansas provides " that all civil suits not of a lo- cal character which shall be hereafter brought in either of said divisions against a single defendant, or where all the de- fendants reside in the same division of said district, shall be brought in the division in wdiich the defendant or de- fendants reside ; but if there are two or more defendants residing in different divisions, such suit may be brought in either division, and all mesne and final process subject to the provisions of this act, issued in either of said divisions, may be served and executed in either or both of the divisions." 20 St. at L. ch. 403, § 2, p. 129. -■The act creating the Owensborough division of the district of Kentucky pro- § 23.] CIRCUIT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 49 § 23. Special Limitation upon Jurisdiction of Circuit Court for Southern District of New York. — The Revised Statutes provide have it transferred to the court to which it should have been sent had tiie clerk known the residence of tiie defendant when the action was brought." Michigan. — 20 St. at L. 175 (1 Supp. U. S. K. S. 375) : " § 1. That tiie coun- ties of Cliippewa, Schoolcraft, Marquette, Houghton, Keweenaw, Ontonagon, Isle Koyale, Baraga, and Mackinaw, being and including all that portion of tlie territory and waters of said eastern dis- trict lying in the upper peninsula of Michigan, be, and the same are hereby detached from the eastern judicial dis- trict of Michigan, and attached to the western judicial district of said State. " § 2. That for the trial and determi- nation of all causes and proceedings cog- nizable and triable in the circuit and district courts of the United States for tiie western district of Michigan as bounded and described in this act, the said district shall consist of two divisions known respectively as the southern and nortliern divisions of said district. The southern division shall comprise all that jiortion of said district lying and being in tlie lower peninsula of said State, and tlie northern division of said district shall comprise all the territory and waters of vidcs th.Tt " where one or more defendants in any civil cause sliall reside in said division, and one or more defendants to such cause shall reside out of said division but in said district, tlien the plaintiff may institute his action either in tlie court having jurisdiction over the latter or in said rm'ision." 25 St. at L. cli. 7'J2, § 2, p.3n*f; 5 J Tli^ac!^ dWiding tl:e eastern district of LoHisi(mt into two divisions provides, " thaftf 4Cicrft lie more tlian one defend- ant aJJ?! tftipy rt^ide in different divisions of the. diaries tlie plaintid may sue in eitheM^li\^ioS and send diijilicale writ or writ^ 10 tlui other defendants, and the said iE-it^ wBcn executed and returned into tlie mmn from which tliey issued, shall ggnstitute one suit and be proceeded in accordingly" (25 St. at L. ch. 809, § 3, p. 438); "that all causes triable in VOL. I. — 4 the entire upper peninsula of said State ; and there shall be two regular terms of the circuit and district courts begun and held in each of the divisions of said western district annually. The regular terms of the circuit and district courts in said southern division shall be iield at the city of Grand liapids, commencing on the first Tuesdays of Marcli and Octo- ber in each year. The regular terms of the circuit and district courts in said nortliern division shall be held at the city of Marquette, commencing upon the first Tuesdays of May and September in each year. And all issues of fact shall be tried at the terms of said courts to be held in tlie division where sucli suits shall liereafter be commenced ; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the said circuit and district courts from regulat- ing by general rule the venue of transi- tory actions, either at law or in equity, and from changing the same for cause. " § 3. That all suits and proceedings hereafter to be brought in the said cir- cuit or district courts not of a local na- ture shall be brought in a court of the division of the district where the defend- ant resides. But if there be more than one defendant, and they reside in different either of the courts of said eastern dis- trict shall be tried in me division to which the process is returnable under the provisions of this act, unless by consent of all parties the cause be removed to some other division of said district." 25 St. at L. ch. 809, § 4, p. 438. " Causes removed from any court of the State of Louisiana in the circuit court of the United States within said eastern district shall be removed to the circuit court in the division in which such State court is held." 25 St. at L. ch. 8G9, § 8, p. 438. The act dividing the western district of Louisiana into two divisions provides, " that if there be more tiian one defend- ant and they reside in different divisions of the district, the plaintiff may sue in either division, and send duplicate writ or writs to the other defendants ; and the said writs, when executed and re- 50 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. that " the original jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the South- ern District of New York shall not be construed to extend to divisions of tlie district, tlie plaintiff may sue in either divisions and send duplicate writ or writs to tlie otlier defendants, on which the plaintiff or his attorney shall enilorse that the writ thus sent is a copy of a writ sued out of a court of the proper division of the said district; and the said writs, when executed and returned into the ofBce from wliich they issued, shall constitute one suit, and be proceeded in accordingly. " § 4. The clerk of the circuit and district courts for the western division of Michigan shall reside and keep his office at Grand Eapids, and sliall also appoint a deputy clerk for said courts held at Marquette, who shall reside and keep his office at that place ; and said deputy clerk shall keep in his office full records of all actions and proceedings in the said circuit and district courts for the northern division of said district held at that place, and shall liave the same power to issue all processes from the said courts and perform any other duty that is or may be given to the clerks of other cir- cuit and district courts in like cases. " § 0. That the district attorney and marshal of the said western district of Michigan shall respectively perform the duties of district attorney and marshal for the southern and northern divisions of said district as established by this act. The marshal of said district shall keep an office and a deputy marshal at ]\[arquette in the northern division of said district. " § 6. Any person charged with violat- ing any of the penal or criminal statutes of the United States of which the said circuit or district courts have jurisdiction, shall be proceeded against by indictment or otherwise, within the division of said district where the alleged ofTence or of- fences shall be committed, and shall have his or her trial at a term of the said court held in said division, unless for cause shown, the judge shall otherwise direct ; and one grand and one petit jury only shall be summoned, and serve in both said courts at each term thereof ; and jurors shall be selected and drawn from the di- vision of the said district in which they reside and in which the terms of the said' circuit and district courts to which they are summoned are held. " § 7. This act shall not affect or in any wise interfere with causes of action now pending in the circuit and district courts for the eastern district of Michi- gan, but the same may be proceeded with turned into the court from which they issued, shall constitute one suit and be proceeded in accordingly." 2-5 St. at L. ch. 789, § 2, p. 388. "^' That all causes triable in either of the courts of said western district, shall be tried in the di- vision to which the process is returnable under the provisions of this act, unless, by consent of all parties, the cause be removed to some other division of said district." 25 St. at L. ch. 389, § 3, p. ."88. " That causes removed from any court of the State of Louisiana into the circuit court of the United States within said western district, shall be removed to the circuit court in the division in which sucli State court is held." 25 St. at L. ch. 789, § 7, p. .",88. The act dividing the district of Minne- sota into six divisions provides, "that^ causes removed from any court In the State of ^Minnesota into the circuit court shall be removed to the circuit court in the division in whicii said State court is held, and all civil suits not of a local nature must be brought in the division where the defendant or defendants re- side ; but if there are two or more de- fendants residing in different divisions, the action may be brouglit in an}' divis- ion in which a defendant resides ; that all civil process from the circuit and dis- trict courts of the United States for said district of Minnesota against defendants residing or found therein shall be re- turned to the place appointed for the holding of said courts in the division where such defendant resides; that if there be more than one defendant, and they reside in different divisions of the district, the plaintiff may sue in either division, and send duplicate writ or writs § 23.] CIECUIT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 51 causes of action arising within the Northern District of said State." ^ This does not exchidc from tlie jurisdiction of the court in the same manner as thoujjli this act had not been passed : Provided, liowever, Tliat upon cause shown, the circuit and district courts for tlie eastern district may transfer civil causes arising in tliat por- tion of said district detaclied therefrom by this act to the circuit and district courts for tlie northern division of the western district of jVIichigan, provided for in this act. Tiie circuit and district courts for the eastern district of Michi- gan shall continue to have the same juris- diction in reference to all crimes and offences committed prior to the passage of this act in any portion of the State of ^Michigan by this act detached from said eastern district and attached to said west- ern district. "§ 8. All provisions of law in conflict with this act are hereby repealed. " § 9. There shall be one or more terms of the district court for the eastern district of Michigan, hehl annually at the United States court room in the city of Port Huron in said district, in the dis- cretion of tlie judge of said district court, and at such times as he shall appoint therefor." Missouri. — 20 St. at L. 263 (1 Supp. U. S. K. S. 393) : " § 1. The western dis- to the other defendants, and the said writs, when executed and returned into the court from which they issued, shall constitute one suit and be proceeded in accordingly." 2G St. at L. ch. 167, § 2, p. 72. The act dividing the district of North Dakota provides, " that all civil suits not of a local character now pending, or which shall be brought in the district or circuit courts of the United States for the district of North Dakota in either of the said divisions against a single defend- ant, or where all the defendants reside in the same divisions of said district, shall be bronglit in the division in whicli tlie defendant or defendants reside, or if there are two or more defendants resid- ing in different divisions, such suit may trict of Missouri is hereby divided into two divisions, which sliall be known as the eastern and western divisions of the western district of Missouri. The western division shall include the counties of An- drew, Atchison, Barton, Hates, Buclianan, Caldwell, Carroll, Cass, Chariton, Clay, Clinton, Daviess, De Kiilb, (Jentry, Grun- dy, Harrison, Ilolt, Jackson, Jasjier, La Fayette, Linn, Livingston, Mercer, Noda- way, Platte, Putnam, Hay, Saline, Sulli- van, Vernon, and Worth ; and a term of the district court and circuit of the United States for said district shall be held therein at the City of Kansas on the third Monday in May and the third Monday in October of each year. Tiie remaining counties embraced in said dis- trict shall constitute the eastern division thereof, and the terms of the district and circuit courts of the United States for said district shall be held therein at the times and place now prescribed by law. " § 2. All offences hereafter com- mitted in either of said divisions shall be cognizable and indictable within the di- vision where committed ; and all grand and petit jurors summoned for service in each division shall be inhabitants thereof. And all offences heretofore committed be brought in either division, and all mesne and final process subject to tiie provisions of this act, issued in either of said divisions, may be served and exe- cuted in either or all of said divisions. All issues of fact in civil causes triable in any of the said courts shall be tried in the division where the defendant or one of the defendants reside, unless by con- sent of both parties the case shall be removed to some other division." '26 St. at L. ch. 161, §4, p. 08. The act dividing the district of South Dakota provides, " that all civil suits not of a local nature must be brought in the division of the district where the defend- ant or defendants reside; but if there are two or more defendants residing in differ- ent divisions, the action may be brought § 23. 1 U. S. R. S. § G57. 52 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. causes of action that arise without the State.^ It has been lield that this forbids the issue by that court of an injunction to pre- witliin said district shall be prosecuted and tried as if this act had not passed. " § ?>. All civil suits not of a local char- acter which shall be hereafter brought in tlie district or circuit courts of tlie United States for the western district of Missouri in eitlier of said divisions, against a single defendant, or wliere all the defendants reside in the same division of said dis- trict, shall be brought in the division in which the defendant or defendants re- side; but if tliere are two or more de- fendants residing in different divisions, such suit may be brought in either di- vision, and all mesne and final process subject to the provisions of this act, issued in eitlier of said divisions, mny be served and executed in either or both of the divisions. " § 4. Tlie clerks of the circuit and district courts for said district shall each appoint a deputy clerk at the place where their respective courts are required to be held, in the division, of the district in whicii such clerk shall not himself reside, each of whom shall, in the absence of the clerk, e.vercise all the powers and per- form all the duties of clerk within the division for which he shall be appointed ; Provided, That the appointment of such deputies shall be approved by the court for which they shall be respectively ap- pointed, and may be annulled by such court at its pleasure. And tlie clerk shall be responsible for the official acts and neglects of all such deputies. "§ 5. All civil suits and proceedings now pending in the circuit or district court of said western district of Missouri, and which would, if instituted after the passage of this act, be required to be brouglit in the western division of said district, may be transferred, b}' consent of all the parties, to said western division of said district, and tliere disposed of in the same manner and with like effect as if the same had been there instituted ; And all process, writs, and recognizances relating to such suits and proceedings so transferred sliall be considered as belong- ing to tiie term of the court in the western division of said district, in the same man- ner and with like effect as if they had been issued or taken in reference thereto originally." Ohio. — 20 St. at L. 101 (1 Supp. U. S. R. S. 338) : " § 1. That a term of the cir- cuit court and district court for the north- ern district of Ohio shall be held at Toledo, in said State, on the first Tues- day of the months of June and December in each year; and one grand jury and one petit jury only shall be summoned, and serve in both of said courts at each term thereof. And the existing provis- ions of law fixing the times of holding the district court at Toledo are hereby rejiealcd. " § 2. Said northern district shall be, and hereby is, divided into two divisions, to be known as the eastern and the west- ern division of the northern district of in either of the divisions in which a de- fendant resides." 2G St. at L. ch. 21, § 4, p. 14. The act dividing the district of Wash- infilnn ])rovides, "that all civil siiits not of a local character which shall be brought in the district or circuit courts of the United States for the district of Washington in eitlier of the said divis- ions against a single defendant, or whore all the defendants reside in the same di- vision of said district, sliall be brought in the division in which the defendant or defendants reside, or if there are two or more defendants residing in different di- visions, such suit may be brought in either division, and all mesne and final process subject to the provisions of this act, issued in either of said divisions, may be served and executed in eitlier or all of said divisions. All issues of fact in civil causes triable in any of the said courts shall be tried in the division where the defendant or one of the defendants reside, unless bj' consent of both parties the case shall be removed to some other division." 20 St. at L. ch. 05, § 4, p. 45. § 23. 2 Wheeler v. McCormick, 8 Dlatchf. 268. § 23.] CIRCUIT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 53 vent the infringement of a patent when the sole previous cases of infrino-eiuent occurred in the northern district of New Yorlv.^ Oliio. The western division shall con- sist of twenty-four counties, to wit ; Wil- liams, Defiance, Paulding, Van Wert, Mercer, Auglaize, Allen, Putnam, Henry, Fulton, Lucas, Wood, Hancock, Hardin, Logan, Union, Delaware, Marion, Wy- andot, Seneca, Sandusky, Ottawa, Erie, and Huron ; and the eastern division shall consist of the remaining counties in said district. But no additional clerk or mar- shal shall be appointed in said district. " § 3. All suits not of a local nature in tiie circuit and district courts, against a single defendant, inhabitant of such State, must be brought in the division of the district where he resides ; but if there are two or more defendants, residing in different divisions of the district, such suits may be brought in either division. All issues of fact in such suits shall be tried at a term of the court held in the division where the suit is so brought." " § 6. ... All mesne and final process, subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, issueil in eitiier of said divis- ions, may be served and executed in either or both of the divisions. . . ." 21 St. at L. 63 (1 Supp. U. S. R. S. 508, 509) • " § 1. That the counties of Union, Delaware, Morrow, Knox, Cos- hocton, Harrison, and Jefferson, hereto- fore composing a part of the northern district of Ohio, be transferred to, and henceforth form a part of, the southern district of Ohio. " § 2. A term of the circuit court and of the district court for the southern dis- trict of Ohio shall be held at Columbus in said State on the first Tuesday of the months of June and December in each year. "§3. Said southern district shall be, and hereby is, divided into two divisions, to be known as the eastern and the west- ern division of the southern district of Oliio. The eastern division shall consist of twenty-nine counties, to wit: Union, Delaware, Morrow, Knox, Coshocton, Harrison, Jefferson, Madison, Fayette, Franklin, Pickaway, Ross, Pike, Gallia, Jackson, Meigs, Vinton, Athens, Hock- ing, Fairfield, Licking, Perrj-, Muskin- gum, Morgan, Washington, Noble, Mon- roe, Belmont, and Guernsey; and the western division shall consist of the re- maining counties in said district. But no additional clerk or marshal shall be ap- pointed in said district. " § 4. All suits not of a local nature in the circuit and district courts against a single defendant, inhabitant of said State, must be brought in the division of the district where he resides ; but if there are two or more defendants residing in different divisions of the district, such suits may be brought in either division. All issues of fact in said suits shall be tried at a term of the court held in the division where the suit is so brought." " § 7. ... All mesne and final process subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained issued in either of said di- visions may be served and executed in either or both of the divisions. " § 8. In all cases of removal of suits from the courts of the State of Ohio to the courts of the United States in tlie southern district of Ohio, such removal shall be to the United States courts in the division in which the county is situ- ated from whicii the removal is made ; and the time within which the removal shall be i)erfected, in so far as it refers to or is regulated by the terms of the United States courts, shall be deemed to refer to tiie terms of the United States courts in such division." Tennessee. — 21 St. at L. 751 (1 Supp. U. S. R. S. 548) : " § 1. That tiie county of Grundy, heretofore composing a part of the middle district of Tennessee, be transferred to, and henceforth form a part of, the eastern district of Tennessee. "§2. A term of the circuit court and of the district court for the eastern dis- trict of Tennessee siiall be held at Chat- tanooga in said State in each year on the first Mondays of April and October, after the passage of this act. " § 3. Said eastern district shall be 8 Black V. Thorne, 10 Blatchf . 60. 54 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. § 24. Suits by Assignees. — The statutes further limit the juris- diction of the courts of the United States hy providing that no Circuit or District Court shall " have cognizance of any suit, except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder, if such instrument be pay- able to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made." ^ A check is a bill of exchange.^ A draft drawn in one on another of the United States is a foreign bill of exchange.^ A promissory note payable " to the order of " is equivalent to a promissory note payable to bearer.^ A bill of exchange drawn by a coi'poration in favor of itself and by it indorsed in blank is payable to bearer and hereby is divided into two divisions, to be known as tlie nortliern and southern divisions of the eastern district of Ten- nessee ; the soutliern division sliali con- sist of the following counties, to wit : Hamilton, James, Polk, McMinn, Brad- ley, Meigs, Rliea, Marion, Sequatchie, Bledsoe, Grundy, and Cumberland, and the northern division shall consist of the remaining counties in said district. But no additional clerk or marshal shall be appointed in said district. " § 4. That the clerks of the district and circuit courts for the eastern district of Tennessee, and the marshal and dis- trict attorney for said district, shall per- form the duties appertaining to their offices respectively for said courts. And tl)e said clerks and marshals sliall each api)oint a deputy to reside and keep their offices in the city of Chattanooga, and who shall, in the absence of tlieir jirin- cipals, do and perform all the duties appertaining to their offices respectively. " § 5. All suits not of a local nature in the circuit and district courts against a single defendant, inhabitant of said State, must be brought in the division of the district where he resides ; but if there are two or more defendants residing in different divisions of the district, such suits may be brought in either division. All issues of fact in said suits shall be tried at a term of the court held in the division wiiere the suit is so brought." "§7. ... All mesne and final process subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, issued in either of said di- visions, may be served and executed in either or both of the divisions. " § 8. In all cases of removal of suits from the courts of the State of Ten- nessee to the courts of the United States in the eastern district of Tennessee, such removal shall be to the United States courts in the division in which the county is situated from which the removal is made; and the time within which the removal siiall be perfected, in so far as it refers to or is regulated by the terms of the United Stat?s courts, shall be deemed to refer to the terms of the United States courts in such division. " § 9. That each of said courts shall be held in a building to be provided for that purpose by the State or municijial authorities and witliout expense to tlie United States. " § 10. This act shall be in force from and after the first day of July anno Domini eif^hteen hundred and eighty ; and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed." § 24. 1 Act of March 3, 1887, § 1 ; 24 St. at L. 5.52. 2 Bull V. Bank of Kasson, 123 U. S. 105. •! Buckncr >: Finley, 2 Pet. 586, 503. s4 Steel V. Ratiiburn, 42 Fed. It 390. § 24] SUITS BY ASSIGNEES. 55 within the meaning of the statute.^ A county is a corporation within the meaning of the statute.^ The hokler of a draft wliich has been accepted by the drawee, who is a citizen of a different State from liimself, can sue the latter in the Federal court, irre- spective of the citizenship of the drawer. ^ It has been said that " the clause ' if such instrument be payable to bearer, and not made by any corporation ' operates as an exception to the general rule, and gives the Federal courts jurisdiction of those suits by assignees, where the action is founded on an obligation made by a corporation, that is payable to bearer, and is negotiable by mere delivery ; " ^ and that " the exceptions, aside from suits on foreign bills of exchange, are limited to suits on promissory notes and other choses in action, where the demand sought to be enforced is represented by an instrument in writing, payable to bearer and not made by a corporation, the words following the designation of ehoses in action indicating the manner in which they are to be shown, they must be such as arise upon contracts of the original parties." ^ The phrase " suit to recover the con- tents of a chose in action " includes suits to recover debts, or any claims for damages for breach of contract, or for torts connected with contract.^*^ The phrase also includes suits to foreclose mort- gages,^^ and to enfoi'ce the specific performance of contracts.-'-^ Such is an action to recover upon a contract of insurance and for a reformation of the policy.^^ The phrase does not include a suit of replevin ^'^ or ejectment,^^ or otherwise brought to recover prop- erty taken by the defendant before the assignment of the title to the plaintiff ; ^^ nor a suit to recover damages for the conversion of personal property ; ^' nor a suit in equity to compel the transfer of stock on the books of a corporation ;^^ nor a suit upon a judg- ^ Bank of British N. A. v. Barling, 46 143; Corbin v. County of Black Hawk, Fed. R. 357. 105 U. S. G59, G65, 666. 6 Rollins V. Ciiaffee County, .34 Fed. " Sheldon v. Gill, 8 How 441. R. 91 ; Wilson v. Kno.\ County, 43 Fed. i- Corbin v. County of Black Hawk, R. 481. 105 U. S. 059, 605 ; Slioecraft v. Bloxiiam, 7 Superior City r. Ripley, 138 U. S. 93. 124 U. S. 7.30 8 Mr. Justice Miller in Wilson v. Knox i^ Laird v. Indemnity Mat. Ma. Co., 44 County, 48 Fed. R. 481, 482. Fed. R. 712. ° Mr. Justice Field in Ambler v. Ep- i^ Deshler v. Dodge, 16 How. 622, 031. pinger, 137 U. S. 480, 482. is Smith v. Kernochen, 7 How. 198. 10 Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. .387 ; i« Gest ;•. Packwood, 39 Fed. R. 525. 390; Sere r. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332, 335, i' Ambler v. Eppinger, 137 U. S. 480. 336; Sheldon v. Gill, 8 How. 441, 449, is j^wctt u. Bradford S. B. Tr. Co., 45 4.50; Tredway v. Sanger, 107 U. S. 823, Fed. R. 801. 325; Mersman v. Werges, 112 U. S. 139, 56 JUEISDICTIOX. [CIIAP. I. ment, though the suit in which the judgment was recovered could not have been brought in a Federal court.^^ It has been held that the assignee of a judgment cannot sue in a Federal court to enforce it unless his assignor could have sued there.^*^ It has been suggested that the restriction applies only to contracts " which may be properly said to have contents," not to " mere naked rights of action founded on some wrongful act, — some neglect of duty to which the law attaches damages," such as a faihire to protest a note; but to ''rights of action founded on contracts whicli contain within themselves some promise or duty to be performed." 21 It has been held that an indorsee, who is a citizen of the same State as the maker of the note, may sue his immediate indorser in a Federal court, if tliat indorser be a citi- zen of a different State; 22 but that when, in a suit against a remote indorser the plaintiff derives his title through a citizen of the same State as the defendant, there is no jurisdiction, on account of the difference of citizenship between the latter and the plaintiff; 23 and that the person who has advanced money upon an accommodation note can sue the maker, if a citizen of a different State, in a Federal court, although the indorser is a citi- zen of the same State.^^ Assignees in insolvency ^^ are included within this restriction; but receivers ^^ and executors and ad- ministrators 2' are not. A party who claims by subrogation is not within this restriction.^^ It, has been held that the restriction does not apply when the only reason why the assignor could not have sued was that his claim was less in value than the jurisdic- tional amount.2'^ Tlic assignee must aver in his pleading that his assignor might have sued in the Federal court.^^ " Bean r. Sinitli, 2 Mason, 252, 269; 4 Dall. 8; MoUan i-. Torrance, 9 Wheat. Ober n. Gallaglier, 93 U. S. 199, 206. But 537, 538. see MetL-alf r. Watertown, 128 U. S, 586 ; 24 Goldsmith >: Holmes, 36 Fed. R. Mississi[>pi Mills v. Cohn, 39 Fed. K. 484. 865. -5 Sjre v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332, 336. ■^> Motcalf r. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586; -'' Davies i: Latlirop, 12 Fed. K. 353. Mississippi .Mills v. Colin, 39 Fed. R. 865. 27 g^re v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332, 336; -1 Barney o. Globe Hank, 5 Blatcb 107. Chappodelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch, See, however, Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 306 ; Cliildras v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 642. Wall. 387, 391 ; Ambler v. Eppinger, 137 ** New Orleans c. Gaines' Administra- U. S. 480, 483. tor, 138 U. S. 595, 606. 2- Young V. Bryan, 6 Wheat. 146; -'J Bernheim v. Birnbaum, 30 Fed. R. Manufacturing Co. v. Bradley, 105 U. S. 885, 887. See also Hammond v. Cleave 175. la.^^i, 23 Fed. R. 1. 23 Turner r. Bank of North America, ^j Parker v. Ormsby, 141 U. S. 81. § 25.] JURISDICTION OF THE LISTrJCT COURTS. 57 § 25. Jurisdiction of the District Courts of the United States. — The jurisdiction of the District Courts of the United States in civil causes extends to suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under any law of the United States, including the contract labor law ; 1 suits at common law brought by the United States or any ol'licer thereof authorized by law to sue, including a receiver of a national banking association appointed by the comptroller ; ^ suits in equity to enforce the lien of the United States u])on any real estate for any internal revenue tax, or to subject to the payment of any such tax any real estate owned by the delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or interest ; suits for the recovery of any forfeiture or damages under Section 3490 of the Revised Statutes ; causes of action arising under the postal laws of the United States ; civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdic- tion, and all seizures on land and water not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ; prizes on land and water ; suits brought by the assignees of debentures for drawback of duties to enforce such debentures ; all suits under the civil rights laws ; suits to recover possession of any ofiice except that of presidential elector, or a legislative office, wherein the sole question touching the title to such office arises out of the denial of the right of a citizen to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; pro- ceedings by quo loarranto, prosecuted by a district attorney of the United States, for the removal from office of a person dis- qualified by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution ; suits by aliens for torts only in violation of the law of nations or of a treaty of the United States ; suits against consuls or vice-consuls ; and all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy ; ^ suits against the United States to collect claims not exceeding one thousand dollars for money only, founded upon the Constitu- tion of the United States or on any law of Congress, except for pensions, or upon any contract expressed or imjilied. with the government of the United States, or for damages, li(}uidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort, in respect of which claims the plaintiff would be entitled to redress against the United States in a court of law, equity or admiralty, if the United States were suable, except war claims which, before March 3, § 25. 1 United States v. Wliitcomb 3 u. S. R. S. § 503. See United States M. B. Co., 45 Fed. R. 8'J. v. Mooney, 110 U. S. 104. ^ Stephens v. Bernays, 44 Fed. R. G42. 58 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. 1887, were rejected or reported on adversely by any court, de- partment, or commission authorized to hear and determine the same ; ^ and proceeding's to condemn for national public purposes land situated within their respective districts.^ § 26. Territorial Jurisdiction and Terras of the Supreme Court, Circuit Courts of Appeal^ Circuit and District Courts of the United States. — The Supreme Court has jurisdiction throughout the United States. It holds one term annually at Washington, com- mencing on the second Monday of October.^ It may also hold adjourned and special terms.^ In case of a contagious or epi- demic disease, a term may be held at another place.^ The territorial jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of Appeal is as follows : The first circuit includes the districts of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine.* The sec- ond circuit includes the districts of Vermont, Connecticut, and New York.° The third circuit includes the districts of Penn- sylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.^ The fourth circuit in- cludes the districts of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.'' The fifth circuit includes the districts of Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.*^ The sixth circuit includes the districts of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.^ The seventh circuit in- cludes the districts of Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.^^ The eighth circuit includes the districts of Colorado, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.^! The ninth circuit includes the districts of Alaska, Arizona, Cali- fornia, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.i^ The term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the first circuit is held annually in the city of Boston on the first Tuesday of Octobei- ; the term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the second circuit is held annually in the city of New York on the last Tuesday of i 24 St. at L. 505 ; United States v. » U. S. R. S. § 004. Jones, 131 U. S. 1. « U. S. 11. S. § 604. 5 25 St. at L. ch. 728, p. 357. See !» U. S. K. S. § G04. infra, § 381. n U. S. K. S. § G04 ; 25 St. at L. ch. § 20. 1 U. S. R. S. § G84. 180, § 21 ; 139 U. S. 707 ; 20 St. at L. ch. 2 U. S. R. S. §§ 084-680. 517, § 15, p. 830. 3 U. S. R. S. § 4799. i-i U. S. R. S. § 004; 25 St. at L. ch. « U. S. R. S. § 004. 180, § 21 ; 26 St. at L. cli. 517, § 15, 6 U. S. R. S. § 604. p. 830 ; 189 U. S. 707 ; 26 St. at L. ch. 656, 6 U. S. R. S. § 004. § 16, p. 217. V U. S. R. S. § 004. § 26.] DISTPJCTS OF ALABAMA. 59 October ; the term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the tliird circuit is held annually in the city of Philadelphia on the third Tuesday of March and tlic third Tuesday of Sci)tcmber ; the term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the fourth circuit is held annually in the city of Richmond, on the Tuesday after the first Monday of February ; the term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit is held annually in the city of New Orleans on tlie third Monday of November ; the term of the Cir- cuit Court of Appeals for the sixth circuit is held annually in the city of Cincinnati on the first Monday of October ; the term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the seventh circuit is held annu- ally in the city of Chicago on the first Monday of October ; the term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the eighth circuit is held annually in the city of St. Louis on the second Monday of Octo- ber ; the term of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the ninth cir- cuit is held annually in the city of San Francisco on the first Monday of October. There is a Circuit Court in each judicial district of the United Statcs.13 When one term begins the preceding term ends, unless it was the evident intention of the statutes that the two terms should be concurrent in whole or in part.^^ There is a District Court in each judicial district of the United States. The judicial districts and the terms of the Circuit and District Courts held therein are as follows : — In Alabama, three districts, — the Southern, Middle, and North- ern. The Southern District of Alabama includes the counties of Mobile, Washington, Baldwin, Clarke, Marengo, Wilcox, Monroe, and Conecuh. 1^ The terms for this district of both the Circuit and District Courts are held at the city of Mobile on the fourth Monday of Novcmlicr and the first Monday in May.^*^ A Circuit and a District Court for the Middle District of Alabama are held at the city of Montgomer}'. Tliis includes the counties of j\Iont- gomery, Autauga, Coosa, Tallapoosa, Chaml)ers, Randolph, Ma- con, Russell, Barbour, Pike, Henry, Dale, Coffee, Covington, Lowndes, Dallas, Perry, and Butler. The terms of the Cii'cuit 13 U. S. R. S. § 008 ; 18 St. at L. 195 ; is u. S. R. S. §§ 532, 608 ; Act of June 25 St. at L. ch. il;], p. G55 ; lib St. at L. 22, 1874, cli. 401, § 5; 18 St. at L. 195; ch. 180, p. 682. U. S. R. S. 1st Siipp. pp. 87, 88; Act of i-* Ex- parte Friday, 43 Fed. R. 91G, May 2, 1884, cli. 38 ; 23 St. at L. 18. 918. i^ 26 St. at L. 180. 60 JUKISDICTION. [chap. I. and District Courts for this district are hel at the city of Mont- gomery on the first Mondays of May and November.^'' There is a Circuit and a District Court for tlie Northern Dis- trict, which includes the remainder of the State. This district is divided into two divisions. The Southern Division of the Northern District contains the counties of Sumter, Greene, Hale, Pickens, Tuscaloosa, Lamar, Fayette, Walker, Jefferson, Blount, Bibb, Shelby, Saint Clair, Eto- wah, Calhoun, Cleburne, Clay, Talladega, Cherokee, and De Kalb, in which the court is held at Birmingham.^^ In this division of the Northern District, terms of both Circuit and District Courts are held at the city of Birmingham on the first Mondays of March and September.!^ The Northern Division of the Northern District includes the remaining counties in it, and both the Circuit and District Courts are held in this division at the city of Huntsville on the first Monday of April and the second Monday of October.^o In Arkansas, two districts, — the Eastern and Western. The Western District of Arkansas includes the counties of Benton, Washington, Crawford, Sebastian, Scott, Polk, Montgomery, Yell, Logan, Franklin, Johnson, Madison, Newton, Carroll, Boone, and Marion, and formerly included " what is known as the Indian Territory." Terms of the Circuit and District Courts are held at Fort Smith on the first Mondays in February, May, August, and November.'-^^ The Eastern District includes the residue of the State,^^ and is divided into Eastern and Western Divisions. The Eastern Divis- ion of the Eastern District consists of the counties of Mississippi, Crittenden, Lee, Phillips, Clay, Craighead, Poinsett, Greene, Cross, " U. S. K. S. §§ 532, 608 ; Act of June 1st Supp. 262; 24 St. at L. ch. 422, p. 83; 22, 1874, cli. 401, § G, supra; Act of May 25 St. at L. ch. 118, p. 055. P'or special 2, 1884, cli. 38, supin. jurisdiction of tlie courts iieUl in tiiis dis- 18 U. S. K. S. §§ 532, 608 ; 18 St. at L. trict over controversies affecting tlie Gulf, 195, § 5 (Act of June 22, 18:4, cli. 401 ; Colorado & Santa ¥6 Railroad Com U. S. ]i. S. 1st Supp. pp. 87, 88) ; Act of pany, and the Southern Kansas Kailvvay May 2, 1884, cii. 38 (23 St. at L. 18). Coiupany, see 2:5 St. at L. cli. 177, § 8, i^J Act of May 2, 1884, ch. 38, § 2 (23 p. 72; 23 St. at L. ch. 179, § 8, p. 75; St. at L. 18). Briscoe v. Southern Kan. Ry. Co., 40 2'' Act of May 2, 1884. c!i. .1«. § 2 (23 Fed. R. 273. As to Indian Territory, see St. at L. 18) ; Act of June 22, 1«74, ch. 25 St. at L. p. 786. 572, 401, §§ 1, 0, suprn. '^- Act of Jan. 31, 1877, ch. 41 (1!) St. at 21 U. S. R. S. §§ 008, 533, as anicuded I^. 230 ; U- S R. S. 1st Siipj). pp. 2H2, 2' ■.:•!), by 18 St. at L. cli. 41, p. 230, U. S. R. S. ameiidiug U. fc). li. b. §§ 631, 671, 572. § 26.] DISTRICTS OF CALIFOEXIA, COLORADO, AND CONNECTICUT. 61 Saint Francis, and Monroe ; and the Western Division of the re- maining" counties of the district.^"^ A term of the Circuit and District Court for this district in the Eastern Division is held at Helena on the second Mondays of March and October, and in the Western Division a Circuit Court is held at Little Rock on the first Mondays of April and October.^* By a recent statute, " The Texarkana Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Arkansas " is established, in which terms of Circuit and District Coui'ts of this district are to be held at Texarkana on the third Mondays of May and November, and which includes the counties of Columl)ia, Howard,' Hempstead, Lafayette, Little River, Miller, Nevada, Oua- chita, Pike, and Scvier.^s hi Ct^/Z/or^^V?, two districts, — the Northern and the Southern, The Southern District of California contains the counties of San Diego, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Fresno, Tulare, and Kern. The remainder of California is comprised in the Southern District. In the Southern District terms of Circuit and of District Courts respectively are held at Los Angeles on the second Monday of August and the second Monday of January. In the Northern District terms of both Circuit and District Courts are held at San Francisco on the first Monday in February, the second Monday in July, and the fourth Monday in November.^^ Prior to the division of the origi- nal district of California, provision was made for holding special sessions of the Circuit Court.-' Colorado constitutes one judicial district.-^ Terms of Circuit and District Courts for this district are held at Denver on the first Tuesdays in May and November, at Pueblo on the first Tuesday in April, and at Del Norte on the first Tuesday in Augusf.s^ Connecticut constitutes one judicial district.^^ District Courts are hold at New Haven on the fourtli Tuesday in February, at 23 U. S. Tl. S. § 533 ; 24 St. at L. 400, U. S. R. S. §§ 5-31, 572, 658, act of June 24 Act of Feb' 17, 18S7, ch. 1.39 (24 St. lU, 1874, cli. 287, and act of Feb. 18, 187G, at L. 406) ; U. S. R. S. § 572, as amended ch. (J. by Act of Jan. 31, 1877, ch. 41 (li) St. at -' U. S. R. S. § 064, and compare with L. 230 ; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 202, 263). it the act of Aug. 5, 1886, cli. 920. 25 Act of Feb. 28, 1887 (24 St. at L. 28 Act of June 20, 1870, cli. 147 (19 St. 428) ; Act of March 7, 1890 (26 St. at at L. 61 ; U. S. 11. S. 1st Supp. 215, 210). L. 17). -^ Act of Aug. 3, 1880, ch. 848 (24 St. 20 Act of Aug 5, 1880, ch. 028 (24 St. at L. 214). at L. 308-310), supersedhig in tiiis respect ^o u. S. R. S. § 531. 62 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. Hartford on the fourth Tuesday in May, at New Haven on the fourth Tuesday in August,^^ and at Hartford on the first Tuesday of December .32 ^ Circuit Court for this district is held at New Haven on the fourth Tuesday in April, and at Hartford on the third Tuesday in Septcmber.^^ Belaivare constitutes one judicial district.^ The District Court is held at Wilmington on the second Tuesdays in January, April, June, and September.^^ The Circuit Court is held at Wilmington on the third Tuesdays in June and October.^^ In i^/onV/a, two districts, — the Northern and Southern. The Southern District embraces the counties of Hernando, Hills- borough, Polk, Manatee, and Monroe, the remaining territory constituting the Northern District.^" In the Southern District, Circuit and District Courts are held at Tampa on the second Monday in February .-^^ A Circuit ^^ and District ^"^ Court for this district is also held at Key West on the first Mondays of May and November. In the Northern District, both the District and Circuit Courts are held at Tallahasse on the first Monday in February, at Pensacola on the first Monday in March, and at Jacksonville on the first Monday in December.^^ In (7gon/m, two districts, — the Northern and Southern. The northern district of Georgia originally included the counties of Troup, Meriwether, Pike, Butts, Jasper, Morgan, Green, Talia- ferro, W^ilkes, and Lincoln as they existed Aug, 11, 1848, with all the counties north of them. Pike, Butts, Jasper, Lincoln, Wilkes, and Taliaferro have since been annexed to the southern district. The Western Division of the Northern District has recently been constituted. It consists of the counties of Muscogee, Heard, Troup, Meriwether, Harris, Talbot, Taylor, Marion, Chattahochee, Stewart, Schley, Webster, Quitman, Clay, Randolph, Early, Mil- ler, and Terrell. The Southern District is divided into Eastern, Northeastern, and Western Divisions. The Western Division consists of the following counties : Bil)b, Monroe, Jones, Twiggs, Houston, Crawford, Baldwin, Wilkinson, Laurens, Pu- 31 U. S. R. S. § 572. L. 280; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 407), su- 32 Act of Juno 30. 1879. cli. 40 (21 St. pcrseding U. S. R. S. § 5.34. at L. 41 ; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 497). ss Act of June 80, 188G, cli. 581 (24 St. 33 U. S. R. S. § 658. at L. lOG), repealing part of the act of 34 U. S. R. S. § 531. Feb. 3, 1870, supra. 85 U. S. R. S. § 572. 89 u. S. R. S. § 658. 86 U. S. R. S. § G58. s 40 u. S. R. S. § 572. 8" Act of Feb. 3, 1879, ch. 43 (20 St. at ^i u. S. R. S. §§ 572, 058. § 26.] DISTRICTS OF GEORGIA, IDAHO, AXD ILLINOIS. 63 laski, Dooly, Macon, Upson, Pike, Butts, Jasper, Putnam, Han- cock, Warren, Dodge, Wilcox, Telfair, Sumter, Lee, Terrell, Calhoun, Dougherty, Baker, and Mitchell.^^ The Eastern Divis- ion consists of the remaining counties of the district.*^ The counties of Warren, Glascock, McDufHe, Columbia, Richmond, Burke, Jefferson, Johnson, Washington, Lincoln, Wilkes, and Taliaferro compose the Northeastern Division.'** In the North- ern District terms of both courts are held at Atlanta on the second Monday in March and on the first Monday in October,'*^ and at Columbus, Muscogee County, on the second Mondays of January and June, for two weeks.**' In the Southern District terms of the District Court are held at Savannah on the second Tuesdays in February, May, August, and November,*' and of the Circuit Court on the second Monday of April and the Thursday after the first Monday in November ;*^ at Macon, of both courts on the first Mondays of May and October,*^ and at Augusta of both courts on the first Monday of April and the tliird Monday of November.^*' Idaho constitutes one judicial district. The Circuit and District Courts arc held at the capital of the State for the time being on the first Mondays of April and November of each year.'^* Li Illinois, two districts, — the Northern and Southern. The Northern District of Illinois includes the counties of McDonough, Henderson, Warren, Fulton, Knox, Peoria, Tazewell, Woodford, Livingston, and Iroquois, with all the counties north of them. The Southern District of Illinois includes the remaining counties of the State.°- The Northern District is divided into two divisions, known as the Northern and Southern Divisions of the Northern District of Illinois. The Southern Division includes the counties of Peoria, Stark, Henry, Rock Island, Mercer, Henderson, War- ren, Knox, McDonough, Fulton, Putnam, Marshall, Woodford, <2 21 St. at L. cli. 17, p. 62, U. S. R. S. *■ U. S. R. S. § 572. 1st Supp. p. 507, superseding, in tliis re- •is u. S. R. S. § 6-58. speet, U. S. R. S. § 535; 26 St. at L. 1110. « 21 St. at L. ch. 17, p. 82, U. S. R. S. « U. S. R. S. § 572; 25 St. at L. ch. 1st Supp. 507. 205, p. 600. ^'' 25 St. at L. ch. 108, p. 671. " 25 St. at L. ch. 168, p. 671. ^^ 26 St. at L. cli. 656, § 16, p. 217. « U. S. R. S. § 6.58; Act of June 20, 5- u. s. R. S. § 5-36, as ainended by act 1884, ch. 10() (2?< St. at L. 50), amendnig of IMarcli 2, 1887, cli. 315 (21 St. at L §§ 572. 658 of the Hev. Sts. 442). "•»>^ 26 St. at L. 1110. 64 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. Tazewell, Livingston, and Iroquois. The Northern Division in- cludes the remaining counties of the Northern District.^'^ Terms of both the Circuit and District Courts for the Northern Division of tlie Northern District of Illinois are held at Chicago on the first Monday in July and the third Monday in December ;5* and for the Southern Division of the Northern District at Peoria on the third Mondays of April and October.^^ Terms of both courts in the Southern District of Illinois are held at Springfield on the first Mondays in January and June,^^ and at Danville on the first Monday of May.^^ Terms of the District Court alone are held at Cairo on the first IMondays of March and October.^^ Indiana constitutes one judicial district.^^ Terms of both Circuit and District Courts are held at Indianapolis on the first Tuesdays in May and November, at New Albany on the first Mondays in January and July,*^'' at Evansville on the first Mon- days of April and October,^! at Fort Wayne on the second Tues- days in June and December in each year ; "^^ and also twice a year at Fort Wayne at such time as the judges of said courts may designate.^3 In loiva, two districts, — the Northern and Southern. The counties of Clinton, Jones, Linn, Benton, Black Hawk, Grundy, Harding, Hamilton, Webster, Calhoun, Sac, Ida, Monona, and all the counties north of them, and the counties of Cedar, John- ston, Iowa, and Tama constitute the Northern District of Iowa. The remaining counties of the State constitute the Southern District.^ For the purposes of holding terms of court, the JSorthern District of Iowa is divided into four divions, known as the "Eastern," " Central," " Western," and " Cedar Rapids " Divisions of the Northern District of Iowa. The Eastern Division includes the counties of Jackson, Black Hawk, Buchanan, Dela- ware, Dubuque, Clayton, Fayette, Bremer, Floyd, Chickasaw, 55 Act of March 2, 1887, supra. 62 Act of March 3, 1881 (21 St. at L. 54 U. S. R. S. §§ 572, 058. 571 ; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 615). 55 Act of March 2, 1887, oh. 315, § 3, 63 Act of June 18, 1878, ch. 2G1) (20 St. supra. at L. 1G6 ; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 367). 56 U. S. R. S. §§ 572, 658. C4 Act of July 20, 1882, ch. 312 (22 St. 5" 26 St. at L. 212. at L. 172), superseding, in tliis respect, 58 U. S. R. S. § 572. U. S. R. S. § 531 ; Act of June 4, 1880, 59 U. S. R. S. § 531. ch. 120 (21 St. at L. 155; U. S. R. S. 1st G^ U. 8. R. S. §§ 572, 058. Supp 530) ; Act of Feb. 21, 1891, cii.282, 61 Act of June 23, 1874, ch. 463 (18 (26 St. at L. 767). St. at L. 251; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 103). § 2G.] DISTRICTS OF IOWA. 65 Mitchell, Howard, Winneshiek, and Allamakee.^^ In this divis- ion, both Circuit and District Courts arc held at Dubuque on the first Tuesday in April and the fourth Tuesday in November of each year.^^ The Central Division includes the counties of Hamilton, Webster, Calhoun, Pocahontas, Palo Alto, Emmett, Kossuth, Humboldt, Wright, Hancock, Winnebago, Worth, Cerro Gordo, Franklin, and Butler.^^ Terms of both Circuit and Dis- trict Courts in this division are held at Fort Dodge ^' on the sec- ond Tuesday of November and first Tuesday of June.^^ The Western Division includes the counties of Monona, Woodbury, Plj-mouth, Sioux, Lyon, Osceola, O'Brien, Cherokee, Ida, Sac, Buena Vista, Clay, and Dickinson.^^ Terms of both Circuit and District Courts in this division are held at Sioux City on the first Tuesdays of May and October, at Fort Dodge on the second Tuesday of November and the first Tuesday of June, and at Dubuque on the fourth Tuesday of November and first Tuesday of April.*^^ The Cedar Rapids Division includes the counties of Johnston, Iowa, Tama, Grundy, Hardin, Benton, Linn, Jones, and Clinton. Terms of both Circuit and District Courts for this division are held at Cedar Rapids on the third Tuesday of Feb- ruary and the second Tuesday of September.^^ For the purposes of holding terms of court the Southern District of Iowa is divided into three divisions, known as the Eastern, Central, and Western Divisions. The Eastern Division includes the counties of Scott, Cedar, Muscatine, Washington, Louisa, Keokuk, Appanoose, Davis, Wapello, Jefferson, Van Buren, Henry, Des Moines, and Lee.^^ Terms of both Circuit and District Courts in this division are held, at Keokuk, on the third Tuesdays of January and June."*^ The Central Division includes the counties of Johnson, Iowa, Poweshiek, Mahaska, Jasper, Tama, Marshall, Story, Boone, Greene, Guthrie, Adair, Dallas, Polk, Madison, Warren, Marion, Clark, Lucas, Decatur, Monroe, and Wayne.^^ Terms of both Circuit and District Courts in this division are held at Des Moines,®^ on the second Tuesday of May and the third Tuesday in October.'^ The Western Division includes the counties of 68 Act of July 20, 1882, cli. 312, § 5. 69 See references in note 64. 66 25 St. at L. 87. •?» u. S. R. S. § 572 ; 18 St. at L. 15 6- Act of July 20, 1882, ch. 312 (22 St. (U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 4) ; 21 St. at L. at L. 172). 155 (U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 53(5). 6" 26 St. at L. 767. 'i U. S. R. S. § 672, made applicable to VOL. I. — 5 66 juiiisDiCTioN. [chap. I. Carroll, Crawford, Harrison, Shelby, Audubon, Cass, Pottawatta- mie, Mills, Montgomery, Adams, Union, Ringgold, Taylor, Page, and Fremont.^^ Terms of both Circuit and District courts in this division are held, at Council Bluffs,'''^ on the fourth Mondays of March and September.' o Kansas constitutes one judicial district."^ The terms of tlie District Court for Kansas are held as follows : at Topeka, on the second Monday in April ; at Salina, on the second Monday of May ; at Wichita, on the first Monday of March and the second Monday of September ; at Leavenworth, on the second Monday of October ; at Fort Scott, on the second Monday of January ; at Wichita on the first Monday of Marcli.'^ At Salina no case can be tried except by consent or special order.'* The terms of the Circuit Court for the district of Kansas are held as follows : at Wichita, on the first Monday of March and the second Monday of September ; at Topeka, on the fourth ^Monday of November ; at Leavenworth, on the first Monday in June ; at Wichita, on the second Monday of September ; at Fort Scott, on the second ]\Ion- day of Jaimary ; at W^ichita, on the second Monday of March.'^ Kentucky/ constitutes one district."^ This is divided into two divisions. The Owcns]K)rough Division consists of the counties of Daviess, Henderson, Union, Christian, Todd, Hopkins, Webster, McLean, JVIuhlenberg, Logan, Butler, Grayson, Ohio, Hancock, and Breckenridgc." The rest of the State constitutes the other division."" The regular terms of the Circuit and District Courts in this district arc held : at Covington, on the second Monday in May and the first Monday in December; at Louisville, on the third Monday in February and the first Monday in Octol)er ; at Frankfort, on the first Monday in January and second j\Ionday in .June; at Paducah, on the first Monday in April and third ^Monday in November, in each year;'^ and for the Owensborough Circuit Courts of this district by .act of (U. S. K. S. 1st Supp.452) ; Act of June 9, June 4, 18«0, eh. 120, supra. 1«'J0 (2G St. at L. eh. 403, p. 120). " U. S. R. S. § 531. For special juris- " 25 St. at L ch. 817, § 1, p. ?.02. diction of the courts held in this district, " U. S. K. S. § 658; Act of March 3, over controversies affecting the Gulf, Col- 1879, ch. 177, § l" (20 St. at L. 355) ; Act orado and Santa Fe Railroad Company, of Juno 9, 1890 (2G St. at L. ch. 403, and the Southern Kansas Railway Com- p. 129). pany, see 2:] St. at L. ch. 177, § 8, p. 72 ; "o U. S. R. S. § 531. 23 St. at L. ch. 179, § 8, p. 75; Briscoe v. " 95 St. at L. ch. 792, p. 389. Southern Kan. Ry. Co , 40 Fed. R. 273. "8 U. S. R. S. §S 572, G58 ; Act of July '3 U. S. R. S. § 572 ; 25 St. at L. ch. 817, 1, 1879, ch. 59, § 1 (21 St. at L. 45 ; U. S. § 1, p. 392; 20 St. at L. ch. 177, p. 355, R. S. 1st Supp. 499). § 26.] DISTKICTS OF KENTUCKY AND LOUISIANA. 67 Division at the city of Ovvensborougli, on the fourth Monday of January and the first Monday of June, for not more than eighteen judicial days in each such term."'-^ In Loinsiana,t\\'o judicial districts, the Eastern and tlie Western.^^ The Western District includes the parishes of Caddo, Bossier, Webster, Claiborne, Union, Morehouse, West Carroll, East Car- roll, Madison, Richland, Ouachita, Lincoln, Bienville, Red River, De Soto, Sabine, Winn, Natchitoches, Jackson, Caldwell, Frank- lin, Tensas, Concordia, Catahoula, Grant, Vernon, Rapides Avoyelles, Saint Landry, La Fayette, Saint Martin, Vermillion, Cameron, and Calcasieu. The remaining parishes form the Eastern District.^^ The Western District is divided into three divisions.^i All process from the Circuit and District Courts of the Western District of Louisiana against defendants residing in the parishes of Saint Landry, Saint Martin, Cameron, Calca- sieu, La Fayette, and Vermillion, are returnable to Opelousas.^'^ All process from said courts against defendants residing in the parishes of Rapides, Vernon, Avoyelles, Catahoula, Grant, and Winn, are returnable to Alexandria.^^ All process from said courts against defendants residing in the parishes of Caddo, De Soto, Bossier, Webster, Claiborne, Bienville, Natchitoches, Red River, and Sabine, are returnable at Shreveport.'^* All process from said courts against defendants residing in the parishes of Ouachita, Franklin, Richland, Morehouse, East Carroll, West Carroll, Madison, Tensas, Concordia, Union, Caldwell, Jackson, and Lincoln are returnable at Monroe.^* The Eastern District is divided into two divisions.^^ All process from the Circuit and District Courts for the Eastern District of Louisiana against de- fendants residing in the parishes of Pointe Coupee, West Baton Rouge, Iberville, Ascension, East Feliciana, West Feliciana, East Baton Rouge, Saint Helena, and Livingston are returnable to such courts at Baton Rouge,^^ All process against defendants residing in the other parishes of the Eastern District are returnable at New Orleans.^' In the Western District, the terms of the Circuit and District Courts are held : at Opelousas, on the first Mondays of January and June ; at Alexandria, on the fourth Mondays of ■9 25 St. at L. ch. 792, p. 388. »' 25 St. at L. ch. 780, § 1, p. 388. ^ 21 St. at L. 507 (U. S. R. S. 1st *** 25 St. at L. ch. 789, § 1, p. 388. Supp. 611). 85 25 St. at L. ch. 869, p. 438. 81 25 St. at L. ch. 780, § 1, p. 388. ^6 25 St. at L. cli. 860, p. 438. 82 25 St. at L. cli. 789, § 1, p. 388. ^7 25 St. at L. ch. 809, p. 438. 68 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. January and June ; at Shreveport, on the third Mondays of Fehruary and July ; and at Monroe, on the first Mondays of April and October in each year.^^ Terms of the District Courts for the Eastern District are held at New Orleans, on the third Mondays in February, May, and November.^^ Terms of the Circuit Courts for the same district are held at New Orleans, on the fourth Monday in April and the first Monday in November.^*^ Terms of both courts are held at Baton Rouge on the second Mondays of April and November,^^ Maine constitutes one judicial district.-'- The terms of the District Court are held at Portland, on the first Tuesdays of February and December ;^3 at Bangor, on the first Tuesday of Juue ;^'* at Bath, on the first Tuesday of Soptembcr.'^^ The terms of the Circuit Court are held at Portland, on the twenty-third days of April and September.^'^ 3Iaryland forms one judicial district,^" the District Courts of which are held at Baltimore on the first Tuesdays in March, June, September, and December.'^^ The terms of the Circuit Courts for the same district are held at Baltimore on the first Mondays in April and November.^^ 3Iassachusetts forms one judicial district.^*^^ The terms of the District Courts are held at Boston on the third Tuesday in March, on the fourth Tuesday in June, on the second Tuesday in September, and on the first Tuesday in December.^*^^ The terms of the United States Circuit Courts for this district are held at Boston, on the fifteenth days of May and October.^'^'- In Michigan^ two districts, the Eastern and Western ; and the latter has a Northern and a Southern Division. The Northern Division of the Western District includes all the territory and waters of the upper peninsula of the State.^^'^ The Southern Division of this district comprises all that portion of the southern 88 Act of Marcli 3, 1881, cli. 144, § 5 9^ U. S. K. S. § 572. (21 St. at L. 507; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. »'' U. S. K. S. § 658. (511). 9T u. s. li. s. § 581. 83 U. S. R. S. § 572; Act of March 3, os U. S. R. S. § 572. 1881, ch. 144, § 6, finpm. 99 U. S. R. S. § G58. "> U. S. R. S. § 658; Act of March 3, i-^-^ U. S. R. S. § 531. 1881, supra. lOi xj. S. R. S. § 572. 91 25 St. at L. ch. 869, p. 438. i''2 xj. S. R. S. § 058. 9^ U. S. R. S. § 531. ns Act of June 19, 1878, ch. 326 (20 St. 93 U. S. R. S. § 572. at L. 175; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 375). 9* Act -of Jan. 18, 1884, ch. 1 (23 St. at L. 1). § 26.] DISTRICTS OF MICHIGAN AND MINNESOTA. 69 or lower peninsula lying west of a line described as follows by the Revised Statutes : — " Commencing at the southwest corner of Branch county, iu said State, and running thence north on the west line of Branch and Calhoun counties, to the south line of Barry county : thence east on the north line of Calhoun and Jackson counties, to the southeast corner of Eaton county ; thence north on the cnst boundary of Eaton county to the south line of Clinton county ; thence west on the south boundary of said county to the southwest corner thereof; thence north on the west boundary of Clinton and Gratiot counties, to the south boundary of Isabella county ; thence west on its south boundary, to the southwest corner of said last named county ; thence north on the west line of Isabella and Clare counties, to the south boundary of Missaukee county ; thence east, on its south boundary, to the southeast corner of Missaukee county ; thence north, on the east line of Missaukee, Kalcaska, and Antrim counties, to the south boundary of Emmett county ; thence east, to the southeast corner of Emmett county ; thence north on the east boundary of Emmett county, to the straits of Mackinac ; thence north to midway across said straits : thence westerly in a direct line to a point on the shore of Lake Michigan where the north boundary of Delta county reaches Lake Michigan." ^'^ The eastern division includes the remaining por- tion of the territory and waters of the southern peninsula.^'^'* Terms of both Circuit and District Courts in the Southern Di- vision of the Western District are held at Grand Rapids on the first Tuesdays of March and October; and in the Northern Division, at Marquette, on the first Tuesdays of May and Sep- tember.io^ In the Eastern District, terms of both courts are held at Bay City at such times as the courts shall appoint ; i*''^ and at Detroit, on the first Tuesdays of March, June, and November.iO' Minnesota constitutes one judicial district, which is divided into six divisions, known as the First, Second, Third, Fourtli, Fifth, and Sixth Divisions.^'^^ That portion of the State of Min- nesota comprising the counties of Winona, Wabasha, Olmsted, i"4 U. S. R. 8. § 538 ; and see Act of lO" Act of Feb. 28, 1887, cli. 209 (24 St. June 19, 1878, supra. at L. 423). 1 '5 Act of June 19, 1878, cli. 320, supra, i"^ U. S. R. S. §§ 572, 658. § 2. 1* U. S. R. S. § 531 ; 20 St. at. L. ch. 107, § 1, p. 72. 70 JURISDICTION. [CHA.P. I. Dodge, Steele, Mower, Fillmore, and Houston constitute the First Division, the courts of which are held at Winona; the counties of Freeborn, Faribault, Martin, Jaclcson, Nobles, Rock, Pipestone, Murray, Cottonwood, Watonwan, Blue Earth, Waseca, Le Sueur, Nicollet, Brown, Redwood, Lyon, Lincoln, Yellow Medicine, Sibley, and Lac Qui Parle, constitute the Second Division, the courts of which are held at Mankato ; the counties of Chicago, Washington, Ramsey, Dakota, Goodhue, Rice, and Scott con- stitute the Third Division, the courts of which are held at St. Paul ; the counties of Hennepin, Wright, Meeker, Kandiyohi, Swift, Chippewa, Renville, McLeod, Carver, Anoka, Sherburne, and Isanti constitute the Fourth Division, the courts of which are held at Minneapolis; the counties of Cook, Lake, St. Louis, Itasca, Cass, Crow Wing, Aitkin, Carlton, Pine, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, and Benton constitute the Fifth Division, the courts of which are held at Duluth ; the counties of Stearns, Pope, Stevens, Big Stone, Traverse, Grant, Douglas, Todd, Otter Tail, Wilkin, Clay, Becker, Wadena, Norman, Polk, Marshall, Kittson, Beltromi, and Hubbard constitute the Sixth Division, the courts of which are held at Fergus Falls. '^^^ The terms of the Circuit and District Courts are held, for the First Division, on the first Tuesdays of June and December ; for the Second Division, on the third Tuesday of April and the first Tuesday of November ; for the Third Division, on the fourth Tuesday of June and the second Tuesday of January ; for the Fourth Division, on the first Tuesday in March and the first Tuesday in September ; for the Fifth Division, on the second Tuesdays of May and Octol)er ; and for tlie Sixth Division, on the fourth Tuesdays oi ]\Iarch and September."^ In Mississippi, two districts, tlie Northci-n and Soutliern. The Northern District is sul)divided into l*]astcrn and Western Divi- sions. The Eastern Division of the Northern District includes the counties of Tishamingo, Alcorn, Prentiss, Itawamba, Lee, Pontotoc, Monroe, Chickasaw, Clay, Oktibbeha, Lowndes, Nox- ubee, Winston, Choctaw, Attala, Neshoha, and Kemper, as they existed June 15, 1882. The Western Division of the Northern District comprises the counties of Carroll, Bolivar, Coahoma, Tunica, De Soto, Tate, Marshall, ]*anola, Benton, Tippah, Sun- fiower, Montgomery, Grenada, Tallahatchee, La Fayette, Union, i'^9 20 St. at L. ch. 1G7, § 1, p. 72. rio 26 St. at L. cli. 1G7, § 4, p. 73. § 26.] DISTRICTS OF MISSISSIPPI AND MISSOURI, 71 Webster, Calhoun, Quitman, and Yalabuslia, as they existed in June, 1882.111 Terms of both Circuit and District Courts in the Eastern Divi- sion of the Northern District are held at Aberdeen, on the first Mondays of April and October, to continue twenty-four judicial days if the business so long require. The terms of both courts for the Western Division are held at Oxford, on the first Mon- days of June and December, to continue as long as the business may require.n^ In the Northern District the judge is authorized to appoint and hold additional special terms.n^ The Southern District of Mississippi is divided into three divi- sions. The Western Division consists of the counties of Wash- ington, Sharkey, Inaquena, and Motte.H'i The Southern Division consists of the counties of Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Clarion, Perry, and Green.n^ The remainder of the Southern District con- stitutes the other division.n^ The terms of the Circuit and Dis- trict Courts for the Western Division are held at Vicksburg, on the first Mondays of January and July in each year ; for the Southern Division, at Mississippi City, on the third Mondays of Fel)ruary and August ; for the other division of the Southern District the terms of the Circuit Court are held at Jackson, on the first Mondays of May and November,"^ and the terms of the District Court for the same are held at Jackson, on the fourth Mondays of January and June in each year.n' In dlissouri, two districts, the Eastern and Western. The Eastern District of Missouri embraces the following counties : St. Louis, Franklin, Gasconade, Jefferson, Crawford, Wash- ington, St. Fran9ois, St. Genevieve, Dent, Iron, Madison, Perry, Bollinger, Cape Girai-deau, Shannon, Reynolds, Wayne, Scott, Carter, Oregon, Ripley, Butler, Stoddard, New Madrid, Mississippi, Dunklin, Pemiscot, Montgomery, Lincoln, War- ren, St. Charles, Macon, Adair, Clarke, Knox, Lewis, Marion, Monroe, Pike, Ralls, Schuyler, Scotland, Shelly, and Ran- 111 Act of June 15, 1882, ch. 218 (22 St. i" 24 St. at L. ch. 279, p. 4.S0. at L. 101) ; Act of July 8, 1886, ch. 745 -^^ 25 St. at L. ch. 58, p. 78. (24 St. at L. 127). ne 24 St. at L. 430. 112 Act of June 15, 1882, ch. 218 (22 St. n" 24 St. at L. cli. 279, p. 430; U. S. at L. 101) ; Act of Julv 8, 1886 (24 St. at K. S. §§ 572, 658; 25 St. at L. ch. 68. L. 127). p. 78. 113 Act of June 15, 1882, ch. 218 (22 St. at L. 103). 72 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. dolph. The remaining counties of the State form the Western District.118 There are two divisions in the Eastern District. The city of St. Louis and the counties of St. Louis, Franklin, Gasconade, Jefferson, Crawford, Washington, St. Francois, St. Genevieve, Dent, Iron, Madison, Perry, Bollinger, Cape Girardeau, Shan- non, Reynolds, Wayne, Scott, Carter, Oregon, Ripley, Butler, Stoddard, New Madrid, Mississippi, Dunklin, Pemiscot, Mont- gomery, Lincoln, Warren, and St. Charles form the Eastern Division. The remaining counties of the Eastern District con- stitute the Northern Division. ^^^ The Western District of Missouri is divided into four divisions. The counties of Clay, Ray, Carroll, Chariton, Sullivan, Jackson, La Fayette, Saline, Cass, Johnson, Bates, Henry, Vernon, Put- nam, Caldwell, Livingston, Grundy, Mercer, Linn, Barton, Jas- per, and St. Clair form the Western Division of the Western District. The counties of Atchison, Nodaway, Holt, Andrew, Buchanan, Platte, Clinton, Harrison, Daviess, De Kalb, Gentry, and Worth form the St. Joseph Division. The counties of Cedar, Polk, Dallas, Laclede, Pulaski, Dade, Greene, Webster, Wright, Texas, Lawrence, Christian, Douglas, Howell, Newton, Barry, McDonald, Stone, Taney, and Ozark form the Southern Division of the Western District. The remaining counties of the Western District form the Central Division. ^^'^ Li each of the divisions of the Eastern and Western Districts there are established a Dis- trict and a Circuit Court of the United States.^'^^ There are held two terms of the District and Circuit Courts in each year in each of the divisions.^^i The times and places of liolding the District Court in the Eastern District are, for the Eastern Division, at St. Louis, on the first Mondays in May and November; and for the Circuit Court, at the same place, on the third Mondays in March and September.^'-^^ Pq^. ^\^q Northern Division, for both courts, at Hannibal, on tlie first Mondays in May and Novcm- ber.^-2 Courts for the Western District are held as follows : "8 U. S. R. S. § 540; 24 St. at L. 424 ; (20 St. at L. 106) ; Act of Aug. 29, 1890, 25 St. at L. 498. ch. 818 (20 St. at L. .'309). '•'J Act of Feb. 28, 1887, ch. 271 (24 St. i^^ U. S. K. S. §§ 572, 658 ; Act of Feb. at L. 424). 28, 1887, ch. 271 (24 St. at L. 424). 1^24 St. at L. 424; 25 St. at L. '-•' Act of Feb. 28, 1887, cli. 271 (24 St. 498. at L. 424) ; 25 St. at L. cli. 129, § 1, p. 88 ; i-:i Act of Feb. 28, 1887, cli. 271 (24 St. Act of May 14, 1890, ch. 202 (20 St. at L. at L. 424) ; Act of May 14, 1890, ch. 202 100). § 26.] MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, N. HAMPSHIRE, N. JERSEY. 73 both courts for the Central Division, at Jefferson City, on the third Mondays in April and November ; i^* both courts for the St. Joseph Division, at St. Joseph, on the first Mondays in April and November ; ^-^ both courts for the Western Division, at Kan- sas City, on the first Mondays in March and September ; ^-^ both courts for the Southern Division, at Springfield, on the third Mondays in May and October.^^; Montana, on its admission as a State, constitutes one district. ^'^^ Nehraiskaiovviis, one judicial district.^^^ The time and places of holding courts therein, Circuit and District, are at Omaha, on the second Mondays of May and November ; at Lincoln, on the second Monday of January ; in Hastings, on the second Monday in March ; and at Norfolk, on the second jMonday of April. ^^^^ Nevada forms one judicial district.^^^ The District Courts therein are held at Carson City, on the first Mondays in Feb- ruary, May, and October.^^'^ And the Circuit Courts for the same are held at Carson City, on the third Monday of March and tlie first Monday of November of each ycai-.^^-^ Ne-w Hampshire forms one judicial district,^^^ the District Courts in which are held at Portsmouth on the third Tuesday in March and September, and at Concord, on the third Tuesday in June and December.^35 '^\^\^q terms of the Circuit Court for the same are held at Portsmouth on the eighth day of May, and at Con- cord on the eighth day of October.^-^*^ JVeiv Jersey constitutes one judicial district, in which the terms of the District Court are held at Trenton on the third Tuesdays in January, April, June, and September. The terms of the Cir- cuit Court for the same district are held at Trenton on the fourth Tuesdays in March and September in each year.^s" 124 Act of Feb. 28, 1887, ch. 271 (24 St. i-s 25 St at L. ch. 180, p. 682. at L. 424) ; U. S. R. S. §§ 572, G58. i'^^ U. S. R. S. § 531. 1^5 Act of Feb. 28, 1887, ch. 271 (24 St. i^" 25 St. at L. ch. 891, § 1, p. 443. at L. 424) ; Act of Aug. 29, 1890, cli. 818 ^^i u. S. R. S. § 531. (20 St. at L. 3Gfl). 13^ U. S. R. S. § 572. 1-8 Act of Feb. 28, 1887, ch. 271 (24 St. i^a Act of Feb. 18, 1876, ch. 11 (19 St. at L. 424) ; Act of Jan. 21, 1879, ch. 20 at L. 4 ; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 200). (20 St. at L. 203 ; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. i« U. S. R. S. § 531. 392) ; Act of Aug. 29, 1890, ch. 818 (2G St. i^s U. S. R. S. § 572 ; Act of Feb. 23, at. L. S69). 1881, ch. 71 (21 St. at L. 330). 127 Act of Feb. 28, 1887, ch. 271 (24 St. i3« U. S. R. S. § 658 ; Act of Feb. 23, at L. 424) ; Act of May 14, 1890, ch. 200 1881, ch. 71 (21 St. at L. 330). (26 St. at L. 40G) ; Act of Aug. 29, 1890, 137 u. S. R. S. §§ 531, 572, 658. ch. 818 (26 St. at L. 369). 74 JUEISDICTION. [chap. I. In New Yorh, three districts, the Northern, the Eastern, and the Southern. The Northern District includes the counties of Rensselaer, Alban\', Schoharie, and Delaware, "vvith all the counties north and west of them. The Eastern District includes the counties of Richmond, Kings, Queens, and Suffolk, with the waters thereof. The remainder of the State with the waters thereof constitutes the Southern District. ^^^^ The District Courts of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York have con- current jurisdiction over the waters within the counties of New York, Kings, Queens, and Suffolk, and over all seizures made and all matters done in such waters.^*^^ The terms of the District Court for the Northern District of New York are held at Alban/ on the third Tuesday in January ; at Utica, on the third Tuesday in March ; at Rochester, on the second Tuesday in May ; at Buf- falo, on the third Tuesday in September ; at Auburn, on the third Tuesday in November; and, in the discretion of the judge of the court, one term annually at such time and place within the coun- ties of Onondaga, Saint Lawrence, Clinton, Jefferson, Oswego, and Franklin, as he may from time to time appoint. ^^^ The terms of the Circuit Court for the same district are held at Canandaigua, on tlie third Tuesday in June ; at Syracuse, on the third Tuesday in November ; at Albany, on the third Tuesday in January. " And when the said term aj^pointcd to be held at Albany be adjourned, it shall be adjourned to meet in Utica on the third Tuesday in March ; but said adjourned term shall be for the transaction of civil l)usiness only." i"*! The terms of the District Court for the Southern District of New Yorlc are held in tlie city of New York, on the first Tuesday in every montli.^^^ 'y\\q. terms of the Circuit Court for the same district are held at the city of New York on the first Monday in April, and the third ]\Ionday in October; and for the trial of criminal causes and suits in equity, on th.e last Monday in Feli- ruary ; and, exclusively for the trial and disposal of criminal cases and matters arising and ])on(ling in said court, on tlie second Wednesdays in January, March, and IMay, on the third Wednesday in June, and on tlic second Wednesdays in October 138 U. S. R. S. § 541 ; U. S. \\. S. 1st "i U. S. R. S. § 658 ; Act of Marcli 23, Supp. 138. 1882, oil. 48, p. 32 (22 St. at L. 33). "i U. S. R. S. § 542. H2 U. S. R. S. § 572. 1*1 U. S. R. S. § 572 ; Act of Marcli 23, 1882, ch. 48, p. 32 (22 St. at L. 32). § 26.] DISTRICTS OF NORTH CAROLINA AND NORTH DAKOTA. 75 and December: ^^ Provided , that the holding of any of the last- mentioned terms for criminal business shall not dispense with nor affect the holding of any other term of court at the same time, and that the pending of any other term of court shall not prevent the holding of any of said terms for criminal business." ^^^ District and Circuit Courts for the Eastern District of New York are held at Brooklyn on the first Wednesday in every month. ^** In North Carolina, two judicial districts, the Eastern and the Western. The Western District includes the counties of Meck- lenburg, Cabarras, Stanly, Montgomery, Richmond, Davie, David- son, Randolph, Guilford, Rockingham, Stokes, Forsyth, Union, Anson, Caswell, Person, Alamance, Orange, Chatham, Moore, Clay, Cherokee, Swain, Macon, Jackson, Graham, Haywood, Transylvania, Henderson, Buncombe, Madison, Yancey, Mitchell, Watauga, Ashe, Alleghany, Caldwell, Burke, McDowell, Ruther- ford, Polk, Cleveland, Gaston, Lincoln, Catawba, Alexander, Wilkes, Surry, Iredell, Yadkin, and Rowan, and all counties which have been formed within this territory since June 4th, 1872. The Eastern District includes the residue of the State. ^'^^ The terms of District and Circuit Courts for the Western District of North Carolina are held at Greensborough, on the first Mon- days in April and October ; at Statesville, on the third Mondays in April and October ; at Asheville, on the first Mondays in May and November ; and at Charlotte, on the second Mondays of June and December.^^*^ The terms of the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina are held at Elizabeth City, on the third Mondays in April and October ; at New Berne, on the fourth Mondays in April and October ; and at Wilmington on the first Mondays after the fourth Mondays in April and October.^^" The terms of the Circuit Court for the same district arc held at Raleigh, on the first Monday in June and last Monday in No- vember ; and at Wilmington, on the first Mondays after tlie fourth ]\Iondays in April and October.^^^ North Dakota constitutes one judicial district, which is divided into four divisions, known as the Southwestern, Southeastern, Northeastern, and Northwestern Divisions. The portion of the »3 U. S. R. S. § 658. »■ U. S. I?. S § 572. 1** U. S. II. S. §§ 572, G58. i*^ U. S. U. S. § G58 ; Act of Feb. 17, 1*5 U. S. R. S. §54.3. 1887, ch. 137 (24 St. at L. 40G). »s u. S. R. S. §"§ 572, 658 ; Act of June 19, 1878, ch. 322 (20 St. at L. 173). 76 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. State comprising the counties of Burieigh, Stutsman, Lcgan, Mcintosh, Emmons, Kidder, Foster, Wells, McLean, and all terri- tories in said State of North Dakota lying south and west of the Missouri River constitutes the Southwestern Division, as said coun- ties were bounded on April 26, 1890, the court for which is held at the city of Bismarck. That portion of the State comprising the present counties of Cass, Richland, Barnes, Sargent, Dickey, La Moure, Ransom, Griggs, and Steele constitute the Southeastern Division, as said counties were bounded on April 26, 1890, the court for which is held at the city of Fargo. The portion of the State comprising the present counties of Grand Forks, Traill, Walsh, Pembina, Cavalier, and Nelson, as said counties were bounded on April 26, 1890, constitute the Northeastern Division, the court for which is held in the city of Grand Forks. That portion of the State comprising the present counties of Ramsey, Eddy, Benson, Towner, Rolette, Bottineau, Pierce, McHenry, and Ward, and all the territory in said State of North Dakota lying north of the Southwestern Division constitute the Northwestern Division, as said counties were bounded April 26, 1800, the court for which is held in the city of Devil's Lake.^"*^ The terms of the District and Circuit Courts are held each year for the South- western Division at Bismarck on the first Tuesday of April ; for tlie Southeastern Division at Fargo on the third Tuesday of May ; for the Northeastern Division at Grand Forks on the first Tues- day of December ; and for the Northwestern Division at Devil's Lake on the first Tuesday of February. ^^o In Ohio, two districts, — the Northern and the Southern. The Southern District includes the counties of Belmont, Guernsey, Muskingum, Licking, Franklin, Madison, Champaign, Shelby, and Mercer, as they existed February 10, 1855, with all the counties south of them, and also the counties of Uniun, Dela- ware, Morrow, Knox, Coshocton, Harrison, and Jeffei'son. The Northern District includes the residue of the State.^^^ The Northern District of Ohio is divided into two divisions. The counties of Williams, Defiance, Paulding, Van Wert, ]\Icrccr, Auglaize, Allen, Putnam, Henry, Fulton, Lucas, Wood, Hancock, •« 26 St. at L. cli. IGl, § 2, pp. G7, G8. 'Si u. S. 1{. S. § 544; Act of P>h. 4, is^' 25 St. at L. ch. 180, p. 682 . Act of 1880, cli. 18 (21 St. at L. G3 ; U. S. K. S. April 20, 1800; 2G St. at L. cli. 161, § 3, 1st Supp. 508). p. 68 (26 St. at L. 68). § 26.] DISTRICTS OF OHIO, OREGON AND PENNSYLVANIA. 77 Hardin, Logan, Marion, Wyandot, Seneca, Sandusky, Ottawa, Erie, and Huron form the Western Division. The remaining counties in the said district form the Eastern Division. ^^^ The Southern District of Ohio is divided into two divisions. The Eastern Division consists of the counties of Union, Delaware, Morrow, Knox, Coshocton, Harrison, Jefferson, Madison, Fayette, Franklin, Pickaway, Ross, Pike, Gallia, Jackson, Meigs, Vinton, Athens, Hocking, Fairfield, Licking, Perry, Muskingum, Morgan, Washington, Noble, Monroe, Belmont, and Guernsey. The West- ern Division includes the remaining counties of said district.^^^ The terms of the Circuit and District Courts for the Northern District of Ohio are held in Cleveland, in the Eastern Division, on the first Tuesdays of February, April, and October ; and in Toledo, in the Western Division, on the first Tuesdays of June and December of each year.^^* The terms of both courts for the Southern District arc held at Cincinnati on the first Tuesdays in February, April, and October, and at Columbus on the first Tues- days in June and December.^*^ Oregon constitutes one judicial district,^^^ in which the terms of the District Court are held at Portland on the first Mondays in March, July, and November.!^" The Circuit Court for the same district is held at Portland on the second Monday of April and the first Monday of October.i^s Li Pennsylvania^ two districts.^^^ The Western District in- cludes the counties of Fayette, Greene, Washington, Allegheny, Westmoreland, Somerset, Bedford, Huntingdon, Centre, Mifflin, Clearfield, McKean, Potter, Jefferson, Cambria, Indiana, Arm- strong, Butler, Beaver, Mercer, Crawford, Venango, Erie, War- ren, Susquehanna, Bradford, Tioga, Union, Northumberland, Columbia, Luzerne, and Lycoming, as they existed April 20, 1818. The Eastern District includes the rest of the State.i<50 The terms of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are held at Philadelphia on the third Mondays in 152 Act of June 8, 1878, cli. 169 (20 St. i^s u. S. R. S. §§ 572, 058 ; Act of Feb. at L. 101) ; Act of Feb. 4, 1880, cli. 18 4, 1880, ch. 18 (21 St. at L. 03). (21 St. at L. 6.3). i^'^ U. S. R. S. § 531. 153 Act of Feb. 4, 1880, cli. 18 (21 St. i" U. S. R. S. § 572. at L. 5C9) ; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 608. ^^ U. S. R. S. § 658 ; Act of June 16, 151 U. S. R. S. §§ 572, 658; Act of 1874, ch. 287 (18 St. at L. 76) ; Act of June 8, 1878, ch. 169 (20 St. at L. 101) ; Feb. 18, 1876, ch. 11 (19 St. at L. 4). Act of July 27, 1882, ch. 351 (22 St. at L. i59 U. S. R. S. § 545. 176). i«^ U. S. R. S. § 546. 78 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. Febriiarj, May, August, and November. The terms of the Cir- cuit Court for the same district are held at Philadelphia on the first Mondays in April and October.^*^i The terms of the District Court for the Western District are held at Pittsburgh on the first Monday in May and on the third Monday in October ; at Wil- liamsport on the third Monday in June and on the first ^Monday in October ; at Erie on the second Monday in January and the third Monday in July ; ^^^ and at Scranton on the first Mondays of March and September.^^'^ The terms of the Circuit Court for the same district are held at Erie on the second Monday of January and third Monday of July ; at Pittsburgh on the second Mondays in May and November; at Williamsport on the third Mondays in June and September ; and at Scranton on the first Mondays of March and September.^^* Rhode Island constitutes one judicial district, in which the terms of the District Court are held at Providence on the first Tuesdays in Fe))ruary and August ; at Newport on the second Tuesdays in May and on the third Tuesday in October. The Circuit Court for the same district is held at Providence on the fifteenth days of June and November.^''^ In South Carolina, two districts, — the Eastern and Western. The Western District includes the counties of Lancaster, Chester, York, Union, Spartanburgh, Greenville, Pendleton, Abbeville, Edgefield, Newburry, Laurens, and Fairfield, as they existed Feb- ruary 21, 1823. Tlie Eastern District includes the residue of the State. ^^"^ The terms of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District are held at Charleston on the first Monday of April, and at Columbia on the fourth Monday of November. The terms of the District Court for the Eastern District are held at Charleston on the first Mondays in January, April, and July, and at Columbia on the fourth Monday of Noveml^er.^*^' In tlie Western District the terms of both courts are held at Greenville on the first Mon- days of Fel)ruary and August.^^^ South Dakota constitutes one judicial district, which is di- lei U. S. P.. S. §§ 572, 658. i''« U. S. R. S. § 546; 25 St. at L. ch. le-i U. S. R. S. § 572. 113, p. 655. ^53 Act of Aug. 5, 1886, ch. 931 (21 St. lo" U. S. R. S. §§ 572, 658; Act of at L. .^36). April 26, 1890, ch. 165 (26 St. at L. 71). 164 U. S. R. S. § 658; 24 St. at L. 336. ^ss U. S. R. S. § 572 ; 25 St. at L. 655; 165 U. S. U. S. §§ 531. 572, 658. Act of April 26, 1890, ch. 165 (26 St. at L. 71). § 26.] DISTEICTS OF SOUTH DAKOTA AND TENNESSEE. 79 vided into three divisions, known as the Eastern, Central, and Western Divisions. The counties of Clay, Union, Yanlvton, Turner, Lincoln, Bonhommc, Charles Mix, Douglas, Hutchinson, Brule, Aurora, Davidson, Hanson, McCook, ^linnehaha, Moody, Lake, Lyman, Miner, Sanborn, Beadle, Kingsbury, Brookings, Hamlin, Deuel, Grant, Roberts, Codington, Clark, Day, Marshall, Spink, Brown, Gregory, Todd, and the Yankton, Sisseton, Wahpe- ton, and Crow Creek Indian Reservations constitute the Eastern Division, the court for which is held at the city of Sioux Falls. The counties of McPherson, Edmunds, Campbell, Walworth, Pot- ter, Sully, Faulk, Hand, Hyde, Hughes, Buffalo, Jerauld, Stanley, Knowlen, and that portion of the counties of Pratt, Jackson, and Sterlings not included in any Indian reservation, and the Standing Rock, Cheyenne, and Lower Brule Indian Reservations constitute the Central Division, the court for which is held at the city of Pierre. All that portion of the State of South Dakota lying west of the Central Division, and in addition thereto the Rosebud and Red Cloud Indian Reservations constitute the Western Division, the court for which is held at the city of Dcadwood.^*^^ The terms of the Circuit Court are held for the Eastern Division at Sioux Falls on the first Tuesdays of April and October; for the Central Division at Pierre on the third Tuesday of November; and for the Western Division at Deadwood on the first Tuesday of July.i™ The terms of the District Court are held for the East- ern Division at Sioux Falls on the first Tuesdays of April and October in each year ; for the Central Division at Pierre on the third Tuesdays of May and November in each year ; and at Dead- wood on the first Tuesdays of January and July in each year.^'^ In Tennessee^ three districts, — the Eastern, Western, and ^liddle. The Eastern District includes the counties of Anderson, Bledsoe, Blount, Bradley, Campbell, Carter, Claiborne, Cocke, Cumberland, Fentress, Grainger, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, Hawkins, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, McMinn, Marion, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Polk, Rhea, Roane, Scott, Sevier, Sullivan, Union, and Washington, as they existed February 19, 1856.i'2 The Western District includes the Counties of Benton, Carroll, Henry, Obion, Dyer, Gibson, Lauderdale, Haywood, Tipton, Shelby, 169 25 St. at L. ch. 180, p. 082 ; 20 St. ^'i 26 St. at L. ch. 21, § 3, p. 14. at L. cli. 21, § 2, p. 14. ^'- U. S. R. S. § 647 ; 21 St. at L. 751 ; i'» 26 St. at L. ch. 21, § 5, p. 14. 23 St. at L. 280. 80 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. Fayette, Hardeman, McNairy, Hardin, Madison, Henderson, and Weakley, as they existed June 18, 1838. The Middle District includes the residue of the State.i'^ The Western District of Tennessee is divided into two divisions, called the Eastern and Western Divisions. The Eastern Division includes the coun- ties of Benton, Carroll, Decatur, Gibson. Hardeman, Hender- son, Henry, McXairy, Madison, Hardin, Dyer, Lake, Crockett, Weakley, and Obion, and the terms of the Circuit and District Courts are held therein at Jackson, at least twice in each year, at such times as the judges thereof respectively fix.i'^ The remain- ing counties embraced in this district constitute the Western Division thereof, and the terms of District and Circuit Courts are held at Memphis on the fourth Mondays in May and November.i'^ The Eastern District of Tennessee is divided into two divisions, known as the Northern and Southern Divisions of the Eastern District. The Southern Division includes the counties of Hamilton, James, Polk, McMinn, Bradley, Meigs, Rhea, ^Marion, Sequatchie, Bledsoe, Fentress, and Cumberland. The Northern Division consists of the remaining counties in the district.^'^ The Dis- trict and Circuit Courts for the Eastern District are held at Knoxville, on the second Mondays in January and July ; and at Chattanooga on the first Mondays of April and October in each year.^" The terms of the District and Circuit Courts for the Middle District of Tennessee are held at Nashville, on the third Mondays in April and October.^'^ Ill Texas, three districts, the Northern, Eastern, and Western.!'^ The Northern District is composed of the counties of Brazos, Robertson, Leon, Limestone, Freestone, Navarro, Ellis, Kaufman, Dallas, Rockwall, Hunt, Collin, Grayson, Cooke, Denton, Tarrant, Johnson, Hill, McLennan, Falls, Bell, Coryell, Hamilton, Bosque, Comanche, Erath, Somervilic, Hood, Parker, Palo, Pinto, Jack, 1T3 u. S. R. S. § 547 ; 18 St. at L. 480 ; i" U. S. II. S. §§ 572, 658 ; Act of June 21 St. at L. 757 ; 23 St. at L. 280. 11. 1880, ch. 203, § 2 (21 St. at L. 751). !■* Act of June 20, 1878, cli. 359, § 17 i"* U. S. H. S. §§ 572, 658. (20 St. at L. 20G) ; Act of Jan. 15, 1883, i'» U. S. R. S. § 548 ; 20 St. at L. ch. 97, ch. 25 (22 St. at L. 402) ; Act of Dec. 27, p. 318; 21 St. at L. cli. 18, § 1, p. 10 ; 20 1884 (23 St. at L. 280). St. at L. ch. 97, p. 318 ; 21 St. at L. ch. i'5 Act of June 20, 1878, ch. 359, § 17 213, p. 198 ; 25 St. at L. ch. 033, §§ 17, 18, (20 St. at L. 20G) ; U. S. R. S. §§ 572, 658. p. 78G. ™ U. S. R. S. § 547 ; 21 St. at L. 751 ; 23 St. at L. 280. § 26.] DISTRICTS OF TEXAS. 81 Wise, Montague, Clay, Archer, Wichita, Wilbarger, Hardeman, Knox, Baylor, Haskell, Throckmorton, Young, Stevens, Shackel- ford, Jones, Taylor, Callahan, Eastland, Brown, Coleman, Run- nels, Greer, Nolan, Fisher, Stonewall, King, Cottle, Childress, Collingsworth, Wheeler, Hemphill, Lipscomb, Ochiltree, Roberts, Gray, Donley, Hall, Motley, Dickens, Kent, Scurry, Mitchell, Howard, Borden, Dawson, Gaines, Martin, Andrews, Garza, Crosby, Floyd, Briscoe, Armstrong, Carson, Hutchinson, Hans- ford, Sherman, Moore, Potter, Randall, Swisher, Hale, Lubbock, Lynn, Terry, Hockley, Lamb, Castro, Deaf Smith, Oldham, Hart- ley, Dellam, Palmer, Baylcy, Cochran, and Yoakum, The East- ern District is com})Osed of the counties of Matagorda, Wharton, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Colorado, Austin, Waller, Harris, Galveston, Chambers, Jefferson, Orange, Hardin, Liberty, Newton, Jasper, Tyler, Polk, San Jacinto, Montgomery, Walker, Grimes, Madison, Trinity, Angelina, San Augustine, Sabine, Shelby, Nacogdoches, Cherokee, Houston, Anderson, Henderson, Smith, Rusk, Panola, Harrison, Gregg, Upshur, Wood, Vanzandt, Rains, Hopkins, Camp, Titus, Marion, Cass, Bowie, Franklin, Morris, Red River, Jackson, Lamar, Fannin, and Delta, and so much of the Indian Territory as is thereto annexed by the Act of March 1, 1889.i8<^ That Act provides, "that the Chickasaw Nation, in the portion of the Choctaw Nation within the following boundaries, to wit ; be- ginning on Red River, at the southeast corner of the Choctaw Nation ; thence north with the boundary line between the said Choctaw Nation and the State of Arkansas, to a point where Big Creek, a trilratary of the Black Fork of the Kimishi River, crosses the said boundary line ; thence westerly with Big Creek and the said Black Fork to the junction of the said Black Fork with Buffalo Creek ; tlience northwesterly with said Ihiffalo Creek to a point where the same is crossed by the old military road from Fort Smith, Arkansas, to Boggy Depot, in the Choctaw Nation ; thence southwesterly with the said road to where the same crosses Perry ville Creek ; thence northwesterly up said Creek to where the same is crossed by the IMissouri, Kansas, and Texas Railway track ; thence northerly up the centre of the main track of the said road to the South Canadian River ; thence up 18'' U. S. "R. S. § 548 ; 20 St. at L. ch. 97, 213, p. 198 ; 25 St. at L. cli. G33, §§ 17, 18, p. 318 ; 21 St. at L. ch. 18, § 1, p. 10 ; 20 p. 786. St. at L. cl). 97, p. 318 ; 21 St. at L. ch. VOL. I. — 6 82 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. the centre of the main channel of the said river to the west- ern boundary line of the Chickasaw Nation, the same being tlie northwest corner of the said Nation ; thence south on the boundary line between the said Nation and the reservation of the Wichita Indians ; thence continuing south with the boundary line between the said Chickasaw Nation and the reservation of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indians to Red River ; thence down said river to the place of beginning. And all that portion of the Indian Territory not annexed to the district of Kansas by the Act approved January sixth, eighteen hundred and eighty- three, and not set apart and occupied by the five civilized tribes, shall, from and after the passage of this Act, be annexed to and constitute a part of the eastern judicial district of the State of Texas, for judicial purposes." " The counties of Lamar, Fannin, Red River, and Delta, of the State of Texas, and all that part of the Indian Territory attached to the said eastern judicial district of the State of Texas by the provisions of this Act, shall consti- tute a division of the eastern judicial district of Texas ; and terms of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States for the said eastern district of the State of Texas shall be held twice in each year at the city of Paris, on the third Mondays in April and the second Mondays in October ; and the United States courts herein provided to be held at Paris shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all offences committed agaiust the laws of the United States within the limits of that portion of the Indian Territory attached to tlie eastern judicial district of the State of Texas by the provisions of this Act, of which jurisdiction is not given by this Act to the court herein estal)lished in the Indian Territory ; and all civil process, issued against persons resident in the said counties of Lamar, Fannin, Red River, and Delta cognizable before the United States courts, shall be made returnable to the courts, respectively, to Ije held at the city of Paris, Texas. And all prosecutions for offences committed in either of said last mentioned counties shall be tried iu the division of said eastern district of wliich said counties form a part: Provided,, that no process issued or prosecution commenced or suit instituted l)eforc the passage of this Act, shall be in any way affected by the provisions thereof." ^^^ i*'i 25 St. at L. cli. .333, §§ 17 and 18, pp. 780-787. See In re Jackson, 40 Fed. R, 372. § 26.] DISTRICTS OF TEXAS AND VERMONT. 83 The Western District includes the counties of Calhoun, Aransas, Victoria, Goliad, Refugio, Bee, San Patricio, Neuces, Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, Zapata, Duval, Encinal, Webb, La Salle, McMul- len, Live Oak, De Witt, Lavaca, Gonzales, Wilson, Karnes, Atas- cosa, Frio Dimmit, Zavala, Maverick, Kinney, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar, Guadalupe, Caldwell, Fayette, Washington, Lee, Burleson, Milan, Williamson, Bastrop, Travis, Hays, Comal, Kendall, Blanco, Burnett, Llano, Gillespie, Kerr, Bandera, Edwards, Kimball, Mason, ^lenard, El Paso, Presidio, Tom Green, Crockett, Pecos, Concho, McCuUoch, San Saba, and Lampasas. ^^^ The terms of District and Circuit Court for tlie Northern District are held at Dallas, on the second Monday of January and the third Monday of May ; at Graham, on the second Monday of March and the third Monday of October ; at Waco, on the second Monday of April and the third Monday of November.^^^ The terras of the same courts for the Eastern District are held at Galveston, on the first Mondays of March and November ; at Tyler, on the second Mondays of January and May ; at Jefferson, on the second Mon- days of February and September ; and at Paris, on the third Monday of April and second Monday of October.^^* The terms of the same courts for the Western District are held at Browns- ville, on the first Monday of January and the second Monday of June ; at San Antonio, on the first Mondays of May and Novem- ber; at El Paso, on the first Mondays in April and October; and at Austin, on the first Mondays in February and July.^*''^ Vermont constitutes one judicial district,^^ for which the terras of the District and Circuit Courts are held at Burlington, on the fourth Tuesday in February ; at Windsor, on the third Tuesday in May ; and at Rutland, on the first Tuesday in October.is' Jf2 U. S. K. S. § 548 ; 20 St. at L. cli. 97, i^^ Thid., and 25 St. at L. ch. 63.3, § 18, p. .318; 21 St. at L. ch. 18, § 1, p. 10; 20 p. 780. St. at L. ch. 97, p. 318; 21 St. at L. ch. ^^^ U. S. R. S. §§ 572, 058; Act of Feb. 213, p. 198 ; 25 St. at L. ch. 03.3, §§ 17, 18, 24, 1879, ch. 97 (20 St. at L. 318) ; Act of p. 786. For special jurisdiction of tlie June 11, 1879, ch. 15 (21 St. at L. 10) ; courts held in this district over contro- Act of Feb. 18, 1881, ch. 62 (21 St. at L. versies affecting the Gulf, Colorado, and 320) ; Act of June 3, 1884, ch. 64 (23 St. Santa Fe l^ailroad Company, see 23 St. at L. 35) ; Act of Feb. 4, 1890, ch. 5 (26 at L. ch. 177, § 8, p. 72 ; 23 St. at L. ch. St. at L. 3). 179, § 8, p. 975; Briscoe v- Southern Kan. ^^ U. S. K. S. § 531. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R. 273. i" U. S. R. S. §§ 572, 6.58 ; Act of June ^^^ Act of June 20, 1884, ch. 102 (23 St. 5, 1874, ch. 214 (18 St. at L. 63). at L. 48). 84 JUKISDICTION. [chap. I. In Virginia two districts, the Eastern and Western. The Western District includes the counties of Albemarle, Alleghany, Amherst, Appomattox, Augusta, Bath, Bedford, Bland, Botetourt, Buchanan, Buckingham, Campbell, Carroll, Charlotte, Clarke, Craig, Cumberland, Floyd, Franklin, Frederick, Fluvanna, Giles, Grayson, Greene, Halifax, Henry, Highland, Lee, Madison, Mont- gomery, Nelson, Patrick, Page, Pulaski, Pittsylvania, Rappahan- nock, Roanoke, Rockbridge, Rockingham, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Shenandoah, Tazewell, Washington, Wise, Wythe, and Warren. The Eastern District includes the residue of the State.^^^ The terms of the District and the Circuit Court for the Eastern Dis- trict are held at Richmond, on the first Mondays in April and October ; at Alexandria, on the first Mondays in January and July ; and at Norfolk, on the first Mondays in May and Novem- ber. The terms of the same courts for the Western District are held at Danville, on the Tuesdays after the second Mondays in April and November ; at Lynchburg, on the Tuesdays after the second Mondays in March and September ; at Abingdon, on the Tuesdays after the first Mondays in May and October ; and at Harrisonburgh, on the Tuesdays after the first Mondays in June and December.i^^ Waslmigton constitutes one judicial district, which is divided into four divisions, the Eastern, Southern, Northern, and West- ern. The counties of Spokane, Stevens, Okanogan, Douglas, Lincoln, Adams, and Kittitass, including any and all Lidian reservations in one or more of said counties, constitute the Eastern Division, the court for which is held at the city of Spo- kane Falls. The counties of Whitman, Asotin, Garfield, Colum- bia, Walla Walla, Franklin, Yakima, and Klickitat, including any and all Lidian reservations, constitute tlie Southern Division, the court for which is held at the city of Walla Walla. The counties of Whatcom, Skagit, San Juan, Island, Snohomish, Clal- lam, Jefferson, Kitsap, and King, including any and all Indian reservations in one or more of said counties, constitute tlic Northern Division, the court for which is held at the city of Seattle. The counties of Pierce, Mason, Thurston, Chehalis, Pacific, Lewis, Wahkiakum, Cowlitz, Clarke, and Skamania, in- cluding any and all Indian reservations in one or more of said IS'' U. S. R. S. § 510. 14, 1881, cli. 45 (21 St. at L. 824) ; Act of 183 U. S. K. S. §§ 572, 058 ; Act of Feb. Sept. 25, 18'J0, cli. 922 (20 St. at L. 474). § 2G.] DISTRICTS OF WEST VIRGINIA AND WISCONSIN. 85 counties, constitute the Western Division, the court for which is liekl at the city of Tacoma.^^*^ The terms of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States are held, for the Eastern Division, at Spokane Falls, on the first Tuesdays of September and April ; for the Southern Division, at Walla Walla, on the first Tuesdays of November and May ; for the Northern Division, at Seattle, on the first Tuesdays of December and June ; and for the Western Division, at Tacoma, on the first Tuesdays of February and July.^^*^ West Virginia constitutes one judicial district.^^^ The terms of the Circuit and District Courts for West Virginia are held at Wheeling, on the first days of March and September ; at Clarksburg, on the first days of April and October ; at Charles- ton, on the first days of May and November. When any of these dates fall on Sunday, the court will be held on the fol- lowing Monday .19^ The terms of the Circuit Court for the same district are also held at Parkersburg, on the tenth days of Jan- uary and June. When either of these dates falls on Sunday, the term will commence on the following Monday. ^^^ Terms of both courts are also held at Martinsburg, on the first Tuesday in August.^^'^ In Wisconsin two districts, the Eastern and Western. The Western District includes the counties of Rock, Jefferson, Dane, Green, Grant, Columbia, Iowa, La Fayette, Sauk, Richland, Craw- ford, Vernon, La Cross, Monroe, Adams, Juneau, Buffalo, Chip- pewa, Dunn, Clark, Jackson, Eau Claire, Pepin, Marathon, Wood, Pierce, Polk, Portage, St. Croix, Trempealeau, Douglas, Barron, Burnett, Ashland, and Bayfield. The Eastern District includes the residue of the State.^^^ The terms of the District and Cir- cuit Courts for the Eastern District of Wisconsin are held at Oshkosh, on the second Tuesday of July, and at ]Milwaukee, on the first Mondays of January and October.i^'^ The same courts for the Western District of Wisconsin arc held at Madison, on the first Monday in June, and at La Crosse, on the third Tues- day in Septeraber.i^^ !»" 25 St. at L. ch. 180, p. 682; 20 St. ^^- U. S. K. S. § 058; Act of Dec. 21, at. L. eh. 65, §§ 3 and 6. 1878, ch. 9 (20 St. at L. 259). 191 U. S. RS. § 531. i°* 25 St. at L. ch. 201, § 1, p. 151. 192 U. S. R. S. § 572; Act of March 9, i^^ U. S. K. S. § 550. 1878, ch. 27 (20 St. at L. 27 ; Act of Feb. i^'^ U. S. R. S. §§ 572, 058 ; Act of June 0, 1889 (25 St. at L. 055). 10, 1874, ch. 280 ( 18 St. at L. 75). 19- U. S. R. S. §§ 572, 058. 86 jupjsDicTiox. [chap. I. Wyoming constitutes one district, which is attached to the Eighth Circuit. The Circuit and District Courts thereof are held at the capital of the State, for the time being, on the first Mondays in April and Xovember.i^^ § 26 a. Jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. — The Revised Statutes give the Court of Claims the jurisdiction over claims against the United States, as follows : — " First. All claims founded ujjou any law of Congress, or npon any regulation of an Executive Department, or upon any contract, expressed or im])lied, with the government of the United States, and all claims which may be referred to it by either House of Congress. " Second, All set-offs, counter-claims, claims for damages, whether liquidated or unliquidated, or other demands what- soever, on the part of the government of the United States, against any person making claim against the government in said court. " Third. The claim of any paymaster, quartermaster, com- missary of subsistence, or other disbursing ofhccr of the United States, or of his administrators or executors, for relief from responsibility, on account of capture or otherwise, while in the line of his duty, of government funds, voucliers, records, or papers in his charge, and for which such officer was and is held responsil)le. " Fourth. Of all claims for the proceeds of cajiturod or aban- doned property, as provided by the Act of March 12, 1863, chapter 120, entitled ' An Act to provide for the collection of abandoned property and for the prevention of frauds in insur- rectionary districts within the United States,' or by the Act of July 2, 1(Sij4, chapter 225, being an act in addition thereto : Provided, that the remedy given in cases of seizure under the said acts, by preferring claim in the Court of Claims, shall be exclusive, precluding tlie owner of any property taken by agents of the Treasury Department as abandoned or captured property in virtue or under color of said acts, from suit at common law, or auy other mode of redress whatever, before any court other than said Court of Claims : (Provided, also, that tlie jurisdic- tion of the Court of Claims shall not extend to any claim against the United States growing out of the destruction or i»» 2G St. at L. ch. GC4, § 10, p. 225. § 26 h.] JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS. 87 appropriation of, or damage to, property by the army or navy engaged in the suppression of the rebellion)." ^ " All petitions and bills praying or providing for the satis- faction of private claims against the government, founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any regulation of an Executive Department, or upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the government of the United States, shall, unless otherwise ordered by resolution of the House in which they are intro- duced, be transmitted by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives, with all the accom- panying documents, to the Court of Claims." 2 " No person shall file or prosecute in the Court of Claims, or in the Supreme Court on appeal therefrom, any claim for or in respect to which he or any assignee of his has pending in any other court any suit or process against any person who, at the time when the cause of action alleged in such suit or process arose, was in respect thereto acting or professing to act, mediately or immediately, under the authority of the United States." 3 The practice and jurisdiction of the Court of Claims are more fully explained in a subsequent chapter.'* § 26 b. Jurisdiction of the Court of Private Land Claims. — The Court of Private Land Claims has jurisdiction to hear and decide private land claims according to the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1891,^ as follows : — When any person or persons or corporation, or their legal representatives, claiming lands within the limits of the territory derived by the United States from the republic of Mexico, and now embraced within the Territories of New Mexico, Arizona, or Utah, or within the States of Nevada, Colorado, or Wyoming, by virtue of any such Spanish or Mexican grant, concession, warrant, or survey as the United States are bound to recog- nize and confirm by virtue of the treaties of cession of said country by Mexico to the United States, which at the date of the passage of this act have not been confirmed by act of Con- gress, or otherwise finally decided upon by lawful authority, and which are not already complete and perfect, presents to the § 26 a. 1 U. S. R. S. § 1059. * Infra, ch. xxxi. See also 74 St. at 2 U. S. R. S. § lOGO. L. ch. 359, p 505 ; and infra, § 3G. 3 U. S. R. S. § 1067. § 206 i 20 St. at L. ch. 539, p-. 854. 88 JURISDICTION. [chap. I. said court in the State or Territory where the land is situated and where the said court holds its sessions, or, in cases arising in the States or Territories in which the court does not hold regular sessions, at such place as may be designated by tlie rules of the court, a petition praying that the validity of his title or claim may be inquired into and decided.^ The court has jurisdiction to hear and determine all ques- tions arising in cases before it relative to the title to the land the subject of such case, the extent, location, and boundaries thereof, and other matters connected therewith, fit and proper to be heard and determined, and by a final decree to settle and determine the question of the validity of the title and the boundaries of the grant or claim presented for adjudication, according to the law of nations, the stipulations of the treaty concluded between the United States and the republic of Mex- ico at the city of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, on February 2, 1848, or the treaty concluded between the same powers at the city of Mexico on December 30, 1853, and the laws and ordinances of the government from which it is alleged to have been derived, and all other questions properly arising between the claimants and the United States, which decree must in all cases refer to the treaty, law, or ordinance under which such claim is con- firmed or rejected ; and in confirming any such claim, in whole or in part, the court must in its decree specify jJainly the loca- tion, boundaries, and area of the land the claim to which is so confirmed.^ When a petition is presented as aforesaid by any person or corporation claiming lands in any of the States or Territories in the United States above mentioned, under a title derived from the Spanish or the Mexican government that was com- plete and perfect at the date when the United States acquired sovereignty therein, praying the court for a confirmation of such title, the court must proceed to hear, try, and determine the validity of the same and the right of the claimant thereto, its extent, location, and boundaries, in the same manner and with the same powers as in other cases in the act mentioned.* In such a case the confirmation of the title must be for so much land only as such perfect title shall be found to cover, always 2 20 St. at L. cli. 53rt, § G, p 856. « 20 St. at L. di. 539, § 8, p. 857. 8 20 St. at. L. ch. 539, § 7, p. 857. § 27.] SOURCES OF FEDERAL EQUITY PRACTICE. 89 excepting any part of such land that may have been disposed of by the United States ; and subject to and not to affect any conflicting private interests, rights, or chiims held or claimed adversely to any such claim or title, or adversely to the holder of any such claim or title. And no such confirmation of a claim or title has any effect other or further than as a release of all claims of title by the United States, and no private right of any person as between himself and other claimants in respect of any such lands is in any manner thereby affected.^ The head of the Department of Justice, whenever in his opin- ion the public interest or the rights of any claimant may require it, may cause the attorney of the United States in said court to file in said court a petition against the holder or possessor of any claim or land in any of the States or Territories of tlie United States, who shall not have voluntarily come in under the provisions of the act, stating in substance that the title of such holder or possessor is open to question, or stating in substance that the boundaries of any such land the claimant or possessor to or of which has not brought the matter into court, and pray- ing that the title to any such land, or the boundaries thereof, if the title be admitted, be settled and adjudicated ; and there- upon the court must, on such notice to such claimant or pos- sessor as it may deem reasonable, proceed to hear, try, and determine the questions stated in such petition, or arising in the matter, and determine the matter according to law, justice, and the provisions of the act, but subject to all lawful rights adverse to such claimant or possessor, and subject in this rcsj)cct to all the provisions of the statute applicable thereto.*^ The jurisdiction of this court and the practice therein are more fully explained in a subsequent chapter.'' § 27. Sources of Federal Equity Practice. — The Revised Stat- utes provide : — " Sec. 917. The Supreme Court shall have power to prescribe, from time to time, and in any manner not inconsistent with any law of the United States, the forms of writs and other process, the modes of framing and filing proceedings and pleadings, of taking and obtaining evidence, of obtaining discovery, of pro- ceeding to ol)tain relief, of drawing up, entering, and enrolling 6 26 St. at L. ch. 539, § 8, pp. 857, 858. ^ Infra, ch. xxxii. 6 26 St. at L. ch. 539, § 8, p. 858. 90 JURISDICTION. [chap. L decrees, and of proceeding before trustees appointed by the court, and generally to regulate the whole practice to be used in suits in equity or admiralty, by the Circuit and District Courts. " Sec. 918. The several Circuit and District Courts may, from time to time, and in any manner not inconsistent with any law of the United States, or with any rule prescribed by the Su})reme Court under the preceding section, make rules and orders direct- ing the returning of writs and processes, the filing of ])leadings, the taking of rules, the entering and making up of judgments by default, and other matters, in vacation, and otherwise regulate their own practice as may be necessary or convenient for the advancement of justice and the prevention of delays in pro- ceedings." Under these provisions the Supreme Court has from time to time promulgated ninety-four rules of equity practice ; and most of the inferior courts have also adopted rules of their own. The ninetieth rule of the Supreme Court, which was promulgated in 1842, provides that, " in all cases where the rules prescribed by this court or by the Circuit Court do not apply, the practice of the Circuit Court shall be regulated by the present practice of the High Court of Chancery in England, so far as the same may reasonably be applied consistently with the local circumstances and local conveniences of the district where the court is held, not as positive rules, but as furnishing just analogies to regulate the practice." Of this rule Judge Sawyer said : — " The jurisdiction of this court is derived from the Constitu- tion and laws of the United States ; and these rules are simply rules of practice, for regulating the mode of proceeding in the courts. They do not, and could not, properly, cither limit or enlarge the jurisdiction of the court. The rule quoted simply regulates the practice in exercising the jurisdiction of the court in those respects wherein the rules adopted do not apply ; but the practice of the High Court of Chancery is to be applied, not as controlling, but simply as furnishing just analogies to regulate the practice." ^ By reference to these sources and the decisions of the courts resulting from them, the practice at equity in the courts of the United States must be determined.^ § 27. 1 Lewis v. Shainwald, 7 Saw. 403, - See Er parte Poiiltn(\v v. City of La 405. Fayette, 12 Pet. 472, at p. 474. § 31.] MARRIED WOMEN AS PLAINTIFFS. 91 CHAPTER II. PERSONS WHO MAY BE PLAINTIFFS OR DEFENDANTS IN A SUIT IN EQUITY. § 28. General Rule as to Persons capable of being Plaintiffs. — All persons may file a bill in equity iii their own right, except alien enemies, infants, idiots, lunatics, married women, and possibly those who by the laws of a State have been declared civilly dead. § 29. states as Plaintiffs. — A State may sue as plaintiff in any court of the United States.^ A State cannot sue in the Supreme Court of the United States to collect a judgment for a penalty recovered in the court of such State against a corporation char- tered by another Statc.^ § 30. Alien Enemies as Plaintiffs. — Subjects of a country at war with the United States cannot sue in the State or Federal courts before the conclusion of peace, unless they are residents of this country or within the jurisdiction of one of our allies.^ If a com- plainant become an alien enemy after a suit has been begun, the defence may be interposed by plea or answei'.^ The effect of such a defence is then, however, merely to suspend the cause of action and suit, not to dismiss the bill.^ § 31. Married Women as Plaintiffs. — A married woman origi- nally could only sue when joined with her husband, unless he. had deserted her, and was without the realm or civilly dead, when she could sue alone •,^ or unless the suit concerned her sep- arate property, when she was obliged to sue by her next friend.^ The next friend, however, was chosen by herself ; ^ and the hus- band was then usually made a party defendant, that he might § 20. 1 Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449 ; Levine v. Taylor. 12 Mass. 8 ; Ilamersley U. "s. r. Louisiana, 123 U. S. 32 ; § 14. v. Lambert, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 508 ; Ex 2 Wisc'on.-;in v. Pelican Insurance Co., p- tained by the State from the plaintiff by mistake or fraud.^'^ A county is subject to suit in a court of the United States ; and a State law cannot divest a Federal court of jurisdiction over sucli a suit.21 15 Ponnoyer t\ JlcConnaugliy, 140 U. S. ^^ In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443. But 1, 10. " see Tucliman v. Welch. 42 Fe.l. R. 548 ; i*" Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick reversed s. c. 45 Fed. K. 283 ; and criti- R. R. Co., lO'J U. S. 446. See, however, ciscd in 24 Am. Law Review, 0(51. the dissenting opinion of Field and Har- i'^ Hans r. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1; Ian, .J.I. See also Ilagood v. Southern, North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S. 22. 117 U. S. 52 ; Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. -' Williams r. United States, 138 U. S. R. R. Co., 133 U. S. 2.33. 514, 516. 2" fn re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 502, per ^i Lincoln County i-. Luning, 133 U. S. Matthews, J. 529i § 39.] SUITS AGAINST INFANTS. 107 § 38. Liability of a State to a Suit by another State. — The Constitution provides that " the judicial power shall extend . . . to controversies between two or more States ; . . . and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or sub- jects." 1 The Eleventh Amendment has not taken away the lia- bility of one of the United States to a suit by another such State or a foreign State. Such jurisdiction, however, is confined to controversies concerning rights affecting property ; not to those merely affecting political rights.^ It includes controversies con- cerning boundaries between different States, even though the complainant claim no title other than that of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the lands in question.^ For, " in this country, where feudal tenures are abolished, in cases of escheat the State takes the place of the feudal lord, by virtue of its sovereignty, as the original and ultimate proprietor of all the lands within its jurisdiction."* If, however, in a bill which prays relief against a threatened invasion of rights purely political in their nature, a threatened injury to property be stated " only by way of showing one of the grievances resulting from the threatened destruction of the State, and in aggravation of it, not as a specific ground of relief;" and "this matter of property is neither stated as an independent ground, nor is it noticed at all in the prayers for relief ; " the bill will be dismissed.^ A suit cannot be main- tained when brought by one State against another to enforce the payment by the latter of its bonds originally held by citi- zens of the former State, and assigned by them to it solely for the purpose of collection.^ A tribe of Indians domiciled within the borders of the United States does not constitute a foreign State within the meaning of the Constitution.^ § 39. Suits against Infants. — An infant when sued should be provided by the court with a guardian ad litem} For an omis- sion to appoint a guardian ad litem, a decree against an infant will be reversed upon appeal.^ An application for the appoint- § .38. 1 Art. III. § 2. 4 Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, 73. 2 Cherokee Nation r. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1 ; ^ Georgia r. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, 77. Georgia r. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50 ; Georgia '' New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 V. Grant, 6 Wall. 241. U. S. 7Q. 3 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 " Olierokee Nation r. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1. Pet. 057; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. GOO; § .39. i Rule 87; Bank of the United Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Ala- States v. Ritchie, 8 Pet. 128, 144. See bama v. Georgia, 2.3 How. 505 ; Virginia Woolridge >: McKenna, 8 Fed. R. 0-50, 670. t;. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39. 2 o'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U. S. 150. 108 PLAINTIFFS OR DEFENDANTS IN A SUIT IN EQUITY. [CHAP. II. ment of a guardian ad litem for an infant should be made by petition, which, if the appointment of a particular person is de- sired, should state his name and his consent to act as such.^ The court will usually appoint the infant's general guardian or " the nearest relative not concerned, in point of interest, in the matter in question ; " * but the choice of the guardian rests in the sound discretion of the court, and only in an extraordinary case would a decree be reversed for an error in this respect.^ The interests of an infant are guarded jealously by the court, which will not hold him bound by any admission made by him or in his behalf, whether in the pleadings^ or otherwise.^ The guardian ad litem is responsible for the propriety of the defence.^ He must pay costs for scandal ; ^ and he may be removed by the court at auy time.^^ This may be done if he is unable or unwilling to pay the expenses of the defense.^^ If no person of substance is willing to serve for the infants, the court " might suspend fur- ther proceedings until it could send a next friend or guardian ad litem to the State courts having jurisdiction of their person and property, to secure such guardianship as would protect them." ^^ Infants may defend in forma pauperis ; but, except in very extraordinary circumstances, their expenses will not be ad- vanced out of a fund in the hands of a receiver.^-^ A guardian ad litem may recoup his expenses from the infant's property.^'* According to the English practice, an appearance could be entered for an infant before a guardian ad litem had been appointed.i° § 40. Suits against Idiots, Lunatics, and Persons of Weak Mind. — Idiots and lunatics defend l)y guardians ad litem, appointed for them by the court.^ A committee will usually be appointed guar- 3 Rliinelandcr v. Sanford, 3 Day (2(1 ^ Knickerbacker v. De Freest, 2 Circuit, Conn.), 279. Paige (N. Y.), 804. •» Bank of tlie United States v. Ritchie, » Danioll's Cii. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 204. 8 Pet. 128, 144; Story's Eq. PI. § 70; " Russell v. Sliarpe, 1 Jac. & W. 482. Calvert on Parties, Book III. ch. xxxi. " Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. R. 771, 5 Bankof tlie United States i-. Ritchie, 772. 8 Pet. 128, 144. i-^ Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. R. 771, ^ Bankof the United States r. Ritcliie, 772. 8 Pet. 128, 144, 145 ; Walton r. Coulson, 13 Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. R. 771. 1 McLean, 125; s. c. Coulson r. Walton, '* Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. R. 771, 9 Pet. 62, 84; Hawkins v. Luscoinhe, 772. 2 Swanst. 875, .390; Savage v. Carroll, 1 ^^ Braithwaite's Pr. 322. Ball & B. 558. § 40. i Rule 87 ; Harrison v. Rowan, 7 Legard v. ShefTield, 2 Atk. 377. 4 Wasii. C. C. 202, 207. § 41.] SUITS AGAINST MARRIED WOMEN. 109 dian ad lltein of the person in his charge,^ unless his interest be opposed to that of the idiot or lunatic,^ or perhaps if he refuse to answer or defend.* The guardian ad litem is usually joined with the idiot or lunatic as a co-defendant.^ It was held by Chancellor Kent, that in New York the committee appointed in accordance with statute, and not the idiot or lunatic, is the proper party to the bill ; ^ but the rule in the Federal courts seems to be other- wise." "A person reduced by age or infirmity to a second in- fancy may defend by guardian." ^ It is said that the answer of a superannuated person, put in by guardian, may be read against him as an answer of one of full age put in in person ; and that the difference in this respect between such answer and that of an infant put in by guardian is, because an infant improves and mends, and therefore is to have a day to show cause after he comes of age ; but the other grows worse, and is to have no day.^ §41. Suits against Married Women. — In suits against a mar- ried woman by a third person, her husband, if not civilly dead or permanently absent from the State, should be joined with her as a co-defendant ; ^ except perhaps in States where she lias the same rights and liabilities as a spinster,^ or when she is sued in a representative capacity .^ She, however, may answer separately from her husband.* A bill filed in the name of a married woman suing alone, may be amended by the addition of a next friend, when necessary.^ 2 Story's Eq. PI. §70; Westcomb v. §41. i Story's Eq. PI. §71; Calvert Westconib, 1 Dickens, 233 ; Harrison v. on Parties, Book III. oil. xx.x. ; Hulme v. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. 202, 207. Tenant, 1 Brown, Cli. C. 16; Taylor v. 3 Snell V. Hyat, 1 Dickens, 287 ; Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 498, 514. Story's Eq. PI. § 70. 2 Lorillard v. Standard Oil Co., 2 Fed. 4 Lloyd V. , 2 Dickens, 460. R. 902. But see Taylor v. Holmes, 14 5 Harrison v. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. Fed. R. 499, 514; Douglas v. Butler, 6 202. Fed. R. 228 ; United States v. Pratt Coal 6 Brasher's Executors v. Van Cort- & Coke Co., 18 Fed. R. 708 ; O'Hara v. landt, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 242. MacConnell, 93 U. S. 150. ' Harrison v. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. ^ Moore v. Meynell, 2 Vern. 614, note. 202, 207. * Duke of Chandos v. Talbot, 2 P. 8 Markle v. Markle, 4 J. Ch. 168. Wms. 372. a Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 224, & Douglas v. Butler, 6 Fed. R. 228. 225 ; citing Leving v. Caverly, Prec. Ch. 229. 110 PARTIES. [CHAP. IIL CHAPTER III. PARTIES. § 42. General Rule as to Parties. — 111 ordinary cases, all per- sons should be made parties to a suit in equity, who are di- rectly interested in obtaining or resisting the relief prayed for in the bill or granted in the decree.^ If interested in obtaining the relief prayed for, they should join as plaintiffs ; unless some refuse to appear in that capacity, when the rest should make them defendants.2 This rule has been also stated by the expressions that " all persons interested in the subject of the suit should be before the court" ;'^ and that "all persons who have in the object or objects of the suit an interest or interests apparent upon the record, are necessary parties." * " In determining who are proper parties to a suit, courts of equity are guided by two leading principles. One of tliem is a principle admitted in all courts of justice in this country, upon questions affecting liberty, or life, or property ; namely, that no proceedings shall take place with respect to the rights of any one, except in his presence. Thus a decree of a court of equity binds no one who is not to be regarded, according to the rules of the court, either as a party, or else.as one who claims under a party, to the suit. The second is a principle wliich in this country is peculiar to courts of equity ; namel}', that when a decision is made, it shall provide for all the rights which different persons have in the matters decided. For a court of equity in all cases delights to do complete justice, and not by halves;^ to put an end to litigation, and to give decrees of such a nature that the j)erformance of them may be perfectly safe to all who obey them: interest reipuhlicae ut sit finis litium. In this respect, there is a § 42. 1 Calvert on Parties, Book I. ^ Sir William Grant in Wilkins r. cli. i., and cases there cited. Fry, 1 Mer. 244, 2G2. 2 Ilardint,' v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 10-3 ; •» Calvert on Parties (2d cd.), p. 13, Wisner v. Barnet, 4 Wash. C. C. 6-31, and cases there cited. 642 ; Fallowes r. Williamson, 11 Ves. 313 ; 6 Knight v. Knight, 3 P. Wms. 333. Calvert on Parties, Book I. cli. viii. § 43.] PARTIES WITH NO INTEREST IN THE MATTER OF THE SUIT. Ill manifest distinction between the practice of a court of law and that of a court of eqiiit}'. A court of law decides some one in- dividual question which is brought before it ; a court of equity not merely makes a decision to that extent, but also arranges all the rights which the decision immediately affects." ^ Thus when a person who is charged with the payment of a sura of money is surety to another, the principal must be joined as defendant to the bill ; as in the case of a suit against an heir for the perform- ance of a covenant by his ancestor which binds him as well as the ancestor's personal estate, when the personal representative must also be joined. For " the court of equity in all cases de- lights to do complete justice, and not by halves ; as, first, to decree the heir to perform this covenant, and then to put the heir upon another bill against the executor to reimburse himself out of the personal assets, which, for aught appears to the contrary, may be more than sufficient to answer the covenant ; and when the executor and heir are both brought before the court, complete justice may be done by decreeing the executor to perform this covenant as far as the personal assets will extend, tlie rest to be made good by the heir out of the real assets. And here appears no difficulty or inconvenience in bringing the executor before the court. On the contrary, it would prevent a multiplicity of suits, which a court of equity ought to do." '^ § 43. Parties ■with no Interest in the Subject-Matter of the Suit. — Although as a general rule no person can be made a party against whom if brought to a hearing the plaintiff can have no decree,! yet the English practice allowed strangers in certain cases to be made parties for the sake of discovery, and even in order to mulct them with costs. In a suit against a corpora- tion, its officers, book-keeper, or members might be made parties for the sake of discovery concerning matters which had come to their knowledge while transacting the business of the corpora- tion ; 2 but not, it seems, to obtain discovery of such as they knew only through their participation in its formation.^ Of the 8 Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), pp. 2, 3. Many v. Beekman Iron Co., 9 Paige 7 Lord Chancellor Talbot in Knight v. (N. Y.), 189. Calvert on Parties (2a ed.), Knight, 3 P. Wms. 3:]1, 334. pp. 92-94. But see Boston \V. H. Co. r. §43. 1 Wycli u. Meal, 3 P. Wms. 310, Star R. C, 40 Fed. R. 167; Cleveland 311, note; Dan. Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 342. Forge & Bolt Co. v. U. S. Rolling Stock 'i Wych V. Meal, 3 P. Wms. 310 ; Co., 41 Fed. R. 476. Anon, 1 Vern. 117 ; Fcnton v. Hnglies, 7 ^ McComb v. Chicago, St. Louis, & Ves. 289; Glyn v. Soares, 1 Y. & C. 044 ; New Orleans R. R. Co., 7 Fed. R. 426. 112 PARTIES. [chap. III. rule, Lord Eldon said : " The principle upon which the rule has been adopted is very singular ; it originated with Lord Talbot,^ ■who reasoned thus upon it, that you cannot have a satisfactory answer from a corporation, therefore you make the secretary a party, and get from him the discovery you cannot be sure of having from them ; and it is added, that the answer of the secre- tary may enable you to get better information." ^ " The first of these principles," continues Lord Eldon, " is extremely ques- tionable, if it were now to be considered for the first time ; and as to the latter, it is very singular to make a person a defendant in order to enable yourself to deal better, and with more success, ■with those whom you have a right to put upon the record ; but this practice has so universally prevailed without objection that it must be considered established." ^ When an answer under oath is waived, it is improper to make the officers of a corpora- tion parties to a suit against it, if no relief is asked against them ; and a demurrer by them to such a bill making them parties de- fendant will be sustained." Agents to sell, auctioneers, arbitra- tors, and attorneys could formerly be made defendants for a similar purpose in suits against their principals concerning trans- actions ■with ■which they were connected.^ And in a few cases of fraud it has been held that persons implicated in the fraud might be made parties merely to make them liable for costs.^ § 44. Persons "who on account of their Interest need not be made Parties to a Suit in Equity. — No persons should be joined as par- ties to a suit in equity, either as co-plaintiffs or co-defendants, ■who are not directly interested in obtaining or resisting the relief prayed for in the bill,^ or who claim the property in question un- der inconsistent titles.^ Thus, prior incumbrancers should not be made parties to a bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage,^ un- less it prays for a receiver,* or seeks to obtain a sale of the entire * In Wych v. Meal, 3 P. Wms. 310. cases cited. See Ewin v. Oregon Ry. & 5 Fenton v. Hughes, 7 Ves. 287. Nav. Co., 27 Fed. 11. G25. c Fenton v. Hugtu>s,.7 Ves. 288, 289. § 44. i Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 6 7 Colonial & U. S. Mortg. Co. Ld. v. Mare v. Malachy, 1 M. & C. 559. Hutchinson Mortg. Co., 44 Fed. II. 219. 2 Calvert on Parties (2ded.),105; Mar- See Boston W. H. Co. v. Star Rubber Co., quis Cliolmondeley r. Lord Clinton, 2 Jac 40 Fed. R. 107. & W. 138 , Saumarez v. Saumarez, 4 M 8 Fenton r. Hughes, 7 Ves. 288, 289 ; & C. 331 ; Dial v Reynolds, 96 U. S Dummer iv Corporation of Chippenham, 340. 14 Ves. 252. ^ Hagan v. Walker, 14 How. 29, 37 9 Taylour v. Rochford, 2 Ves. Sen. Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734. 281 ; Smith v. Green, 37 Fed. R. 424 ; .* Miltenberger i- Logansport Railway Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), p. 96, and Co., 106 U. S. 286, 306. U.] UNNECESSARY PARTIES. 113 mortgaged property free from all liens,'^ or unless " there is sub- stantial doubt respecting the amount of debts due prior lien cred- itors," in which case " there is obvious propriety in making them parties, that the amount of the charge remaining on the land after the sale may be determined, and that purchasers at the sale may be advised of what they are purchasing ; " ^ or unless there are other peculiar circumstances making it necessary. So, in suits for specific performance, it is a general rule that none but parties to the contract or their representatives are necessary parties,'' unless there are other persons with such an interest in the con- tract or the property agreed to be sold that their concurrence is necessary to the completion of the title, or their rights would be prejudiced were a decree made in their absence.^ Nor need the assignor of the whole interest in a thing in action be made a party to a suit by the assignee,^ except in the case of a suit by the equitable assignee of a patent,^*^ or copyright,^^ or the licensee ^^ 5 Hagan v. Walker, 14 How. 29 ; Je- rome V. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734, 735. " Mr. Justice Strong in Jerome v. Mc- Carter, 94 U. S. 734, at pages 735, 736. " Tasker v. Small, 3 M. & C. 03, 68 ; Calvert on Parties (2(1 eJ.), Book III. ch. xvii. * Jones V Lewis, 1 Cox F.q. 199 ; Evans V. Jackson, 8 Sim. 217; Calvert on Par- ties, Rook III. ch. xvii. 9 Harris v. Johnston, 3 Cranch, 311 ; Boon V. Chiles, 8 Pet. 532 ; Robertson ;;. Carson, 19 Wall. 04 ; s. c. Chase's Dec. 475, Batesville Institute z' Kanffman, 18 Wail. 151 ; Fulham v. McCarthy, 1 H. L. C. 703. 1^ Stimpson v Rogers, 4 Blatchf. 333 ; North V Kershaw, 4 Blatchf. 70 , Patter- son V. Stapler, 7 Fed R. 210; Goorlyear V Allen, 3 Fisher, 284. 11 Colburn v Dnneomhe, 9 Sim. 151 ; Chappell V. Purrlay, 4 Y & C. 485 ; Cal- vert on Parties (2(1 ed ), 315. 12 Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U. S.^ 2-52, 25.5-256, 260-261, per Mr. Justice Gray ; " The patentee or his assigns may, by instrument in writing, assign, grant, and convey eitlier, first, tlie whole patent, comprising tlie exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention throughout the United States ; or, second, an undi- vided part or share of that exclusive right ; or, third, the exclusive right un- VOL. I. — 8 der the patent witliin and throughout a .specified part of the United States. Rev. Stat. § 4898. A transfer of either of these three kinds of interests is an assignment, properly speaking, and vests in the as- signee a title m so much of the patent itself, with a right to sue infrmgers ; in the second case, jointly with the assignor.; in tlie first and third cases, in tlie name of the assignee alone. Any assignment or transfer, short of one of these, is a mere license, giving the licensee no title in the patent, and no right to sue at law in his own name for an infringement. Rev. Stat. § 4919 , Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, 494, 495 ; Moore v. Marsh, 7 Wall. 515. In equity, as at law, when the transfer amounts to a license only, the title remains in the owner of the pat- ent ; and suit must be brought in his name, and never in the name of the licensee alone, unless that is necessary to prevent an absolute failure of justice, as where the patentee is the infringer, and cannot sue himself. Any rights of ti.e licensee must be enforced through or in the name of the owner of the patent, and perhaps, if necessary, to jirotect the rights of all parties, joining the licensee with him as a planitiff. Rev Stat § 4921 ; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 205. 223; Paper Bag Cases, 105 U. S. 766, 771 ; Birdsell v ShaUol, 112 U. S. 48-5-487. 114 PARTIES. [chap. III. or mortgagor 13 by a mortgage duly recorded at Washington, or an assignee under an assignment still executory,^* when the as- signor, licensor, or mortgagee must be joined as either plaintiff And see Renard v Levinstein, 2 Hem. & Mil. 628. Whetlier a transfer of a par- ticular right or interest under a patent in an assignment or a license does not de- ])end upon the name by which it calls itself, but upon the legal effect of its pro- visions. For instance, a grant of an ex- clusive riglit to make, use, and vend two patented machines within a certain dis- trict is an assignment, and gives tlie grantee the right to sue in his own name for an infringement within the district, because tlie right, althougli limited to making, using, and vending two ma- chines, excludes all other persons, even the patentee, from making, using, or vending like maciiines ^vithi^ tiie dis- trict. Wilson V. Rousseau, 4 How. 640, (586. On the other iiand, the grant of an exclusive right under the patent within a certain district, which does not include tlie right to make, and the right to use, and the right to sell, is not a grant of a title in the whole patent-right within the district, and is therefore only a license. Such, for instance, is a grant of ' tlie full and exclusive right to make and vend ' within a certain district, reserving to the grantor the right to make within the dis- trict to be sold outside of it. Gayler v. Wilder, above cited. So is a grant of ' tlie exclusive right to make and use,' but not to sell, patented machines within a certain district. Mitchell v. Hawk-y, 10 Wall. 544. So is an instrument grant- ing 'the sole right and privilege of man- ufacturing and selling' patented articles, and not expressly authorizing their use, because, though this might carry by im- plication the right to use articles made under the patent by the licensee, it cer- tainly would not authorize him to use such articles made by others. Ilayward V. Andrews, 106 U. S 672 See also Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works, 109 U S. 75 A patent right is incorporeal property, not susceptible of actual de- livery or possession ; and the recording of a mortgage thereof in the Patent Office, in accordance with the act of Congress, is equivalent to a delivery of possession, and makes the title of the mortgagee complete towards all other persons, ais well as against the mortgagor. The right conferred by letters-patent for an inven- tion is limited to a term ot years , and a large part of its value consists in the profits derived from royalties and license fees. In analogy to the rules governing mortgages of lands and of chattels, and with even stronger reason, the assignee of a patent by a mortgage duly recorded, whose security is constantly wasting by the lapse of time, must be held (unless otherwise provided in the mortgage) enti- tled to grant licenses, to receive license fees and royalties, and to have an account of profits or an award of damages against infringers. There can be no doubt th;it he is the ' party interested, either as pat- entee, assignee, or grantee,' and as such entitled to maintain an action at law to recover damages for an infringement; and it cannot have been the intention of Congress that a suit in equity against an infringer to obtain an injunction and an account of profits, in whicli the court is authorized to award damages when ne- cessary to fully compensate the idaintifF, and has the same power to treble the damages as in an action at law, should not be brought by the same person. Kev. Stat §§ 4019, 4021 ; Root v Railway Co., 10.) ij.'s 180,212. The necessary con- clusion appears to us to be that Siiipman, being the present owner of the whole title in the patent under a mortgage duly executed and recorded, was the person, and the only person, entitled to maintain such a bill as this, and that the plea, therefore, was rightl}' adjudged good. In the light of our legislation and decis- ions, no weight can be given to the case of Van Gelder ". Sowerby Bridge Soci- ety, 44 Ch. I) 374. in which, upon plead- ings and facts similar to those now before " Waterman i'. Mackenzie, 138 U. S. 252, 261 ; quoted siipni, note 12. 1* Land Co. of New Mexico v. Klkins, 2Q Fed. K 545. § 44.] UNNECESSARY PARTIES. 115 or defendant. Nor need a mortgagor who has sold his equity of redemption be made a party to a foreclosure suit/^ unless relief is asked against him.^*^ It has been held at circuit that a tax collector is not a proper party to a bill to set aside a convey- ance made by him.^' And, as has been said before, no persons should be joined as plaintiff's,^^ or defendants,^^ who claim the property in question under inconsistent titles. For example, a mortgagee cannot maintain a bill against the mortgagor for a foreclosure, which at the same time seeks to enjoin a claimant adverse to both mortgagor and mortgagee from asserting his title to the mortgaged property .^'^ An interest in the question of law involved is not sufficient to make a person a necessary or even a })roper party ,2^ except when a bill of peace is filed. The equity rules, following the English orders in chancery, also provide that " in all cases in which the plaintiff has a joint and several de- mand against several persons, either as principals or sureties, it shall not be necessary to bring before the court as parties to a suit concerning such demand all the persons liable thereto ; but the plaintiff may proceed against one or more of the persons severally liable." ^"-^ This rule, however, only apj)lies when the demand is both joint and several, not when it is merely joint ;23 and when one of two or more jointly and severally indebted is the principal debtor to whom the others are sureties, he must, it seems, always be joined in a bill filed by the creditor to enforce a security against either of the latter.-^ Concerning the chancery us, the inortgRcror of a patent wns treated But see Matcnlm '■. Smitli, 6 McLean, as a ninrtgagor in possession, and was al- 41(3. loweil to maintain a suit for infringement ^*' Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U S. 187. under tiie provisions of tlie En^dish Jmli- ^" West v Duncan, 42 Fed. K. 4:jO cature Act of 1873 and Patent Act of 1-^ Marquis Cliolmondeley v. Lord Clin- 1883. Stats. 36 & 37 Vict. cii. GG, § 2-5 ; ton, 2 Jac. & W. 1, at page 135 ; Sau- 46 & 47 Vict. cli. 57, §§ 23, 40, 87. marez Saumarez, 4 M. & C. 331, 336. Wiietlier in a suit brouglit by the mort- See Parsons v. Lyman, 4 Blatclif C. C. gagee the court, at the suggestion of the 432. mortgagor, or of the mortgagee, or of ^^ Di.al v. Reynolds, 96 U S. 340. the defendants, might, in its discretion, -*^ Dial i\ Reynohls, 96 U. S. 340. But and for the purpose of preventing multi- see Hefner v Northwestern Life Ins. Co., plicity of suits or miscarriage of justice, 123 U S. 747. permit or order the mortgagor to be -'■ Vallette r. Whitewater Valley Canal joined, either as a plaintiff or as a de- Co., 4 McLean, 192. tendant, need not be considered, because -- Rule 51, copied from the 32d Order no sucli question is presented by this in Chancery of August, 1841. record." -3 Pierson v. Robinson, 3 Swanst. 139 n. i*" K.anawlia Coal Co. v Kanawha & -■' Robertson v. Carson, 19 Wall. 94; OhioCanal Co , 7 Blatchf. C. C. ;i91,416. Wilson v. City Bank, 3 Sumner, 423; 116 PARTIES. [chap. III. order from which Rule fifty-one was copied, Vice-Chancellor Shadvvell said that it " applied to cases where several persons were liable in different characters, — that is, some as principals and the rest as sureties ; and then it was sufficient to make one individual of each class a party ; but where there was only one principal and one surety, both of them must be made parties." -^ § 45. Cases where the Lavr has furnished a Representative. — On account of the inconvenience which would be caused if the general rule were enforced in all cases, there are several classes of exceptions to it.^ The first of these exists when the law has furnished a representative of the interest in question. In such a case, those whom he represents are not usually necessary parties to the suit.2 Thus, executors and administrators are deemed sufficiently to represent all legatees, creditors, and next of kin in suits brought by or against them in their representative capa- city ,-5 except when they are made defendants to a suit by a residu- ary legatee for his share of the estate,* or are sued for collusion with a legatee who should then be made a party,'^ or probably when an executor or administrator is charged with a breach of trust. So a bankrupt or insolvent debtor ^ and his creditors " are not usually necessary parties to a suit brought l)y or against his assignee. And by analogy to this, it has been held improper for a creditor of an estate to join with its i-eceiver in a suit concern- ing it.^ Nor need one or more surviving parties in suits by or against strangers affecting the i)artnership property have joined with them the personal representatives of their deceased asso- ciate.^ So the English rule was that " a court of equity in many cases considers the tenant in tail as having the whole estate vested in him at least for the purposes of suit ; and for these Allan V. Houlden, 6 Beav. 148 ; Pinkus ^ Atwood ?•. Hawkins, Rep. temp, r. Peters, 5 Beav. 25;}. Fincli, 113; Faithful r. Hunt, o Aiist. -» Lloyd V. Smith, 1.3 Sim. 457, at 751 ; Calvert on Pnrties {2(1 eil.), 200, pages 458, 4-59. 208. § 45. 1 Wallworth v. Holt, 4 M. & C. •'' Attorney-General r. Wynne, Mos. 019; Powell r. Wriirht, 7 Beav. 440. 120. •^ Calvert on Parties {2d cd ), 22. See •' De Wolf r. Johnson, 10 Wheat. 367, Hopkirk »;. Pafje, 2 Brock. 20, 42. at p. .384 ; Van Ileimsdyk v. Kane, 1 Gall. ■^ Brown v. Dowthwaite, 1 Madd. 448; 371 ; Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 24. Potter ('. Gardner, 12 Wheat. lltO ; Bur- ' Sprasjg v. Binkes, 5 Ves. 587. ton V. Smith. 4 Wash. C. C. 522; Dan- ^ Doggett i- Bailroad Co., 9!) U. S. dridge c Washington's Executors, 2 Pet. 72. 370, 377 ; Wainwright r. Waterman, 1 " Pagan v. Sparks, 2 Wash. C. C Ves. Jr. 313 ; Anon., 12 iMod. 522. 325. § 45.] WHERE THE LAW HAS FURNISHED A REPRESENTATIVE. 117 purposes does not look beyond the estate tail in a suit aiming by the decree to bind the right to the land."^*^ "Those in remain- der were considered as cyphers." ^^ " It appears that this rule was originally founded upon analogy to common law. As a tenant in tail might bar subsequent remainder-men, — in fact, might at any moment make himself master of the entire estate, it was considered by the court that he might be assumed to offer a satisfactory defense for all those subsequent interests. The court has, however, gone one step farther, and has treated in- fants as sufficient representatives of the inheritance, although they are unable, by reason of infancy, to bar remainder-men. In truth the court has gone to the full extent which is requisite for convenience in practice." ^^ It has been held that a tenant for life and the contingent remainder-man in fee may represent the inheritance in a bill for specific performance, if the children of the remainder-man will inherit if he does not.^^ In most cases respecting trust property, it was said by Lord Eldon that the beneficiaries of the trust were necessary parties.^* The expression naturally suggests the inquiry, in what cases are they not to be made parties ? There are some cases in which the existence or enjoyment of the property is affected by the prayer of the suit. There are others in which the existence of the prop- erty is not affected, and the only object is to transfer it into the hands of the trustees.^^ In the latter cases the beneficiaries of the trust need not,^^ although it seems they may be made parties.^' In the former, when not too numerous, their presence was always required ^^ before the equity rules. The rules, however, follow- ing an English chancery order,^^ provide that : " In all suits con- cerning real estate which is vested in trustees by devise, and such trustees are competent to sell and give discharges for the proceeds of the sale, and for the rents and profits of the estate, such trustees shall represent the persons beneficially interested in the estate, or the proceeds, or the rents and profits, in the 1 ' Lord Eklon in Lloyd v. Jolines, 9 r. Brown, 02 U. 8. 171 ; Calvert on Par- Ves (35. ties {2d ed.), 277, 278. 11 Lord Camden in Reynoldson r. Per- i' Harrison c. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. kins, Ambler, 564. " 202. 1- Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 5r.. i^ Whistler i'. Webb.Bunb. 5o ; Greene 13 Solder v. Williams, 1 Curt. 47!>. v. Sisson, 2 Curt. 171 ; Oliver v. Piatt, 14 Adams r. St. Le^er, 1 B. & B. 182. 3 How. 333 ; s. c. 2 McLean, 268; Cross 15 Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 277. r. DeValle, 1 Wall. 5. 16 Franco v. Franco, 3 Ves. 76; Carey i'-* 30th Order of August, 1841. 118 PARTIES. [chap. III. same manner and to the same extent as the executors or admin- istrators in suits concerning personal estate represent the per- sons beneficially interested in such personal estate ; and in such cases it shall not be necessary to make the persons beneficially interested in such real estate, or rents and profits, parties to the suit. But the court may, upon consideration of the matter on the hearing, if it shall so think fit, order such persons to be made parties." ^o " It seems doubtful, however," says Daniell, of the English order, " whether this order will apply to cases where a mortgagee seeks to foreclose the equity of redemption of estates which are subject to such trusts." ^^ Trustees under a railroad mortgage,^^ or of any other trust-deed of a similar nature secur- ing the rights in real property of a lai'gc number of beneficiaries,^'^ are held, in all proceedings affecting the property which they thus hold, adequately to represent the latter, who will be bound in the absence of fraud by notice given, or a decree entered against tliem, although the court may in its discretion make any of such beneficiaries a party to the suit at his application.^^ It has been lield, however, that to a bill against the heirs of a trustee to quiet the title to property conveyed by the trustee to the complainant, the beneficiary of the trust need not be joined as a party .^^ It has been held that a corporation is so far a representative of its stockholders that none of them need l)e joined in a suit for an accounting, under a lease which ]irovides for the payment of dividends directly to its stockholders.^'^ It has been licld that a State statute authorizing one or more officers of an unincorpo- rated association to represent the others in the courts, when suing or Ijeing sued about a matter concerning their common interest, will be followed by a Federal court of equity, and the members conclusively presumed to have the same citizenship as such oi]ficers.2^ 20 Rule 49 -2* Willinnis r :\Iorgnn, 111 U S. 684. 21 Danieli's Ch. Pr (2(1 Am. ed.) .304. See TlioniM.s r Brownville, F K. & P See also Wilton v. Jones, 2 Y & C 244 ; K, R Co., 10'.) U. S 522. Cross c. De Valle, 1 Wall 1. -^ Griilley r. Wynant, 2:3 IIow. 500 22 Shaw V Railroad Co., 100 U. S 00-5, 2' Paeific R R. of Mo. r. Atlantic & P. Gil ; Reals v. Illinois, Mo & T. R. R Co., R. R Co., 20 Fed. R. 277. ]:;:} U. S 290; Elwell >■ Fosdick, 134 '^' Farjjo v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. U S '500; Loavenwortli County Com 'rs i' Co., fi Fed R. 787; Whitman v. Hubhell, Chicago, R. I & P. Ry Co., 1:54 U S 688. ?,0 Fed. R. 81 , Liverpool Ins Co. v I\Lis- 23 Van Vecliten v Terry, 2 -lohns Ch. sachusetts, 10 Wall -566; and suprn, § 19. (\. Y.) 197; Kerrison (-•. Stewart, 93 U. S. But see Chapman v Barney, 129 L. S. 155. 677. § 46.] SUITS BY COMPLAINANT ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS. 119 § 46. Suits by a Complainant on behalf of Himself and Others similarly situated. — When a number of persons have a common interest in a thing which is the subject of litigation, and, in some instances, when a number of persons have a common interest in a question which is before the court for decision, one or more may sue or be sued in behalf of the rest. Judge Story divides the first of these divisions into two : " (1) When the question is one of a common and general interest, and one or more sue or defend for the benefit of the whole ; " and " (2) when the parties form a voluntary association for public or private purposes, and those wlio sue or defend may fairly be presumed to represent the rights and interests of the whole." ^ But there seems to be no reason for treating these two classes separately. AVhen one or more thus file a bill on behalf of themselves and others similarly interested, they must state in the title of their bill that they so sue, and show that the others are numerous or unknown.^ Any of the otliers of the class have the right to join with them in the suit at any time upon payment of his share of the costs,-^ and counsel fees* which have been then paid or incurred, provided they do not seek to act in hostility to the original complainants,'^ in which case the court may in its discretion allow tliem to in- tervene." If their joinder as plaintiffs would oust the court of jurisdiction, they may be brought in as defendants," Such a bill may be filed even when a majority of those interested object to the suit.^ For " where a matter is necessarily injurious to the common right, the majority of the persons interested can neither excuse the wrong nor deprive all other parties of their remedy by suit." ^ To such a bill it is not necessary to make defendants all who object to its being filed, provided that enough arc brought before the court to sufficiently represent their interest.^'^ It was §46. 1 Story's Eq. PI. § 97 ^ Galveston Railroad v. Cowdrey, 11 2 Hoe V. Wilson, 9 Wall. 501. Wall. 459, 478. 8 Ogilvie V. Knox Ins. Co., 2 Black, "^ Brown v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 5 530 ; s. c. 22 How. 380 ; Ex parte Jordan, Blatchf. C. C 525. 535. But see Stewart 94 U. S. 248; Hallett v. Hallett, 2 Paige v. Dunham, 115 U. S 61. (N. Y.), 15; Leigli r Thomas, 2 Ves. " Bromley i?. Smith, 1 Simons, 8 , Tay- Sen. 313 ; Ransom v. Davis, 18 How. 295 ; lor r Salmon, 4 Myl. & Cr. 134 ; Story's Story's Eq. PI. § 99. ¥.q. PI § 114. But see Jones i'. Garcia * Central Railroad i'. Pettus, 113 U. S. del Rio, 1 Turn. & Russ 300. 110; Trustees v. Greenougli, 105 U. S. ^ Bromley r. Smith, 1 Simons, 8, 11. 527. ^'^ Clinch v. Financial Corporation, L 5 Forbes )• Memphis, El Paso, & Paci- R. 4 Ch. App. 117, at p. 122, Story's fie R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 323. Eq PI. § 135 b. 120 PARTIES. [chap. III. originally held that no one could sue on behalf of others who claimed for himself an interest in the matter in controversy dis- tinct from that of those whom he sought to represent ; for ex- ample, a mortgagee was not allowed to sue in b^^half of general creditors while enforcing his mortgage ; ^^ but recent authorities seem to have changed this doctrine. ^^ j^\\ on whose behalf one sues must appear to have an interest in the relief prayed for by him. ^3 jn such a suit, the bill may be dismissed at any time be- fore decree by the consent of those who are joined as plaintiffs,^* but not afterwards, since by the decree a right becomes vested in the others. ^^ The court will nearly always allow a bill filed by an individual in his own right to be amended, so as to allow him to sue on behalf of himself and other members of a class. ^^ § 47. Illustration of Bills filed by Representatives. — The ordi- nary cases of bills liled by one person of a class on behalf of others similarly situated are bills by stockholders of corpora- tions ; 1 by members of unincorporated associations ; - by railroad bondholders,'^ of whom one holding bonds secured by successive mortgages may, after the death of all the trustees, sue for a fore- closure on behalf of himself and the holders of each class of the bonds which he owns;'^ and bills by creditors.^ In a case where a railroad mortgaged its property directly, without the interven- tion of a trustee, to fifteen bondholders, naming them, and the adequacy of the security was doubtful ; it was held that one could not sue on behalf of the rest, but that all the bondholders must be joined as parties to the bill.^ Such bills may also be 1^ Burney c. Morgan, 1 Sim. & S. 3-58, § 47. ^ Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. 36-2; Palmer v. Foote, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 480; Wallwortli r. Holt, 4 Myl. & Cr. 619; 437, Wliite y. Hillacre, 3 Y. & C. 597. Taylor v. Salmon, 4 Myl. & Cr. 134; 1- Galveston Railroad v. Cowdrey, 11 Hicliens ?-. Congreve, 4 Russell, 502 ; Wall. 459; Mason v. Bogg, 2 Myl. & Cr. Gray c. Cliai)lin, 2 Sim. & S. 267; Crease 443; Story's Eq. PI. § 101, and cases r. Babcock, 10 Met. (Mass.) 532. tliere cited. '- Bniiibiiilge v. Burton, 2 Beav. 5.39. 13 Newton y. Earl of Egmont, 4 Simons, 3 Trustees of The Wabash & Erie 574, 585; Jones v. Garcia del Rio, 1 T. & Canal Co. v. Beers, 2 Blnck, 448; Gal- R. 297. veston Railroad v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. »4 Handford v. Storie, 2 Sim. & S. 196 ; 4.59 ; Central Railroad v. Pettus, 113 U. 8. Hubbell V. Warren, 8 Allen (Mass.), 173. 116. ^^ Handford v. Storie, 2 Sim. & S. 196; * Galveston Railroad c. Cowdrey, 11 York c. White, 10 Jurist, 168; Innes v. Wall. 459, 478. Lansing, 7 Paige (N. Y), 583. s pjpk v. Patterson, 21 Fed. R. 002. '' -Johnson v. Compton, 4 Simons, 47 ; '' Railroad Company v. Urr, 18 Wall. Lloyd V. Loaring, 6 Ves. 773; Daniell's 471. Ch.' Pr. (5tli Am. cd.) 236, note 6, and 245, and cases cited. s § 48.] SUITS AGAINST ONE OR MORE OF A CLASS. 121 filed by one or more legatees," at least if not residuary lega- tees;^ by one of several next of kin;^ by one of several part- ners ; 1^ by one of a class for the benefit of which a charity was founded;^' and by one of the crew of a privateer seeking an account from a defendant who has collected their joint prize money .^2 § 48. Suits against one or more of a Class. — Similarly, when persons who are jointly liable are very numerous, some may be sued instead of all, provided that the manner in which they are sued and the fact that they are numerous are stated in the bill.^ Ordinarily, the com})lainant selects such of the class as he chooses to represent the rest. In one case, the persons thus selected were a committee chosen by the rest of the class to act for them in the matters complained of.^ It is proper, however, to name all of the class in the title to the bill, and then have the court select some of them to be served and to defend for the rcst.^ This rule applies to members of a club* or other unincorporated associa- tion,^ when sued for the collection of its debts ; and to the stock- holders of a corporation in a suit brought by a creditor after its dissolution to recover the amount of its capital stock which has been divided among them.*^ The equity rule upon this subject is as follows : " When the parties on either side are very numerous, and cannot, without manifest inconvenience and oppressive de- lays in the suit, be all brought before it, the court in its discretion may dispense with making all of them parties, and may proceed in the suit, having sufificient parties before it to represent all the adverse interests of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit properly before it. But in such cases the decree shall be without prejudice to the rights and claims of all the absent parties." ' " Bennett r. Tlonywood, Ambler, 708; §48. i Story's Eq. PI. §§ 116, 117; Story's Eq. PI. § 104, and cases cited. McArtlmr v. Scott, 113 U. S. 340, 395. '^ Upon tliis point there is a conflict of ^ Railroad Company v. Howard, 7 authority. Compare Brown v. Ricketts, Wall. 392. 3 .1. Ch. (N. Y.) 555 ; and Davone r. Fan- ^ Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591. ning, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 199, witli Kettle v.- * Cullen v. Duke of Queensberry, 1 Crary, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 417, note. See Brown Ch. 101; Cousins v. Smith, 13 also Story's Eq. PI. § 89. Ves. 544 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 116. » Story's Eq. PI. § 105. ^ Mandeville v. Riggs, 2 Pet. 482 ; Rail- 1" Chancey v. May, Prec Ch. 592 ; road Company v. Howard, 7 Wall. 392. Small V. Attwood, 1 Younge, 407. *^ Wood v. Dummer, 3 Mason, 315. n Smith 1-. Swormstedt, 1(3 How 288. ' Rule 48. McArthur v. Scott, 113 12 Good v. Blewitt, 13 Ves. 397 ; West U. S. 340, 395. r. Randall, 2 Mason, 181, 194. 122 PARTIES. [chap. Ill, § 49. Suits by or against one or more as Representatives of a Class claiming a Common Right. — 111 SOUie instances when a number of persons having a common interest in the decision of a question of fact or law, though they have no common interest in any property which is the subject of litigation, yet, as they are said to claim under a common right, one or more of them have been allowed to represent the rest as plaintiffs or defend- ants in a suit to determine the disputed question. ^ Ordinarily, the complainant selects such defendants as he considers ])roper and sufficient ; but he may name all of the class in the title of his bill and ask the court to select a few to defend on behalf of the rest.2 Instances where a suit of this kind has been allowed by one or more as plaintiffs in behalf of others similarly situated, have usually occurred when, though the plaintiff and those rep- resented by him had no common interest in property, yet he sought a determination of a question affecting the enjoyment of estates which, though distinct, came to him and the rest from a common source. Thus, one or more tenants or parishioners may sue a lord of a manor or parson, to establish a right of common,-'^ or of turbary.* A few defendants have been allowed to repre- sent a large class, not only when all of that cla^^s had some priority of estate, but also in otlier cases. Thus, a parson was allowed to sue a few on behalf of all his parishioners to establish a disputed right to tithes.^ A lord of a manor may sue some on behalf of all of his tenants to establish their duty to grind at his mill, or his right of enclosure,^ or to enforce a rent-charge.' A bill was sustained when brought by those interested in contesting the legality of the issue of certain certificates of indebtedness, against some on behalf of all of the holders of sucli certificates.^ It seems that a bill can be sustained when filed by one claiming the prior equitable title to a tract of land, against some on behalf of all who have severally bought parcels of it since his right ac- crued, with notice thereof, praying that their conveyances may § 49. 1 West r. Randall, 2 Mason, 181, 5 Rnnvn r. Vermuden, 1 Cli. Cas. 272 , 19.5. Ilardcastle i\ Sniithson, .3 Alk. 24t;. 2 Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. .591. '' Brown v. Vermuden, 1 Cli. Cas. 272. 3 Anon., 1 Cliancery Oases, 2(59 , Con- ' Attorney-General r. Wybiirjjii, 1 P. yers v. Lord Ahcrsavenny, 1 Atk. 285; Wms.599; s c. 2 Eq Cas. Abr. 107; x\ttor- Brown c Vermuden, 1 Cli. Cas. 272; noy-General c Jack.-;on, 11 Ves. .'iOo, 3(57 ; Smith >:. Karl Rrownlow, L. R. 9 Eq. Attorney-General r Shelly, 1 Salk. 162. 241 ** Siieffield Water Works v. Yeomans, 4 Baker v. Rogers, Sel. Ch. Cas. 74. L.-.R. 2 Ch. App. 8. § 50.] DEFENDANTS WITHOUT THE JURISDICTION. 123 be set aside as in fraud of his rights.^ " And it has long been settled, that if a person has a common right against a great many of the king's subjects, inasmuch as he cannot contend with all the king's subjects, a court of equity will permit him to file a bill against some of them, taking care to bring so many persons be- fore the court that their interests shall be such as to lead to a fair and honest support of the public interest ; and when a decree has been obtained, then, Avith respect to the individuals whose interest is so fully and honestly established, the court on the footing of the former decree will carry the benefit of it into exe- cution against other individuals who were not parties." ^^ Thus, a city may file such a bill to establish its right to levy a duty.^^ In these cases, as has been said, a decree against the defendants before the court has been held in England to bind others of the same class ; ^^ but, on account of the positive language of the equity rule previously quoted, it is doubtful whether these deci- sions would be followed here.^'^ § 50. Omission of Defendants not -within the Jurisdiction of the Court. — The second exception to the general rule is, that per- sons who cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of a court of equity need not be joined as ])artics to a bill, provided that their presence is not indispensable to a decree. " When any are ab- sent from the jurisdiction who, if within it, would be necessary parties defendant, their presence will ordinarily be dispensed with, ])rovided an equitable and effectual decree can be made against those who have been served with process. The former English practice was to charge in the bill the fact of the ab- sence from the realm of any who otherwise ought to have been joined as defendants, and to pray that they might be served with process if they came within the jurisdiction. Under the modern English system this strictness is not required, and it seems to be sufficient if the excuse for not making the absent parties defendant appears on the face of the bill." ^ This rule of equity practice has been affirmed by statute in the United 9 Ayres v. Carvor. 17 How. 591. ^^ Brown v. Verniuden, 1 Cli Cas. 272; 1' Lord Eldon in Weale r. West Middle- Lord Eldon in Weale v. West Middlesex sex Water Works Co., 1 Jac. & Walk. Water Works Co., 1 Jac. & Walk. 358, 358, 3G0. 358, 309. " City of London v. Perkins, 3 Bro. i^ gpe McArtliur r Scott, 113 U S. Pari. Cas. 602 ; Mayor of York v. Pilk- 340, 395. ington, 1 Atk. 282. § 50. > Judge Foster in Palmer v. Ste- vens, 100 Mass. 461, pp. 4(35, 406. 124 PARTIES. [chap. III. States. " When there are several defendants in any suit at law or in equity, and one or more of them are neither inhabitants of nor found within the district in which the suit is brought, and do not vohmtarily appear, the court may entertain jurisdiction, and proceed to the trial and adjudication of the suit between tlie parties who are properly before it, but the judgment or decree rendered therein shall not conclude or prejudice other parties not regularly served with process nor voluntarily appearing to answer; and non-joinder of parties who are not inhabitants of, nor found within the district as aforesaid, shall not constitute matter of abatement or objection to the suit." ^ This statute is, however, merely declaratory, and does not enlarge the power previously possessed by courts of equity.^ The power has been extended by rule, and parties not indispensable to an equitable decree may be omitted if their joinder would oust the court of jurisdiction by placing persons of the same citizenship upon different sides of a controversy. "In all cases where it shall appear to the court that persons wlio might otherwise be deemed necessary or proper parties to the suit cannot be made parties by reason of their being out of the jurisdiction of the court, or incapable otherwise of being made parties, or because their joinder would oust the juris- diction of the court as to the parties before the court, the court may in their discretion proceed in the cause without making such persons parties ; and in such cases the decree shall be without prejudice to the absent parties."^ "If any persons, other than those named as defendants in the bill, shall appear to be neces- sary or proper parties thereto, the bill shall aver the reason why they are not made parties, by showing tliem to be without the jurisdiction of the court, or that they cannot bo j(^incd without ousting the jurisdiction of the court as to other parties. And as to persons who are without the jurisdiction and may proj>erly be made parties, the bill may j^ray that process may issue to make them parties to the bill if they should come within tlio jurisdic- tion." ^ Such being the general rule, it remains to be considered what parties are indispensable to an e(|uitable decree. As has been said above, a court of equity will ordinarily seek to have before it as parties all persons in any manner interested in 2 U. S. R. S. § 737. See ConoUy v. •' siiields r. Barrow, 17 IIow. 130, 141. Wells, .33 Fed. R."205; Wall v. Thomas, * Kule 47. 41 Fed. R. 620. ^ '^ Rule 22. § 50.] DEFENDANTS WITHOUT THE JURISDICTION.' 125 the subject-matter of the litigation, in order that it may make a decree which will prevent the necessity of a subsequent appeal to its aid.° This rule, however, having been established for the promotion of justice, will be modified whenever its rigid enforce- ment would prevent the court from doing justice to a person invoking its aid. Accordingly it will proceed to a decree without the presence of such parties as cannot be subjected to its jurisdic- tion, provided it can determine the respective rights of the parties before it without affecting those of the rest. There are three classes of parties : Formal parties ; parties necessary to a decree which completely disposes of the controversy, so that the aid of the court need not be invoked again, but whose interests are so far separable from those of the parties before the court, that it can dispose of the controversy between the latter without affect- ing the interests of the former ; and parties with an intci'cst in the controversy " of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made witliout either affecting that interest, or leaving the contro- versy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience." ' Of these the first two classes can always be omitted, when they are beyond the reach of the process of the court or their joinder would oust its jurisdiction. The rule upon the subject has been well stated by Mr. Justice Bradley. " The general rule as to parties in chancery is that all ought to be made parties who are interested in the controversy, in order that there may be an end of liti- gation. But there are qualifications of this rule arising out of public policy and the necessities of particular cases. The true distinction appears to be as follows : First, when a person will l)e directly affected by a decree he is an indispensable party, unless the parties are too numerous to be brought before the court, when the case is subject to a special rule. Secondly, when a person is interested in the controversy, but will not be directly affected by a decree made in his absence, he is not an indispensable party, but he should be made a party if possible, and the court will not proceed to a decree without him if he can be reached. Thirdly, when he is not interested in the controversy between the imme- diate litigants, but has an interest in the subject-matter, which may be conveniently settled in the suit, and thereby prevent ® § 42. " Mr. Justice Curtis in Shields v. Bar- row, 17 How. 130, 139. 126 PARTIES. [chap. hi. further litigation, he may be a party or not at the option of the complainant." ^ § 51. Formal Parties w^ho may be omitted when without the Juris- diction. — Formal parties are those with a naked legal title but no equitable interest in the subject-matter of the controversy. If the persons really interested are before the court, formal parties can always be omitted if without the jurisdiction ; ^ and their joinder, no matter whether as plaintiffs or defendants, can- not oust the court of jurisdiction, as they are in reality upon neither side of the controversy .^ Such are, a husband against whom no relief is sought, in a suit by his wife to enforce the trusts of a marriage settlement ; ^ one or all of the trustees of a railroad or canal mortgage not opposing the foreclosure in a bondholder's foreclosure suit ; * trustees of prior railroad mort- gages in a suit for the foreclosure of a subsequent mortgage and the sale of the mortgaged property subject to their liens ;^ and parties with the naked legal title having no interest in the controversy.^ A person against whom an injunction is souglit, unless he consents thereto, is never a nominal party.' § 52. Parties whose Interest is Separable. — The second class is not so easy to define ; and it is difficult to mark the limits be- tween this and the third class of parties who are always indis- pensable. It includes all having an interest in the controversy so far separable from that of those before the court that a decree can be made and enforced, which disposes of the matter in dispute between the latter without affecting their rights.^ Thus, ^ Williams r. Bankhead, 19 Wall. 563, Canal Co , 1 Feil. TJ. 361 ; Walden v. 571. Skinner, 101 U. S. 577, 588. § 51. 1 Simms o. Guthrie, 9 Cranch, 5 Pacific R. R. v. Ketclium, 101 U. S. 19.25; Wormley y. Wormley, 8 Wheat. 289,298. 421,451, Boon's Heirs /■ Chiles, 8 Pet. *' Simms iv Guthrie, 9 Cranch, 19, 25; 532; Union Rank of Louisiana v. Staf- Boon's Heirs r. Chiles, 8 Pet. 532 ; Union ford, 12 How. 327; New Orleans Canal Bank of Lf)uisiana v. Stafford, 12 How. & Banking Co. v. Stafford, 12 How. 343. 327; New Orleans Canal & Banking Co. •^ Wormlev v Wormley, 8 Wheat, v. Stafford, 12 How. 343, Walden c. 421,451; Removal Cases, 100 U. S 457; Skinner, 101 U. S. 577, 588; Bacon v. Pacific R R. V. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 289; Rives, ]()() U. S. 99. Walden y. Skinner, 101 U. S. 577 ; Harter " Ward v. Arredondo, 1 Paine, 410; V Kernochan, 103 U. S. 562. Mills v. Hurd, 32 Fed. R. 127. 2 Wormley '•. Wormley, 8 W^heat. § 52. > Cameron r. McRoherts, 3 421 ; Taylor V. Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 409. Wlieat. 591 ; Mallow >:. Hinde, 12 Wheat. But see Watts !•. Waddle, 1 McLean, 200. 193; Gridley v. Wynant, 23 How. 500; 4 Pacific R. R. ;;. Ketchum, 101 U. S. Horn r. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570; Nesmith 289, 299; Stewart v. Chesapeake & Ohio r. (Talvert, 1 Woodb. & M. 34. § 52.] PARTIES WHOSE INTEREST IS SEPARABLE. 127 a trustee or director, beyond the jurisdiction, has been hold properly omitted in a suit against his colleagues on account of a breach of trust.^ For a trustee's liability is joint and several.^ One of the next of kin * may sue an administrator and his sureties ; and a legatee,^ at least if not a residuary legatee, may sue an executor to recover his share of a decedent's estate with- out joining the rest of the class to which he belongs. It seems, that the executor of a dead debtor need not be a party to a bill brought by a creditor of the estate to obtain payment out of assets in the hands of a legatee.^ Subsequent lienors are not indispensable parties to a foreclosure suit." In a suit against a firm by strangers, a partner beyond the jurisdiction may probably be omitted if no injustice will be done him by a decree in his absence.^ It has been held that in a suit by one partner against another for an account of money received by the defendant in excess of his share of the firm assets, partners beyond the juris- diction may be omitted if it appears that each has received his full share of the joint property.^ When one of two joint contrac- tors has fraudulently released his interest in the contract, he is not an indispensable party to a bill filed by his associate against the other party. ^'^ " The owners of partial interests in contracts for land, acquired subsequently to their execution, are not neces- sary parties to bills for their enforcement. The original parties on one side are not to be mixed up in controversies between the parties on the other side, in which they have no concern." ^^ An heir may file a bill for the specific performance of a contract en- titling his ancestor to purchase land without bringing in the per- sonal representative of his ancestor, provided that he offers him- 2 Parsons v. Howard, 2 Woods, 1, 5; 129; Union Bank of Louisiana v. Staf- Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatclif C. C ford, 12 Howard, 827; New Orleans Ca- 345; Hazard i-. Durant, 19 Fed. R. 471, nal & Banking Co. v. Stafford, 12 How. 476. But see Wall v. Thomas, 41 Fed. 343; Howard v Railway Co., 101 U. S. R. 020. 837. 3 Parsons v. Howard, 2 Woods, 1, 5; ^ Cowslad u. Cely, Free. Ch. 83; Dar- Heath v. Erie Ky. Co , 8 Blatcli. 347. went v. Walton, 2 Atk. 510, Calvert on * Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425. See, Parties, Book III., ch. xxiii. ; Vose v. however. West v. Randall, 2 Mason, 181 ; Philbrook, 3 Story, C. C. 335. But con- Wisner v. Barnet, 4 Wash. C. C. 031, G42 ; tra, Parsons v. Howard, 2 Woods, 1 , Bell Greene v. Sisson, 2 Curtis, 171. v. Donohoe, 17 Fed. R. 710. ^ Dandridge c. Washington's Execu- ^ Towle r. Pierce, 12 Met. (Mass.) 329. tors, 2 Pet. 377. See West v. Randall, 2 i'^ Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall. 561. Mason, 181. ^' Mr. Justice Field in Willard v. Tay- « Milligan v. Milled^e, 3 Cranch, 220, loe, 8 Wall. 557, 571. But see Ploxie v. ' Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. 118, Carr, 1 Sumner, 173 128 PARTIES. [chap. III. self to provide for the payment of the purchase-money. ^^ Specific performance of a contract for the sale of land may be enforced against one of several joint tenants without joining the others with him as defendants. ^^ The assignor of a claim is not a necessary party to a suit upon it by his assignee ^* unless the assignment be executory.!^ A railway company is not an indispensable party to a bill against its receiver to enforce specific performance of a contract made by it.^^^ The directors of a corporation are not indispensable parties to a suit by a stockholder to restrain it from acting in violation of his rights.^" To a bill to restrain the direc- tors of a corporation from negotiating a fraudulent sale of its property, the person to whom the sale is about to be made is not an indispensable parity if no contract has been made with him.^^ To a suit by one indorser of a bill of exchange to restrain the collection of a judgment for the amount of the bill against him^ upon the ground that the bill had been paid !)y another indorser, the latter indorser is not a necessary party. ^^ To a bill by a creditor to satisfy a judgment out of land in a debtor's possession, but fraudulently conveyed by him to a person beyond the juris- diction of the court, the person in whose name the land stood has been held not to be an indispensable party.^o To a bill to enjoin the execution of a judgment of ejectment and to decree a con- veyance of lands, when the plaintiffs had an equitable title only, the persons wdiose legal title the complainants asserted were held properly omitted, when no relief was prayed against them, and their joinder would have ousted the court of jurisdiction.-^ It has been said, that, to a bill by a private individual to enjoin the maintenance of a public nuisance, neither persons jointly inter- ested with him nor those jointly guilty with the defendant are indispensable partics.^^ It has been suggested that the absence of one person guilty of a joint fraud might not prevent the court 12 Proutu. Roby, 15 Wall. 471. Co., 4 Blitclif. C C 489; Wallace v. " Steplien v. Bcall, 22 Wall. .",29. Holmes, 9 Blatohf C C 05. '» Hatesville Institute r. Kauffman, 18 !» Atkins v. Dick. 14 Pet. 114. Wall. 151 ; Trecothick v. Austin, 4 Ma- 20 McCoy r. Klioiles, 11 How. 181, 141 son, 16. 21 Simms r. Cxiitlirie, 9 Cranch, 19. 25. 15 Land Co. of New Mexico v. Elkins, See also Boon's Heirs 1: Chiles, 8 Pet. 20 Fed. R. 545. 6.S2. But compare Mallow ;• Ilinde, 12 '"' Express Co. v Railroad Co., 99 U. S. Wheat. 19.3. A border case is Elmendorf 191. V. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152. '" Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. 2.! Mississippi & Missouri R. R. Co. v C C. 347. Ward, 2 Blackf. 485. 1^ Abbot V. American Hard Rubber § 53.] PARTIES INDISPENSABLE TO A DECREE, 129 from taking jurisdiction over the others.^^ In an action by a creditor of a corporation to enforce the individual liability of its directors or stocivholders, or to collect unpaid assessments or sub- scriptions from them, he cannot usually sue alone at law, but should file a bill in equity in behalf of himself and the other cred- itors,-* if any ; and he may ordinarily make one, some, or all the stockholders parties according to his pleasure.^^ A State is not an indispensable party to a bill seeking to restrain its officers from levying for its benefit an illegal tax i"^ nor, it has been held, to a bill to prevent their illegal issue of land warrants for property which it had agreed to convey to the plaintiff ; 2" nor to a bill to restrain their unlawful issue of bonds which would diminish the value of bonds held by the complainant.^^ To such l)ills the persons to whom the unlawful issue of bonds or land warrants is about to be made, are not indispensable partics.^^ § 53. Parties indispensable to a Decree. — No suit, however, can proceed unless the court have before it as parties all persons who will be directly affected by the decree sought, or whose obedience is necessary to its enforcement, when it does not appear that they consent thereto.^ A person is affected by a decree when his rights against, or liability to any of the parties to the suit is thereby determined. If a decree in favor of the complainant would cast a cloud upon another's title, that person, it seems, is thereby directly affected.^ A State is an indispensal^le party to a bill against its officers to compel specific performance by them for it of its contract for the sale of land ;^ or to establish a claim to property held by its officers claiming a title in the State thereto ;* or to corporate stock registered in its name, the certi- 2' Judge Foster in Palmer v. Stevens, 9 Wlieat. 738 ; Dodge r. Woolsey, 18 100 Mnss. 401, 46G. See also Heath r. How. 3.31. Erie Railway Co., 8 Blatchf. C. C. 347. 27 pavis r. Gray, 16 WsiW. 203; Han- Biit see Bell v. Donolioe, 17 Fed. R. 710; cock r Walsh, 3 Woods, 351. But see Wall V. Thomas, 41 Fed. R. 620. Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. 2'! Hornor v. Henning, 93 U. S. 228; ,R. Co., 109 U. S. 440, 453. Terry v. Little, 101 U. S. 216; Terry v 28 Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 Tubman, 92 U. S. 156; Pollard v. Bailey, U. S. 531. 20 Wall. 526 ; Welles r. Graves, 41 Fed. 29 navis v. Gray, 10 Wall. 203, 233. R. 450. §5.3. 'See §55. But sec Eagle Manuf. 25 Ogilvie i: Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. Co. ;• Miller, 41 Fed. R. 351. 380; Hatch r. Dana, 101 U. S 205; 2 Young y. Gushing, 4 Biss 456. Manufacturing Company v. Bradley, 105 ^ Preston v. Walsh, 10 Fed. R. 315. U. S. 175. " See also Walsh v. Preston, 100 U S 297. 26 Osborn ;■. Bank of the United States, * Cunningham r. Macon & Brunswick R. R. Co., 109 U. S. 446. VOL. I. — 9 130 PARTIES. [chap. III. ficates of which are held by its officers ; ^ or to enjoin its officers from commencing a suit in its name;^ but not, it has been held, to a bill by the United States against a private individual to can- cel a contract between him and the State for the purchase of land obtained by the State from the plaintiff tli rough mistake or fraud." The trustee of an active trust is a necessary party to a suit affecting the trust estate.*^ Every party to a contract, whether of sale or for another purpose, except a pai'ty who has released his interest,^ is ordinarily a necessary party to a suit to enforce it ; ^*^ or to set it aside ; ^^ or, unless its performance would amount to a nuisance,'^ to enjoin a person from carrying it into effect,^^ even it has been held in a case at circuit when the other parties are co-trustees beyond the jurisdiction of the court.^^ Thus, a railway company is an indispensable party to a suit to enjoin another railway company from constructing a road under a lease by it.^^ To a bill against the administrator with the will annexed of Kosciuszko, claiming a legacy under an alleged codicil to the will, foreigners claiming the assets of the deceased as heirs-at-law were held necessary parties. ^^ To a bill between partners for an accounting, all the surviving partners and the representatives of a deceased partner, even when alleged to be insolvent, are, it seems, indispensable parties,^' unless it can be shown that each of those omitted has received his full share of the assets, and that no claim is made against him.^^ To a par- 5 Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. R. R. ing Machine Company v. Singer Manuf. Co., 13.J U. S. 233. Company, 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 32'J ; s. c. e /» re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443. 8 Biatclif. C. C. 113; Chadbourn v. 7 Williams t-. United States, 138 U. S. Coe, 45 Fed. R. 822. Rut see French 514,510. V. Shoemaker, 14 Wall. 314; West v. ** McRe/i v. Brnnch Bank of Alabama, Duncan, 42 Fed. R. 4."]0. 19 How. 376; O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 i- Mississippi & Missouri R. R. Co. r. U. S. 1.50; Thayer o. Life Association, Ward, 2 Black, 485. 112 U.S. 717; American Bible Society i-' Northern Indiana R. R. Co. >: 1-. Price, 110 U. S.Gl. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 15 How. ^ Canal Company v. Gordon, 6 Wall. 233. But see Ileriot v. Davis, 2 Woodb. 5G1. & M. 229; Boon's Heirs ?•. Chiles, 8 Pet. If Mallow V. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193; 532. Shields >: Barrow, 17 How. 130 ; Gregory i' Wall r. Thomas, 41 Fed. R. G20. V. Stetson, 133 U. S. 579. -5 Nortiiern Indiana R. R. Co. v. "Shields r. Barrow, 17 How. 1.30; Michigan Central R. R. Co., 15 How. 233. Coiron r. Millaudon, 19 How. 113 ; Gay- '" Armstrong v. Lear, 8 Pet. .52. lords (.'. Kelshaw, 1 Wall. 81 ; Ribon v. '^' Bank r. Carrollton R. R., 11 Wall. Railroad Comi)anips, 10 Wall. 440; Law- 624; Bartle >•. Coleman, 3 Cranch, C. C. rencer.Wirtz, 1 Wash. C. C. 417; Tol.in 283; Gray r. Larrimore, 2 Abb. C. C. V. Walkinshaw, 1 McAll. 20; Bell r. 542. Donohoe, 17 Fed. R. 710; Florence Sew- i^ Towlc v. Pierce, 12 Met. (Ma'.), 281. 20 McDonnell v. Iviton, 18 Fed. R. 710. 21 Rettes r. Dana, 2 Sumner, SS.I. 27 ]|ii,oii r. Hailroail Companies, 16 22 Waterman v. Mackenzie, 1?.8 U. S. Wall. 440. 252. 201 ; quoted snpm, § 44, note 12. 28 porfer v. Sabin, .36 Feil. R. 475. 2^ Kelly I'. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610, 29 D.ivenport r. Dows, 18 Wall. G20 ; 620. New Jersey Central P. R. Co. v. Mills, 132 PARTIES. [chap. III. are necessary parties to a suit by a taxpayer to prevent the pay- ment to their holder of bonds claimed to be invalid.^'^ It seems, that the principal debtor, or his assignee in bankruptcy or insol- vency, is a necessary party to a suit against a surety .-^^ To a suit by a creditor to enforce a lien upon property through a trust- deed made for the benefit of a surety, both the trustee and his beneficiary are indispensable parties, although the property is in the possession of neither of them ; but if filed in a double aspect, either for the complainant's individual benefit, or on be- half of the other creditors of the principal debtor, a sale may be ordered without having the surety or his trustee before the court.'^''^ So, a debtor, or if a bankrupt or insolvent, his assignee, is a necessary party to a creditor's suit to enforce a lien ^^ or levy 31 upon property in which the debtor has an interest, or to collect 2^ a debt due the debtor. A corporation must be joined as a defendant to a bill filed by a creditor to apply to the pay- ment of its indebtedness money due it from its stockholders ; ^^ and to a bill to compel a transfer upon its books of stock which stands in the name of another than the complainant.^' To a bill by a legatee against the husband of a residuary legatee or devisee to obtain payment of the complainant's legacy from assets in the defendant's possession, the residuary legatee herself, or, if she be dead, her personal representative, is a necessary party ,3^ at least when it does not appear that she or her personal representative is without the jurisdiction of the court. To a bill to foreclose a mortgage by an executor, it was held that all devisees of any part of the property were indispensable parties. ^^ It was held in a case, the authority of which may be doubted, that in a suit to compel the execution of a mortgage and its fore- 113 U. S 240, 256; Bell v. Donohoe, 17 ^5 United States v Howlanrl, 4 Wlieat. Fed. R 710 108. 35 Sully V. Drennan, 11.3 U S. 287. *^ BriRliam r. Luddinston, 12 Blatolif. Compare Ilarter v. Kernoclian, 10.3 U S. C. C. 2o7 ; First National Bank v. Smith, 562. 6 Fed. 11 215 ; Dormitzcr r. Illinois & 31 Robertson i'. Carson, 19 Wall. 0». St. L. Bridije Co., 6 Fed. R. 217 ; Walsh See also Russell v. Clark, 7 Crancli, 09. r. Memphis, C. & N. W. R. R. Co., 6 Fed. But compare Rule 51. R. 797. 82 McRea v. Branch Bank of Alabama, ^7 Kenditr r. Dean. 97 U. S. 423; 19 IIow. 376. Roirers r. Nortwick, 45 Fed. R. 513. But •*3 Russell » Clark, 7 Cranch, 69 ; Rob- see Gould v. Mead, 41 Fod. R. 240, 248. ertson v Carson, 19 Wall 94. But see •'** Lewis r. Darlinir, 16 IIow. 1. Heriot v. Davis, 2 Woodb. & M 229. 39 Detweiler v. Ilolderbaum, 42 Fed. »^ Wilson V. City Bank, 3 Sumner, 422. }l 337. See § 22. § 55.] WHEN A PEESON CONSENTS TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT. 133 closure, prior incumbrancers and others claiming an interest in the mortgaged property were necessary parties, when it did not appear that their joinder was impossible or would oust the juris- diction.**^ In one case, where a bill was filed to stay proceedings in ejectment, the court required the nominal defendant at law to be joined as a co-plaintiff with the real person interested ; although it did not appear what citizenship he had."^^ § 54. When Numerous Interests have been created for the Pur- pose of preventing the Plaintiff from obtaining Equitable Relief. — When numerous interests have been created for the purj)ose of preventing a person from obtaining equitable relief, the English courts allowed the persons to whom these interests were thus conveyed to be omitted from the bill, if the original owner of the property thus divided were made a defendant.^ The rule and the reasons for it are thus stated by Calvert in his valuable woriv on Parties : " If a party has divided an interest amongst a number of persons for this purpose, the court, in order that the contrivance may be frustrated, and the equitable relief may be obtained, allows the suit to proceed in their absence. Such a division is in reality a fraud ; an attempt to defeat justice by converting the general rule of the court into an obstruction to the ordinary proceedings. The court defeats tlie fraud by refusing to enforcing the gen- eral rule." ^ Lord Hardwicke said upon this subject : " Where a mortgagee who has a plain redeemable interest makes several conveyances upon trust, in order to entangle the affair, and to render it difficult for a mortgagor or his representatives to redeem, there it is not necessary that the plaintiff should trace out all tlie persons who have an interest in such trust, to make them parties." ^ This rule might, perhaps, be extended here to a case, where an attempt had been made to defeat the jurisdiction of the Federal court by a merely colorable conveyance to a person of the same citizenship as the complainant.* § 55. When a Person consents to the Relief Sought. — A J>orsou who consents to the relief sought, when it is so stated in the bill, « Caldwell v. Taggart, 4 Pet. 100. ^ Calvert on Parties (2(1 ed.), Gl. " Hyde r. Folsrer, 4 McCIean, 2-5.5. 3 Yates v. HamMy, 2 Atk. 237, 2:>8. § 54. 1 Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), * See Union Bank of Louisiana v. Book I. ch. iv., p. 61 ; Yates v. Hambly, Stafford, 12 How. 327 ; New Orleans 2 Atk. 237. See also Union Bank of Canal & Banking Co. c Stnfford, 12 How. Louisianx v. Safford, 12 How. 327 ; New 343 ; Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. Orleans Canal & Banking Co. v. Stafford, Cooper, 120 U. S. 778, 781. 12 How. 313. 134 PARTIES. [chap. III. need not be joined as a defendant with the other parties inter- ested, unless his presence is indispensable for their protection.^ Sometimes the plaintiff is required to execute a satisfactory un- dertaking that the party omitted will conform to the decree.^ Similarly, a person who disclaims all interest in the subject- matter may also be omitted, unless his joinder is essential to the protection of the rights of the other defendants.^ An agreement between two persons that one shall represent the other as plain- tiff, when the former would otherwise have no right to the relief sought, will not be sanctioned by the court.* § 56. When the Plaintiff waives his Right against a Person. — "Where a plaintiff,'' says Lord Hurdwicke, " is only concerned in interest, there he may waive his demand, and omit making the party a defendant to his bill." ^ In accordance with this practice, the equity rules provide that " in suits to execute the trusts of a will, it shall not be necessary to make the heir-at-law a party ; but the plaintiff shall be at liberty to make the heir-at-law a party when he desires to have the will established against him."^ Such a waiver cannot, however, be made unless it can be without preju- dice to those against whom the bill is filed.^ § 57. When the Interest of an absent Person is evidently very small. — In England it lias been held, in accordance with the maxim de minimis non curat lex, that when the interest of an absent person is evidently very small the court will dispense with his presence in the suit.^ This view seems to be sanctioned by two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. ^ § 58. When the Right of Administration is in Dispute. — The English rule was, that when tiiere was a contest in tlie Ecclesias- tical Court over the right of administration upon a decedent's es- tate, the omission in a bill affecting that estate of an administrator §55. 1 Mechanics' Bank of Ale.xanilria ' Rule 50, copiefl from the olst Order r. Seton, 1 Pet. 299, .306; Calvert on Far- in Chancery of August, 1841. ties (2(1 oil.), Book I. ch. v., pp 69, 84. ^ Anon., 2 Eq. Cas Abr. ItJO, pi. G; ^ Calvert on Parties (2(1 ed.), Book 1. Story's Ecj. PI. § lo9. ch. v., p. ()9; Kirk i?. Clark, Prcc. in Ch. §57. ^ Calvert on Parties (2(1 cd.), 275; Harvey v. Cooke, 4 Russ. 35, 55; Book I. ch. v., p. 70; Daws r. Benn, 1 J. Bawtree v. Wat.son, 3 M. & K. .3:'/), 340. & W. 518 ; Attorney-General v. Goddard, a Vattier v. Ilindo, 7 Pet. 252, 258. 1 T. & R. 348, .350. Sec also Faulkner v. * Rylands v. Latouclie, 2 Blisli, 579. Daniel, 3 Hare, 199, 218. § 50. 1 Williams v. Williams, 9 Mod. - Union Bank of Louisiana v. Stafford, 299. See also Wilson y Todd. 1 M. & C. 12 How. 327; New Orleans Canal & 42, 40; Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 83, Banking Co. u. Stafl()rd, 12 How. 343. and cases cited. § 60.] RESTATEMENT OF THE RULES AS TO PARTIES. 135 might be excused if special circumstances were shown.^ If, how- ever, no proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court were pending, one must be instituted before the bill could be filed.^ § 59. Relaxation of Rule as to Parties in Special Cases. — The rules upon the subject of parties are, however, very loose, and the questions arising under them are decided largely in the discretion of the court.i " The necessity for the relaxation of the rule is more especially apparent in the courts of the United State, where, oftentimes, the enforcement of the rule would oust them of their jurisdiction, and deprive parties entitled to the interposition of a court of equity of any remedy whatever." ^ A court of equity adapts its decrees to the necessities of each case ; and should a suit brought by a single complainant concerning a matter in which others as well as himself were interested terminate in a decree against the defendants, it is easy to do substantial justice to all the parties in interest, and prevent a multiplicity of suits, by allowing the other persons similarly situated with the plaintiff, "either through a reference to a master, or by some other proper proceeding, to come in and share in the benefit of the litigation."^ The discretion as to the joinder or omission of parties is, however, one which, when properly raised, is subject to review upon appeal.* An act of Congress relaxing or extending the rules as to parties in a particular case is constitutional.^ § 60. Restatement of the Rules as to Parties. — The rules upon the subject may be summarily though roughly stated thus : — I. All persons not too numerous, and whose joinder will not oust the jurisdiction of the court, who have any direct interest in obtaining or resisting the relief prayed for in a bill or granted in a decree which so disposes of the controversy as to prevent any § 58. 1 Plunket v Penson, 2 Atk. 51 ; Woods, 1 ; Winter v. Ludlow, 3 Phila. Penny v. Watts, 2 Pliillips, 149, 154 ; Cal- (Pa.) 464. vert on l^arties (2d ed.), Book I. ch. v., - Mr. Justice Davis in Payne v. Hook, p. 70. 7 Wall. 425, 432. - Penny v. Watts, 2 Pliillips, 149, 154 ; ^ ^j. Justice Davis in Payne v. Hook, Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), Book I. cii. v. 7 Wall. 425, 4o2. See s. c. as Hook i-. § 59. 1 Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Payne, 14 Wall. 252. Wheat. 591; Elmendorf y. Taylor, 10 * Caldwell c. Tasisart, 4 Pet. 190 ; Rob- Wlieat. 152, 107; Lewis v. Darling, 10 ertson v. Carson, 19 Wall. 94; Hoe v. How. 1 ; Barney v. Baltimore Cit\', 6 Wilson, 9 Wall. 501 ; Railroad Company Wall. 280; Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425; v. Orr, 18 Wall. 471. Barney v. Latliara, 103 U. S. 205; Greene ^ United States o. Union Pacific R. R., v. Sisson, 2 Curtis, 171 ; West v. Randall, 98 U. S. 509. 2 Mason, 181; Parsons v. Howard, 2 136 PARTIES. [chap. III. future litigation coiiceruiug the same, must be parties to a suit in equity.^ II. No person without an interest in tlie contest or its settle- ment can be joined as a party except the officer or member of a corporation, who may be made a defendant to a bill praying re- lief against it, in order to compel from him a discovery of facts of which he acquired knowledge in his official capacity.^ III. If the persons having a common interest in the subject of the controversy or the question to be decided therein are numer- ous, they may in certain cases be represented, as plaintiffs or de- fendants, by others who hold the legal title in trust for them, or by one or more of their number suing, or more rarely being sued, in their behalf.^ IV. Persons having a mere formal interest, or an interest so far separable from that of the principal parties, that a decree dis- posing of the controversy as between the latter can be made and enforced without affecting their rights, may always be omitted when, by reason of their residence or citizenship, not within the jurisdiction of the court.* V. All persons who have such an interest in the controversy that a deci'ce cannot be enforced without directly affecting their 'rights, must be joined as parties ; except possibly when their inter- est is very small, or has been created for the purpose of depriving the court of jurisdiction.^ VI. There is no need of joining as parties any against whom the plaintiffs waive their rights, or who are willing to allow the relief prayed for in the bill, unless their presence is necessary for the protection of those who have been made defendants.^ VII. The necessity of tlie joinder of parties is always in the sound discretion of the court, which adapts itself to the facts of each particular case." § 61. Objection for Want of Parties. — An objection that there is a defect of parties may be taken by demurrer, ))lea, or answer,^ or at the hearing ; and if the absent persons are indispensal)lc parties, even for the first time upon appeal ; ^ although not if a § 60. 1 §§ 42, 4.3, 50. " § ^O. 2 §44. § til. 1 YoT the rules rcpulatinp tlie 3 §§ 40, 47, 48. manner of takinf:^ the nhjection, see the * §§ 5f>. ''"'li 52. chapters on tho.se pleailinj,'s. 6 §§ 5P,, 54, 57. 2 Hoe v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 501. 6 §55. § 61] OBJECTION FOR WANT OF PARTIES. 137 decree lias been made which cannot prejudice their interests.^ " If a defendant shall, at the hearing of a cause, object that a suit is defective for want of parties, not having by plea or answer taken the objection, and therein si)eciried by name or description the parties to whom the objection ai)plies, the court (if it shall think fit) shall be at liberty to make a decree saving the rights of ab- sent parties." '^ The usual practice is for the court, if it considers the objection good, to allow the cause to stand over until the plaintiff shall amend his bill by bringing in the additional parties needed.^ If the omitted parties on account of their citizenship cannot be brought in, the court may retain the bill, and perhaps continue an injunction in accordance with its prayer, until the complainants have had a reasonable time to litigate the matters in controversy between themselves and the omitted parties in a court of competent jurisdiction ; and if it should then ajipcar by the judgment of such a court that the complainants have in equity a superior title to the omitted parties, proceed to a determination of the rights between the parties to the bill.^ If, however, the complainant does not within a reasonable time amend his bill, or, if so allowed by the court, proceed against the omitted parties, the court may dismiss his bill ; but such dismissal must be with- out prejudice.''' " Where the defendant shall, by his answer, suggest that the bill is defective for want of parties, the plaintiff shall bo at liberty, within fourteen days after answer filed, to set down the cause for argument upon that objection only ; and the purpose for which the same is so set down shall be notified by an entry, to be made in the clerk's order-book, in the form or to the effect following (that is to say) : ' set down upon the defendant's objection for want of parties.' And where the plaintiff shall not so set down his cause, but shall proceed therewith to a hearing, notwithstanding an objection for want of parties taken by the answer, he shall not, at the hearing of the cause, if the defendant's objection shall then be allowed, bo entitled as of course to an order for liberty to amend his bill by adding parties, but the court, if it thinks fit, shall be at liberty to dismiss the bill." ^ A lack of proper parties is not a jurisdictional defect ; and therefore, if pending the 8 §§52,53. See Keller y. Asliforrl, 1.33 6 Mallow v. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193, U. S.'OIO, 626. 198, 190. 4 Rale 53. ' Mallnw v. Hinde, 12 Wlieat. 19.3, 5 Hunt V. Wickliffe, 2 Pet. 201, 215. 190 ; Hunt v Wickliffe, 2 Pet. 201, 215. 8 Rule 52. 138 PARTIES. [chap. III. decision of the court, upon an objection for the omission of a party whose presence would oust the circuit court of jurisdiction, he dies, and the defect is thereby cured, the court will retain the bill.9 § 62. Objection for Joinder of Improper Parties. — If persons are improperly joined as plaintiffs, all the defendants may demur.i If a person is joined as a plaintiff without his consent, he may on motion upon notice to all parties have his name stricken out with costs to be paid by the plaintiff who has improperly brought him into the suit.^ If a person having no interest in the contro- versy be improperly joined as defendant, he alone can demur.^ And no notice of his demurrer need be given to the other defend- ants,* except in special cases where it is clearly for the latter's interest to retain him in the suit. If a misjoinder is apparent on the face of the bill it is more prudent to demur. If such an objection is not made till the hearing, tbe court may disregard it.^ It cannot be raised for the first time upon appeal.*^ When a de- murrer is sustained in favor of defendants improperly joined as having no interest in the controversy, the plaintiff will always be allowed to amend by striking out their names." If the bill is dis- missed for a misjoinder of complainants and one of them appears to have a good cause for equitable relief, the dismissal must be without prejudice.^ 9 Harrison v. Rowan, 4 Wash. C. C. 202, 208. § 62. 1 Cuff V. Platell, 4 Russ. 242 ; King of Spain v. Machado, 4 Russ. 225; Story's Eq. PI. § 544. 2 Calvert on Parties (2ii ed.), 430; Keppell V. Bailey, 2 M. & K. 517 ; Tit- terton v. Osborne, 1 Dickens, 350; Wil- son V. Wilson, 1 J. & W. 459. 3 Wliitbeck 0. Edgar, 2 Barb. Ch. (N, Y.) 106; Seymour v. Freer, 8 Wall. 202, 218 ; Buerk v Imliaeuser, 8 Fed. R. 457 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 544. * Anon., 9 Ves. 512 ; Ilodson v. Ball, 11 Simons, 459, Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 4:30. ^ Story /'. Living.^ton, 1-3 Pet. 350; Fades )•. "Harris, 1 Y. & C. N. R. 2-35; Raffety r King, 1 Keen, 001 ; Mosley v. Taylor, cited in 1 Keen, 601, s. c 2 Y. & J 520, Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 1.56 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 544. '^ Livingston v. Woodworth, 15 How. 546. " Tryon v. Westminster Improvement Comm'rs, 6 Jurist, n. s 1324. " House V. Mullen, 22 Wall. 42. § 63.] INFORMATIONS. 139 CHAPTER IV. BILLS. § 63. Informations. — The first proceeding in a suit in equity is the preparation and filing of the first pleading. This was either an information, a bill, or an information and bill. In England, the attorney-general or solicitor-general could file an information on behalf of the crown, or of those who either as idiots and lunatics partook of its prerogative, or whose rights, as those in charities, were under its particular protection. The law officers of the royal consort had the same right. If the suit did not immediately concern the rights of the crown, a relator, who sus- tained and directed the litigation, was usually joined with the officer in whose name it was filed. The main distinction between an information and a bill was, that, whereas the latter was in the form of a petition to the court; in the former the officer that filed it stated tlie case by way not of petition or complaint, but of information to the court of the rights which the crown claimed on behalf of itself or others, and of the invasion or detention of those rights for which the suit is instituted. If the relator had a personal interest in the relief sought, his personal complaint was joined to, and incorporated with the information given to the court by the officer of the crown ; and the pleading was termed an information and bill.^ The proceedings upon an information could only abate by the death or determination of interest of the defendant. If, however, the information were filed at the instance of one or more relators and all died, the court would not allow the cause to proceed till an order had been obtained giving leave to insert the name of a new relator, and one had been inserted accordingly. Otherwise, proceedings upon informations were substantially the same as upon bills, except that great laxity of practice was permitted when infor- mations were filed on behalf of charities,^ In the courts of the § 63. 1 Mitford's PI. ch. 1. ^ Mitford's PI. ch. 1 ; Story's Eq. PI. 140 BILLS. _, [chap. IV. United States, it has been held to be the proper practice for the government to sue in equity in its own name by a bill simi- lar to one filed by a private citizen ;3 but a pleading styled an information filed on behalf of tlie United States, being in sub- stance a bill, was sustained as such,* and so was one filed on behalf of the United States by the district attorney for the north- e;'n district of New York.^ In the suit brought by the State of Florida against the State of Georgia to settle the boundary between them, the attorney-general of the United States was permitted to file an information praying "that he be permitted to appear in said case, and be heard in behalf of the United States, in such time and form as the court shall order;" and, although permission for him to take testimony in the name of Florida with its consent was refused, it was " Ordered, that the attorney- general have leave to adduce evidence, either written or j^arol, and to examine witnesses and file tlieir depositions, in order to establish the boundary claimed by the United States."*^ Infor- mations have, however, been filed in equity in the courts of some of the individual States." " When the United States comes into a court of equity as a suitor, it is subject to the defences peculiar to that court." ^ Sucli an information or bill should be filed in the name of the United States, not in the name of one of its law officers.^ § 64. Definition and Classification of Bills. — The usual course, and the only one open to a private citizen, is the filing of a bill. The word bill is derived from tlie Latin libellus ; and such a pleading is sometimes called an English bill; because at the time when pleadings at common law were in Law Latin or Law French, it was as now written in the English language.^ A bill is a petition addressed to the judges of a court of equity, con- taining a statement of the facts which in the plaintiff's opinion 8 Benton v. Woolsey, 12 Pet. 27 ; 4 Wall. 2-32. See Benton v. Woolsey, VI United States i-. Hughes. 11 How. 552, Pet. 27. 568 ; s. c. as Hughes r. United States, 4 ^ Benton v. Woolsey, 12 Pet. 27. Wall. 2.72 ; Mississippi & Missouri R. R. « Florida i'. Georgia, 17 How. 478, 480, Co. V. Ward, 2 Black, 485, 4'J2 ; United 523. States V. Union Pacific R. R., 98 U. S. ' See for example Attorney-General v. 50!); Moffat r. United States, 112 U. S. Butler, 12.3 Mass. 300. 24; United States v. Minor, 114 U. S. ^ United States v. White, 17 Fed. R 233. 501,. 505. ■•United Rintes ;<. Huglic*. 11 How. '•* Benton »». Woolsey. 12 Pet. 27. 5-52. 508; 8 c. as Hughes c United States, § ^4. ^ Story's Va^ I'l. § 7. § 64.] CLASSIFICATION OF BILLS. 141 give him a right to sue, and concluding with a prayer for the relief to which he deems hinitielf entitled. Quis, quid, coram quo, quo jure petatur, et a quo, liecte cumpositus quisque libellus habet- Bills are divided by the books into three classes: original bills, bills not original, and bills in the nature of original bills. A fourth class, which may be termed original bills in the nature of bills not original, is recognized by the Federal courts. Original bills are those which relate to some matter not before litigated in the court at equit}'- by the same parties standing in the same interests. Bills not original are those which relate to some mat- ter already litigated in the court at equity by the same parties, or their representatives, and which are either an addition to, or a continuance of an original bill, or botli. Bills in the nature of original bills are those which serve to bring before the coui't the proceedings and decree in a former suit, for the purpose of either obtaining the benefit of the same or procuring the reversal of the decision made therein.^ Original bills in the nature of bills not original are those having all the characteristics of origi- nal bills, except that the Federal courts will take jurisdiction of them without regard to the citizenship of the parties, or the other limitations of the original F'ederal jurisdiction.'* Original bills are of two kinds : those which pray relief, and those which do not pray relief. Original bills which pray relief are said to belong to three classes* bills which pray the decree of the court concerning some right claimed by the plaintiff in opposition to some right claimed by the defendant, bills of interpleader, and bills of certiorari. Original bills not praj'ing relief are of two kinds : bills to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses, and bills of discovery. Bills not original are bills of revivor, supple- mental bills, and bills of revivor and supplement. Bills in the nature of original bills are bills in the nature of supplemental bills, bills in the nature of bills of revivor, cross-bills, bills of review, bills impeaching decrees upon the ground of fraud, bills to suspend the operation of decrees on special circumstances or to avoid them on the ground of matter subsequent, and bills par- 2 Com. Dig. Chancery E 2 ; Story's Eq. * Minnesota Co. r. St. Paul Co., 2 Wall. Pi. § 2o. ' r.OO ; Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 270 ; ^ Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 2; Story's Eq. Pacific; Kailroad of Mi,5. i Mitford's PI. cli. 1, § 3; Story's s Krippendorf v. Hvdo. 110 U. S. 276; Eq. PI. §§ 2G-4«. Freeman r. Howe, 24 How. 4-30. § 66.] ADDRESS AND INTRODUCTION. 143 defendants, and its retention to the practice of taxing costs according to tlie length of the documents filed ; the charging part, alleging the defence which it anticipated would be made by the defendant, and the repl}' which the plaintiff intended to make thereto ; and the jurisdiction clause, alleging that the acts of the defendant which were complained of were contrary to equity, and that the plaintiff was without any remedy at law : were not even then considered necessary by the best authorities,^ and by the equity rules have been expressly declared super- fluous.^ §66. The Address and Introduction. — In England, a bill in chancery was required to be addressed to the person having the custody of the great seal, usually either the sovereign or the Lord Chancellor, except when the Lord Chancellor himself was the complainant, when it was addressed to the sovereign " in his high court of chancery." ^ Li the United States, as a great seal is not as in England essential to the validity of writs in equity, a bill is addressed to the judge or judges of the court where it is filed.2 The introduction formerly contained the names, descrip- tions, and residences of the complainants, together with the character in which they sued, if in a representative capacit3% and such other allegations as were necessary to found the jurisdiction of the court.^ Sometimes the names and descriptions of the de- fendants were also here inserted, but it was more usual to name them in the next part of the bill.* The equity rules regulate the subject as follows : " Every bill in the introductory part thereof shall contain the names, places of abode, and citizenship of all the parties, plaintiffs and defendants, bj^ and against whom the bill is brought. The form, in substance, shall be as follows : ' To the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the district of : A. B., of , and a citizen of the State of , brings this his bill against C. D., of , and a citizen of the State of , and E. F, of , and a citizen of the State of . And thereupon your orator complains and says that,' &c." ^ If one of the parties is a corporation the bill must state 2 Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 3 ; Lnngdeirs Eq. 3 Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 3; Story's Eq. ri. § 55 ,• Story's Eq. 11. §§ 20, H-J, :3;5, 34 ; PI. § 26. Coinstock (;. Herron, 45 Fed. R. GGO. < Story's Eq. PI. § 20. Contra Lcavcn- » Hide 21. worth v. Pepper, 32 Fed. R. 718. §0(3. 1 Mitford's PI. ell. l.§ 3; Story's ^ Hule2n; United Stnfes r. Pratt Coid Fq. PI. § 26. -^ Rule 20. & Coke Co., 18 Fed. H. 708 ; § 00. 144 BILLS. [CHAr. IV. by or under the laws of what State it was created, and its mem- bers will then be conclusively presumed to be citizens of that State.^ If one of tiie [)ai'ties is an alien, it should aver that he is " a citizen and subject of a foreign State," specifying that State's name.' How advantage could be taken of an omission in the introduction of the residence of the parties, whether by demurrer or simply by a motion for security for costs, was, under the old practice, a doubtful question.^ The bill is certainly demurrable if enough does not appear upon its face to show the court's juris- diction.^ A defect in this respect in the introductory part of a bill is, it seems, not cured by an allegation in its title or caption.^*^ It has been said that no one can be made a defendant under a fictitious name ; ^^ but in an English case where the parents of an infant, who was a necessary defendant to a bill, refused to have her baptized in order to interpose difficulties in the plaintiff's way, Sir John Leach ordered that she should be described as " the youngest female child of A. B. (naming her father) and C. D. (naming her mother)." ^^ Although this part of the bill should contain the statement that the complainant sues on be- half of others as well as himself, if he intends so to do, it has been suggested that this might not be necessary when his case is founded upon a statute " which itself gives that force and direction to the bill."^^ § 67. The Narrative Part of a Bill. — The most important por- tion of a bill in equity is the narrative or stating part. This contains the plaintiff's cause of action. " It should set forth the plaintiff's case in a clear and distinct narrative, with the facts relied u})on as the basis of the suit. For convenience, each para- graph should be numbered, so that the successive allegations may be readily referred to.^ The oV)ject of old common-law pleading was to bring the matter in controversy to certain distinct issues. In equity pleading no such attempt is made. The statement of the plaintiff's case in the bill differs little in language or form 6 Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. i" Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148. See 404; Mullor v. Dows, 91 U. S. 444; Sharon u. Hill, 2-3 Fed. R, 333. Steanisliip Co. v. Tuginan, 100 U. 8. 118. ii Kentucky Silver Mining Co. r. Day, " Wilson V. Citv Bank, 3 Sumner, 422. 2 Sawyer C. C. 468. 8 Rowley v. Ecclcs, 1 Sim. & S. 611; 12 Ei^^^y y_ Broughton, 2 Sim. & S. 188. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2(1 Am. eel.), 409. ^^ Irons v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank 3 Bingham r. Cabot, 3 Dall. 382; .Jack- of Chicago, 17 Fed. R. 308. son V. Ashton, 8 Pet. 1 18 ; United States v. § 07. 1 An omission to do this will not Pratt Coal & Coke Co., 18 Fed. H. 708. be a defect in pleading. § 68.] SCANDAL AND IMPERTINENCE. 145 from any other statement of facts which might be drawn up for the information of third parties, say an application to a govern- ment board. The defendant's answer usually admits, or denies, or qualifies seriatim each statement in the bill ; and occasionally, before proceeding to notice the statement in detail, the defendant gives a general history of the case from his own point of view. The issues, both of fact and of law, are thus often involved in large masses of statement, and have to be selected, so to speak, by the judge who tries the cause, with the assistance of the arguments of counsel. It would be difficult to imagine a less technical document than a bill in equity." ^ The bill must con- tain every fact essential to the plaintiff's cause of action. For no evidence will be admitted or considered to prove any fact not alleged in it.^ It must plead every fact essential to the rights of the plaintiff, and necessarily within his knowledge positively, not upon information and belief,"* and with certainty.*'' Otherwise, it is demurrable. An allegation that an event occurred on or about a certain specified day is, however, sufficient.^ And less certainty is required concerning facts of which a discovery is sought from the defendant.'' § 68. Scandal and Impertinence. — " Every bill shall be ex- pressed in as brief and succinct terms as it reasonably can be, and shall contain no unnecessary recitals of deeds, documents, contracts, or other instruments, in liaec verba, or any other im- pertinent matter, or any scandalous matter not relevant to the suit." ^ " Facts not material to the decision arc impertinent, and if reproachful they are scandalous ; and, perhaps, the best test by which to ascertain whether the matter be impertinent is to try whether the subject of the allegation could be put in issue, and would be matter proper to be given in evidence between the • Lectures lefore the Law School of 620; Mitford's PI. 40; Story's Eq. PI. Boston Universit}'- on Equity Pleading §§ 255, 256. by Judge Dwight Foster, MS. See '' Harrison v. Nixon, 9 Pet. 483, 503 ; Hayne Eq. 70. Wormald y. De Lisle, 3 Beav. 18 ; Brooks 3" Gordon v. Gordon, 3 Swanst. 400, & Hardy y.O'Hara Brothers, 8 Fed. R. 520; 472; Miller v. Gotten, 5 Ga. 341, 346; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 421-425. AVilson V. StoUey, 4 McLean, 275 ; '^ Richards v. Evans, 1 Ves. Sen. 89 ; Crocket v. Lee, 7 Wheat. 522 ; Jackson Roberts v. Williams, 12 East, 33, 37 ; V. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148 ; Henry v. Suule, Leigh v. Leigh, Daniell's Ch. Pr. 369. 42 Fed. R. 91. See chap. xii. on Amend- ' Towle v. Pierce, 12 Met. (Mass.) 329, ments. 332 ; Lafayette Co. v. Neely, 21 Fed. R. * Lord Uxbridge v. Staveland, 1 Ves. 738. Sen. 56 ; Egremont v. Cowell, 5 Beav. § 08. 1 Rule 26. VOL. 1. — 10 146 BILLS. [chap. IV. parties." ^ It is customary in bills seeking the protection or en- forcement of rights depending upon complicated provisions of Federal or State statutes, to set forth such statutes either at length or according to their legal effect ; and when the com- plainant depends upon historical facts, of which the court will take judicial notice, to state such facts also. Sometimes former decisions of the courts are similarly pleaded. Although this practice is not strictly correct, it is still convenient for the court as well as counsel, inasmuch as the case made by the bill is t,hereby made more easy of comprehension. It seems that ex- ceptions to such allegations for impertinence cannot be sustained.^ If a bill contain scandalous or impertinent matter, " it may, ou exceptions, be referred to a master by any judge of the court, for impertinence or scandal ; and if so found by him, the matter shall be expunged at the expense of the plaintiff, and he shall pay to the defendant all his costs in the suit up to that time, unless the court or a judge thereof shall otherwise order. If the master shall report that the bill is not scandalous or impertinent, the plaintiff shall be entitled to all costs occasioned by the refer- ence."* " No order shall be made by any judge for referring any bill, answer, or pleading, or other matter or proceeding de- pending before the court, for scandal or impertinence, unless exceptions are taken in writing and signed by counsel, describing the particular passages which are considered to be scandalous or impertinent ; nor unless the exceptions shall be filed on or before the next rule-day after the process on the bill shall be returnable, or after the answer or pleading is filed. And such order when obtained shall be considered as abandoned, unless the party ob- taining the order shall, without any unnecessary delay, procure tlie master to examine and report for the same on or before the next succeeding rule-da}', or the master shall certify that further time is necessary for him to complete the examination." ^ It has been held in England that a person not a party to the suit may, by leave of the court, file exceptions to a bill for scandalous 2 Chancellor Kent in Woods v. Jlor- tion Co., 15 Fed. R. 5G1 ; s. c. 8 Sawyer, rell, 1 J. Cli. (N. y.) 103, at p. 106. See 600; Allen v. U'Donald, 20 Fed. K. 573; also Hood (•. Inman, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 4o7. Steam Gauge & Lantern Co. v. Mcllob- For an illustration of scandal, see the erts, 20 Fed. R. 7G5. record in United States v. Scliurz, 102 * Rule 26. U. S. 378. 6 liule 27. 3 Wells V. Oregon Railway & Naviga- § G9.] CERTAINTY. 147 matter reflecting upon himself;^ and that the court may of its own motion expunge scandah)us matter at any time.' Excep- tions for impertinence cannot, however, be taken after answer.^ Neither scandal nor impertinence, however gross, is a ground for demurrer, it being a maxim of pleading that utile per inutile non vitiatur? It has been said that an exception for impertinence must be allowed in whole or not at all.^*^ § 69. Certainty. — A bill must state the plaintiff's case with sufficient certainty. Thus a bill by a receiver of a national bank to recover for the loss caused to it by the negligence of its di- rectors, which prays relief against the persons who have acted as directors during various periods of time, together with the repre- sentatives of such as are dead, must " state the dates of the losses sustained by the corporation and the dates of the acts or omis- sions contributing to those losses, with sufficient certainty to in- form each of the defendants with which and how many of the losses it is sought to charge him." ^ A bill to enjoin the enforce- ment as a lien upon land of a judgment entered a few days after complainant had begun to erect a building upon such land under a contract with its owner which he claimed gave him priority under a mechanic's lien, was held demurrable for lack of cer- tainty because it failed to set forth "the actual dates at which he commenced, carried on, and finished work and labor, and the actual dates on which he furnished materials," in order that the court might determine the validity and extent, and right to pri- ority of the lien he claimed.^ The bill must state facts, not con- clusions of law, which will be disregarded b}' the court;^ Thus a general charge of fraud is not sufficient, but it must allege the specific acts or language which constitute the fraud.* It has been held that a creditor's Ijill for an injunction and a receiver because of the fraudulent disposition of assets, need not describe the '' Williams r. Douglas, 5 Roav. 82; i^ Oliapman v. School District No. 1, Daiiiell's CIi. Pr (2(1 Am. ed ) 402. Dearly, 108. 117, per Deady, J. " £.r /ia?Ve Simpson, 15 Ves 476 ; Dan- §09. i Price v. Coleman, 21 Fed. R. iell's Cli. Pr. (2fl Am. ed ) 402, 403; 357. Storv's Eq. PI. § 270. See also Langdon - McKee v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 41 V Goddard, 3 Story, 13. Fed. P. 117, 119. ** Story's Eq. PI. § 270. ^ Harper v. Hill, 35 Miss. G3. 9 D.anicirs Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 401. ■» Gilbert v. Lewis, 1 De G., J. & Sm. Sec also Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. 38, 49; Bryan i' Spruill, 4 Jones Eq. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., Ill U. S. 505, (N. C ), 27; United States v. Aflierton, 61G, 522. 102 U. S. 372 ; United States v. Norsch, 42 Fed. R. 417. See infra, § 100. 148 BILLS. [chap. IV. assets.^ An allegation of a fraudulent intent has been held to be an allegation of a fact.*^ A bill alleged " that the bank was insolvent on the 5th day of May ; that this was well known to its officers ; that it wrongfully neglected to disclose its insolvency to complainant, and, by continuing business and otherwise, repre- sented to complainant and all other persons dealing with it, that it was solvent; that complainant, on the faith of these representa- tions believed such to be the fact, without suspicion that the bank was, or was in danger of becoming, insolvent; that, acting upon the representations, and relying on the bank's solvency, complain- ant delivered the draft ; that next morning the bank closed its doors, and the draft was collected thereafter; and that, by reason of the premises, the draft or its proceeds did not become the property of the bank." These allegations were held sufficient to charge fraud. " The omission to state in the pleading the degree of insolvency which rendered the bank's conduct fraudulent, was not fatal, as the conclusion asserted showed the intention of the pleader."^ It is not sufficient to state that the defendant is a trustee, without alleging the facts by which he is shown to l)e a trustee.^ An allegation that a defendant corporation is about to exceed its powers is insufficient. The bill must sliow what acts are threatened, and why they exceed the powers of the corpora- tion.9 " The pleader should state the facts, and not formulate mere epithetic ' charges.' ... If the facts are not to be ascer- tained by diligence, or because of some obstruction, or if the evi- dence of them is in possession of the other side, this should be made to appear, with technical averments sliowing the necessity of discovery, when that is wanted; but a court cannot sustain a bill upon mere denunciatory statements of the plaintiff's suspi- cions or belief. The best pleadings are those which state the inculpatory facts that carry with them their own conviction of the fraud, and by which the wrong-doing appears, without much necessity for characterizing it as such." ^° The bill should usually state facts and not evidence. The English rule was that no ad- missions, whether written or oral, could be given in evidence 5 Shainwald v. Lewis, 6 Fed. R. 766, 8 Evan v. Avon, 20 Beav. 144 775. » Leo v. Union I'ac. Ry. Co., 19 Fed. e Piatt r. Mead, 9 Fed. R. 91. R. 283. " St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Jolin- ^^ Lafayette Co. v. Neely, 21 Fed. R. son, 13.3 U. S. 506, 577, 678. 738. § 70.] INCONSISTENCY AND BILLS WITH A DOUBLE ASPECT. 149 unless they had been specifically charged in the bill." In this country, however, though the i)oint has never been decided l)y the Supreme Court, we have the great authority of Judge Story, at circuit, holding that such a practice is unnecessary.^^ So, accord- ing to Professor Langdell, " when a bill charges a defendant with having had notice, or with having committed a fraud, or with in- sanity or drunkenness, or lewdness or misconduct in ofiice, if the plaintiff intends to prove specific acts of notice, or of fraud, in- sanity, drunkenness, lewdness, or misconduct in office, it seems that such acts should be specifically charged in the bill. But this view is not fully supported by authority. It may also be stated generally, that whenever the plaintiff has evidence which is likely to take the defendant by surprise, it is the safer course to indi- cate its nature in the bill, rather than to run the risk of having it objected to at tlie hearing." ^^ But as the cases upon the au- thority of which he made these statements were decided when each party's evidence was unknown to the otlier mitil the hear- ing, — a method of taking testimony long since disused,^^ — it is not likely that the courts would be as strict now as formerly in requiring such evidence to be pleaded. ^^ § 70. Inconsistency and Bills with a Double Aspect. — A bill must not state two inconsistent states of fact and ask relief in the alternative. But it may state the facts and ask relief in the alternative according to the conclusion of law that the court may draw from them, so that if one kind of relief sought be denied, another may be granted ; and it may state facts of a different nature not inconsistent with each other, and equally supporting the prayer for relief. In both of these cases a bill is said to have "a double aspect." ^ Thus, a bill may state facts constituting an attempt to form a new corporation by the consolidation of two already existing, and pray that, if the new corporation have a legal existence, the plaintiff may be declared entitled to a certain number of shares therein, otherwise to a corresponding interest " Hall V. Malthy, 6 Price, 240; Evans L. R. 6 Eq. 23 , Clark v. Periani, 2 Atk. V. Bicknell, 6 Ves. 183; Austin v. Ciiam- 337; Sheplicrd v. Morris, 4 Beav 252. bers, 6 CI. & Fin. 38; Story's Eq. PI. " See Amendments to Rule Cu, and 265. Cliapter on Evidence. 1- Smith I. Burnliam, 2 Sumner C. C. ^^ See Smith v. Burnham, 2 Sumner 612; Jenkins v Eldredge, 3 Story C. C. C. C. 612, (122; Story's Eq. PI § 26.5a. 181,283,284; Story's Eq. PI §20-5. §70 i Shields v. Barrow. 17 How. i» Langdell's Eq. PI. §60. See Wes- 130, 144; Story's Eq. PI. §§420, note, ton V. Empire Assurance Corporation, 254. 150 BILLS. [chap. IV- in the stock of one of the old corporations.^ The complainant may seek to quiet the title to lands, claiming either as devisee cr as heir-at-law.3 j^ ]j[\[ j^ay contain a prayer that an agreement be either set aside as obtained by fraud, or else specifically en- forced.* A bill was sustained when filed by one partner against another, praying for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, or else for an account of the partnership debts, and a charge of their amount upon the land as belonging to the assets of the firm.^ If the plaintiff wish to set aside a deed on account of fraud, imposition, and undue influence, he may allege both that tlie maker was insane and that he had a great imbecil- ity of mind.*^ But if he allege that a decree which he wishes to set aside was obtained either by mistake of all the parties, or by deception practised upon himself, or by collusion of the defendant with tliird parties, the bill will be demurrable for indefinitcness.'' In a recent case the court said : " To allege that a sale is simu- lated, and if not simulated is fraudulent, meaning tliereby it is a sham sale, and if not a sham then a real sale, but fraudulent, may be consistent, but it is not certain ; and certainty is a requisite in equity pleading as well as consistency. It seems to me that, if there is doubt as to the nature of the transaction, the creditor, who has ' to strike in the dark,' should charge a fraudulent simu- lation, and on discovery amend if necessary." ^ A bill was sus- tained where the complainant sought specific performance of an agreement by his partner to transfer to him the latter's interest in certain land, or in the alternative to have the land charged with the debts of the copartnership.^ But it was held in Eng- land that a bill may not pray relief primarily against one of two defendants, and, in case the court should hold him free from lia- bility, then against the other.^*' A bill is bad when it contains two alternative claims each belonging to several persons, one of 2 KilfTour V. New Orleans Gas-Light Paiwe (N. Y.), 30G ; Lloyd v. Brewster, Co., 2 WooJs, 144, 148. 4 Paige (N. Y.), 5:17. 3 Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619, 61.1. ' Brooks r. O'Hara, 8 Fed. R. 529 ; * Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. Toti. But s. c. 2 McCrary, 644. But see Williams see Shields (,-. Barrow, 17 How. 130. 14:5; v. United States, 1-38 U. S. 514, 517. St. Louis V. & T. H. R. Co. v. Terre ^ Pardee, J., in Socola v. Grant, 15 Haute & L R. Co., 33 Fed. R. 440, 448, Fed. R. 487, 489. ;149. ^ Hoxie v. Carr, 1 Sumnor, 173. 8 Hoxie V. Carr, 1 Sumner, 173. ii Clark v. Lord Rivers, L. R. 5 Eq. 91, ** Story's Eq. PI. § 254 ; Bennet r. 07. But see Kilgour r. New Orleans Vade, 2 Atk. ;J25 ; Colton v. Ross, 2 Gas-Light Co., 2 Woods, 144, 148. § 70.] INCONSISTENCY AND BILLS WITH A DOUBLE ASPECT. 151 whom has no interest in one claim, and others of whom have no interest in the other claim.^^ A bill should not pray in the alter- native legal and equitable relief.^^ " When the ])lcadings are so framed as to rest the claim for relief solely on the ground of fraud, it is not open to the plaintiff, if lie fails in establishing the fraud, to pick out from the allegations of the bill facts whicli might, if not put forward as proofs of fraud, have yet warranted the plaintiff in asking for relief. A defendant in answering a case not founded on fraud is not bound to do more than answer the case in the mode in which it is put forward. If, indeed, re- lief is asked alternatively, either on the ground of fraud, or, fail- ing on that ground, on some other equity, a plaintiff failing on the first may succeed on the latter alternative. But then the attention of the defendant has been distinctly called to it, and he has been called upon to answer the case according to both alter- ^^ natives. It is the dutv of the iudge to determine whether the [^ two are so interwoven with each other that, on the failure of ^ proof of fraud, it is impossible to treat the facts as separate alle- ^ gations, justifying a separate mode of dealing with them." ^^ ^ When a bill alleges both fraud and mistake, if the latter alone -^ is proved the bill will be sustained.^* The averment " that if said O intention is true, which is denied, then the said State law, to wit, /-^ the Act of No. 85 of 1888, is null and void, because it operates *^ as a discrimination against the shareholders of national banks, ^ in violation of the express terms of Section 5219 of the Revised ^ Statutes of the United States ; " is sufficient to raise the issue Q whether there is in the act any discrimination prohibited Ijy the -^ act of Congress. ^^ A bill to enjoin the infringement of a copy- right may set forth an agreement between the author and the plaintiff, and then allege that if such agreement does not con- stitute an assignment of the copyright, it is an exclusive license. ^^ " Stebbins v. St. Anne, 116 U. S. 386. Lombard, L. R. 1 H. of L. 326 ; Thomson 1- Cherokee Nation y. Southern Kansas v. Eastwood, L. R. 2 App. Cases, 215; Ry. Co., 1.35 U. S. 641, 651. Price v. Berrington, 2 Macn. & G. 486, 15 Dwight Foster's Lectures on Equity 498. Pleading, MS. ; Eyre v. Potter, 15 How. i* Williams v. United States, 138 U. S. 42, 56; Britton r. Brewster, 2 Fed R. 514,517. 160; French v. Shoemaker, 14 Wall. :314, ^^ Whitney Nat. Bank v. Parker, 41 385; Fisher v. Boody, I Curt. 206; Hoyt Fed. R. 402, 406. V. Hoyt, 27 N.J. Eq. ,399 ; Wilde v. C.ib- i« Black v. Henry G. Allen Co., 42 son, i H. of L. Cases, 605; Hickson v. Fed. R. 618, 628. 152 BILLS. [chap. IV. § 71. Multifariousness in General. — A bill must not be multi- farious. Multifariousness consists in the joinder of two or more distinct and unconnected grounds for equitable relief, each of which might be the foundation for a separate bill. This may occur in three ways, — by a misjoinder of plaintiffs, by a mis- joinder of defendants, and by a misjoinder of grounds for equit- able relief held by and against the same parties.^ " To lay down any rule applicable universally, or to say what constitutes multi- fariousness as an abstract proposition, is, uj)on the authorities, utterly impossible. The cases upon the subject are extremely various, and the court in deciding them seems to have considered what was convenient in particular circumstances, rather than to have attempted to lay down any absolute rule." ^ " The only way of reconciling the authorities upon the subject is by advert- ino; to the fact that, although the books speak generallv of de- murrers for multifariousness, yet in truth such demurrei's may be divided into two distinct kinds. Frequently the objection raised, though termed multifariousness, is in fact more properly misjoinder ; that is to say, the cases or claims united in the bill are of so different a character that the court will not permit them to be litigated in one record. It may be that the plaintiffs and defendants are parties to the whole of the transactions which form the subject of the suit, and nevertheless these transactions may be so dissimilar that the court will not allow them to be joined together, but will require distinct records. But what is more familiarly understood by the term ' multifariousness,' as applied to a bill, is where a party is al)le to say he is brought as a defendant upon a record, with a largo portion of which, and of the case made by which, he has no connection whatever."^ There is, however, little practicable good to be obtained from a maintenance of this distinction except as a means of elucidating some of the expressions in the earlier authorities.* " The de- cisions on this subject are contradictory and unsatisfactory. The common-sense rule in such cases is that an individual shall not be called to maintain his title or shall not assert it in con- nection with others to which it has no analogy, and in the invcs- § 71. 1 Calvert on Parties, Book I. ^ Lord Cottenham in Campbell v. ch. vii. IMackay, 1 M. & Cr. 003, 618. Approved 2 Lord Cottenliam in Campbell v. in Sliicids r. Tlionias, 18 How. 25.3, 2')!>. Mackay, 1 M. & Cr. 003, 618. ^ See Calvert on Parties, Book I. ch. tH. § 72.] MULTIFARIOUSNESS BY MISJOINDER OF PLAINTIFFS. 153 tigation of which the costs and complexity of tlie case will be increased." ^ § 72. Multifariousness by Misjoinder of Plaintiffs. — No persons can unite as complainants in a bill in equity unless they have a joint or common interest in obtaining the same relief.^ Thus if one of them has no interest in the relief claimed, the bill is demurrable.^ Those who claim the return of money paid by them severally on distinct promissory notes cannot join their claims in the same bill ; ^ nor can several creditors claiming under several obligations unite in a suit to attach the debts of an absent debtor.^ Persons who were defrauded of stock in a corpo- ration by the men who promised it to them before the organiza- tion of the corporation cannot join in bill to com])el the issue of the stock to each of thcm.^ Persons who have been separately indicted for similar acts committed while acting as agents for the same principal cannot join in a bill to enjoin the further prosecu- tion of the indictments.^ But in a bill to compel specific perform- ance of a decree in a former suit, all the complainants in the first suit may join as plaintiffs, though the decree sought to be enforced orders the payment of specific sums severally to each of themj Plaintiffs with conflicting interests cannot so join.^ Such are, in a suit for the construction of a will, persons, each of Avhom is interested in having a different construction put upon it.^ Nor can two join in a Vjill to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of land, of whom one claims the land as a creditor of the person who has made the conveyance, and the other as the purchaser of the land upon a sheriff's sale to satisfy a judgment held by him.^o But the interests of the complainants need not be coextensive. Thus, a tenant for life and the remainder-men of an estate, either legal or equitable, may join in a suit to protect the estate. ^^ Although 5 Mr. Justice McLean in Turner v. ^ "Woolstein v. Welch, 42 Fed. R. 5GG. American Baptist Missionary Union, 5 " Shields c. Thomas, 18 How. 2uo. McLean, .344, 349. ^ Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245; § 72. 1 Story's Eq. PI § 270; Calvert Sanmarez r. Saumarez, 4 Mylne. & Cr. on Parties (2d ed.), 105, 110 S'-]\, .So6 ; Parsons i-. Lyman, 4 Blatchf. - Walker ('. Powers, 101 U. S. 245, C. C. 432; Bell r. Curcton, 2 M.& K. 503. 249; Do£rgett 1-. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 72. ^ Parsons r. Lyman, 4 Blatchf. CO. 3 Yeaton v. Lenox, 8 Pet. 123. 432 ; Saumarez v. Saumarez, 4 M. & Cr. * Yeaton (-. Lenox, 8 Pet. 123. But 331, 336. see Norris v. Hassler, 22 Fed. R. 401; i" Walker r. Powers, 101 U. S. 245. Langdon v. Branch, 37 Fed. R. 449. n Story's Eq. PI. § 279 a ; Buckeridge 5 Summerlin v. Fronterizac S. M. & M. r. Glasse, 1 Cr. & Phill. 12G ; Calvert on Co., 41 Fed. R. 249. Parties (2d ed.) 99. 154 BILLS. [chap. IV. usually there must be some privity between the complainants in a bill, yet in certain cases those between whom there is no priv- ity are allowed to sue together when they seek to avert an injury which will affect them all alike. Thus, several tenants or par- ishioners may unite in a bill of peace seeking to dispose of a dis- puted right claimed against them by the lord of the manor ^^ or the parson of the parish. ^^ And the owners of several lots of land claiming under a common source of title may unite in a bill of peace against several other claimants to the same lots, who also rely upon a common source of title adverse to that of the complainants.^'* Several claimants in possession of several parcels of land whose rights depend upon the same question of fact or law may unite in a bill of peace against the same defend- ant who claims title to all the land by reason of the same disputed facts or legal i)roposition.i^ It has been said that the owners of adjacent property may maintain a bill in equity to enjoin a de- fendant from erecting a livery stable or other nuisance in their vicinity .^^ But another case holds that different persons, each of whom will suffer a distinct injury from the levy of a tax, cannot unite in a bill to enjoin its levy on account of its alleged imconstitutionality.^" Several stockholders who have been com- pelled to pay corporate debts have been allowed to join in a bill against another stockholder to compel him to contribute his proportion. 1^ §73. Multifariousness by Misjoinder of Defendants. — No per- sons can be joined as defendants to a bill in equity who have not a joint or common interest in opposing the relief prayed for.^ Different relief may, however, be obtained against different de- fendants when the bill seeks to prevent or annul the effect of acts in pursuance of a common scheme, or so connected with each other as to form ])art of the same transaction.^ The rule was 12 Anon., 1 Chan. Cas. 2G0 ; Smith v. i' Cutting v. Gilbert, 5 Blatchf. C. C. Earl Rrownlow, L. R. Eq. 241. 259. See, however, Central Pacific R. R. !•' Rudge r. Hopkins, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. v. liver, 1 Saw. 641 ; Union Pacific R. R. 170. V. McSh.ane, 3 Dill. .'303. 1* Crews V. Rurcham, 1 Black, 3-')2. '** Allen v. Fairbanks, 45 Fed. R. 445. 15 Osborne '•. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., § 73. i Calvert on Parties, Book I.ch. 43 Fell. R. 824. See Central Pacific R. R. vii ; United States r. Alexander, 4 Cranch Co. V. Dyer, 1 Saw. 641 ; In /hi, § 7.3. C C. 311. lo Flint V. Russell, 5 Dill. 151. See 2 Calvert on Parties, Book I. chap, also Parker v. Nightinjjale, 6 Allen vii.; Manners v. Rowley, 10 Simons, (Mass.), 341. But mntra, Hudson v. Mad- 470. dison, 12 Simons, 410. ^ § 73.] MULTIFARIOUSNESS BY MISJOINDER OF DEFENDANTS. 155 thus stated by Sir John Leach : " In order to determine whether a suit is multifarious, or in other words, contains distinct matters, the in(|uiry is not, as this defendant suj)poses, whether eacli defendant is connected with every branch of the cause, but whether the plaintift's bill seeks relief in resj)ect of matters which are in their nature separate and distinct. If the object of the suit be single, but it ha})pens that different persons have separate interests in distinct questions which arise out of that single object, it necessarily follows that such difi'erent persons must be brought before the court, in order that the suit may conclude the whole object."^ "The entirety of the case against one de- fendant constitutes the connecting link." ^ But a bill is multi- farious, when the charge against one defendant is in no way connected with those against other defendants.^ A bill is multi- farious which seeks both to foreclose a mortgage and to restrain another defendant from asserting a claim of title adverse to both mortgagee and mortgagor,^ at least when such adverse title oc- curred prior to the mortgage." But a party claiming a lien upon the property by a judgment against the mortgagor prior to the mortgage, the validity of which lien is contested by the mortgagee, may be joined as a party defendant to a foreclosure suit.^ A bill is multifarious which seeks to obtain a transfer of land from one defendant, and to restrain another from asserting a conflicting claim to the same ; ^ and a bill by an executor to settle the con- flicting controversies between himself, the heirs of his testatri.x, the heirs of her husband, both of whom dispute bequests under her will, and one claiming to be a creditor of her estate. ^'^ An English case holds that different violators of the same copyright cannot be enjoined by the same bill when their acts of ])iracy were not performed in confederacy with each other.^i But this case has been douljted by Judge Story ,^2 and distinguished by 3 Salvidge v. Hyde, 5 MadJock, 138, see Mendenhall v. Hall, 134 U. S. 559, 146. 568. * Calvert on Parties (2d ed.), 98; " Mendenhall v. Hall, 134 U. S. 559, quotlnji Sir John Leach in Turner v. 568. Robinson, 1 Sim. & S. 313 ; and Lord ^ Converse v. Michigan Dairy Co., 45 Cottonliam in Attorney-General r. Cor- Fed. R. 18. poration of Poole, 4 M. & Cr. 17, 31. ^ Copen v. Flosher, 1 Bond, 440. 5 Wood V. nunimer, 3 Mason, 308; ^ Haines r. Carpenter, 1 Woods, 262. West V. Randall, 2 Mason, 181, 200; n Dilly v. Doig, 2 Ves. Jr. 486. See Lewarne v. Me.xican International Imp. Thomas H. El. Co. v. Sperry El. Co., 46 Co., 38 Fed. R. 629. Fed. K. 75 6 Dial V. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 310. But i- Story's Eq. PI. §§ 277, 278. 156 BILLS. [chap. IV. Chancellor Kent ; ^^ and the courts might perhaps refuse to follow it here.^'* Persons who are acting in concert as employees of the same corporation in the infringement of a patent may be joined as defendants to a bill.^^ Several insurance companies may join in a bill to set aside on tlie same grounds an award made against them in defendant's favor upon several policies of fire insurance owned by them separately-^*^ A bill filed by an assignee in bank- ruptcy against all the incumbrancers of his assignor's estate, some but not all of whom had liens upon the same property, to set aside their lions as fraudulent, and to have the property sold for the common benefit of the creditors, was held not multifarious.^'' A bill filed by the beneficiary under several deeds of trust, some upon different parts of the same property, one covering the entire property, against the trustees, the trustor, and the different per- sons claiming liens upon the property, was held not multifarious.^^ A bill was sustained when filed by one of tlie next of kin against both an administrator and his sureties, to obtain the plaintiff's share of the estate. ^^ A creditor's bill may be filed against the members of two different firms when some are members of both.^^ A bill may be filed by the holder of a bond secured by a lien upon tlie property of a corporation against both the corporation and its stockholders, at the same time to foreclose his lien, and compel the stocklioldcrs to pay so much of the balance of their subscrip- tions to the stock of tlie corporation as will suffice for the pay- ment of the deficiency after the foreclosure sale.^^ A bill of peace may be filed to dispose of the claims of a number of defendants, which all depend on the determination of a single question of fact or law.-2 Such are a bill by a parson or lord of a manor to estab- lish a claim against all of his parishioners ^^ or tenants ; 2* a bill by 13 Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 J. Cli. ^^ Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425. (N. Y.) i;5!l, at p. 155. -' Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 127. See also 1* See Foxwell v. Webster, 10 Jur. Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. .3.>>. But see N. s. 137. Griffin (.-. Merrill, 10 M.l. .304. 15 Poppenhusen r. Falke, 4 Blatcli. -i Manufacturing Company >■. Brailicy. C. C. 4(i:i 105 U. S. 175. I'j Hartford Fire Ins. Co. c. Bonner -- Gaines «•. Ciiew, 2 How. 010 ; Uniteil Mercantile Co., 44 Fed. R. 152. States v. Cnrtner, 2G Fed. R. 20K, 208; 1' .McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 Mc- Hynian v. Wheeler, 33 Fed. K. .320. Lean, 415. See also Jones *;. Slansson, -•'' Brown v. Vernuulen, 1 Chan. Cas. 33 Fed. R. 032 ; Potts v. Hahn, -32 Fed. 272. R. 600. -^ Conyers ;;. Lord Aberga\-enny, 1 i« Grant v. Phoeni.x Life Ins. Co., 121 Atk. 285. U. S. 105. § 74.] MULTIFARIOUSXESS WITHOUT MISJOIXDEK OF PARTIES. 157 the owner of a fishery to estabHsh his clahn against a number of riparian owners ;25 a bill by a city to establish its claim to a tax against several of the class liable to it ; ^e a bill by a railroad com- pany to restrain the tax-collectors of different counties from levy- ing taxes separately assessed, but part of each of which is to be paid to the State, and the validity of all of which depends upon the construction of a single statute ; 2- a bill by a railroad company to quiet its title against a number of claimants to land in severalty, the validity of the separate title of each of whom depends upon the construction of one statute ;2S and a bill by an heir-at-law against the executors of an invalid will, and all who have pur- chased from them the land belonging to the ancestor's estate.''^^ § 74. Multifariousness without Misjoinder of Parties. — Multi- fariousness may also exist without a misjoinder of parties, when two or more distinct and unconnected grounds of equitable relief are joined in the same bill. The grounds of relief must be differ- ent, and each ground must be sufficient as stated to sustain a sepa- rate bill.i Thus, a bill is multifarious when filed by the receiver against the directors of a national bank to recover claims for losses suffered by the corporation by reason of the directors' neg- ligence, and claims for losses suffered by the stockholders by reason of liaving been induced to subscribe for new shares by misrepresentations of the directors.^ So is a bill whicli seeks an account of a trust held by all of the defendants, and also seeks to set aside the effects of a distinct and independent fraud upon the trustor committed by one only of them.^ So was held, a bill which alleged that complainant's title to certain property had been so thoroughly established by adjudication that further litigation would be vexatious, and prayed that defendant miglit be enjoined from any further litigation affecting the same, and which also claimed the enforcement of a statutory right to requii-e the de- fendant's claim of title to be now set up, tried, and determined.^ 25 Mayor of York v. Pilkincrton, 1 Atk. § 74. ^ Brown v. Safe Deposit Co., 284. 128U. S. 403. ^s City of London v. Perkins, 3 Bro. - Price r. Coleman, 21 Fed. R. 3.57. Pari. Cas. 002. See also Lewarne i\ Mexican Interna- ••^" Union Pacific R. R. v. McShane, tional Imp. Co , 38 Fed. R. G29. 3 Dill. 303. 3 West v. Randall. 2 Mason, 181. But -« Central Pacific R. R. Co. r. Dyer, 1 see Mills o. Iliird, 32 Fed. R. 127. Saw. 641. See Osborne v. Wisconsin * Leliigii Zinc Siove Co. r. N. J. Zinc Cent. R. Co., 43 Fed. R 824 ; supra, § 72. & Iron Co.', 43 Fed. R. 545. 29 Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619. 158 BILLS. [chap. IV. So is a bill by one heir-at-law of a deceased married woman against her husband and the other heirs, to set aside both her marriage settlement and her will. For "■ in these two matters the necessary parties to the suit may be the same, but their interests and attitude are decidedly at variance." ^ A bill to determine conflicting claims to land, and also asking fur a partition of the land after the title should be determined, has been held multifa- rious ; ^ and so has a bill asking for a discovery by the defendant of an application for a policy of life insurance, and for the s])eci- fic performance of an agreement to issue the policy sought in the application,' and a bill praying an injunction against the building of a railroad or in the alternative an award of damages or com- pensation for land proposed to be taken by the railroad com- pany.^ It has also been held multifarious to sue in one bill for an injunction against the violation of several distinct patents ;^ but not if the infringement is made by the use or manufacture of a single machine.^*^ In tlie latter case the bill should so allege. It has been said that the complainant "should aver that said inven- tions are capable of conjoint as well as separate use, and are so used by tlie defendants." ^^ A bill seeking an injunction with damages, against the infringement of a patent, and an injunction with damages against the publication of libellous circulars affect- ing })laintiirs patent, has been held multifarious. ^^ It is not multi- farious to seek in the same bill to reform a written agreement on account of a mistake, and to enforce its performance as re- formed ;^'^ nor to seek to set aside and cancel an insurance policy and enjoin the further prosecution of an action to recover pre- miums paid upon it;^'* nor to compel the issue of such a policy, 5 McDonnell v. Eaton, 18 Fed. R. 710. han, G Fisher's Pat. Ca.«. 286. See United G Cliapin V. Sears, 18 Fed. R. 814. States v. Am. Bell Telephone Co. 128 1 Markey r. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. U. S. 315. Co., G Ins. L. J. 537. " Garnewell Fire Alarm Telegraph Co. * Cherokee Nation r. Southern Kansas v. City of Chiliicothe, 7 Fed. R. 351 ; Railway Co., 135 U S. 041,051. But see Nellis y. McLanahan, Fisher's Pat. Cas. s c. 1:35 U. S. at pages 051-052, cited 286. infrn, § 123. '- Fougeres v. Murbarger, 44 Fed. R. 9 Hayes v. Dayton, 8 Fed. R. 702 ; 292. See International Tooth-Crown Co. Shickle v. South St. Louis Foundry Co., v. Carmichael, 44 Fed. R. 349; cited 22 Fed. R. 105. supra, § 71, and n)fr(i, § 77. 1' Nourse v. Allen, 4 Biatchf. C. C 370; '^ Gillespie v. Moon, 2 J Ch. (N. Y.) Perry r Corning, 7 Biatchf. C. C. 195; 585. Case V. Redfield, 4 McLean, 526 ; Game- '^ Equitable Life Assurance Soc. v. well Fire Alarm Tel. Co. v. City of Chil- Patterson, 1 Fed. R. 120. licothe, 7 Fed. R 351 ; Nellis v McLana- ., § 75.] OBJECTIONS FOR MULTIFARIOUSNESS. 159 and at tlie same time collect its amount. ^^ Nor is a bill against a single defendant to collect assessments on account of the same im- provement made against several different lots owned by him which do not adjoin each other. ^'^ Nor a bill filed by one railway com- pany against another to compel an accounting as to the disposition and proceeds of bonds issued by the former to the latter, and the payment of the damages resulting from the foreclosure of the mortgage given to secure those bonds, and to recover the rents due under a lease of the plaintiff's road ; when the execution of this lease and the issue of these bonds were parts of the same trans- action.^' Nor a bill by the United States to set aside a land- patent for fraud, obtain an accounting of the rents and profits of the land, and recover damage for waste.^^ Nor a bill to dissolve a partnership, which alleges that complainant was induced by fraud to enter into the agreement of partnership, that the de- fendant partner wilfully neglects to comply with the agreement, and that the business is being conducted at a loss.^^ § 75. Objections for Multifariousness. — An objection to a bill as multifarious should be raised by demurrer.^ If not apparent upon the face of the bill, it is very doubtful whether it can be raised by plea or answer.^ It can never be taken for the first time at the hearing ^ or upon appeal ; * but the court may, of its own motion, dismiss a bill for multifariousness at any time ;^ and perhaps the objection that the rights of the complainants are in- consistent can be raised at the hearing.^ It has been said that the objection cannot be taken by a defendant who is not injured by it.' The misjoinder of a defendant against whom the bill states no ground for relief is not a cause for a demurrer by the 15 Hebert v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 12 3 Qreenwoorl v. Churchill, 1 M. & K. Fed. R. 807; Brugger v. State Invest- 5-59; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333, 412; ment Ins. Co., 5 Saw. 304. Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 127; Bowman's 16 Fitch r. Creighton, 24 How. 159. Devisees v- Wathen, 2 McLean, 376. 1" Pacific R. R. (of Missouri) r. Atlan- * Oliver v. Piatt. 3 How. 333, 412; tic & Pacific R. R. Co., 20 Fed. R. 277. Barney )'. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, 215; 1^ United States i-. Pratt Coal & Coke Converse v. Michigan Dairy Co., 45 Fed Co., 18 Fed. R. 708. R. 18. 19 Rosenstein v. Burns, 41 Fed. R. 841. 5 Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 3.33, 412; § 7.5. 1 Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 127 Nelson >: Hill, 5 How. 127, 132; Green- 2 Bensoti v. Hadfield, 4 Hare, -32; wood r. Churchill, 1 M. & K. 550; Ohio Greenwood v. Churchill, 1 M. & K. 550; v. Ellis, 10 Ohio, 456. Gibbs V. Clagett, 2 Gill & J. (Md.) 14; « Davies v. Quaterman, 4 Y. & Coll. Putnam r. Hollander, 6 Fed. R. 882. See 257. §§ 77. 110; Story's Eq. PI. § 747 ; Beames ' Buerk v. Imhaeuser, 8 Fed. R. 457. on Pleas, 157, 158. 160 BILLS. [chap. IV. other defendants.^ Multifariousness as to subjects or parties does not render a decree void, so that it can be treated as a nullity in a collateral action.^ It has been held in other courts, that a bill is not multifarious which joins an insufficient with a good case for equitable relief, when there is no misjoinder of parties, and that the proper course of the defendant is to demur to so much of the bill as is insufficient ; ^^ but a bill is multifarious which joins two inconsistent complaints by different plaintiffs,^i although the case shown by the principal plaintiff is insufficient. It is within the constitutional power of Congress to pass a law allowing, in a single specified suit against a corporation chartered by it, matters and defendants to be joined in a manner that would otherwise constitute multifariousness.^'^ When an objection for multifariousness is sustained, the complainant will always be al- lowed, if he asks leave to do so, to amend upon payment of costs, unless his bill be otherwise fatally defective. ^^ The cases show a tendency towards holding that multifariousness depends so much upon the discretion of the courts of first instance, that a decision overruling an objection upon that ground would not be reviewed upon appeal.^"* In no case has the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a decree on account of multi- fariousness in the bill. In general, it may be remarked that multifariousness is an objection much more often taken than sustained. § 76. Special Provisions of the Federal Equity Rules and Prac- tice. — " The plaintiff may in the stating or narrative part of his bill state, and avoid, by counter-averments at his option, any matter or thing which he supposes will be insisted upon by the defendant by way of defense or excuse to the case made by the plaintiff for relief." ^ Such matter was formerly included in a separate part called the charging part of the bill, which, how- 8 Warthen i'. Brantley, 5 Ga. 571; " Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 2''\ Whitbeek V. Edgar, 2 BaVb. Ch. (N. Y.) 240. 106; Miller v. Jamison, 9 C. E. Green i- United States f. Union Pacific R. R., (N. J.), 41 ; Story's Eq. PI. § -544. 98 U. S. 569. 9 Hefner !•. Northwestern Life Ins. Co, ^'^ Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245, 123 U. S. 747. 240 ; Price v. Coleman, 21 Fed, Pv. 357. 1^ McCabe r. Bellows, 1 Allen (Mass.), " See Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. GIO; 260; Snavely v. Harkrader, 29 Grntt. Oliver v. Piatt, 8 How. .333; Barney v. (Va.) 112; Storv's F.q. PI. § 283. See Latliam, 103 U. S. 205 ; Slieldon v. Keo- Brown v. Guarantee Trust Co., 128 U. S. kuk N. L. Packet Co., 8 Fed. R. 769; 403. Daniell's Ch. Pr. 335, note 2. § 76. 1 Rule 21. § 76 ] PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL EQUITY RULES AND PRACTICE. 161 ever, was never indispensable.^ It is often important for the plaintiff to thus meet a defense which he anticipates. For as special replications are not allowed, he may thus save the delay of an enforced amendment of his bill, in order to plead new mat- ter as a reply to a defense in the answer. " If any persons, other than those named as defendants in the bill, shall appear to be necessary or proper parties thereto, the bill shall aver the reason why they are not made parties, by showing them to be without the jurisdiction of the court, or that they cannot be joined with- out ousting the jurisdiction of the court as to other parties." ^ These averments should be included in this part of the bill. " Every bill brought by one or more stockholders in a corporation against the corporation and other parties, founded on rights which may properly be asserted by the corporation, must be verified by oath, and must contain an allegation that the plaintiff was a share- holder at the time of the transaction of which he complains ; or that his share had devolved on him since by operation of law ; and that the suit is not a collusive one to confer on a court of the United States jurisdiction of a case of which it would not other- wise have cognizance. It must also set forth with particular- ity the efforts of the plaintiff to secure such action as he desires on the part of the managing directors or trustees, and, if neces- sary, of the shareholders, and the causes of his failure to obtain such action." ^ This rule does not apply to suits brought by the stockholders of a corporation after its dissolution ; ^ nor to a suit to restrain corporate action to which the president of the cor- poration is made a party solely for purposes of discovery ; ^ nor to a case where it clearly appears that the corporation would certainly refuse to exercise the right upon which the suit is founded." But it has been said, that " it is not enough to say that it appears from the bill that the corporation would probably refuse relief. The rule is imperative that efforts should be made to obtain relief in that direction before such a suit as this shall be 2 Story's Eq. PI. § 33 ; Langilell's Eq. Loan & Trust Co., 12 Fed. R. 752; PI. § 55. Dimpfell v. Oliio & Miss. R. R. Co., 3 Rule 22. 110 U. S. 200 ; Quincy v. Steel, 120 U. S., * Rule 94. See also Hawes v. Oak- 241 ; §§ 12, 87, 207. land, 104 U. S. 450 ; Huntington r. Palmer, 5 Lafayette Co. v. Neely, 21 Fed. R. 738. 104 U. S. 482; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 « Leo'r. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 17 How. 331 ; Greenwood v. Freiglit Co., 105 Fed. R. 27.3. U. S. 13, 16; Detroit ;•. Dean, 106 U. S. ' County of Tazewell c. Farmers' Loan 537, 542 ; County of Tazewell i-. Farmers' & Trust Co , 12 Fed. R. 752. VOL. I. — 11 162 BILLS. [chap. IV. commenced." ^ It has been said that " the bill may show that there was no necessity for efforts to be made with the share- holders, but not so as to the directors." ^ An allegation "that this suit is brought in good faith, and for the collection of, and to compel the collection of, what your orator believes to be a merito- rious claim," is not equivalent to the allegation " that the suit is not a collusive one, to confer on a court of the United States jurisdiction of a case of which it would not otherwise have cog- nizance." 1*^ In cases where the jurisdiction of the court depended upon the amount involved, it has been held at circuit that the bill should show that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdictional amount." If a bill be filed to impeach a patent or other grant by the United States and be not brought by the Attorney-General, or some other officer authorized by statute to do so, it must contain an allegation that the Attorney-General has " given such order for its institution as will make him officially responsible for it, and show his control over the cause." ^^ The signature of the Attorney -General subscribed to the bill is sufficient to show his authority ■ for filing it.'^ § 77. Bills to enjoin the Infringement of Patents. — A bill to restrain the infringement of a patent must contain an allegation that the complainant or the person through whom he claims was the inventor or discoverer of the thing or process patented. ^ It must also contain a substantial description of the ])atcnt or else set out the patent itself, or have the same annexed as an exhibit,^ The history of the invention, and a description of patents issued to the complainant before that sued upon, are proper averments."^ It is also proper to describe previous litigation over the same or similar patents.* It has been held to be a sufficient allegation of title and infringement for the plaintiff to allege : that he 8 McCrary, J., orally in Foote v. Cu- i^ u. s. ,.. M„llan, 10 Fed. R. 785; nard Mining Co., 17 Fed. R. 4G, 48. s. c. 118 U. S. 271. 9 Squair c. Lookout Mountain Co., 42 § 77. i Sullivan v. Redfield, 1 Paine, Fed. R. 729, 731. 441. w Quincyw. Steel, 1200.8.241,246,247. 2 Strirrat v. E.xcelsior Manuf. Co., 44 u United States v. Pratt Coal & Coke Fed. R. 142. Co., 18 Fed. R. 708; Murpliy v. Fast 3 Steam Gauge & Lantern Co. r. Me- Portland, 42 Fed. R. 308; Leliigh Zinc Roberts, 20 Fed. R. 765. & Iron Co. V. N. J. Zinc & Iron Co., 43 ^ Steam Gauge & Lantern Co. v. Mc- Fed. R. 545, 546; Oleson v. Nortlicrn R. Roberts, 26 Fed. R. 765; American Bell Co., 43 Fed. R. 112. Tel. Co. v. Southern Tel. Co., 34 Fed. R. 12 Mr. .Justice Miller in United States 803. V. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, 71. § 77.] BILLS TO ENJOIN THE INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS. 163 "was the true, original, and first inventor of a certain new and useful imi)roved ajiplication of steam j)0\ver to the capstan of vessels, not known or used before ; " " that a description or specification of the aforesaid improvement was given in his schedule to the aforesaid letters-patent annexed, accompanied by certain drawings referred to in said last mentioned schedule, and forming parts of said letters-patent, — the said letters-patent and the said specification thereto annexed (which, or an exemplified copy of which, your orators will produce, as your honors may direct) were duly recorded in the patent office ; " and " that the defendant is now constructing, using, and selling steam-power capstans for vessels in some parts thereof substantially the same in construction and operation as in the said letters-patent men- tioned." ^ A bill for an injunction and an accounting was held to be good on demurrer, although it did not allege that the com- plainant was engaged in using the invention patented, or that it was a source of profit to him, when it alleged that the defendant had made profits by the use of the invention.^ When a bill alleged " that the patentee was the original, first, and sole inventor of a certain new and useful improvement in the construction of cable railways, fully described in the specification of the said letters-patents, which had not been patented to himself or to others, witli his knowledge or consent, in any country, and had not, to his or the orator's knowledge, been in public use or on sale in the United States for more than two years prior to his inven- tion and discovery thereof, and application for letters-patent of the United States therefor," it was held sufficient." A bill which alleged that a complainant had obtained a certain patent, that the defendant had obtained patents of a later date which interfered with complainant's rights, and that defendant is making and selling machines under his patents, and has in other ways dis- turbed complainant in the use and enjoyment of the rights granted by his patent, was held sufficiently to charge interference.^ The allegation " as by the said letters-patent and specification, all in due form of law ready in court to be produced, will fully appear," is equivalent to profert in the most formal and ample terms. It 5 M'Millin v. St. Louis & Mississippi " American Cable R3-. Co. v. Mayor, Valley Transportation Co., 18 Fed. R. &c'. of the City of N. Y., 43 Fed. R. 60. 260, 261. See M'Coy v. Nelson, 121 U. S. ^ Stonemetz P. M. Co. v. Brown F. M. 484. Co., 46 Fed. R. 72. 6 Wirt V. Hicks, 46 Fed. R. 71. 164 BILLS. [chap. IV. tenders the entire grant to the inspection of tiie court and party.^ When profert of the patent is made in the bill, only its title need be set forth. ''^ It was held at circuit that in a bill founded upon a reissued patent it is not necessary to cover s})ccifically the ground upon which the original patent was surrendered ; ^^ but if such a bill shows a delay of more than two years in obtaining the reissue, it should set up an excuse for the delay .^^ Upon a demurrer for both uncertainty and want of equity to a bill founded upon a reissued patent, when the only allegations concerning the re- issue were " that said Charles T. Day, having for good and lawful cause and with the consent and approbation of your orator, sur- rendered said letters-patent to the commissioner of patents, and having made due application therefor, and having in all things complied with the acts of Congress in such case made and })ro- vided, did, on the eighteenth of February, 1879, obtain new letters-patent, being reissued letters-patent, for the same inven- tion for the residue of said term, and which were marked ' reis- sue, Xo. 8,590,' and were issued in due form of law to your orator, as assignee, under the seal of the patent office of the United States, signed by the Secretary of the Interior and countersigned by the Commissioner of Patents, and bearing date the day and year aforesaid, as by the last mentioned reissued letters-|)atent, ready here in court to be produced, will appear ; " it was held that the bill was not objectionaljle.^^ The court then said : " It is not necessary to aver, specifically, the ground on which the original patent was surrendered. The reissue of letters-patent by the Commissioner is j;nw?a/a(?eV evidence that such reissue is founded on sufficient cause, and is in accordance with law. It is also presumed until the contrary is shown that the Commissioner acted within his statutory authority." '^ A bill founded upon a reissued patent, which shows a delay of more thnn two years in the appli- cation for the reissue, must allege sufficient excuse for the delay. ^'^ So must a bill to compel the issue of a patent which shows a delay i)f two years in prosecuting the application in the Patent Oihce.^'' '■> Wilder r. McCormick, 2 RIatclif. 81, For a precedent of n bill for the infrin^e- •5'3- inent of an oriirinnl patent, see McCoy v. '" M'Millin V. St. Louis & Mississippi Nelson. 121 U. S. 484. Valley Transportation Co., 18 Fed. R.2f;0. » Colt, J., in Spneth v. Barney, 22 " Spaeth V. Harney, 22 Fed. R. 828. Fed. R. 828, 82^. 1-^ Wollensak r. Keiher, 115 U. S. O^i. '-^ Wollensak v. Keiher, 11'. U. S. OG. " Spaeth V. Harney, 22 Fed. II 828. i''' Gandy r. Marble, 122 U. S. 432. § 78.] GENERAL RULES OF EQUITY PLEADING. 165 It has been held that a simple averment that the defendant has infringed the patents above described is sufficient.^" A bill to enjoin the infringement of a patent by the use of a machine need not state what articles the defendant has made by the use of the machine. ^'^ An allegation that the defendant " since the date of said patent " had infringed, was held upon demurrer not to signify "ever since," but "after or subsequently to" that datc.^^ A bill to enjoin the infringement of several distinct ))atents has been held multifarious;-^ but if all the patents arc infringed in the use of or manufacture of a single machine and it is so alleged, the bill is good.-^ It has been said that the complainant " should aver that said inventions are capable of conjoint as well as separate use, and are so used by the defendants." ^^ A charge of infringement, and a prayer for an injunction and accounting accordingly, may be joined with a charge of interference and a prayer for relief, under § 4918 of the Revised Statutes.-'^ A bill seeking an injunction with damages against the infringement of a patent, and an injunc- tion with damages against the publication of libellous circulars affecting plaintiff's patent, has been held multifarious.^* Persons who arc acting in concert as employees of the same corporation in the infringement of a patent may bo joined as defendants to the same bill.-'^ An objection that defendants were improperly joined should be raised by demurrer wdien it appears on the face of the bill. 26 § 78. General Rules cf Equity Pleading. — Otherwise, the rules regulating the framing of a bill and, with the exceptions subse- quently given, other pleadings in equity are substantially the 1'^ American Bell Tel. Co. ;;. Southern Cliillieothe, 7 Fed. R. 351 ; Nellis v. Mo- Tel. Co., .34 Fed. R. 80:1 See also Mc- Lanalian, C, Fislier's Pat. Cas. 286. Millin i: St. Louis & Mississippi Valley — Gamewell Fire Alarm Telegraph Co. Transportation Co., 18 Fed. R. 2r,0; Mc- ;•. City of Chillicotlie, 7 Fed R. ?.51 ; Nel- Coy >: Nelson, 121 U. S. 484 ; Cleveland lis r. McLanalian, 6 Fisher's Fat. Cas. 286. F. & B. Co. u. U. S. Rolling Stock Co., 41 -^ Leach v. Chandler, 18 Fed. K. 202 ; Fed. R. 476. Holliday v. Pickhardt, 20 Fed. R. 853; 18 Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 76, 78. Swift r. .Tenks, 21) P\'d. U. 642 ; American 19 Brush Flectric Co »;. Ball Flectric Roll Paper Co. r. Knopp, 44 Fed. R. 60'.», LiL'ht Co., 43 Fed. R. 809. 612; Stonemetz P. M. Co. v. Brown F. M. •-'^ Hayes r. Dayton, 8 Fed. R. 702; Co., 46 Fed. R. 72. Shickle v. South St. Louis Foundry Co., -■* Fougeres v. Murharger, 44 Fed. R. 22 Fed. R. 105. 202. Sec § 74. 21 Nourse r. Allen, 4 Blatchf. C. C. 37(i ; -^ Poppenhusen v. Falke, 4 Blatchf. 403. Perry v. Corning, 7 Blatchf. C. C 105 ; -» Putnam ;-. Hollander, 6 Fed. R. 882. Case V. Redfield, 4 McLean, 52i) : Game- See §§ 75, 110. well Fire Alarm Telegrapii Co. r. City of 166 BILLS. [chap. IV. same as those of pleading at common law ; but more liberality is used in their construction,^ and the use of technical expressions is never necessary .^ An allegation that the plaintiff is seized in fee simple is equivalent to an allegation that he is in possession.^ If the plaintiff claim under a derivative title, he must show the steps by which it has come into existence.* Where, however, there is an existing privity between the plaintiff and defendant, independently of the plaintiff's title, which gives the plaintiff a right to maintain the suit ; as, for example, if they are landlord and tenant, or mortgagor and mortgagee, then it is not necessary to state the plaintiff's title fully in the bill.^ An allegation that the complainant acquired the title by purchase from the assignee in bankruptcy of the original owner was held sufficient, although it did not state that the assignee in bankruptcy obtained an order from the court authorizing him to make the sale.*^ It was said recently at circuit, that in a suit to remove a cloud from the title of land generally, "it will be found sufficient for the plaintiff to allege his possession, and interest or estate in the land, or that he is the owner thereof in fee for life or for years, and that he claims the same by a regular chain of conveyances from some recognized and undisputed source of title, as, the United States, or its donee under the donation act of September 27, 1850, without setting out such conveyances or stating them in detail. • But when there is reason to believe, as in this case and many others, that the right- fulness of the defendant's claim depends on the validity or legal effect of some link or links in tlie conveyances under which the plaintiff claims title, it is very convenient, if not necessary, that the statement of the plaintiff's case should contain the facts fully and in detail at that point in the chain of his title where it con- flicts with the claim of the defendant. By so doing the necessity of future amendments will be avoided, and the progress and dis- patch of the case promoted." ' And a demurrer to a bill for a lack of certainty in this respect has been sustained.^ " It is not § 78. 1 Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed ) •' Daiuell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 370, 41. -i. 37 L - Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 414. •' Amory r. Lawrence, 3 Cliff. 523. 3 Gage r. Kaufman, 1.33 U. S. 471. ' (ioldsmith r. Gilliland, 22 Fed. R. * Lord Digby v. Meecli, Bnnb. 195 ; 865, 808. Humphreys r! fate, 4 Iredell's Eq. (N.C.). « Goldsmith v. Gilliland, 22 Fed. R. 220 ; Marshall -•. Turnbull, 34 Fed. H. 827; 805. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 3u0, 370. § 78.] GENERAL RULES OF EQUITY PLEADING. 167 necessary, wlien all the legal and equitable owners are joined, to state the formalities or the mode of conveyance by which the equitable interests became vested in the co-complainants." ^ In a bill filed by an executor or an administrator, it seems to be sutlicient to state that the will has been proved, or letters of ad- ministration taken out, '• in the proper court," without naming it.^'^ If, however, the plaintiff undertake to name the court, and it be an improper or insufficient one, the bill is demurrable.^^ If the plaintiff's title would be incomplete without the performance of some preliminary act, its performance must be alleged, and a mere statement that the title is complete is insufficient.^^ Thus, in an English case, where the plaintiff sued as a shareholder of a joint-stock company, and merely alleged in his bill " that he pur- chased for valuable considerations divers shares, upon which the instalment of five per cent had been paid, and that he ever since lias been, and now is, the holder of such shares;" while in an- other part of the bill it was alleged "that by the rules of the association, as set forth in the prospectus, no transfer of shares ■would be valid in law or equity, unless the purchaser was approved by a board of directors, and signed an instrument binding him to observe the regulations," — it was held, on demurrer, that such action on the part of the board and the purchaser was a condition precedent to the transfer of the title to a share of stock ; and that the bill was defective for not alleging such action. ^^ So, a complainant who rests his title upon a tax-deed must plead the performance of the prerequisites to the validity of the deed.^* When the nature of the conveyance through which the plaintiff claims is sucli that by common law independent of a statute, as the statute of frauds, for example, no deed, writing, or other formality was essential to its validity, the English rule was that compliance with such formality need not be alleged. ^^ In this respect, equity followed the rule at common law, that such statutory regulations did not alter the form of pleadings. ^^ If, however, it appeai'ed 9 Sliipman J., in Bl.ack r. Henry G. i- Walburn r. Ingilhy, 1 M. & K. Gl ; Allen Co., 4-2 Fed. K. G18, 62:?. ' Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2(1 Am. cd.) 369; w Humnlireys v. Ingledon, 1 P. Wms. Story's Eq. PI. §§ 257. 257 a, 258. 752; Black v. Henry G. Allen Co., 42 i^ Walburn i: Ingilby, 1 M. & K. 61. Fed. R. 618, 623. » Green wait i-. Duncan, 16 Fed. R. 35. ^1 Tourton r. Flower, 3 P. Wms. .369; i' nanicU's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. cd.) 416, Black V. Henry G. Allen Co.. 42 Fed. R. 417 ; Harrison /•. Hosrcr, 2 Ves. Jr. 327. 618, 624; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) i'- DanioH's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 416, 364. 417 ; Stephen on Pleading, 313. 168 BihLS. [chap. IV. upon the face of the bill that compliance had not been made with such a formality, the bill was demurrable upon that ground. i' When, however, a right had been originally created by statute^ as a right to land by devise, or in this country a patent or copyright, a compliance with the statutory requirements had to be alleged by one claiming under it.^^ " The rule in equity is that it is not sufficient to charge a fraud simply, but you must charge also some injury as the result of the fraud." ^^ Where a bill shows apparent laches, it should set forth the impediments to an earlier suit, the cause of the com- plainant's previous ignorance, if any, of his rights, and when he first knew of them.^*^ The same rule is applied to a bill upon a reissued patent showing a delay of more than two years in the application for a reissue ; ^^ and to a bill to compel the issue of a patent which shows a delay of two years in prosecuting the ap- plication in the Patent Office.-^ In construing this, as well as all other parts of pleadings, every doubt is against the pleader ;^ but contracts by corporations are presumed to be within their charters until the contrary is shown.^^ When the bill contains general and specific allegations as to the same matter, the general allegations will be referred to those which are specific.^^ Exhibits attached to the bill, and therein referred to, are considered as a part of the same.^^ § 79. The Common Confederacy Clause. — The confederacy part, which came next in order, is now expressly declared unnecessary by the equity rules.^ It is still, however, inserted by some prac- titioners. The old form was substantially as follows : " But now it is, may it please your honor, that the said A. B., combining and confederating with divers persons," or, if there are several defendants, " combining and confederating with the said C. D. and E F., and with divers other persons, ... at present un- known to your orator, whose names when discovered your orator 1^ Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585, 21 Wollcnsak v. 'Reilier, 115 U. S. 06. 5S9; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am ed.) 417 ; 22 Gandy ;•. Marble, 122 U. S. 432. Redding v. Wilkes, 3 Brown C. 0. 401. 23 phelps v. McDonald, 99 U. S. 298, i» Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 419 ; 305. Sullivan r. Rcdfield, 1 Paine, 441 ; Atwill 24 Express Co. v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. V. Ferrett, 2 Blatch. C. C. 39. 191, at pa^^e 199. IS' Linn 17. Green, 17 Fed. R. 407. « Ellis v. Colman, 25 Beav. GG2 ; 2' Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall 87 ; Rich- Story's Eq. PI. § 37 a. ards ('. Mackall, 124 U. S. 183; Gandy 20 Rij^ek r. Henry G. Allen Co, 42 V. .Marble, 122 U. S. 432; Wollensak v. Fed. R. 018. 025; infm, § 100. Reiher, 115 U. S. 90. § 79. 1 Rule 21. § 81.] THE JURISDICTION CLAUSE. 1C9 prays he may be at liberty to insert herein, with apt words to charge them as the parties defendant hereto, and, contriving how to wrong and injure your orator in the premises, he the said A. B. at times pretends that." ^ " This practice is said to have arisen from the idea that without such a charge parties could not be added to the bill by amendment, and in some cases, perhaps, the charge has been inserted with a view to give the court juris- diction." 2 It is mere surplusage, and being a conclusion of law when inserted need not be answered.^ § 80. The Charging Part. — Next followed formerly tlic char- ging part of the bill, which also has been declared unnecessary by the equity rules,^ but is occasionally used. " It usually consists of some allegation or allegations which set forth the matters of defense or excuse which it i.s supposed the defendant intends or pretends to set up to justify his non-compliance with the plaintiff's right or claim, and then charges other matters, which disprove or avoid the supposed defense or excuse. It is some- times also used for the purpose of obtaining a discovery of the nature of the defendant's case, or to i)ut in issue some matter which it is not for the interest of the plaintiff to admit ; for which purpose the charge of the pretence of the defendant is held to be sufficient." ^ If such averments are considered necessary now, the proper method of pleading is to include them in the narj-ative part of the bill.'^ § 81. The Jurisdiction Clause. — Then camc the jurisdiction clause. This ran substantially as follows : " All which actings, doings, and pretences of the said confederates are contrary to equity and good conscience, and tend to the manifest wrong, in- jury, and oppression of your orator in the premises. In tender consideration whereof, and forasmuch as your orator is entirely remediless by the strict rules of the common law, and can only have relief in a court of equity where matters of this nature are properly cognizable ; to the end, therefore," ^ &:c. It is still the common usage to insert a short clause of this character, although it has been declared by the equity rules unnecessary .^ '■' Story's Eq. PI. § 29, note 2. 3 Rule 21; Partridge v. Haycraft, 11 3 Mitford's PI. (;li. 1, § 2. Ves. 574. See § 67. * Story's Eq. PI. § 29. § 81. i Story's Eq. PI. § 34, and notes. §80. 1 Rule 21. 2 Rule 21, 2 Story's Eq. PI. § 01. See Mitford's PI. cii. 1, § 3. 170 BILLS. [chap. IV. § 82. The Interrogatory Clause. — The interrogatory clause which followed was of much more importance formerly, when parties to a suit could not testify in actions at common law, than it is at the present time. Yet, in addition to the inclusion in the prayer for relief of a request that the defendants be compelled to answer the bill, it is still not unusual to require them to answer specific interrogatories. The equity rules provide as fol- lows : " The interrogatories contained in the interrogating part of the bill must be divided as conveniently as may be from each other, and numbered consecutively 1, 2, 3, &c. ; and the inter- rogatories which each defendant is required to answer shall be specified in a note at the foot of the bill, in the form to the effect following, that is to say : ' The defendant (A. B.) is re- quired to answer the interrogatories numbered respectively 1, 2, 3, &c.' " ^ The note at the foot of the bill, specifying the in- terrogatories which each defendant is reijuired to answer, shall be considered and treated as part of the bill ; and the addition of any such note to the bill, or any alteration in or addition to such note after the bill is filed, shall be considered and treated as an amendment to the bill." ^ " Instead of the words of the bill now in use preceding the interrogatory part thereof,^ and begin- ning with the words ' to the end therefore,' there shall hereafter be used words in the form or to the effect following : ' To the end, therefore, that the said defendants may, if they can, show why your orator should not have the relief hereby prayed, and may, upon their several corporate oaths, and according to the best and utmost of their several and res])ective knowledge, re- membrance, information, and belief, full, true, direct, and perfect answer make to each of the several interrogatories hereinafter numbered and set forth, as by the note hereunder written they are respectively required to answer; that is to say, — § 82. 1 Rule 41. gated ; and tliat not only to tlie best of - IJiile 42. their respective knowledge and remein- 3 The old form was as follows : " To brant-e, but also as to tlie best of their the end, therefore, that tiie said A. B. several and respective information, Iienr- and the rest of the confederates, when say, and belief; and more especially that discovered, may upon their several and they may answer and set forth whether, respective corporate oaths, full, true, di- &c. ; or thoy may set forth and discover rect, and perfect answer make, to all and whether they do not know, have heard, singular the matters liereinbefore stateiJ or are informed, and in their conscience and charged, as fully and particularly as believe that," &c. Story's Eq. PI. § 35, if the same were hereinafter repeated, note 2. and they thereunto distinctly interro- § 83.] THE ITvAYER FOR RELIEF. 171 " ' Whether, &c. " ' Whether, &c.' " * No interrogatory need be answered or will be snstaincd which does not refer to some matter alleged in the narrative part of the bill,^ but a number of interrogatories may be founded upon a single allegation.*^ The criterion of immateriality of interroga- tories is not whether an affirmative answer will ])rove an allega- tion in a bill, but whether it will tend to prove the bill.' The defendant need not answer an interrogatory if by so doing he would subject himself to a penalty, or a forfeiture, or to punish- ment for a crime.^ When there are no specific interrogatories the defendants are still bound to answer, either admitting or denying every part of the bill, as if they had been specifically interrogated thereabout.^ An answer under oath to the whole of the bill, or to all but certain specified interrogatories, may be expressly waived by the ])laintiff.^*^ Such waiver is usually in- serted in the prayer for relief or for process. § 83. The Prayer for Relief. — " The prayer of the bill shall ask the special relief to which the plaintiff supposes himself entitled, and also shall contain a prayer for general I'elief. And if an injunction, or a writ of ne exeat regno^ or any other special order pending the suit is required, it shall also be specially asked for." ^ Under the prayer for general relief the court will usually grant any relief ^ other than an interlocutory order, which is consistent with, and a ground for which is included in, the allegations of the bill,^ and not inconsistent with the prayer for special relief.^ * Rule 43. For an excellent statement i" Amendment of 1851 to Rule 41. of the reasons for tlie use of siiccific in- § 83. i Rule 21. Compare Bloomfield terrogatories, see Report of Cliancer3' v. Eyre, 8 Beav. 250, 250. Commissioners, 9th March, 1820, Appen- ^ Tayloe v. Mercliants' Fire Ins. Co., dix, pp. 1.2; Story's Eq. ri. § .38, note 3. 9 How.'. 390; Stewart v. Ciiesapeake & 5 Attorney-General r. Whorwood, 1 Oliio Canal Co., 1 Fed. R. SGI ; (\)unty Ves. 534; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) of Mobile v. KimbaU, 102 U. S. OOl"; 432, 433. Chicago. St. L. & N. O. R. R. Co. v. Ma- 6 Faulder i-. Stuart, 11 Ves. 296 ; Bui- comb, 2 Fed. R. 18; Adams v. Kelilur lock V. Richardson, 11 Ves. 375; Story's Milling Co., 30 Fed. R. 212. Eq. PI. § 37. 3 English v. Foxall, 2 Pet. 595; Curry 7 Uhlmann v. Arnholt & Schaoffer i-. Lloyd, 22 Fed. R 258, 265 ; Mackall v. Brewing Co., 41 Fed. R. 309. Casilear, 1-37 U. S. 550, 504. ^ Stewart v. Drasha, 4 McLean, 503; ^ Hiern v. Mill, 13 Ves. 118; Soden v. Atwill V. Ferrett, 2 Blatl; (Ky.),4G9; » Mannton >: Molesworth, 1 Eden, 26, Pillow V. Pillow, o Yi>rg. ('i'enn.), 420. note b; Dormer v. P'ortescue, 3 Atk. 124 ; ^ Le Texier v. Tiio Margravine of Story's Eq. PI. § 41, n. 1. Anspach, 15 Vcs. \o9, 1(34; Daniell's Cli. '" Beaumont v. Boultbee, 5 Ves. 48.5; Pr. (2(1 Am. ed ) 441. Palk r. Lord Clinton, 12 Ves. 0.3; Dan- 7 Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50. iell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) -i'.VJ, 440. « Siiields r. Barrow, 17 How. 1.30, 144; n Stapilton v. Stapilton, 1 Atk. 2; Kilgour V. New Orleans Gas-Liglit Co,, Attorney-General r. .leanes, 1 Atk. .355 ; 2 Woods 144, 148; Gaines v. Chew, 2 Story's Eq. PI. § 40, note. How. G19, 043. See § 70. § 84.] WAIVERS AND OFFERS. 173 make ; ^ although there is no reason why that should not be set forth in the narrative part of the bill. "If the complainant in his bill shall waive an answer in the oath, or shall only require an answer under oath with regard to certain specified interroga- tories, the answer of the defendant, though under oath, except such part thereof as shall be directly responsive to such inter- rogatories, shall not be evidence in his favor, unless the cause be set down for hearing on bill and answer only ; but may never- theless be used as an affidavit, with the same effect as heretofore, on a motion to grant or dissolve an injunction, or on any other incidental motion in the cause. But this shall not prevent a defendant from becoming a witness in his own behalf under sec- tion 3 of the Act of Congress of July 2, 18G4."2 It rarely happens that advantage of this rule is not taken by a waiver inserted here, or more frequently in the prayer of process, in order to avoid the rule, that otherwise an allegation responsive to the bill in a sworn answer is presumed to be true, unless re- butted by the testimony of two witnesses, or one witness and strong corroborating circumstances.^ In accordance with the maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity, a court of equity often refuses relief to one seeking its aid, unless upon condition that he shall do what it considers equitable to the defendant, or sometimes even to a third person.* In some cases it enforces this by the entry of a conditional decree without reference to the pleadings.^ But its more usual practice is to insist that the plaintiff shall offer to jjerform, or, in some cases, allege the performance of, the equitable act that it requires of him in his bill, which otherwise will be demurrable. Thus, a bill to cancel securities claimed to be usurious, or otherwise rendered void by a statute, must contain an offer by the plaintiff to pay the defendant the money he has received therefor with lawful interest.*^ And it seems that a State statute abolishing this rule of equity will not be followed by a United States court, though the suit concerns securities made in such State, at least not when the court is held in another State." So a bill to redeem a mort- §84. iDaniell'sCh.Pr.(2(l Am.e(l.)443. « Mason v. Gardiner, 4 Brown C. C. - Amendment of 1871 to Kule 41. 436; Tapper v. Powell, 1 J. Cli. (N. Y.) =» Vigel V. Hopp, 104 U. S. 441. 439 ; Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 443. * Fosdick V. Schali, 99 U. S. 235. " Matthews v. Warner, 6 Fed. R. 4(31 ; ^ Walden v. Bodley, 14 Pet. 156, 164, s. c. affirmed upon another point, 112 1G5. U. S. GOO. 174 BILLS. [chap. IV. gage must contain an offer to pay what is clue thereon, though the particular sum need not be specified.^ A bill to set aside a judicial sale as void must be accompanied by a tender or offer of the purchase-money with interest, provided it was applied for tlie benefit of the estate, unless that money has been first repaid, which the court might require to be done before the bill is filed.^ It seems that a bill to set aside a foreclosure of a railway mortgage should contain an offer of payment of the amount admitted to be due under the mortgage, and of the costs of the foreclosure suit, or at least show some reason why such an offer should not be required.^*^ A bill to set aside a tax sale must ordi- narily contain an order to repay the purchaser at least all legal taxes on the property paid by him, botli those for which the prop- erty was sold, and those subsequently levied thereon and paid by him, with interest upon each sum.^^ A bill to restrain the col- lection of State taxes must be preceded by payment of " what is conceded to be due, or what can be seen to be due on the face of the bill, or be shown by affidavits, whether conceded or not, before the preliminary injunction should be granted." ^^ If the whole tax is claimed to be void as improperly assessed, it seems that the complainant must tender the amount he would owe if a proper assessment had been made.^^ If the proper officer refuses to receive a part of the tax, it must be tendered without the condition annexed of a receipt in full.^* A bill to compel the specific performance of a contract ])y a defendant should, it seems, contain an offer by the plaintiff to perform his part thereof. ^^ And formerly it was,^*^ but no longer is,^' required that a bill for an account should contain an offer on the part of the plaintiff to pay the balance, if any, found due against him. But a bill filed by the United States to vacate a patent for public 5 Story's Eq. PI. § 187 a ; Hanling v. 57-5, 617; National Bank v. Kimball, 103 Pini^ey, 10 Jurist n. s 872 ; Perry v. Carr, U. S. 7;^2. 41 N. IL .371; Robinson v. Iron Railway " State Railroad Tax Cases, 02 U. S. Co., 135 U. S. 522. 575, 617 ; National Bank v. Kimball, 103 9 Davis v. Gaines, 104 U. S. 386. U. S. 732. " Carey v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., ^^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2(1 Am. etl.) 442; 45 Fed. R. 438, 44-3. Stapylton r. Scott. 1.3 Yes. 425; Fife i-. 11 Gage i: Pumpelly, 115 U. S. 454. Clayton, 13 Yes. 54(5. But see Mendenliall v. Hall. 1.34 U. S. i'^ Godbolt r. Watts, 2 Anst. 543 ; Dan- 55'.», 500. iell's Cli. Pr. 442. 1- State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. i" Colombian Government v. Rotbs- 575, 617. child, 1 Simons, 94, 103 ; Wells v. Strange, 13 State Railroad Tax Cases, 02 U. S. 5" Royal Exx-lianfro Ins. Co. v. Ward, 1 McCrary, 647. 1 Fowler Ex. Pr. 225. 16 Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 503. i-' French v. Roe, 13 Ves. 593. " But see Crew v. Martin, I Fowler Ex. Pr. § 97. i 2 Wm. IV. c. 33 ; 4 & 5 Wm. 225. IV." c. 82. 1" Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Mis- VOL. I. — 13 194 SUBPOENAS TO APPEAR AND ANSWER. [CHAP. V. shall not appear, plead, answer, or demur within the time so limited, or within some further time to be allowed by the court, in its discretion, and upon proof of the service or publication of said order, and of the performance of the directions contained in the same, it shall be lawful for the court to entertain jurisdiction and proceed to the hearing and adjudication of such suit in the same manner as if such absent defendant had been served with process within the said district ; but said adjudication shall, as regards said absent defendant or defendants without appear- ance, affect only the property which shall have been the subject of the suit, and under the jurisdiction of the court therein, with- in such district ; and when a part of the said real or personal property against which such proceeding shall be taken shall be within another district, but within the same State, said suit may be brought in either district in said State : Provided, however^ That any defendant or defendants not actually personally notified as above provided may, at any time within one year after final judgment in any suit mentioned in this section, enter his appear- ance in said suit in said circuit court, and thereupon the said court shall make an order setting aside the judgment therein, and permitting said defendant or defendants to plead therein on pay- ment by him or them of such costs as the courts shall deem just ; and thereupon said suit shall be proceeded with to final judgment according to law." ^ A subpcena cannot tluis be served when the main object of the bill is for an accounting by an absent and non-resident defendant, although there is also a prayer for the appointment of a receiver of property within the district.^ It seems that service can thus be made in a suit to establish a trust in real estate although the bill also prays an accounting.^ It has been held no defense to such a suit that neither the de- fendants thus served by publication nor the plaintiff are resi- dents of the district.^ Process cannot thus be served in a suit to remove a cloud upon the title to a patent-right although the of- ficial letters-patent evidencing the patent-right are within the jurisdiction.'^ Process may thus be served in a suit to foreclose 2 U. R. R. S. § 738; as amendefl liy * Porter Land & Water Co. i<. Baskin, act of March 3, 1875, ch. 137, § 8 (18 St. 43 Fed. R. 323. at L. 472.) s Ames v. Ilolderbaum, 42 Fed. R 3 Ellis V. Reynolds, 35 Fed. R. 394. 341. Rut see I'orter Land & Water Co. v. '' Non-Magnetic Watch Co. v. Asso- Baskin, 43 Fed. U. 323. elation H. S. of Geneve, 44 Fed. H. 6 § 98.] EXEMPTIONS FROM SERVICE. 195 a railway mortQ:age." It has been said, that a claim to a certain number of undesignated shares of stock in a corporation char- tered within the district is not pro])erty within that district when the liolder of tlie legal title to the stock is domiciled elsewhere.^ An absent judgment debtor may thus be served in a suit by the creditor to appropriate his assets.^ It has been held at circuit : that an order in pursuance of this statute may be obtained imme- diately on filing the bill, upon proof by affidavit that the defend- ant does not dwell within the district, and cannot be served or found therein ; ^^ that the day named for his appearance need not be one of the rule days of the court ; ^^ that personal service of the order must be made in all cases where the residence of the absent defendant is known or can be ascertained, or service upon him can be made within a reasonable time and by the exercise of reasonable diligence ; and that its service by publication can only be authorized upon proof by affidavit of the facts showing that personal service without the jurisdiction is impracticable.^^ The affidavit should state the known places of residence of the absent defendants, and show that diligence has been used to ascertain the places of residence which are unknoAvn.^^ The fact that it would be very expensive to make personal service upon the absent defen- dant whose residence was known was held no ground for allowing service by publication.''* If the absent defendant reside in another district of the United States, the safer practice is to obtain an or- der directing the marshal of that district to serve him.'^ A defect in personal service or the fact that personal service was obtained by fraud will not prejudice proceedings regularly taken under this statute.'*^ § 98. Exemptions from Service of Subpoena or other Process, Legal or Equitable, other than Arrest. — Chief Justice Marshall, in the course of the trial of Aaron Burr, ordered that a sub- poena duces tecum should issue against President Jefferson. Jef- ferson, however, refused to obey the subpoena, while expressing ^ Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Houston & T. " Forsyth v. Pierson, 9 Fed. R. 801. C. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 115. i- Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 498 ; Batt ^ Kilgour V. New Orleans Gas-light v. Procter, 45 Fed. R. 515. Co., 2 Woods, 144. " Batt v. Procter, 45 Fed R. 515. 9 Brighara v. Luddington, 12 Blatchf. ^^ Batt r. Procter, 45 Fed. R. 515. 237. Compare Picquet f. Swan, 5 Mason, i^ Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 498; 35 ; s. 0. 5 Mason, 561. Forsyth v. Pierson, 9 Fed. R. 801. '^ Forsyth v. Pierson, 9 Fed. R. 801. i'^ Fitzgerald & M. C. Co. v. Fitzgerald, But see Bronson v. Keokuk, 2 Dill. 498. 137 U. S. 98. 196 SUBPCENAS TO APPEAK AND ANSWER. [CHAP. V. his perfect willingness to furnish the ])apcr desired, if I'equested in what he considered a proper way. The dispute went no far- ther,^ Subsequently, a motion was made for leave to file a bill in the Supreme Court, praying for an injunction against Pj-esi- dent Johnson to restrain him from executing the reconstruction laws. The attorney-general then took the position that the Pres- ident was not amenable to process ; but that point was not then and has not since been decided. ^ On the trial of Guiteau for the murder of President Garfield a written statement signed by President Arthur was admitted in evidence by consent without his personal attendance. No other officer or person has been claimed to be above the law. The Federal Constitution provides that senators and representatives " shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same."" This has been construed at circuit to exempt them from service of process, unaccomj)anied by arrest of the person, when on their way to attend a session of Congress ;'* and it has been further held that such exemption is not lost by a slight deviation from the most direct road to the capital.'^ In certain cases individuals are temporarily exempt from the service of process. A person temporarily within the district for tlie purpose of attending, either as witness,*^ party," attorney, or counsel,^ a trial or other pro- ceeding,^ civil or criminal ji*^, in a State ^^ or Federal ^^ court, is, while there, exempt from the service of process eundo, morando, et redeundo. A similar exemption would probably be ap])licd to § 98. 1 Burr's Trial. ^ United States v. Bridgman, 8 Am. - Mississippi >•. Jolinson, 4 Wall. 475. Law Record, 541; Newton v. Askew, tj See Jefferson's Works, vol. v. p. 102. Hare, ^19; Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 3 Const. Art. I. § 0. 5G8. •» :\Iiner >: Markliam, 28 Fed. R. ?,S7. i'^ United States r. Bridpman, 8 Atn. ^ .Miner r. Markliam, 28 Fed. R. 387. Law Record, 541. But see Jenkins v. ''• Person r. Grier, RO N. Y. 124, and Smitli, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 171. cases tliere cited ; Kauffman v. Kennedy, '^ Juneau Bank v. McSpedan, 5 Biss. 25 Fed. R. 785. ' G4 ; Matthews r. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 508. " Parker i-. Hotclikiss, 1 Wall. Jr. 2G9 ; i- Parker r. Ilotcldiiss, 1 Wall. Jr. 209 ; Juneau Bank r. McSpedan, 5 Biss. 64; United States r. Bridgman, 8 Am. Law Matthews r. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 508; Brooks Record, 541 ; Brooks r. Farwell, 2 Mc- V. Farwell, 2 McCrary, 220; s. c. 4 Fed. Crary, 220; s. c. 4 Fed. R. 107 ; Bridges R. 1G7 ; Bridges r. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R. 17; c Shehhm, 7 Fed. R. 17; Mattliews r. Matthews r. Puffer. 10 Fed R. GOG; Puffer, 10 Fed. R. GOG ; Larned i-. Gritlin, Larne.l r. GrifHn, 12 Fed. R. r>W. 12 Fed. R. 590. « Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 5G8. § 98.] EXEMPTIONS FROM SERVICE. 197 any person wliile temporarily within the district in the discharge uf a public duty. ^2 The privilege of a witness does not exempt him from liability to service in a suit arising out of his acts upon that same visit to the jurisdiction. ^^ A Federal court will not punish as a contempt the arrest or service of process by a State court upon a foreign witness in attendance before it ; ^^ though it might perhaps upon habeas corpus discharge the wit- ness from such arrest,!*^ or punish the party who molested the witness, by a stay of proceedings in a case pending between him and the witness in the Federal court.^^ If a person be fraud- ulently enticed within the district and then served with pro- cess by those who thus induced him to come, the service may be set aside.i^ In one case, when a man was induced by a forged telegram to enter the jurisdiction of the court, the party who served him there was held to be presumptively connected with the fraud.i9 1^ Lyell V. Goodwin, 4 McLean, 20. i^ Union Sugar Refinery v. Mathiesson, " Nichols V. Horton, 14 Fed. R. 327. 2 Cliff. 304 ; Steiger v. Bonn, 4 Fed. R. i» £x/«r/eSchulenburg,25Fed. R. 211. 17; Blair v. Turtle, 5 Fed. R. 394; s. c. 16 Ex parte Hurst, 1 Wasli. C. C. 186. 23 Alb. L. J. 435; Baker v. Wales, 14 See Ex parte Schulenburg, 25 Fed. R.211, Abb. Pr. n. s. (N. Y.) 331; Fitzgerald & 212. M. C. Co. V. Fitzgerald, 137 U. S. 98, 105. 1" Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R. 17, 42 ; i9 Steiger v. Bonn, 4 Fed. R. 17. Ex parte Schulenburg, 25 Fed. R. 211, 213. 198 APPEARANCE. [CHAP. VL CHAPTER VI. APPEARANCE. § 99. Definition of an Appearance, — An appearance IS the pro- cess by which a defendant submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. An appearance is either general or special. B}" a general appearance a defendant appears for all purposes in the suit. By a special appearance he apjjcars solely for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction on account of a defect, omission, or irregularity in the service of the subpoina upon him, or perha{)S for some other reason. ^ An ap])earance gratis is an appearance by a defendant who has not been served with process.^ § 100. What constitutes an Appearance. — The proper method of entering an appearance is to deliver to the clerk a prajcipe, that is, a written direction, ordering him to enter the appearance of the defendant who subscribes it.^ A defendant may ajipear in person 2 or by his attorney. No attorney-at-law can appear in a court of the United States unless authorized by a power of attorney, if he is not a member of the bar of such court. The rules as to admission to the bar of the District and Circuit Courts vary with tlic different courts. It is the usual ])racticc to recog- nize in each District and Circuit Court a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States as a member of the bar of sucli inferior court without requiring any formal order or mo- tion for his admission.^ The Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York has in one oi- more cases refused to recognize a member of the bar of the Supremo Court of the United States who had not been admitted to practice in § 99. 1 National Furnace Co. v. Moline 2 Danicll's Ch. Pr. (2il Am. ed.) 590- Malleable Iron Works, 18 Fed. U. 8(5:? ; 595. Elliott V. Lawhead. 43 Ohio St. 171 ; Dorr S 100. 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) V. Gihboney, .'J Hufjhes, 382; United 590.591. States n. American Bell Telepiione Co., ^ u. S. R. S. § 747. 29 Fed. K. 17. 3 See Goodvear D. V. Co. i'. Osgood, 13 Off. Gaz. 325. 101.] EFFECT OF AN APPEARANCE. 199 such Circuit Court.* The taking of any proceeding^ other than a special appearance and a motion or plea thereon founded, is equivalent to a general appearance.*^ It has not yet been authori- tatively decided whether or not the filing of a petition for a removal from a State to a Federal court is equivalent to a gen- eral appearance." The indorsement and signature by a defendant upon a subpoena of the words, " 1 hereby accept service of the within subpoena, to have the same effect as if duly served on me by a proper officer, and do hereby acknowledge the receipt of a copy thereof," is not equivalent to an appearance.^ A special appearance, it would seem, is only properly made by special leave of the court obtained by an ex parte motion ; ^ and it- is the safer practice to accompany it with an undertaking by the defendant to abide by the further orders of the court.^*^ An appearance gratis can only be made by a defendant named in the introduction or prayer for process in the bill unless by consent of all the parties to the suit.^i § 101. Effect of an Appearance. — A general appearance waives all objections to the form or manner of service of the subpoena,^ ■* See proceedings in Matter of Appli- cation for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Joseph Wood, before Lacombe, J., July, 1891. ^ Jones V. Andrews, 10 Wall. 327 ; Thornburgli i-. Savage Mining Co., 1 Paci- fic Law Mag. 267 ; Livingston o. Gibbons, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) yi, 99. 6 New Jersey v. New York, 6 Pet. 323 ; Van Antwerp v. Hulburd, 7 Blatclif. 426, 440 ; Livingston i". Gibbons, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 94 ; Blackburn v. Selma, M. & M. R. U. Co., 2 Flippin, 525; Fitzgerald & M. Construction Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U. S. 98; infra, % 101. '' It was held that it was not, in Par- rott V. Alabama Gold Lite Ins. Co., 5 Fed. R. 391 ; Atciiison v. Morris, 11 Fed. R. 582; Small r. Montgomery, 17 Fed. R. 865; Miner r. Markham, 28 Fed. R. 387; Perkins i'. Hendry.x, 40 Fed. R. 6.57 ; Golden v. The Morning News of New Haven, 42 Fed. R. 112; Porter Land & Water Co. v. Baskin, 43 Fed. R. 323; Clews V. Woodstock Iron Co., 44 Fed. R. 31 ; Reifsnider v. American Imp. Pub. Co., 45 Fed. R. 433; Bentlif v. London & 0. F. Corp. Ld., 44 Fed. R. 667; Estes v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., N. Y. C P. Trial Term, Beach, J., Daily Register, Nov. 17, 1882. See also Freidlander v. Pollock, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 490. But see the conflicting cases of Sayles v. N. W. Ins. Co., 2 Curt. 212; Buslinell v. Ken- nedy, 9 Wall. 387, 393; Sweeney v. Cof- fin, 1 Dill. 73, 75 ; Tallman v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 45 Fed. R. 1-56. See § 391. » Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U. S. 128, 132, 133. 9 Thayer v. Wales, 5 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 448 ; Romaine v. Union Ins. Co., 28 Fed. R. 625. But see Dorr v. Gibboney, 3 Hugiies, 382 ; National Furnace Co. v. Moline Malleable Iron Works, 18 Fed. R. 863. ^'5 Romaine v. Union Ins. Co., 28 Fed. R. 625. 11 Attorney-General v. Pearson, 7 Si- mons, 290, 302; Kentucky Silver Mining Co. V. Day, 2 Saw. 468, 473. § 101. 1 Segee v. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11 ; Goodyear v. Chaffee, 3 Blatchf 268 ; Hale ('. Continental Life Ins. Co., 12 Fed. R. 359 ; Provident Savings Life Assur- ance Society r. Ford, 114 U. S. 635, 639; Robinson v. National Stockyard Co., 12 Fed. R. .361 ; 8. c. 20 Blatchf 513 ; Buerk V. Imhaeuser, 8 Fed. R. 457. 200 APPEAEANCE. [CHAP. TI. including the objection that the defendant was not " found " and did not reside within the district.^ A general appearance also waives an omission of the name of the defendant from the prayer of process, provided he was named in another part of the bill.^ A general appearance does not waive an objection to the juris- diction of the court upon the ground of a lack of the requisite difference of citizenship.* A general appearance does not admit the validity of a writ of foreign attachment previously issued.^ If a party joins with a special appearance and motion to set aside service of process a motion to dismiss the suit on another ground, he thereby waives his objection to the irregularity of ser- vice, and his proceeding is equivalent to a general apj)earance.^ After a special appearance for the purpose of objectiug to the jurisdiction lias been made, aud the objection overruled, the riglit to insist upon tliis objection on an appeal is not lost by a sub- sequent appearance and defense to the suit u})on tlie merits.^ The court has power to allow a general appearance to be changed by amendment to a special appearance,^ or to be withdrawn.^ § 102. When an Appearance must be made. — " Tlie appearance- day of the defendant shall be the rule-day to which the suljpoena is made returnable, provided he has been served with the process twenty days before that day ; otherwise, his appearance-day shall be the next rule-day succeeding the rule-day when the process is returnal)le." ^ The first Monday of each month is a rule-day .^ A defendant may appear at any time after the filing of the bill, and before the time named in the rule has expired.^ The court has power to enlarge the time for an appearance, if special cause therefor be sliown.* 2 St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McBride, « Lackett r. Rnmbaugh, 45 Fed. R. 23. 141 U. S. 127, 132; McRride v. Grand « Fitzgerald & xAI. C. Co. c. Fitzyeral-i, de Tour Plow Co., 40 Fed. R. 102 ; Sayies 137 U. S. 98. See also Jones v. Andrews, V. Northwestern Ins. Co., 2 Curt. 212; 10 Wall. 327; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. Shields v. Thomas, 18 How. 253, 2.J9 ; v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127, 132. Toland r. Sprafjue, 12 Pet. 300, 331; " Harkness r. Hyde, 98 U. S. 476. Butterworth r. Hill, 114 U. S. 128, 132, » United States v. Yates, How. 005; 133 ; Provident Savings Life Assurance Ilohorst i\ Hamburg Amer. Packet Co., Society v. Ford, 114 U. S. 035, 039. But 38 Fed. R. 273. see Xoyes v. Canada, 30 Fed. R. 665. ^ Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 13 3 Segce r. Thomas, 3 Blatchf. 11 ; Pet. 2.3. Buerk r. Imhaeuscr, 8 Fed. R. 457. § 102. i Rule 17. * Romaine v. Union Ins. Co., 28 Fed. -' Rule 2. R. 625; U. S. R. S 1 Supp. pp. 173, 175; « Ileyman r. Uhlman, 34 Fed. R. 680. 18 Sts. at L. 470; Act of March 3, 1875, •• Poultney v. City of La Fayette, 12 § 5. Pet. 472. § 103.] WHEN A BILL MAY BE TAKEN PRO CONFESSO. 201 CHAPTER YII. TAKING BILLS PEO CONFESSO. § 103. When a Bill may be taken pro confesso. — If a defendant fails to enter his appearance on or before the day at which the writ is returnable, the bill may be taken as confessed, pro confesso} Where the bill when the subpoena was served did not show juris- diction against a defendant, a subsequent amendment stating facts sufficient to show jurisdiction against it will not warrant the entry of an order taking the bill as confessed without a second service of the subpoena, or an a})pearance by such defendant.^ If a defendant fails to file a plea, answer, or demurrer, to the bill on or before the rule-day next succeeding that of entering his appearance, the plain- tiff may have the bill taken pro confesso, unless the defendant has had his time enlarged for cause shown by a judge of the court.^ A bill may be also taken as confessed upon the failure of a defendant to answer within the time allowed him after a demurrer or plea has been overruled.^ In a proper case, part of a bill may be taken as confessed." Thus, where the defendant had repeatedly failed to an- swer an interrogatory, the parts of the bill which the same affected were ordered taken as confessed.^ It is uncertain whether, when the defendant after answering the original bill fails to file a further answer to material amendments thereof, the complainant is entitled to have the whole bill taken as confessed, or only the part unan- swered." It is doubtful whether a bill can be taken as confessed against an infant or other person under a disability.^ Certainly, it cannot before a guardian ad litem has been appointed.^ Should the guardian refuse to answer, the safer course fpr the complain- ant would be to obtain a reference to a master and prove the alle- gations of the bill before them.!** § 103. 1 Rule 12. 7 Suydam v. Beals, 4 McLean, 12, 15; 2 Non-Magnetic Watch Co. of Amer. v. Trust & Fire Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 8 Paige, Asso. Hor. of Gen., 45 Fed. R. 210. But see (N. Y. ) 589, 593, 594 ; Hawkins v. Crook, Brown v. Lake Sup. IronCo., 134 U. S. 530. 2 P. Wms. 559. ^ liule 18. 8 Compare the positive language of * Suydam v. Beals, 4 McLean, 12. Equity Rule 18, with Mills v. Dennis, 5 Suydam v. Beals, 4 McLean, 12, 15; 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 367; O'Hara v. MacCon- Hale V. Cont. Life Ins. Co., 20 Fed. R. 344. nell, 93 U. S. 151. « Hale V. Cont. Life Ins. Co., 20 Fed. « O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U. S. 151. R. 344. 10 Mills V. Dennis, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 307. 202 TAKING BILLS PKO CONFESSO. [CHAP. VII. §104. Practice in Taking a Bill pro confesso. — The practice when a bill is taken ^j»ro confesso can be most satisfactorily de- scribed in the following quotations from the Equity Rules, and from a recent opinion by Mr. Justice Bradley.^ When a defend- ant fails to plead in time, " the plaintiff may, at his election, enter an order (as of course) in the order-book, that the bill be taken pro confesso; and thereupon the cause shall be proceeded in ex parte, and the matter of the bill may be decreed by the court at any time after the expiration of thirty days from and after the entry of said order, if the same can be done without an answer, and is proper to be decreed ; or the plaintiff, if he requires any discovery or answer to enable him to obtain a proper decree, shall be entitled to process of attachment against the defendant to compel an answer, and the defendant shall not, when arrested upon such process, be discharged therefrom, unless upon filing his answer, or otherwise complying with such order as the court or judge thereof may direct, as to pleading to or fully answering the bill, within a period to be fixed by the court or judge, and undertaking to speed the cause." ^ No service need be made of the order taking the bill pro confesso.^ " When the bill is taken pro confesso the court may proceed to a decree at any time after the expiration of thirty days from and after the en- try of the order to take the bill jiro confesso ; and such decree rendered shall be deemed absolute, unless the court shall, at the same term, set aside the same, or enlarge the time for filing the answer, upon cause shown, upon motion and affidavit of the defendant ; and no such motion shall be granted unless upon payment of the costs of the plaintiff in the suit up to that time, or such part thereof as the court shall deem reason- able, and unless the defendant shall undertake to file his an- swer witliin such time as the court shall direct, and submit to such other terms as the court shall direct, for the purpose of speeding the cause.""* After the term, a decree taking a bill as confessed cannot be set aside on motion.^ " A confession of facts properly pleaded dispenses with proof of these facts, and is as effective for the purposes of the suit as if the facts were proved ; § 104. 1 Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. ^ Bank of the United States v. White, S. 104. 8 Pet. 2G2. 2 Rule 18. See Read v. Consequa, 4 * Rule 19. See Maynard v. Pomfret, Wash. 174; O'Uara v. MacConnell, 93 3Atk. 4(;8; Ileyn r. Ileyn. Jacob, 49. U. S. 150, 152. & Allen v. Wilson, 21 Fed. R. 881. § 104.] PEACTICE IN TAKING A BILL PRO CONFESSO. 203 and a decree pro confesso regards the statements of the bill as confessed. By the early practice of the civil law, failure to ap- pear at the day to which the cause was adjourned was deemed a confession of the action, but in later times this rule was changed, so that the plaintiff, notwithstanding the contumacy of the de- fendant, only obtained judgment in accordance with the truth of the case as established by an ex parte examination. Keller, Pro- ceed. Rom. § 69. The original practice of the English Court of Chancery was in accordance with the later Roman law. Haivkins V. Crook^ 2 P. Wras. 556. But for at least two centuries past bills have been taken pro confesso for contumacy. Ibid. Chief Baron Gilbert says : ' Where a man appears by his clerk in court, and after lies in prison, and is brought up three times in court by habeas corpus., and has the bill read to him, and refuses to an- swer, such public refusal in court does amount to a confession of the whole bill. Secondly, when a person appears and departs without answering, and the whole process of the court has been awarded against him after his appearance and departure, to the sequestration ; there also the bill is taken p>ro confesso., because it is presumed to be true when he has appeared and departs in despite of the court, and withstands all its process without an- swering.' Forum Romanum, 36. Lord Hardwicke likened a decree pro confesso to a judgment by nil dicit at common law, and to judgment for plaintiff on demurrer to the defendant's plea. Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 21. It was said in Hawkins v. Crook., qua supra, and quoted in 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 179, that ' the method in equity of taking a bill p>ro confesso is consonant to the rule and practice of the courts at law, where, if the defendant makes de- fault by nil dicit, judgment is immediately given in debt, or in all cases where the thing demanded is certain ; but where the matter sued for consists in damages, a judgment interlocutory is given ; after which a writ of inquiry goes to ascertain the dam- ages, and then the judgment follows.' The strict analogy of this proceeding in actions of law to a general decree pro confesso in equity in favor of the complainant, with a reference to a mas- ter to take a necessary account, or to assess unliquidated dam- ages, is obvious and striking. A carefully prepared history of the practice and effect of taking bills pro confesso is given in Williams v. Corwin, Hopkins Ch. 471, by Hoffman, Master, in a report made to Chancellor Sanford, of New York, in which the 204 TAKING BILLS PRO CONFESSO. [CHAP. VIL conclusion come to (and adopted by the Chancellor), as to the effect of taking a bill pro confesso, was that ' when the allegations of a bill are distinct and positive, and the bill is taken as con- fessed, such allegations are taken as true without proofs,' and a decree will be made accordingly ; but ' where the allegations of a bill are indefinite, or the demand of the complainant is in its nature uncertain, the certainty requisite to a proper decree must be afforded by proofs. The bill, when confessed by the default of the defendant, is taken to be true in all matters alleged with sufficient certainty ; but in respect to matters not alleged with due certainty, or subjects which from their nature and the course of the court require an examination of details, the obligation to furnish proofs rests on the complainant.' " ^ When the bill re- lates to an unsettled account, a reference to a master is always necessary." " We may properly say, therefore, that to take a bill pro confesso is to order it to stand as if its statements were con- fessed to be true ; and that a decree pro confesso is a decree based on such statements, assumed to be true, 1 Smith's Ch. Pract. 153, and such a decree is as binding and conclusive as any decree rendered in the most solemn manner. It cannot be impeached collaterally, but only upon a bill of review, or [a bill] to set it aside for fraud." ^ "A decree pro confesso is not a decree as of course according to the prayer of the bill, nor merely such as the complainant chooses to take it;"^ but it should be made " by the court according to what is proper to be decreed upon the statements of the bill assumed to be true ; " ^^ " the mat- ter of the bill ought at least to be opened and explained to the court when the decree is applied for, so that the court may see that the decree is a proper one. The binding character of the decree, as declared in Rule 19, renders it proper that this degree of precaution should be taken." ^^ " We have deemed it unne- cessary to make any remarks as to the status of a defendant before a master on a reference under a decree pro confesso. Both parties in this case seem to have taken it for granted that the •^ Mr. Justice Bradley in Tiiomson v. '" Mr. Justice Bradley in Thomson r. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, "no, 111. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, 113; Andrews v. ' Pendleton v. Evans, 4 Wasli. .^l. Cole, 20 Fed. R. 410; Kose r. Woodruff, 8 Mr. Justice Bradley in Thomson v. 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 547, 548. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, 112. 'i Mr. Justice Bradley in Thomson v. 9 Mr. Justice Bradley in Thomson i'. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104,"llo, 114. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, 111, 112. § 104.] PRACTICE IN TAKING A BILL PRO CONFESSO. 205 rights of the defendants were the same as if the decree had been made upon answer and proofs. In the English practice, it is true, as it existed at the time of the adoption of our present Rules (in 1842), the defendant, after a decree pro confesso and a reference for an account, was entitled to appeal- before the mas- ter, and to have notice of and take part in the proceedings, pro- vided he obtained an order of the court for that purpose, which would be granted on terms. 2 Daniell Ch. Pr. 804, 1st ed. ; ditto, 1358, 2d ed., by Perkins ; Heyn v. Heyn, Jacob, 49. The former practice in the Court of Chancery of New York was sub- stantially the same. 1 Hoffman Ch. Pr. 520 ; 1 Barb. Ch. Pr, 479. In New Jersey, except in plain cases of decree for the foreclosure of a mortgage (where no reference is required), the matter is left to the discretion of tlie court. Sometimes notice is ordered to be given to the defendant to appear before the master, and sometimes not ; as it is also in the Chancellor's dis- cretion to order a bill to be taken pro confesso for a default, or to order the complainant to take proofs to sustain the allegations of the bill. Nixon Dig., Art. Chancery, § 21 ; Gen. Orders in Chancer}', XIV. 3-7 , Brundage v. Goodfellow, 4 Halst. Ch. 513. As we have seen, by our 18th Rule in Equity, it is provided that if a defendant make default in not filing his plea, demurrer, or answer in proper time, the plaintiff may, as one alternative, enter an order, as of course, that the bill be taken pro confesso, ' and thereupon the same shall be proceeded ex parte.'' The old Rules, adopted in 1822, did not contain this ex parte clause; tliey sim- ply declared that if the defendant failed to appear and file his answer within three months after appearance day, the plaintiff might take the bill for confessed, and that the matter tliereof should be decreed accordingly; the decree to be absolute unless cause should be shown at the next term. See Equity Rules VI. and X. of 1822, 7 Wheat. VI 1., and Pendleton v. Evans, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 336 ; O'Hara v. MaoOonnell, 93 U. S. 150. Under these rules the English practice was left to govern the subsequent course of proceeding, by which, as we have seen, the defendant might have an order to permit him to appear before the master, and be entitled to notice. Whether under the present rule a dif- ferent practice was intended to be introduced is a question which it is not necessary to decide in this case." ^^ It has, however, 12 Mr. Justice Bradley in Tliomson t;. Wooster, lU U. S. 104, 11C>, 120. 206 TAKING BILLS PEO CONFESSO. [CHAP. VH. been held in the second circuit, that " Equity Rule 18 provides that, after the order pro confesso, the cause shall proceed ex j) arte ; but this does not mean without notice to a party who has appeared in the cause. Such party is entitled to notice, and has the right to be heard as to the form of the decree, and upon such other questions as can be presented upon the complainant's pleadings and proofs. This is the uniform construction given to the Rule throughout this circuit." ^^ Where a bill for the infringement of a patent alleges infringement of " the invention " of the plaintiffs, and is taken as confessed, it seems that it cannot be claimed in subsequent proceedings in the same suit that the patent is void upon its face.^^ When there are more than one defendant who are charged with a joint liability, after the bill has been taken as confessed against one, no final decree can be made against him, unless and until a decree is entered against those who appear and defend the suit.^'^ It seems that a decree taking a bill as con- fessed is of no effect unless followed by, or included in a final de- cree. ^^ The entry of a final decree by default upon notice to the defendants, without the previous entry of a formal order taking the bill as confessed, is an irregularity for which the decree cannot be set aside upon motion after the term at which it is rendered.^' But a decree entered />r(? confesso will be set aside upon motion at a subsequent term, when entered before tlie time allowed the defendant by the rules to plead to the bill.'^ An ap])eal can be taken from the final decree after a bill has been taken as confessed.^^ Upon such an appeal the decree may be re- versed for a defect in the service of the subpaMia,-*^ for failure to appoint a guardian ad litem when required,-^ and it seems for a want of indispensaV)le parties.-- Otberwise, the only question for tlie consideration of the court is Avhether the allegations in the bill are sufficient to support the decree.^ It seems that the ob- jection that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law may " Jud,£re Wallace in Bennett v. Hocf- '^ Frow v. De La Vega, 15 Wall. 552 ; ner, 17 Blatchf. 'M\, ."I2. Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U. S. 128. » Dobson V. Hartford Carpet Co., Hi -' O'llara v. MacConncll, 93 U. S. 150; U. S. 4.3'J, 41(>, 447. Butterwortti v. Hill, 114 U. 8. 128. 15 Frow V. De La Vega, 15 Wall. .552. 21 O'FIara v. MacConnell, 9-3 U. S. 150. 16 Lockiiart v. Horn, .3 Woods, 542, 2- O'Hara v MacConnell, 93 U. S. 150. 648. 23 Mnsterson ;'. Howard, 18 Wail. 99 ; 1" Linder i- Lewis, 1 Fed. R. 378. Oldo C. H. R. Co. v. Central Trust Co., " Fellows V. Hall, 3 McLean, 281, 133 U. S. 83. § 104.] PRACTICE IN TAKING A BILL PRO CONFESSO. 207 be disregarded by the appellate court.^* When the defendant had not moved for nine months after the appointment of a receiver, and meanwhile the bill had been taken against him as confessed, it was held too late to claim that no relief could be granted, be- cause the complainant had an adequate remedy at law.^^ 24 Brown v. Lake Superior Iron Co., ^s Brown v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 134 U. S. 530. 134 U. S. 530. 208 DEMUKEEKS. [CHAP. VIII. CHAPTER VIII. DEMURRERS. § 105. Definition and General Characteristics of a Demurrer. — A demurrer is a pleading v^^hich admits the truth gf a bill, but claims that the defendant should be excused from answering thereto and the complainant be denied relief on account of some irregularity or insufficiency existing in it. As the name denotes, demurrers were borrowed from the connuon law.^ They are so termed because the defendant demoratur, or will go no farther.^ A speaking demurrer is one that introduces a new fact or aver- ment which is necessary to support the demurrer, and does not appear distinctl}" on the face of the bill.^ Such a demurrer is always bad, and Avill be overruled.'* But in order to constitute a speaking demurrer, the fact or averment introduced must be one which is necessary to support the demurrer and is not found in the bill ; the introduction of inimate?'ial facts, or averments, or of arguments, is improper, but constitutes mere surplusage and will not vitiate the demurrer.^ A demurrer is also bad if it relies for its support upon averments in an answer.^ A demurrer must not be addressed to a point within the discretion of the court; if so, it will be overruled." It has been held, that when the bill sliows that a defendant is not an inliabitant of the district that defect may be raised by demurrer.^ A demurrer cannot be filed to an answer.^ § 106. Admissions by a Demurrer. — A demurrer admits the § 105. 1 Langdell's Eq. PI. §§ 53, 92. 5 Danicll's Ch. Pr. (2(1 Am. ed ) 657 ; - Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 543; Cawthorn v. Chalie, 2 Sim. & S. 127; 3 Bl. Com. 314. Davics v. Williams, 1 Simons, 5. 3 Ed.sell V. Buchanan, 4 Brown Ch. C. « Chicago, St. Louis & New Orleans 254 ; Davics r. Williams, 1 S'imons, 5, 7 ; R. R Co. r. Macomb, 2 Fed. K. 18. Lamb v. Starr, Dcady, 350; Daniell's Ch. ' Vcrplank v. Caines, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 05G,'note 2; Story's Eq. 57. PL § 448. 8 Reinstadlcr v. Rehls, 33 Fed R. * Edsell V. Buchanan, 4 Brown Ch. C. 308; Miller Matree Co. r. Carpenter, 34 254 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 448; Daniell's Ch. Fed. R. 433. But see § 101. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) G5G. note 2. » Crouch v. Kerr, 38 Fed. R. 649. § 106] ADMISSIONS BY A DEMURRER. 209 truth of the allegations of fact in the bill.^ " xis a matter of con- struction of an ambiguous clause, the court is bound to adopt that interpretation which is least favorable to the plaintiff; but the defendant is not entitled to press this princi[)le so far as to draw- any inferences of fact he pleases which may happen to be not in- consistent with the averments of the bill." ^ It has been said that "reasonable i)resumptions are admitted by demurrer as well as the matters expressly alleged." ^ The court will not infer from an allegation, that a fraud was committed at a time beyond the limit of the Stiitute of Limitations, that the fraud was then dis- covered.^ "A demurrer only admits facts well pleaded; it does not admit matters of inference and argument, however clearly stated ; it does not admit, for example, the accuracy of an alleged construction of an instrument, when the instrument itself is set forth in the bill, or a copy is annexed, against a construction re- quired by its terras, nor the correctness of the ascription of a pur- pose to the parties when not justified by the language used. The several averments of the plaintiff in the bill as to his understand- ing of his rights, and of the liabilities and duties of others under the contract, can, therefore, exert no influence upon the mind of the court in the disposition of the demurrer." ^ " Though the authorities are by no means unanimous, the weight of opinion is in favor of the proposition that where profert is made of a recorded paper it is for all purposes presented to the court as a part of the pleading, and an objection thereto may be taken by demurrer." ^ A demurrer does not admit conclusions of law ; and in the construction of the bill upon the argument they may § 106. 1 Bailey v. Birkcnheafi, Lan- nard, 21 Wall. 430, 437, 4o8. See also casliire & Cheshire .Junction Ry. Co., s. c. 1 Holmes, 386; United States v. 12 Beav. 433, 443; Pacific R. K. of Mis- Ames, 99 U. S. 35, 45; Cornell v. Green, souri V. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., Ill 43 Fed. R. 105, 107 ; Interstate Land Co. U. S. 505, 522 ; Boyer v. Boyer, 113 U. S. v. Maxwell Land Co., 139 U. S. 569. 689, 701. ^ Coxe, J., in Bogart r. Hinds, 25 Fed- - Sir Page Wood, V. C, in Simpson r. R. 484, citing Knott v. Burleson, 2 G. Fogo, 1 J. & H. 18, 23 ; s. c 6 Jurist n. s. Greene (Iowa), 600; Wilder v. M'Cor- 949. See Union Pac Ry. Co. v. Mercer, mick, 2 Blatehf. 31,35 ; Grahamei-. Cooke, 28 Fed. R. 9. " 1 Cranch C. C. 116; Douglass v. Rath- 3 Mr. Justice Clifford in Amory v. bone, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 143 ; Rantin r. Rob- Lawrence, 3 Clifford, 523, 536. ertson, 2 Strobh. Law (S. C), .366; 1 * Sheldon i'. Keokuk No. Line Packet Chitty's PI. 415, 410. So held of patents Co., 8 Fed. R. 769, 777 ; Johnson v. and reissued patents by Coxe, J., in Inter- Powers, 13 Fed. R. 315; Jones v. Slaw- national Terra Cotta Lumber Co. v. son. 33 Fed. R. 632, 636. Maurer, 44 Fed. R. G18, 619. ^ Mr. Justice Field in Dillon v. Bar- VOL. I. — 14 210 DEMURRERS. [CHAP. VIII. be disregarded.'^ Such, for example, are the allegations that a tax is " unreasonable and excessive," without the statement of any valid reasons for so considering it ; ^ that a fee charged by an ordinance styling it wharfage " is not real wharfage, but a duty on tonnage." ^ " The words ' fraud ' and ' conspiracy ' alone, no mat- ter how often repeated in a pleading, cannot make a case for the interference of a court of equity. Until connected w^ith some specific acts for which one person is in law responsible to another they have no more effect than other words of unpleasant signifi- cation." ^'^ The words " fraudulently," " deceitfully," and " by mistake" are conclusions of law, and will be disregarded.^^ Ave)-- ments that w^hat was done was " colorable," " a fraud," " a breach of trust," and " a scheme by which Blair and Taylor were to get" certain stock or shares of stock in a corporation " without paying for them," are allegations of conclusions of law, w^hich a demurrer does not adniit.^- An averment that a thing was done with the intent to defraud is an allegation of fact.^^ A demurrer does not admit a false allegation concerning a fact of which the court will take judicial notice.^* An allegation as to the future effect of an act threatened by the defendant will, however, be admitted by a demurrcr.^^ § 107. Demurrers to Parts of Bills. — A demurrer may be to the wliole, or to a part of a l)ill,^ or to both the whole and separate parts of a bill.- Separate demurrers may be filed for different causes to separate parts of a bill.'^ If only a part of the bill be demurred to, the demurrer must be accompanied by a plea or an- swer to what remains."^ The defendant may demur to part, plead to part, and answer as to the residue.^ Such a mode of pleading ^ Dillon V. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430; i^ Fog"; r. Blair, 139 U. S. 118, 127. Wilson V. Gaines, 103 U. S. 417; Packet " Piatt i'. Mead, 9 Fed. R. 91. Company v. Catiettsburg, 105 U. S. 5o9 ; i'* Taylor r. Barclay, 2 Simons, 213. Transportation Company v. Parkersbnrp, Compare Louisville & S'ashville K. R. Co. 107 U. S. 691; Louisville & Nashville i-. Palmes, 109 U. S. 244, 252. R. R. Co. V. Palmes, 109 U. S. 244. ^^ St. Louis v. Knapp Company, 104 s Packet Company y. Catiettsburg, 105 U. S. 658. U. S 559. § 107. 1 Rule .32. 5 Transportation Company v. Parkers- - International Terra Cotta Lumber burg, 107 U. S. 091. Co. v. Marner, 44 Fed. R. 021. i» Chief .lustice Waite in Ambler v. ^ North i;. Karl of Strafford, 3 P. Wms. Choteau, 107 U. S. .580, 591. For allega- 148; Roberdeau v. Rous, 1 Atk. 544; tions held sufficient, see Pacific R. R. of Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 584. Mo. V. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., Ill U. S. * See Story's Eq. PI. § 442; Daniell's 50,-). Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 583. 11 Magniac f.Thorapson,2Wall. Jr 209. ^ Rule 32. § 107.] DEMURRERS TO PARTS OF BILLS. 211 is now, however, very rare ; for the same defenses can usually be embraced with more convenience and safety in an answer.^ " If a demurrer is too general, that is, if it covers, or is applied to the whole bill, when it is good to a part only ; or if it is a demurrer to a part of a bill only, but yet is not good to the full extent which it covers, but is so to a part only, it will be overruled ; for it is a general rule that a demurrer (it is otherwise as to a plea) cannot be good as to a part which it covers, and bad as to the rest, and therefore it must stand or fall altogether." ' The court may, however, allow the defendant to amend his demurrer upon narrowing its terms.^ It has been held at circuit that an objec- tion to an immaterial allegation in a bill should be taken by ex- ception and not by demurrer.^ The equity rules, changing the former practice, now provide that " no demurrer or plea shall be overruled ujjon argument, only because such demurrer or plea shall not cover so much of the bill as it might by law have extended to." '^^- Formerly, when a defendant filed a plea or answer to the same part of a bill as he demurred to, he was held to have waived his demurrer, which would be overruled by the court." But a demurrer by one defendant was not overruled by a plea or answer filed by another. ^^ Now, however, the rules declare that " no de- murrer or plea shall be held bad, and overruled upon argument, only because the answer of the defendant may extend to some part of the same matter as may be covered by the demurrer or plea." 1^ It has been held, under this rule, that a demurrer to the whole bill is not overruled by a plea or answer : ^* but the defend- ant may be compelled upon motion to elect between such a de- 6 Rule no. " Kule 36, which follows the 36th Order ■^ Story's Eq. PI. § 443; Metcalf v. in Ciiancery of August, 1841. See, how - Hervey, 1 Ves. Sen. 248 ; Verplank v. ever, Dell v. Hale, 2 Y. & C. N. R. 1 ; Caines, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 57; Higin- Atwiil r. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39; Heath botham v. Burnet, 5 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 184 ; v- Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. 347 ; Brandon AtwilU'. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39; Brandon Manuf. Co. v. Prime, 14 Blatchf. 371; Manuf. Co. v. Prime, 14 Blatchf. 371; s. c. 3 Bann. & A. Pat. Cas. 191 ; Equitable s. c. 3 Bann. & A. Pat. Cas. 191 ; Heath Life Ass. Soc. ;-. Patterson, 1 Fed. R. 126. V. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. 347; Equitable " Story's Eq. PI. § 443; Dawson v. Life Ass. Soc. v. Patterson, 1 Fed. R. 126. Sadler, 1 Sim. & S. 537, 542 ; Langdell's 8 Baker v. Mellish. 11 Ves 70; Gregg Eq. PI. § 103. V. Legh, 4 Madd. 192, 207 ; Atwill v. i- Dakin v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 5 Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39, 49 ; Northern Pac. Fed. R. 66.5. R. Co. V. Roberts, 42 Fed. R. 734. i'^ Rule 37. 3 Stonemetz P. U. Co. v. Brown F. M. " Hayes v. Dayton, 8 Fed. R. 702, 706. Co. 4f) Fed. R. 72 ; Stirrat v. Excelsior Contra, Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Manuf. Co., 44 Fed. R. 142. Butchers' Union Live Stock Co., 12 Fed. 212 DEMURRERS. [CHAP. VIIL miirrer and the answer or plea;^^ and if he elect to stand by his demurrer, it seems that he will thereby waive his right to answer should his demurrer be overruled.!'^ By proceeding to an argu- ment of the demurrer, an objection of this nature will be waived.^" The English courts have held, that a defendant cannot answer to the relief of a bill and demur to the discovery, unless he can rest his demurrer upon one of the recognized grounds on account of which a witness is always excused from answering.^^ A demurrer which is good as to the relief will also bar the discovery ; although if the bill be good for discovery but not for relief, the defendant does not prejudice a demurrer filed by him to the relief by ansvrer- ing as to the discovery. ^^ A demurrer which is good as to the discovery need not be good as to the relief.^*^ § 108. Classification of Demurrers to the Relief. — Demurrers to the relief claim that for some reason apparent upon the face of the bill the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for in it. They are classified by Mitford, afterwards Lord Redesdale, sub- stantially as follows.^ Demurrers to the relief are founded on objections to the jurisdiction; to the person ; or to the matter of the bill, either in substance or in form. Demurrers to the juris- diction are allowed either (1) because the subject of the suit is not within the jurisdiction of a court of equity ; or (2) because some other court of equity has the proper jurisdiction. A de- murrer of this last class is much more frequent now than form- erly. For the rule, that in a superior court of general jurisdiction the presumption is that nothing shall be intended out of its juris- diction that is not shown or intended to be so,^ does not apply to the courts of the United States, whose jurisdiction is confined to what is expressly given them by the Constitution and statutes ; R. 22-5; Adams v. Howard, 21 Off. G.iz. 60-5; Lanfrdell's Eq. PI. § 10.3; Story's 2G4; s. c. fl Fed. R. 347. Eq. PI. § 312: Kiiles 30, 37; Jeffreys v. 1^ Adams v. Howard, 21 Off. Gaz. 264 ; Baldwin, Amb. 104 ; Hodgkin v. Loniiden, s. c. 9 Fed. R. 347. See United States y. 8 Ves. 2; Todd v. Gee, 17 Ves. 273; Am. Bell Telephone Co., 30 Fed. R. 523. French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 250. i« Adams V. Howard, 21 Off. Gaz. 204; 2J Atwill r' Ferrett, 2 Blatdif. 30, 43; s. c. 9 Fed. K. .347; Orendorf v. Bud- Heath u. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. 348; long, 12 Fed. R. 24. . Farmer v. Calvert Lith. Co., 1 Flippin, " Hayes i\ Dayton, 8 Fed. R. 702, 700. 228. i» Dell V. Hale, 2 Y. & C. N. R. 1 ; § 108. i Mitford's PI. cli. 11, §2. Brownsword v. Edwards. 2 Ves. Sen. '^ Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 615 ; 243 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 005- Earl of Derby v. Duke of Athol, 1 Ves. 607. Sen. 203. 19 Danicll Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 004, §108.]^ CLASSIFICATION OF DEMURRERS TO THE RELIEF. 213 and must always appear upon the record.^ It has been held that the objection that one of two plaintiffs suing to enforce a common, not a joint right, is a citizen of the same State as a defendant, cannot be raised by a demurrer to the whole bill* Causes of demurrer to the person are, that it appears upon the face of the bill tliat the plaintiff has not the legal capacity to sue, — either at all, as an alien enemy, or an unincorporated association suing as a corporation ; or alone, as an infant, idiot, lunatic, and in some States a married woman.^ Demurrers to the substance of a bill are that it appears upon the face of the bill : (1) That the plaintiff has no interest in the subject-matter of the bill. It has been held that the objection that one of two plaintiffs has no interest in the subject-matter can be raised by a general demurrer for want of equity.^ (2) That the defendant is not answerable to him, but to some other person. (3) That the defendant has no interest in the subject-matter of the suit. (4) That the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he prays ; but if the bill show a case for some relief, and yet ask for too much or the wrong relief, it is not demurrable, provided it contain the prayer for general relief.'^ (5) That tlie value of the subject-matter is beneath the dignity of the court. In England the Court of Chancery declined to in- terfere when the value of the matter in dispute was less than ten pounds, except in suits brought by or on behalf of charities, under bills to obtain relief on account of fraud, or to establish a right.^ In the Circuit Courts of the United States the bill should show affirmatively that the matter in dispute exceeds two thousand dollars,^ except in certain cases for which the statutes specially provide.^*' (6) That the bill does not embrace the whole matter concerning which the suit is brought, and which is capable of being immediately disposed of, so that there is danger of the defendant's being harassed with other suits about the same.^^ 3 Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Whitbeck v. Edgar, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) Dall. 8; Godfrey r. Terry, 97 U. S. 171. 106. * Nebraska City National Bank r. Ne- ^ Daniell's Cb. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) ."78, braska City Hydraulic Gas Light Co., 14 379; Brace v. Taylor 2 Atk. 253; Moore Fed. R. 763. But see Hodge v. North v. Lyttle, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 183. Missouri R. R. Co.. 1 Dill. 104. 9 United States i'. Pratt Coal & Coke 5 See Chapter II. Co., 18 Fed. R. 708 ; 24 St. at L. ch. 6 Ilodge V. North Missouri R. R., 1 873. But see Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. Dillon, 104. But see Nebraska City Na- R. 337. tional Bank v. Nebraska City Hydraulic ^'' See §§ 15, 16. Gas Light Co., 14 Fed. R. 763. n Anon., 2 Chancery Cases, 164 ; Pure- " Patrick v. Isenhart, 20 Fed. R. 339 ; foy v. Purefoy, 1 Vern. 29 ; Shuttleworth 214 DEMUEREKS. [CHAF. VIII. (7) That there is a want of proper parties, plaintiff or defendant.i^ (8) That there is a misjoinder ^^ of parties plaintiff. A super- fluity of defendants, not accompanied by multifariousness, is the subject of objection by those only who were improperly joined.^'* (9) That the plaintiff's remedy is barred by length of time or laches.^^ When a bill praying an injunction to restrain the in- fringement of a reissued patent sets out or exhibits both the origi- nal and the reissued patent, and it appears from inspection that the sole object of the reissue was to enlarge and expand the claims of the original, and that a delay of two or three years has taken place in applying for the reissue, not explained by special circumstances giving sufficient ground for the delay, the question of laches is a question of law arising on the face of the bill, which avails as a de- fence, upon a general demurrer for want of equity. ^^ If it a})pears by the face of the bill that the case of the complainant is barred by the statute of limitations, it is demurrable.^' A demurrer will also be sustained where the bill shows that the plaintiff's case is repug- nant to the statute of frauds.^^ (10) That the bill is multifari- ous.^^ It has been held that only such defendants as would suffer by the multifariousness can raise this objection.^*^ Or (11) that there is another suit pending between the parties for the same cause of action. Demurrers for insufficiency as to form are either : (1) That the plaintiff's place of abode is not stated ; or that a compliance has not been made with any of the other requi- sites of Rule 20.21 (2) That the facts essential to the plaintiff's I'. Laycock, 1 Vern. 215; Margrave v. Le ^^' WoUensak v. Reilier, 115 U. S. 96, Hooke, 2 Vern. 207. 101. 12 Dwight i;. Central Vt. R. 11. Co., 9 i' Godden i-. Kimniell, 99 U. S. 201 ; Fed. R. 785. National Bank v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. w Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 245; 567; Wisner y. Barnet, 4 Wash. 631. But Lansdale v. Smith, 106 U. S. 391 ; Taylor see Sullivan r. Portland & Kennebec R. V. Holiues, 14 Fed. R. 498; Markey v. R. Co., 94 U. S. 806,811; Doe r. Hyde, Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 6 Ins. L. J. 114 U. S. 247 ; Philippi v. Piiilippe, 115 537; WoUensak v. Reiher, 115 U. S 96. U. S. 151. " Cherreyr. Monro, 2 Barb. Ch.(N.Y.) i« Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585, 618; Toulmin v. Hamilton,7 Ala. 362. But 589. But see Chapman v. School District, see Bank);.Carr()llt<)n H. R.,11 Wall. 624. 1 Deady, 108. 15 Maxwell v. Kennedy, 8 How. 210; w See §§ 71-75. Badgerr. Badger, 2 Wall. 87,94 ; Marsli v. 2) Atwill v. Ferrctt, 2 Blatchf. 39, 44 , Whitmore, 21 Wall. 185 ; Sullivan v. Port- Buerk ;: Imhaeuser, 8 Fed. R. 457 ; Hill land & K. Railroad Company, 94 U. S. i' Bonaffon, 2 Weekly Notes of Cases 806; Brown r. County of Buena Vista, (Pa ), 356. 95 U. S. 161; Godden v. Kimmell, 99 -' Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2; Rowley v. U. S. 201 ; National Bank v. Carpenter, Eccles, 1 Sim. & S. 511. 101 U. S. 567. § 109.] DEMURRERS TO THE DISCOVERY. 215 right aud within his own knowledge are not alleged positively .22 (3) That the bill is deficient in certainty .-^ (4) That the plain- tiff does not in his bill offer to do equity, when it is the custom of the court to require him to do so.^* (5) That the bill is not signed by counsel.^^ (6) That the bill is not supported by an allidavit when one is necessary .^^ A demurrer to the relief will not lie upon the ground that the bill contains irrelevant matter. The proper remedy for this is an exception for impertinence.-" Neither is a bill demurrable because indispensable parties, whom it names and against whom it prays process, have not been served with subpoenas to appear and answer.^^ If any part of the relief prayed is proper the demurrer will be overruled.^^ § 109. Demurrers to the Discovery. — A demurrer to the dis- covery claims that, for some reason apparent upon the face of the bill, the defendant should not be obliged to answer so much thereof as his demurrer covers. Professor Langdell says : "A de- murrer to discovery indeed is not in its nature a demurrer at all, but a mere statement in writing that the defendant refuses to answer certain allegations in the bill, for reasons which appear upon the face of the bill, and which the demurrer points out." ^ A defendant may thus demur because (1) his answer may sub- ject him to a pain, penalty, or forfeiture ;2 (2) that it is imma- terial to the purposes of the suit ; ^ (3) that it would involve a breach of some confidence which it is the policy of the law to preserve inviolate,* as a professional confidence,^ or one obtained in the course of a public office ; ^ (4) that the matters of which 22 MitfortVs PI. ch.2, § 2; Daniell's Ch. ~ Stewart v. Drasha, 4 M'Lean, 563; I'r. 412, 625. Atwill y. Ferrett, 2 Blatclif. 39; United 2^ Taylor V. Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 498 ; States i-. White, 17 Fed. R. 561, 565; Gold.smith v. Gilliland, 22 Fed. R. 865. Paxton v. Douglas, 19 Ves. 225; Story's 21 United States v. Pratt Coal & Coke Eq. PI. §§ 575-599. Co , 18 Fed. R. 708. See § 82. 3 Harvey v. Morris, Rep. temp. Fincli, •■^^ Rule 24; Dwight v. Humphreys, 3 214; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed ) 636, M'Lean, 104. 687. But see Pacific Railroad of Missouri 2'3 Findlay v. Hinde, 1 Pet. 241, 244. v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co., HI U. S. 2T Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Mis- 505, 522. souri Pacific Railway Co., Ill U. S 505, * Story's Eq. PI. § 547. 522 ; Rule 26. ^ Greenough v. Gaskell, 1 Myl. & K. 28 Kilgour r. New Orleans Gas Light 100 ; Story's Eq. Pi. § 547, and cases Co., 2 Woods, 145. cited. 29 Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. c Smith v. East India Co., 1 Phillips. Hartshorn, 30 Fed. R. 541; Town of 50; Attorney-General i;. London, 12 Beav. Strawberry Hill v. Chicago M. & St. P. 8 ; Worthington v. Scribner, 109 Mass. Ry Co., 41 Fed. R. 568 487, 493. § 109. 1 Langdell's Eq. Pi. § 97. 216 DEMURRERS. [CHAP. VIII. a discovery is sought pertain exclusively to the defendant's case;'^ (5) according to the old rule, because the defendant has, " in con- science, a right equal to that claimed by a person filing a bill against him, though not clothed with a perfect legal title," ^ as, if he be a purchaser in good faith, and for a valuable consid- eration, without any notice of the plaintiff's claim.^ Where the complainant is the only person who can insist upon the penalty or forfeiture, and he waives it in his bill, he may compel a dis- covery. ^^ In certain cases, a defendant may be obliged to answer to a charge of a fraud which migbt subject him to a criminal prosecution.^^ An Euglish case holds that a discovery can be compelled although a defendant might thereby aduiit his guilt of an offeuce against the* criminal laws of a foreign country. ^^ Demurrers to the discovery are now rarely filed. For the objec- tions to the discovery do not usually appear upon the face of a bill ; and when they do, it seems that, since the equity rules, they can now in all cases be taken by answer.^^ A demurrer to an interrogatory that has been already answered caunot raise the question whether the answer to it is sufficient.^* The subject of discovery is of much less importance now than formerly ; and the curious reader is therefore referred to the works of Wigram and Hare for a full discussion of it. § 110 Of what Defects Advantage should be taken by De- murrer. — Advantage can be taken of most defects in a bill by answer, as well as by demurrer. But objections to defects in the form of a bill, except possibly those which are required by the e(juity rules,^ can only be raised by demurrer.^ Such is an omissi(ni to allege that two defendants hif ringed a patent jointly.^ 7 Bolton (.'. Corporation of Liverpool, Simons n. s. .301. See also United States 1 Myl & K. 88; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d of America «. McRae, L. R. 4 Eq. 327; Am. ed.) 645-018. s c. on appeal, L. R. 3 Ch. App. 79. 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 035, ^^ gee Rules .30, 44. 636. " Chicago, St. Louis & New Orleans 9 Jerrard v. Saunders, 2 Ves. ,Tr 4.54 ; R. R Co. v Macomb, 2 Fed. R. 18. Gle3, 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 655. 655; Tourton y. Flower, 3 P. Wms. 369; « Daniell's CIi. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 655. Attorney-General v. Jackson, 11 Ves. T Ilodtre i». North Missouri R. R. Co., 369 ; Dwight y. Central Vermont RR.Co., 1 Dill. 104. 9 Fed. R. 785 ; Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 498, 499. 220 DEMURRERS. [CHAP. VIII. of the proper parties.^^ It is said by Mr. Daniell that " in the case of a demurrer for multifariousness, a mere allegation ' that the bill is multifarious ' will be informal ; it should state, as the ground of demurrer, that the bill unites distinct matters upon one record, and show the inconvenience of so doing." ^^ But the case cited by him does not seem to hold that the more general form is bad.^^ A defendant is not limited to show one cause of demurrer only ; he may assign as many causes of demurrer as he pleases, either to the whole bill or to each part demurred to, and if any one of the causes of demurrer assigned hold good the demurrer will be allowed.!^ When, however, two or more causes of demurrer ai-e shown to the whole bill the court will treat it as one demurrer ; and if one of the causes be con- sidered sufficient the order will be drawn up, as upon a complete allowance of the demurrer.^^ § 116. Demurrers ore tenus. — kx the hearing other causes of demurrer may be assigned orally ; when the defendant is said to demur ore tenun} When such a demurrer only is sustained and the previously assigned causes are held bad, the defendant usu- ally recovers no costs,^ and often is obliged to pay costs. ^ But a demurrer ore tenus will, it has been said, never be allowed, unless there is a dcmui-rer on record.* Thus, when there was a plea on record, and that was disallowed, a demurrer ore tenus was also disallowed.^ A demurrer filed to a part cannot at the hearing ore tenus be extended to the whole of the bill ; and such a demurrer is, it seems, only permitted for some cause which covers the whole extent of the demurrer filed.^ It is doubtful 11 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 498, 2 Xaylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. K. 498, 499. ' 499; VVright v. Dame, 1 Met. (Mass.) 1^ Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 655. 2-37 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 464 ; DanicU'sCh. 13 Rayner *;. .lulian, 2 Dit-kens, 677 ; Pr. G72. But see Rule .34. s. c. more fully reported, 5 Madd. 144, ^ Langdell's Eq. PI. § 95; Story's Eq. note. PI- § 404 ; Attorney-General v. Brown, 1' IIarri.«on v. Hogsr, 2 Ves. Jr. 323 ; 1 Swanst. 265, at page 268 ; Mortimer v. .Jones (• Frost, 3 Madd. 9; s.c. on appeal. Eraser, 2 Myl. & Cr. 173. 1 Jacobs, 466. * Durdant v. Redman, 1 Vern. 78 ; 1^ Wellesley v. Wellesley, 4 Myl. & Cr. Hook v. Dorman, 1 Sim & S. 227 ; Story's 554; Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d"^ Am. ed.) 657. Eq. PI. § 464 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. § 116. 1 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R. ed.) 668. 40S, Brinkerii'oir v. Brown, 6 J. Ch. ^ Story's Eq. PI. § 464; Durdant r. (N. Y.) 149; Daniell's Ch. Pr, (2d Am. Redman. 1 Vern. 78; Attorney-General ed.)657; Langdell's Eq. PI. § 95 ; Story's r. Brown, 1 Swanst. 288; Hook r. Dor- Eq. PI. § 464 ; Tourton v. Flower, 3 P. man, 1 Sim. & S. 227. Wms. 371. " Equitable Life Assurance Society v. § 119.] MOTIONS TO TAKE DEMURRERS OFF THE FILE. 221 whether by a demurrer ore terms advantage can be taken of defects in form." § 117. Prayer of Judgment. — A demurrer, having assigned the cause or causes of its interposition, then proceeds to demand judgment of the court whether tlie defendant ouglit to be com- pelled to put in any further or other answer to the bill, or to such part thereof as is specified as the subject of demurrer; and concludes with a prayer that the defendant be dismissed, or, if to a part only, that he be excused from answering tliat part, with his reasonable costs in that behalf sustained.^ When the demurrer is to a part only of the bill, the answer or plea to what remains usually follows the statement of the causes of demurrer, and the submission to the judgment of the court of the plain- tiff's right to call upon the defendant to make further or other answer.2 § 118. Certificate of Counsel. — Every demurrer must be accom- panied by a certificate of counsel, that in his opinion it is well founded in point of law, and supported by the afhdavit of the defendant ; that it is not interposed for delay. ^ Otherwise, it might perhaps be disregarded i^ though the proper remedy for this, as for any irregularity in form or in filing, would be to move to take the demurrer off the file.^ But it seems that the demurrer may be overruled for such an omission.* Whether a certificate of counsel is required when the defendant appears in person, has not yet been decided in the Federal courts.-'^ § 119. Motions to take Demurrers off the File. — The remedy for an irregularity in the form or the manner of filing a demuri'er, for example, if there be an error in its title, or it be filed too late, is by a motion to take it off the file.^ When an order to that effect is granted, the cause stands in the same position as if no demurrer had been filed ; and the defendant is at liberty to Patterson, 1 Ferl. R. 120 ; Baker v. Mel- « See § 119 ; Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2cl Am. lisli, 11 Ves. 70, at page 76; Story's Eq. ed.) Gi;i-66.3; Ewing v. Blight, 3 Wall. PI. § 4fi4. But see Crouch v. Hickin, 1 Jr. 134. Keen, .385. * See U. S. R. S. § 747 ; 1 Hoffman's ■ Story's Eq. PI. § 443. Cli. Pr. 97. § 117. 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 5 Secor v. Singleton, 9 Fed. R. 809 ; 659. s. c. 3 McCrary, 230. '-' Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed ) 659. § 119. » Ewlng v. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. § 118. 1 Rule 31. 134; Curzon v. De la Zouch, 1 Swanst. - National Bank v. Insurance Compa- 193; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 6G1- ny, 104 U. S. 64, 76. 603. 222 DEMURRERS. [CHAP. VIII. demur anew, or to plead or answer, as he may be advised.^ The order that a demurrer be taken off the file may allow the de- fendant to file the same paper with the proper additions and corrections.^ The application should be for an order " to take a certain paper purporting to be a demurrer" off the file.* A demurrer is not taken off the file by the mere entry of an order to that effect. The order should be taken to the clerk, who will withdraw the demurrer by annexing the order to it.^ By setting the demurrer down for argument or taking any other proceeding in the cause, all defects of form except the omission of the affida- vit and certificate of counsel,^ and any irregularity in filing it, would ])robably be waived. § 120. Setting Demurrer down for Argument. — If the plaintiff fail to set down any plea or demurrer for argument on the rule- day when the same is filed, or on the next succeeding rule-day, he is deemed to admit the sufficiency thereof, and his bill is dismissed as of course, unless a judge of the court allows him further time for the purpose.^ The defendant filing the demurrer is the only party that can have the bill dismissed upon this ac- count.^ The former English practice in setting a demurrer down for argument was for the plaintiff to obtain an order ex parte^ upon petition for that purpose ; and to serve the same upon the defendant's solicitor at least two days before the hearing.^ In the different circuits of the United States the matter is usually regulated by local rule or custom.'* It has been held, that a de- murrer to a bill seeking an injunction must be decided, before a motion for an injunction noticed after the filing of the demurrer can be heard,^ and before action is taken upon a ])lea subsequently or contemporaneously filed ; ^ and that while a demurrer is pend- ing undecided, the allegations of the bill must for the purposes of a motion be deemed admitted." § 121. Argument of Demurrer. — When a demurrer was called 2 Ciist V. Bnode, 1 Sim. & S. 21 ; Dan- § 120. i "Rule 38. iell's Oil. Pr. tl6.3. 2 ciiicairo & Alton U. K. Co. v. Union 3 Bailey Washing Madiine Company Eolling Mill Co., 109 U. S. 702, 717. V. Young, 12 IJlatoliif. 199. 3 DanicU's Ch. Pr. (2(1 Am. ed.) 665, * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2cl Am. ed.) 732. 6G6. 5 Cust »;. Boode, 1 Sim. &S. 21; Dan- * See Gordon )'. St. Paul Harvester iell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 60.3. Works, 23 Fed. H. 147. •5 National Bank r. Insurance Compa- * Ketchum v. Driggs, 6 :\IcLoan, 1.3. ny, 101 U. S. .54, 70; Secor v. Singleton, « Campbell i-. Mayor, 33 Fcil. R. 795. 9 Fed. R. 809. ' Bayerque v. Cohen, M'Allister, 113. § 122.] OVERRULING A DEMURRER. 223 on for hearing and the defendant failed to appear, in the English j)ractice the demurrer was struck out of the paper, unless the plaintiff had set down the demurrer, and could produce an affi- davit of service upon the defendant or his solicitor of the order to set it down. If the plaintiff could produce such an affidavit, the demurrer was not necessarily overruled ; but he had to be heard in support of the bill, the affidavit of service not authorizing the court, in the absence of the defendant, to overrule the demurrer, but to hear the plaintiff.^ When the defendant appeared and the plaintiff did not, the demurrer was also struck out of the paper, unless the defendant could produce an affidavit of service upon himself of the order setting down the demurrer ; or unless, in the event of the defendant having himself set down the de- murrer, he could produce an affidavit of service upon the plaintiff or his solicitor. On the production of such an affidavit in either case, the defendant might have the demurrer allowed with costs.^ Where a demurrer had been struck out of the paper, a fresh order had to be obtained for setting it down, which might be had either upon petition or motion.^ The usual course of proceeding, when the demurrer came on for hearing, and all parties appeared, was generally for the junior counsel for the party setting the demurrer down for argument to open the pleadings, after which the counsel in support of the demurrer were heard, and next the plaintiff's counsel, and then the leading counsel for the demurring party replied.^ The practice in these respects in the courts of the United States is very loose ; it is sometimes regulated by the local rule, and often by a local custom, after the analogy of the State practice. § 122. Overruling a Demurrer. — If upon the hearing, any de- murrer is overruled, the plaintiff is entitled to his costs in the cause up to that period, unless the court is satisfied that the defendant has good ground, in point of law or fact, to interpose the same, and it was not interposed vexatiously or for delay. ^ Upon, the overruling of any demurrer, the defendant is assigned to answer the bill, or so much thereof as is covered by the demur- rer, the next succeeding rule-day, or at such other period as con- § 121. 1 Penfokl v. Ramsbottom, 1 3 Tolson v. Lord Fitzwilli.am, 4 Madd. Swanst. 552 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. 403. ed.) 606,667. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 666, 2 Jennings v. Pearce, 1 Ves. Jr. 447. 667. § 122. 1 Rule 34. 224 DExMUEKERS. [CHAP. Vlll. sistently with the rights of the defendant, the same can, in the judgment of the court, be reasonably done; in default whereof, the bill is to be taken against him pro confesso, and the matter thereof proceeded in and decreed accordingly.^ If the plaintiff does not desire an answer, terms may be imposed as a condition upon the filing of an answer by the defendant.'^ A demurrer is presumed abandoned when tlie parties proceed to a hearing after an answer without argument of the demurrer.* When a de- murrer both to the whole bill and to part thereof is sustained only as to a part, the proper decree is to dismiss so mucii of the bill as seeks relief in reference to the matters adjudged to be bad, overrule the demurrer to the residue, and direct the defendant to answer thereto.^ When several defendants have joined in the demurrer, it may be sustained as to one of them, and overruled as to the rest.^ " The court cannot let a demurrer stand for an answer, because it is a mute thing." ' It must be either sustained or overruled. If, therefore, it is doubtful whether a demurrer should be sustained or not, the court will overrule it, and allow the same defense to be taken by answer ; ^ or, even if it be not taken in the answer, may sustain it at tlie hearing.^ By special leave, such a defense may also be made by a plea.^'^ When the answer by supplying omissions in the bill establishes the com- plainant's case, a decree for him will not be reversed upon appeal, for an error in overruling a demurrer.^^ After a demurrer to the whole bill has been overruled, a second demurrer to the same extent cannot be allowed ; for that would be in effect to re-hear the case on the first demurrer ; as, on argument of a demurrer, any cause of demurrer, though not shown in the demurrer as filed, may be alleged at the bar, and if good will support the de- murrcr.^2 ^\^ demurrer, however, of a less extensive nature may - Rule 34. sonville, 3 McLean, 3.3G ; Standanl Oil 3 Ilalderman i-. Ilalderman, Hempst. Co. v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co., 42 Fed. R. 407. 295. See Crawford r. The William Penn, 4 Basey v Gallagher, 20 Wall. 670. 3 Wash. 484. 6 Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 » Johnasson y. Bonhote, L. R. 2 Ch. D. U. S. 126. 208. 6 Mayor of London i-. Levy, 8 Ves. i» Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) G75 ; 403, 404 ; Story's Eq PI § 445. Rowley v. Eccles, 1 S. & S. 512. ' Lord Chancellor llardwicke, in Anon., ^^ Cavender v. Cavender, 114 U. S. 3 Atk. 530. 464. See also West v. Randall, 2 Mason, s Storms r. Kansas Pacific Ry. Co., 5 181. Dill 480; Bromley v. Town of Jeffer- i^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 674. § 123.] SUSTAINING A DEMURRER. 225 by special leave of the court be subsequently put in ; ^^ and an amendment of a demurrer confining it to a part of the bill may also be allowed.^* § 123. Sustaining a Demurrer. — If upon the hearing any de- murrer be allowed, the defendant is entitled to his costs.^ But the court may, in its discretion, upon motion of the plaintiff, allow him to amend his bill upon such terms as it shall deem reasona- ble.- When a demurrer ore tenus is sustained,^ the defendant receives no costs, and perhaps may be ordered to pay costs.^ If the defect in the bill be clearly one that goes to the whole equity of the plaintiff's case, leave to amend will not be granted.^ Ac- cording to Lord Cottenham, " it is not usual, upon allowing a gen- eral demurrer, to give leave to amend ; but it may be done. It is in the discretion of the court so to do." ^ And although courts are now very liberal in allowing amendments, leave to amend may be refused when the case of the defendant is a hard one, and he is free from wrong-doing, while the plaintiff has had an oppor- tunity to plead the new matter when his l)ill was first drawn." Leave to amend is usually granted ; and almost invariably when the defect in the bill consists in the misjoinder of parties,^ or the omission of those who can be served without ousting the court of jurisdiction.^ It has been held that a paper defective as a bill in ei^uity may be sustained as a petition on an appeal from condem- nation proceedings under a special statute.^^ 15 Thorpe v. Macauley, 5 Madd. 218, Bell, 2 Myl. & Cr. 89 , Lowe v. Farlie, 2 231. Madd. 101 ; Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. 1+ Glegg r. Legli, 4 Madd. 193, 207; 245. Baker r. Mellisli, 11 Ves. 70; Atwill v. ^ Wellesley v. Wellesley, 4 Myl. & Cr. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39, 49 554, 558. § 123. 1 Rule 34. " Dowell v. Applegate, 8 Fed. R. 698, 2 Rule 34. s. c. 7 Sawyer, 232. 3 Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. R. 498; « Aylwin v. Bray, 2 Y. & J. .518, note; Briiikerhoff c. Brown, 6 J. Cli. (N. Y.) Tryon r. Westminster Improvement Coni- 149 ; Langdell's Eq. PI. § 95 ; Story's Eq. missioners, 6 Jurist N. s. 1324. PL § 464; Daniell's Ch.'Pr. (2d Am. ed.) ^ M'Elwain v. Willis, 3 Paige (N. Y.). C72. 505. See Walker v. Powers, 104 U. S. * Langdell's Eq. PI. § 95; Lord Clar- 245,252. endon's Orders, May 22, 1661 ; 1 Sanders' ^^ Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Orders, 298. Railway Co., 135 U. S. 641, 651. » Langdell's Eq. Pi. § 96; Tyler v. VOL. I. — 15 226 PLEAS. [chap. IX. CHAPTER IX. PLEAS. § 124. Definition and Classification of Pleas. — A plea is a pleading which sets up some reason not apparent upon the face of the bill why the defendant should not be obliged to answer the whole or a part thereof. Lord Redesdale defines a plea as " a special answer to a bill, differing in this from an answer in the common form, as it demanded the judgment of the court, in the first instance, whether the special matter urged by it did not debar the plaintiff from his title to that answer which the bill required." 1 A plea may be to the whole or to a part of the bill.^ Usually but a single ground of defense can be presented by a plea, which, though it may state more than one fact, must bring the matters in issue to a single point.^ Otherwise, it is open to the charge of duplicity and multifariousness, and will be over- ruled.* But if a bill contain different prayers for relief based upon different grounds, the defendant may file a plea to each part of the relief.^ And in other cases, where great incon- venience can thus be saved, the court may upon motion, after notice to the complainant's solicitor, give special leave to file a double plea,^ or rather, according to Professor Langdell," two separate pleas, each containing a single defense. Thus, in Eng- land, a defendant to a bill for an injunction against the infringe- ment of a patent and for an account was allowed to file a double § 12t. 1 Roche V. Morgell, 2 Sch. & London v. Corporation of Liverpool, 3 Lef. 721,725. Anst. 738; Watkins i-. Stone, 2 Simons, 2 Rule 32. 49; Saltus v. Tobias, 7 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 214 ; 3 Whitbread v. Brockhurst, 1 Brown, Giant Powder Co. v. Safety Nitro Powder Ch.C.404,410, note 9 ; 8. c. 2 Ves. & Bea. Co., 19 Fed. R. 509; M'Closkey f. Barr, 38 154, note; Watkins v. Stone, 2 Simons, Fed. R. 165; Story's Eq. PI. §§ 653-655. 49 ; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 But see Reissner v. Anness, 12 Off. Gaz. Pet. 210, 259 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 654. 842 ; s. c. 3 Bann. & A. Pat. Cas. 148. * Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 ^ Emmott v. Mitchell, 14 Simons, 432. Pet. 210, 259; Gaines v. Mausseaux, 1 ® Gib.son v. Whitehead, 4 Madd. 241; Woods, 118; Wliitbread r. Brockhurst, Kay r. Marshall, 1 Keen, 190. 1 Brown, Ch. C. 404, 41G, note 9 ; s. c. "^ Langdell's Eq. PI. § 98. 2 Ves. & Bea. 154, note ; Corporation of § 124] DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PLEAS. 227 plea, " namely, first, that the invention was not useful, and secondly, that it was not new."** It has been held that the question whether a patent has been infringed cannot be raised by a plea.^ A plea must not contain inconsistent allegations,^*^ as ''a plea of the Statute of Limitations and of liability never incurred." '^ Nor, it has been said, can a plea properly raise by averment an issue not "raised by the bill." ^^ But, if the plea be otherwise good, immaterial allegations will not vitiate it.^^ Matters that have occurred since the filing of the bill may be set up by plea provided the time for filing the plea has not elapsed.^* Otherwise, such matters can only be pleaded by a supplemental answer or cross-bill. ^^ A plea should state facts, not arguments and conclusions of law, which will be disregarded. ^'^ Thus, it has been held that pleas which state that defendant "is the sole owner in fee simple of the entire title of" the land which is the subject of the suit ; " that, at the time of the bringing of this suit and long prior thereto, this defendant was and still is in the open, notorious, continuous, and exclusive possession of the said premises as the sole owner thereof, and claiming and holding ad- versely to the complainants and all the world ; " and " that the said complainants were, at the time of bringing this' suit and long prior thereto, ousted and disseissed and out of possession of said premises," are bad. Pleas are either pure, negative, or anom- alous. A pure plea sets up new matter as a defense which is not apparent upon the face of the bill.i' A negative plea, which is sometimes also termed an anomalous plea, merely denies certain allegations contained in the bill.^^ An anomalous plea sets up a fact in avoidance of the bill, but one which the bill has antici- * Kay V. Marshall, 1 Keen, 190, 102. " Earl of Leicester v. Perry, 1 Brown, But see Reissner v. Anness, 12 Off. Gaz. Ch C. 305; Turner i;. Robinson, 1 Sim. & 842 ; s. c. 3 Bann. & A. Pat. Cas. 148. S. 3. 9 Korn V. Wiebuscli, 33 Fed. R. 50; i^ Miller v. Fenton, 11 Paige (N. Y.), Ilubbell V. De Land, 14 Fed. R. 471, 474. 18 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 607. 1" Emraott V. .Mitchell, 14 Simons, 432; ^^ Beames on Pleas, 22, 23; Jerrard v. Story's Kq. PI. §§ 656, 057. Saunders, 2 Ves. Jr. 187 ; National Bank 11 Emmott V. Mitchell, 14 Simons, 432, v. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54 ; Wood v. 430. Mann, 1 Sumner, 506 ; McCloskey v. 1- Emmott V. :\Iitchell, 14 Simons, 4.32, Barr, 38 Fed. R. 165 ; Emma Silver Min- 435. But see Rhode Island v. Massachu- ing Co. v. Emma Silver Mining Co. of setts, 14 Pet 210, 270. New York, 1 Fed. R. 39. •■J Rhode Island i: Massachusetts, 14 '" M'Closkey v. Barr, 38 Fed. R. 165. Pet. 210, 270; Claridge ;;. Hoare, 14 Ves. is story's Eq. PL § 651. 59. 228 PLEAS. [chap. IX. pated and without confessing replied to.^^ Now that the benefits of discovery can be obtained at common law, negative and anomalous pleas are rarely used ; and the learning and subtlety which have been displayed in discussing their characteristics are of little service, except as a means of mental discipline or for the gratification of an antiquarian taste. Those interested in study- ing their history and refinements are referred to the works of Heames on Pleas. Wigram on Discovery, and Langdell on Equity Pleading, where they will find the sul)ject discussed at length, with full references to the cases. Pleas are either to the relief or to the discover}' ; and pleas to the relief are either pleas in abatement or pleas in bar. § 125. Pleas in Abatement in General. — The books which recognize pleas in abatement include among them pleas to the jurisdiction, pleas to the person, and pleas to the bill.^ Matters in abatement can, in general, only be set up by plea or demurrer ; and a defendant, by answering or pleading in bar, waives any such objection.^ But the act of March 3, 1875, provides "that if in any suit commenced in a circuit court, or removed from a State court to a circuit court of the United States, it shall ap- pear to the satisfaction of said circuit court, at any time after such suit has been brought or removed thereto, that such suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said circuit court, or that the parties to said suit have been improperly or collusively made or joined, either as plaintiffs or defendants, for the purpose of cre- ating a case cognizable or removable under this act, the said circuit court shall proceed no further therein, but shall dismiss the suit or remand it to the court from which it was removed as justice may require, and shall make such order as to costs as shall be just."^ The objection that there is no jurisdiction in )5 LangclcH's Eq. PI. §102; Story's Eq. liffe v. Owings, 27 How. 47. 52; Rubber PI. §651; M'DonaUl v. Salem Capital Co. r. Goodyear, . Oregon Central Ry. Co.. Mumford, 1 Gall. 3GG. 1 Saw. 03. 07 230 PLEAS. [chap. IX. plea, and that tlie proper course for the defendant is to move either to strike the bill off the file on account of the complain- ant's mental incapacity, or for a stay of proceedings until a committee or next friend is appointed. i*^ (3) That the defendant cannot be sued except upon the happening of some event which has not occurred, as that he is a receiver, and no leave to sue him has been obtained from the court by which he was ap- j)ointed.^^ (4) That the defendant is not the person he is alleged to be, or does not sustain the character which he is alleged to bear ; ^^ or that the person named as a defendant is not a corporation when sued as such, — in which case the person served with process on its behalf may file the plea in his own name,^^ or was not incorporated under the laws of the State which is named in the bill as its creator ;!•* or that the defendant has become a bankrupt or insolvent, and his interest in the sub- ject-matter has passed to liis assignee.^^ § 128. Pleas to the Bill. — Pleas to the bill are : (1) That there is another suit depending in a domestic court of equity for the same matter. (2) That there is a want of proper parties. (3) That the bill will cause an improper multiplicity of suits. (4) Multifaiiousness.i Of these tlie first two are the only ones of much practical importance. It is doubtful whether either of the last two has ever been successfully maintained. ^ Judge Story thus speaks of them : "Thirdly, the plea of multiplicity of suits. This objection also may be taken by way of plea, for it is against the whole policy of courts of equitj' to encourage multiplicity of suits. Indeed, this constitutes one main ground of the ob- jection of the want of sufficient parties, since its tendencj' is to multiply litigation. Fourthly, the plea of multifariousness, or of joining and confounding distinct matters in one bill. Generally this objection is apparent on the face of the bill, and then it could be taken by way of demurrer. But, in case the bill is so 1" Dudgeon v. Watson, 23 Fed. R. 101. i* Blackburn r. Selma. M. & M. R. R. 11 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. I'iG ; Co., 2 Klippin, 525. .Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734, I'M ; i* Kittredge v. Claremont Bank, 3 In re Young, 7 Fed. R. 855. But see 24 Story, 590 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 732. See St. at L. cb. 373, § 3. also Doggett v. Emerson, 1 Woodb. & M. 1^ Story's Eq. PI. §§ 732-734. 196. 13 Kelley v. Mississippi Central R. R. § 128. i Story's Eq. PI. §§ 7.35-748. Co., 1 Fed. R. 564; s. c. 2 Flippin, .581. 2 B,,nson v. Iladfield, 4 Hare, 32, 39; See also Williams v. EtTij>ire Trausporta- M'Ciuskey v. Burr, 38 Fed. R 105. lion Co., 1 N. J. L. J. 315. ^ 129.] PLE.VS OF PENDENCY OF ANOTHER SUIT. 231 artfully fnimcd that from that or from some other cause the objection does not appear on the face of the bill, the defendant may take advantage thereof by setting forth the special matter by a plea." 2 The following plea was held bad and overruled: where the bill was filed to restrain the infringement of five patents, and stated that the defendant made and sold for use "soda-water fountains, each made according to, and employing and containing, the inventions described and claimed in each of the above-named letters-patent and reissued letters-patent." The plea set up as a defense that all of the letters-patent de- scribed in the bill were, as the bill showed, for separate and distinct inventions, "which several alleged inventions are not, in point of fact, connected together in use or operation, and are not, in point of fact, conjointly embodied in any of the soda- water and other fountains manufactured, used, or sold, by this defendant ; so that the said plaintiff, by his single bill of com- plaint aforesaid, seeks to compel this defendant to unite five separate and distinct defences depending upon distinct and dif- ferent proofs, so as to complicate the defence and embarrass this defendant in his answer to the said complaint ; and that it is not true, as alleged in said bill, that the said defendant has made, constructed, used, and vended to others to be used, soda-water and other fountains, each made according to, and employing and containing the inventions described and claimed in each of the above-named letters-patent and reissued letters-patent."^ § 129. Pleas of Pendency of another Suit. — A plea that another suit in equity is pending for the same cause in the same court is, if true, a sufficient defense to a bill.^ The pendency of an action at law for the same matter is not, however, in itself a defense. ^ For the very fact that relief cannot be had at law is the usual ground for resorting to equity. If, however, there appears to be no sufficient reason for the maintenance of both, the court at equity may, after the defendant has answered, put the plaintiff to his election, whether he will proceed at law or in equity ; and 3 Story's Eq. PI. §§ 74(3, 740. See also Ch. Ca. 241 ; Tarleton v. Barnes, 2 Kt'cn, Benson v. Hadfield, 4 Ilarc, 32. 632, 635 ; Insurance Co. v. Brune, 96 ■» Matthews v. Lalance & G. Manuf. U. S. 588, 592, 593. See also Memphis Co., 2 Fed. R. 232. City r. Dean, 8 Wall. 64. §129. 1 Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, 2 Graham v. Meyer, 4 Rlatchf. 129; part 2; .Story's Eq. PI. § 736; Urlin v. Thorne r. Towanda Tanning Co., 15 Fed. Hudson, 1 Vern. 332; Foster i'. Vassall, R. 289, 292. 3 Atk. 587. 590; Crofts v. Wortley, 1 232 PLEAS. [chap. IX. if he elects the latter, then his proceeding at law will be en- joined ; if the forraer, his hill will be dismissed.^ The pendency of another suit in a court of another of the United States, or of a foreign country, is not a bar to a suit for the same relief in a Cir- cuit Court of the United States.^ Nor, it seems, although there the authorities are conflicting,^ is the pendency of a similar suit in a court held within the same State where the Federal court is lield.^ The effect of the pendency of another suit for the same cause in another court of the United States has never been ex- pressly decided ; ''' but there seems to be no difference in prin- ciple between such a suit and one in a court of another State, except that proceedings in such a case in a Federal court could be enjoined by a Federal judge.^ A plea that another suit is pending, in which the complainant might obtain by cross-bill the relief now sought by him, is bad.^ A plea of lis j^^i^dens should set forth the commencement of the former suit, its general nature, character, and objects, the relief prayed, and how far it has pro- gressed ; ^*^ it should then aver specifically that the second suit is for the same subject-matter ^^ as the first, and seeks the same, or similar, relief; ^^ and further, that the former suit is still depend- ing.^3 It must show that the defendant was served or has ap- peared in the former suit.^* " For it is no suit depending till the 3 Story's Eq. PI. § 742 ; Beanies' Orders in Chancery, 11, 12 ; Mitford's Pleadings, ch. 2, § 2, part 2 ; Royle v. Wynne, 1 Craig & Pii. 252 ; Tiiorne v. Towanda Tanning Co., 13 Fed. R. 289, 292. < Insurance Co. v. Brune, 9G U. S. 688, 592, 593; Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 548 ; Lord Dillon v. Alvares, 4 Ves. 357. See Story's Eq. PI. § 747. 5 See Radford v. Folsom, 14 Fed. R. 97 ; Brooks v. Mills County, 4 Dill. 524. « Latham v. Chafee, 7 Fed. R. 520; Whiter. Whitman, 1 Curt. 494 ; Sharon r. Hill. 22 Fed. R. 28 ; Washburn & Moen Manuf. Co. v. Scutt, 22 Fed. R. 710 ; Lor- ing V. Marsh, 2 ClifE. 322 ; Gordon v. Gilfoil, 99 U. S. 168, 178 ; Dwight v. Cen- tral Vermont R. R. Co., 9 Fed. R. 785; Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union Live Stock Co., 12 Fed. R. 225. ^ See Wheeler v. McCormick, 8 Blatchf. 2G7; Steiger v. Ileidclbergcr, 4 Fed. R. 455; s. c. 18 Blatchf. 420; Brooks V. Mills County, 4 Dill. 524, 527. ^ See Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. ('. Chicago & A. R. Co., 13 Fed. R. 857; Beauchamp v. Marquis of Huntley, Ja- cobs, 516 ; Erie Ry. Co. r. Ramsey, 45 N. Y. 637. ^ Washburn & Moen Manuf. Co. v. Scutt, 22 Fed. R. 710. 10 Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union Live Stock Co., 12 Fed. R. 225; Foster v. Vassall, 3 Atk. 589, 690 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 737. 11 Devie v. Lord Brownlow, 2 Dickens, 611 ; Mitford's Pleadings, ch. 2, § 2, part 2; Story's Eq. PI. § 737. 12 Belirens v. Sieveking, 2 Myl. & Cr. 602 ; Wheeler v. McCormick, 8 Blatchf. 267 ; Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story, 183 ; Storv's Eq. PI. § 737. »3 Story's Eq. PI. § 737. See Urlin t'. Hudson, 1 Vern. 3.32; Mitford's Plead- ings, ch. 2, § 2, part 2. 1* Moor V. Welsh Copper Co., 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 39, pi. 14. ^' 129.] PLEAS OF PENDENCY OF ANOTHER SUIT. 233 parties have appeared or been served to appear, but only a piece of parchment thrown into the office, which may lie there foiever, and never come to a suit,"^^ '' It is not necessary to the suffi- ciency of the plea that the former suit should be precisely between the same parties as the latter. For if a man institutes a suit, and afterwards sells part of the property in question to another, who files an original bill touching the part so pui'chased by him, a plea of the former suit depending touching the whole property will hold.^^ So where one part-owner of a ship filed a bill against the husband for an account, and afterwards the same part-owner and the rest of the owners filed a bill for the same purpose, the pendency of the first suit was ]ield a good plea to the last ; ^'' for though the first bill was insufficient for want of parties, yet by the second bill the defendant was doubly vexed for the same cause. The course wliich the court has taken in such case has been to dismiss the first bill, and to direct the defendant in the second cause to answer upon being paid the costs of the plea allowed." ^^ Wliere a former suit had been brought for a part, but not the whole of the relief sought in the case at bar, the court held its pendency no defense, but said that proceedings in it might be stayed until the determination of the second suit.^^ " Where a second bill is brought by the same person for the same purpose, but in a different right, as where the executor of an administrator brought a bill conceiving himself to be the personal representative of the intestate, and afterwards procured adminis- tration de bonis non, and brought another bill, the pendenc}'' of the former bill is not a good plea.^*^ The reason of this determi- nation seems to have been, that, the first bill being wholly irregu- lar, the plaintiff could have no benefit from it, and it might have been dismissed upon demurrer. Where a decree is made upon a bill brought by a creditor on behalf of himself and all otlier cred- itors of the same person, and another creditor comes in before the master to take the benefit of the decree, and proves his debt, and then files a bill on behalf of himself and the other creditors, 15 Moor V. Welsh Copper Co., 1 Eq. 2, citing Crofts v. Wortlcy, 1 Cli. Cas. Cas. Abr. 39. 241. 1^ Moor V. Welsh Copper Co., 1 Eq. "'^ Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. Cas. Abr. 39. v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 13 Fed. R. 857. I'' DuranJ v. Hutchinson, Mich. 1771, '" Huggins v. York Building Co., 2 m Clian. Atk. 44. *^ Mitford's Pleadings, ch. 2, § 2, part 234 PLEAS. [chap. IX. the defendants may plead the pendency of the former suit ; for a man coming in under a decree is quasi a party." '^^ When, after a bill had been filed to restrain the infringement of a patent and to obtain an account of profits, the defendant continues his infringe- ments, the pendency of the first is no objection to a second bill seeking an injunction, and an account founded upon the subse- quent infringements.^^ According to Lord Redesdale, " as the pendency of the former suit, unless admitted by the plaintiff, is made the immediate subject of inquiry by one of the masters, a plea of this kind is not put in upon oath." ^^ § 130. Plea of "Want of Parties. — The plea of want of parties is sometimes included among pleas in bar.^ The same defense may be made by answer ;2 and in a recent case the court refused to allow it to be set up by plea upon the ground that the same defense can be considered with more convenience and expedition when pleaded in an answer.^ Such a plea must state the names, if known, of all the persons for whose omission the defendant claims that the bill is defective* It should also state that they are living, and, unless they are in every aspect of the bill indis- pensable parties to it, that they are within the jurisdiction of the court.^ After a plea for want of parties has been sustained, and the bill amended by adding thereto the parties named in the plea, a second plea further objecting to the bill for the omission of other parties not named in the first plea cannot be filed. ^ A plea to the whole bill for want of parties will be overruled if, in any aspect of the bill, the parties therein named would not be necessary." § 131. Pleas of Statutes. — Pleas in bar set up some reason founded on the substance of the case, why the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. They rest upon some matter created either by 21 Mitfonl's PI. c1i. 2, § 2, part 2, citing 2. See, liowever, Story's Eq. PI. § 744, upon last point Neve v. Weston, 3 Atk. ami citations. [)o7. -, 3 Uniteil States r. Gillespie, 6 Fed. ■^^ Wiieeler v. McCormick, 8 Blatelif. R. 803. See Rule 52. 207 . Roemer v. Newwan, lU Fed. R. 98 ; * Attorney General v. Jacksoii, 11 A'cs Iligliy V. Columbia Ruliber Co. 18 Fed. .T)7, o()0; Cook v. Mancius, 3 Joiiiis. cli. R. 001. Coiilni, Gold & Stock Telegraph (N. Y.) 427 ; Dwiglit r. Central Vermont Co. y. Pearce, I'J Fed. R. 419. R. R. Co. 9 Fed. R. 785; Campbell r. 33 Milford's Pleadings, cli. 2, § 2, part James, 2 Fed. R. 338, .348. 2; citing Urlin v. Hudson' 1 Vern. 33:i. ^ Goodyear i\ Toby, 6 Rlatclif. 138. But see the positive language of Rule '' Rawlins r. Dalton, 3 Y. & Coll. 447. 31. ^ Homan v. Shiel, 2 Jones (Irish), 164 § 130. 1 Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, part § 131.] PLEAS OF STATUTES. 235 statute, matter of record, or matter in j^ais, which last term sig- nifies a matter of fact which is not of record, and is not given by statute special effect. Pleas founded upon matter that is made a bar by statute rest upon the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, or less frequently some other statute. Federal courts of equity arc not bound by State statutes of limitation,^ except in cases where their jurisdiction is concurrent with the jurisdic- tion at common law;^ but they will usually follow them,^ unless injustice would otherwise be done,^ thus enforcing the doctrine of equitable laches; and they will do so especially when suits are brought against executors,^ or to foreclose mortgages.^ More- over, the lapse of time for a shorter period than the statute of limitations, and in cases to which that statute does not apply, will often be held such laches as to bar the complainant.^ It is not laches for a complainant to delay asserting his rights until the determination in another suit, brought by himself or another in a similar position, of a doubtful question of law materially affecting their validity.^ The United States is not bound by laches;^ and the State statutes of limitations do not affect it, i*^ even, it has been said, if specially named therein.^' An indi- vidual seeking to enforce by subrogation the rights of a State may be estopped by laches of the State which would not have affected the State itself.^- Municipal corporations and counties may be estopped by laches. ^■^ The plea of the statute of limitations is in substantially the same form as a similar plea in an action at law, but no special form is essential.^* If the bill charge fraud or other matters, which, if true, would prevent the statute from § 131. 1 Jolinson >\ Roe, 1 Feci. R. s Buxton v James, 5 Dc Gex & Sm. 80, 692 ; Etting v. Marx's Executor, 4 Fed. 84 ; Rumfonl Clicniical Works v. Vice, R. 67.3. But see Pratt v. Northam, 5 14 Blatclif. 179, 180, Green v. Barney, Mason, 95. 19 Fed. R. 420; People v. Cooper, 22 2 Wagner v. Baird, 7 How 2?.4. 258; Hun (29 N. Y. S. C. R.). 515, 517. See Godden y. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201; Wilson Illinois G. T. Ry. Co. i,'. Wade, 140 V. Koontz, 7 Cranch, 202. U. S. 65. 3 Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. S 201 ; 9 U. S. r. Beebe, 127 U. S. 3.S8 ; U. S. Meath v. Pliillips Co.. 108 U. S. 553. v. Insley, 130 U. S. 2G3 ; U. S. v. Dalles ■i Fogg V. St. Louis II. & K. R. R. Co., Military Land Co., 140 U. S. 599. 17 Fed. R. 871, 873. i' Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92; 5 PuUiara -• Pulliam, 10 Fed. R. 53; U. S. r. Thompson, 98 U. S. 486. Broderick's Will, 21 Wall 503. ^i U S. r. Thompson, 98 U. S. 486, 490. 6 Cleveland Ins. Co. v. Reed, 1 Biss. ''^ Cressy i: Meyer, 138 U. S. 525. 180. 13 Boone County >■. Burlington & M. R. ' Brown r. Connty of Buena Vista, 95 R. R. Co., 139 U. S.«84. U. S. 157, IGl. 1* Harpending, v. Reformed Protestant 236 PLEAS. [chap. IX. depriving the complainant of relief, the pica must deny them.^^ It is not sufficient to deny them in an answer in support of the plea.^^ The statute of frauds will be followed by the federal courts. ^*^ If the bill sliows that the complainant's case is repug- nant to tlie statute of frauds, it is demurrable.^'' Tliis, however, is rarely the case, and the statute is usually referred to by plea or answer.^" The rule is thus stated by Lord Chancellor Cran- worth : " It was argued that the statute of frauds was not open to the defendant, by reason of his not having insisted upon the statute as a defence ; but this is a mistake. Where a defendant admits the agreement, if he intends to rely on the fact of its not being in writing and signed, and so being invalid by reason of the statute, he must say so ; otherwise he is taken to mean that the admitted agreement was a written agreement good under the statute, or else that on some other ground it is binding on him ; but where he denies or does not admit the agreement, the burden of proof is altogether upon the plaintiff, who must then prove a valid agreement capable of being enforced." ^* The facts which show that the statute applies must be stated specifically.^^ Other- wise the plea is bad.^^ An act of Congress ratifying the con- struction of an otherwise illegal structure will, if constitutional, abate a suit for an injunction against the further maintenance of the structure, although not set up by plea, answer, or demurrer."'^^ § 132. Pleas of Matter of Record. — A plea founded upon matter of record sets up the judgment or decree of a court of record upon the same matter and between the same parties, or those in privity with them, in a cause of which it had jurisdiction. Pleas of matter of record are in some of the books distinguished from pleas of matter as of record. This distinction was due to the fact that, in England, the Court of Chancery in its ecpiitable jurisdiction, the Court of Admiralty and ecclesiastical courts were deemed courts not of record, although their decrees had Dutcli Church, 10 Pet. 455; West Port- G. 077, 689. But see Ileys r. Astley, 9 land Iloinestoad Assoc, v. Lownsdale, 17 Law Times N. s. 350. Fed. R. 205; Story's Eq. PI. § 7.52. i^ Bailey v. Wright, 2 Bond, 181; 15 Stearns v. Page, 1 Story, 204. IM'Closkey v. Barr, ."8 Fed. R. 105, ItlO. 16 Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585, ■^> Tiie Clinton Bridge, 10 Wall. 454. 589. But see Griffing v. Gibb, 2 Black, 519; 1' For an illustration of the plea, see Liverpool, New York, & Philadelphia Jackson i . Ogiander, 2 II. & M. 405. S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigra- i*' Ridgway v. Wharton, 3 De G. M. & tion, 113 U. S. 33, 38. § 132.] PLEAS OF MATTER OF RECORD. 237 the same effect as the judgments of courts of record.^ Judge Curtis held at circuit, that a judgment in a court of a foreign country cannot be pleaded in bar; 2 but in the present state of the law, the soundness of his decision may be doubted.^ A decree of a court of equity dismissing a bill to i-cmove a cloud on title is not so far res adjudicata as to prevent the j)laintiff from succeeding in a subsequent action of ejectment against the same defendant, although the court of equity in its opinion stated that the title of plaintiff was bad.* A decree of a court of equity declaring void a conveyance of land beyond its jurisdiction, but not directing a reconveyance of such land, is void, and does not bind a court within the jurisdiction of which such land is sit- uated.^ A decree of a court of equity will not be a bar if it resulted in the dismissal of a l)ill without prejudice ; ^ or for want of prosecution;' or for a slip in practice;^ or by the former English practice, if it had not been signed and enrolled, although it could then be insisted on by answer as a good defense.^ No judgment or decree rendered after a proceeding not in rem, in which the defendant therein was not served with process ;^^ or in which the unsuccessful party was denied a hearing,^i or some such other gross injustice was perpetrated as to render the so- called judicial proceeding not due process of law, is of any effect. Judgments or decrees obtained l^y fraud are not conclusive when properly impeached. ^'-^ It seems that a decree upon a bill taken as confessed concludes the defendant in another suit.^^ In plead- ing a judgment or decree, it is not necessary to set it forth, or the § 132. 1 Story's Eq. PI. § 778. ^^ Durant v. Essex Company, 7 Wall. 2 Lyman v. Brown, 2 Curt. 559. See 107, 109; House v. Mullen, 22 Wall. 42, Burnham v. Webster, 1 W. & M. 172. 46 ; Walclen i: Bodley, 14 Pet. 158; Gist 3 See Hilton v. Guyott, 42 Fed. R. 249 ; i-. Davis, 2 Hill Cli. (S. C.) 335 ; Grubb INIartin v. Nicolls, 3 Simons, 458 ; Story, v. Clayton, 2 Hayw. (N. C.) 378. See, Conflict of Laws, §§ 600-608. however, Starr i: Stark, 1 Saw. 270. < Phelps V. Harris, 101 U. S. 370. But 9 Anon., 3 Atk. 809 ; Sto. Eq. PI. § 700. see State v. BuUer, 47 Fed. R. 415. w Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; Life ^ Carpenter l: Strangp, 141 U. S. 87. Insurance Co. i-. Bangs, 103 U. S. 780; 6 Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107 ; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350. House c. Mullen, 22 Wall. 42, 46; North- n Bischoff r. Wethered, 9 Wall. 812; ern Pacific Ry. Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M. Windsor v. IMcVeigh, 93 U. S. 274 ; Ry. Co., 47 Fed. R. 5.36 ; mfra, § 600. Bradstreet v. Nept. Ins. Co., 3 Sum. 601. 7 American Diamond Rock Boring Co. ''■- Pac. R. R. of Mo. i*. Mo. Pac. Ry. V. Sheldon, 17 Blatchf. 208 ; s. c. 4 Rnnn. Co , 111 U. S. 505. & A. 551 ; Keller v. Stolzcnbach, 20 Fed. !■' Thompson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, R. 47 ; Conn v. Penn, 5 Wheat. 424, 427 ; 111, 112 ; Ogilvie v. Heme, 13 Ves. 563. Badger v. Badger, 1 Cliff. 241. 238 PLEAS. [chap. IX. proceedings upon which it was founded, at length ; ^* but so much of the decree and pleadings should be set forth as will show that the same point Avas then in issue,^^ and the court may requii-e the decree to be pleaded at length ;^^ or if the plea sets up matter of record in the same court, to show the record before the plaintiff is required to take action upon the plea.^" § 133. Pleas of Matter in Pais. — Pleas founded upon matter in pais state some other reason, for example, a release, or an account stated, or a purchase without notice for a valuable consideration, why the plaintiff should not have relief.^ A plea of purchase without notice for a valuable consideration should deny notice positively,^ and should state the amount of the consideration.^ It is insufficient to plead that the defendant ])aid a " good and val- uable consideration, to wit, a certain sum of money." ^ A plea to a bill for an injunction to restrain the infringement of a reissued patent, which set up that the claim had been unlawfully expanded so as to embrace subsequent improvements covered by later patents, was held good.* A plea to a bill filed under § 4918 of the Revised Statutes against the owner of a patent interfering witli that of the complainant, which set up that the invention described in the complainant's patent was described in a previous English patent published in the United States, and filed in the Patent Office here before the issue of the complainant's patent, was held bad and overruled.^ § 134. Pleas to the Discovery. — Pleas to the discovery set up new matter, showing (1) that the plaintiff's case is not such as entitles a court of equity to assume jurisdiction to compel a dis- covery in his favor ; (2) that the plaintiff has no such interest in the subject-matter of the action as entitles him to call upon the defendant for a discovery ; (3) that the defendant has no such interest in the subject-matter of the action as will entitle the plaintiff to call upon him for a discovery; (4) that the situation of the defendant renders it improper for a court of equity to com- » Kicanlo >: Gnrcias, 12 CI. & F. .308; § 13-3. i Story's Eq. PI. §§ 795-815- Story Kq. PI. § 783. - Wood v. Mann, 1 Sumner, 506. 1^ Garci.Ts r. Ricardo, 14 Simons, 205 ; ^ Secombe v. Campbell, 18 Blatcbf Story Eq. Pi. § 701 ; Emma Silv. Mln. Co. 108. >'. Emma Silv. Min. Co. of N. Y., 1 FeJ. R. * Hubbell v. De Land, 14 Fed. R. 471. 3!) 5 Pentlarpe v. Pentlarge, 19 Fed. R. 'c Emma Silv. Min. Co. r. Emma Silv. 817; s c. 22 Fed. R. 412. But see Fos- Min. Co. of N. Y., 1 Fed. R. 39. ter v. Lindsay, 3 Dill. 126, 131. 1- Ibid. § 136.] FRAME OF A PLEA. 239 pel him to make a discovery. ^ Of them, Professor Langdell says : " But it should be added that, while demurrers to discovery are common, tliere are few instances of pleas of that kind ; and the cases are few in which it would be advisable to resort to such a plea, since the question can be raised equally well by answer, and then the defendant's own statement of the facts will be equally conclusive."^ § 135. When a Plea must be filed. — Unless the defendant's time has been enlarged, for cause shown, by a judge of the court, upon motion for that purpose, the plea should be filed on the rule-day next succeeding that of entering the defendant's appearance.^ § 136. Frame of a Plea. — A plea is entitled in the cause, and is headed as follows : ••' The plea of the above-named defendant (or, of A. B., one of the above-named defendants) to the bill of complaint of the above-named })laintiff (or plaintiffs)." When put in by more than one defendant, the heading runs as follows : " The joint and several plea of the above-named defendants (or of A. B. and C. D., two of the above-named defendants) : " ^ but if filed by husband and wife in the wife's interest only, the words " and several " should be omitted ; though their use, being mere surplusage, will not vitiate the plea.^ The title of the plea should agree with that of the cause as stated in the bill. Any corrections which are desired to be made must be put in the heading, thus : " The plea of the above-named defendant, John Aber (in the bill, by mistake called Henry Aber) ; " or, " The plea of Henry Curtis and Mary his wife, lately, and in the bill called Mary Robinson, spinster " (or widow, as the case may be).^ When accompanied by an answer or demurrer, it should be headed : " The plea and answer ; " or " The joint," or " joint and several plea and answer ; " or " The joint and several plea, answer, and demurrer," etc., according to the circumstances.* Like a demurrer, it is usually, but not necessarily, introduced by a useless protestation against the confession of the truth of any matter contained in the bill.^ After the protestation, the de- fendant should state in the plea the extent to which it goes ; § 134. 1 Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, part 2. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) G81, ■^ Langdell's Eq. PI. § 148. 682. § 135. 1 Rule 18. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) R82. § 136. 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. 5 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5tli Am. ed.)682; ed.) 681. Story's Eq. PI. § 694. ^ Fitch v. Chapman, 2 Sim. & S. 31. 240 PLEAS. [chap. IX. as whether it is to the whole bill, or to part only, and in the latter case the part to which it is intended to applj'.^ Next should come the substance of the plea together with such aver- ments as are necessary to support it.' If these matters are within the defendant's knowledge he should state them posi- tively.^ Otherwise, upon information and belief.^ The allega- tions must be made with certainty and not by way of argument, inference, or conclusion. i*^ The })lea cannot properly allege and rely upon matters all of Mhich are apparent upon the face of the bill.^^ The conclusion of the plea is usually a repetition that the matters so offered are relied upon as an objection to the jurisdiction, or to the person of tlie plaintiff or defendant, or to the frame of the bill and suit, or in bar of the suit ; praying the judgment of the court, whether the defendant ought to be compelled to make any further or other answer to the bill, or so much thereof as the plea extends to.^^ It does not appear that any particular form of conclusion is necessary to a plea in equity .1^ Every plea must be sui)ported by a certificate of coun- sel, that in his opinion it is well founded in point of law, and by the afiidavit of the defendant, that it is not interposed for delay, and that it is true in point of fact.^* When the facts alleged in the plea are within the defendant's knowledge, he must swear to them positively. Otherwise, upon information and belief.^^ Whether the certificate of counsel is required when the defend- ant defends in person has never been decided. ^^ If the affidavit or certificate are omitted, the proper remedy would seem to be a motion to take the paper purporting to be a plea off the file ; ^^ but, according to the language of a recent opinion of the Supreme Court, the plea might then be disregarded.^- By setting down s Mitford's PI. cli. 2, § 2, part 2 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 094. " xMitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, part 2 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 694. s Foster i: Va.ssall, 8 Atk. 587 ; Boone r. Chiles, 10 Pet. 176, 210-213; Story's Eq. PI. § 002. 3 Boiton r. Gardner, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 273 ; Story's Kq. PI. § 062. 1'' Emma Silver Mining Co. r. Emma Silver Mining Company of New York, 1 Fed. R. 'S'J; Nabob of Arcot v. East India Co., 3 Brown, Ch. C. 292; Story's Eq. PI. § 002. 11 Billing )-. Flight, 1 Madd. 230 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 600. 1'^ Story's Eq. PI. § 094; Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, part 2. 13 Daniell's Ch. Pr. {5th Am. ed.) GS8. n Kiile 31. 15 Ewing V. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 134. i« See U. S. P. S. § 747 ; 1 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. 97; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 311, note 7. 1" Ewing V. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 134. 1^ National Bank r. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54. § 137.] ANSWERS WITH PLEAS. 241 the pica for argument, such a defect is waived. '^ Like all other proceedings in equity, a plea must contain no scandalous or impertinent matter. If it does, the same proceedings may be taken upon it as when scandal or impertinence is contained in an answer.-*^ Only one plea can be filed unless by special leave of the court. -^ § 137. Answers with Pleas. — Although the purpose of a plea is usually to avoid discovery, yet in certain cases it must be ac- companied by an answer. If the plea be to a part only of the bill, it must ordinarily be accompanied by an answer or demurrer to the residue.^ " In every case where the bill specially charges fraud or combination, a plea to such part must be accompanied with an answer fortifying the plea and explicitly denying the fraud and combination, and the facts on which the charge is founded." ^ Negative and anomalous pleas must usually be ac- companied by an answer giving the discovery required by the bill.'^ This subject is now of comparatively little importance, as the objections raised by such pleas can now be taken by answer* wdth more safety and convenience. The clearest statement and explanation of the rule with which the writer is acquainted, is that by Professor Langdell. " If the defence which is set up by a plea has been antici|)ated by the bill, and evidence has been charged in disproof of the defence, the defendant must answer such charges of evidence, notwithstanding his plea, for an answer to that extent will be needed in trying the truth of the plea. The defendant, therefore, incorporates an answer with his plea ; and then the answer is said to support the plea. Such an answer, it will be observed, contains discovery only, and it is called an answer in support of a plea, to distinguish it from the case where a defendant defends by answer as to part of the bill, and by plea as to part." ^ " If a bill anticipates a defence, and, without ad- mitting its truth, replies to it afhrmatively, and the defendant 1'' Goodyear 17. Toby, 6 Rlatchf. 130. C. 0. 49-3. But see Hilton v. Guvott. •-' Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2(1 Am. ed.) 686. 42 Fed. R. 249. See Di.Kon i'. Olmius, 1 Cox, Eq. 412. - Hule 32; Pintt v. Oliver, 1 McLean, -1 Wlieeler v. McCormick, 8 Biatclif. 29.5; Lewis v. Baird, 3 McLean, uO; 267 ; Lamb v. Starr, Deady, 3.51; Noyes Bailey v. Wright, 2 Bond, 181. But see v. Willard, 1 Woods, 187; Reissner r. Hilton r. Guvott, 42 P>d. R 249. Anness, 12 Off. Gaz. 842; s. c. :] Bann. » Dwigbt r. Central Vt. R. R. Co., 9 & A. 148. Fed. R. 785 ; Langdell Eq. PI. §§ 101-114. §137. 1 Rules 18, .32; Langdell's Eq. ^ Rule 39. Pi. § 99; Ferguson v. O'Harra, Pet. * Langdell s Eq. PI. § 100. VOL. I. — 16 242 PLEAS. [chap. IX. wishes to set up the defence by plea, it is obvious that he must traverse the anticipatory replication ; for otherwise, in tlie event of issue being taken upon the truth of the plea, the affirm ative replication will be admitted to be true. A negative rejoinder, therefore, must be incorporated with the affirmative plea. Such pleas have become common in modern times ; and being partly affirmative and partly negative, they are distinguished by the name of anomalous pleas. If the defendant should not be pre- pared to deny the truth of the affirmative replication, and should wish to set up an affirmative answer to it, of course both branches of his plea should be affirmative ; but no instance of such a plea has been found in tiie reported cases. If an anomalous plea be put in issue, it will be seen that each party has something to prove ; namely, the defendant his affirmative defence, and the plaintiff his affirmative replication ; and the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to discovery as to the latter. Consequently, an anom- alous plea must always be supported by an answer as to the allegations which constitute the replication, and as to all charges of evidence, if any, in support of such allegations." ^ Such an answer is usually prefaced by an averment that the defendant does not thereby waive his plea, but wholly relies thereon." § 138. Proceedings of the Plaintiff when a Plea is filed — If the allegations in a plea are sufficient and true, but the plaintiff can produce new matter which will avoid its effect, he must amend his bill, introducing by way of pretence or otherwise a statement of the matters contained in the plea, and also a sub- stantive allegation of the new matter by which he avoids it. In such a case, at common law or by the earlier chancery prac- tice, he would reply by confession and avoidance ; but si>ecial replications are no longer used in equity, their purpose being sufficiently answered by the practice of amendment.^ Other- wise, the plaintiff may either move to take the plea off the file for irregularity ,2 or set down the plea to be argued,'^ or move for a reference to a master,"* or take issue upon the plca.^ If G Langdell's Eq. El. § 101. See also SS4 ; Rules 20, G6 ; Story's Eq. PI. clis, LansideU's Eq. PI. §§ 102-114 ; Story's xix., xx. Eq. PI. §§ 6G8--(;74 ; Foley c. Hill, 3 Myl. 2 Ewin^ v. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 134. & Cr. 476. 3 Rule 33. 7 Story's Eq. PI. § 695. * Tarleton v. Barnes, 2 Keen, 632. § 138. 1 Mason v. Hartford, Provi- 5 Rule 33. dence & Fishkill K. R. Co., 10 Fed. R. § 139.] MOTION TO TAKE A PLEA OFF THE FILE. 243 he neither amends nor takes any of these proceedings before the rule-day next after that on which the same was filed, he is deemed to admit the truth and sufficiency of the plea, and his bill will be dismissed as of course, unless a judge of the court shall allow him further time for the purpose.^ More indulgence in this respect will be allowed to States than to individuals," and the plaintiff is not obliged to take notice of a plea until it has been entered in the order book or served upon hini.^ In case of a motion to take the plea off the file, it will be more prudent to obtain an extension of time wherein to reply or set down the pica, in case it should be allowed to remain.^ No one, except the defendant who files a plea, can take advantage of the failure of the plaintiff to act upon it.^*^ Where the plaintiff had taken no action upon the ])lea for eight months, it was held that the defendant might withdraw it and file an answer.^^ Otherwise, neither party is, in general, at liberty to take any step in a cause after the filing of a plea, until the plea is dis- posed of.^^ If the defendant pleads to the relief only, and pro- poses to answer the whole discovery required, the plaintiff may file exceptions to the answer.^^ This, it was formerly held, he could not do unless by special leave of the court, without thereby admitting the truth of a plea which extended to any part of the discovery.^* In an extraordinary case, a motion for an injunction might be made while a i)lea was pending ; but the more usual course is to pray the court to expedite the hearing of the plea.^'^ When a plea and a demurrer were filed at the same time, it was held that action on the plea should be post- poned till tlie hearing on the demurrer.^^ § 139. Motion to take a Plea off the File. — A motion to take a plea off the file is, it seems, the proper remedy, when the plea was filed too late,^ or has such an irregularity in form as the ^ I^ule 38. 13 Picrot i'. Stace, 2 Dickens, 496 ; Sid- ■ Rhode Island v. Massacluisetts, 14 ney v Perry, 2 Dickens, 602. Pet. 210. 14 Darnell v. Reyny, 1 Vern. 344 ; 8 Newby v. Oregon Central Ry.Co., 1 Brownell v. Curtis, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 210. Saw. 63, 65. i5 Ewing v. Bliglit, .3 Wall. Jr. 139; 9 See Rule 38. Ilumplireys v. Humphreys, 3 P. Wms. 1'' Chicago & Alton R. R Co. r. Union 303. Rolling Mill Co., 100 U. S. 702, 717. i« Cambell v. Mayer, 33 Fed. R. 795. " Oliver V. Decatur, 4 Cranch C. C. § 139. i McKewan r. Sanderson, L. R. 458. 16 Eq. 31G ; Ewing r. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 1- Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 691 ; 134, Buchanan v. Hodgson, 11 Beav. 368. 244 PLEAS. [chap. IX. omission of the requisite affidavit and certificate.'-^ In a patent case, a plea which simply denied infringement was stricken from the files as improper in form.-'^ When two pleas are filed with- out special leave, the defendant will be obliged to elect between them within ten days. Otherwise, both will be ordered to stand for an answer,* or possibly be stricken out.^ Unless, however, an objection to such a defect is si)ecifically made, it will lie considered waived.^ § 140. Argument of a Plea. — " If the plaintiff conceives a plea to be defective in point of form or substance, he may take the judgment of the court upon its sufficiency. And if tlie defendant is anxious to have the point determined, he may also take the same jirocecd- ing."^ A plea is set down for argument in the same manner as is a demurrer, and the proceedings at the argument ai-c also substan- tially the same. A plaintiff has been allowed, although the practice is irregular, to file a demurrer to a plea ; in which case the demurrer presents the question of the sufficiency of the bill as well as the plea.2 The sufficiency of the bill as to substance is also tested when the plea is set do*vn for argument ; but it has been said that the allegations therein arc not taken so strictly against the comi)lainant as in case of a demurrer.^ It has been said that when a plea is set down for argument, the com[)lainant cannot take any exception to its regularity or form.'* For the purpose of the argu- ment, all allegations in the pica which arc not inconsistent with each other are presumed to be true ;^ but if a document is referred to in the plea and annexed thereto, its language will control the description of it set forth in the body of the plea.^ Upon argument, a ])lea may be allowed, or the benefit thereof may be reserved to the hearing, or it may be ordered to stand for an answer, or it may be 2 Ewing V. Blight, 3 Wall. Jr. 1.34; 2 Beard v. Bowler, 2 Bond, 13; Good- Sharp V. Reissner, 20 Blatchf. 10, 13. year y. Toby, 6 Blatchf 130. See Stead's But see National Bank v. Insurance Co., Executors r. Course, 4 Craiich, 403, 410. 104 U. S. 54, 7G; Secor r. Singleton, 9 ^ Rumbold i'. Forteatli, 2 Jur. n. s. 686. Fed. B. 809; s. c. 3 McCrary, 230. ■* Green, J., in Kellner ;•. Mutual Life 3 Sharp V. Beissner, 20 Blatchf. 10, Ins. Co., 48 Fed. B. 023, 62(3. 13, 5 Melius r. Thompson, 1 Cliff 12-); * Reissner r. Anness, 12 Off. Gaz. i^42; Ex'rs of Gallagher ?.-. Roberts, 1 Wasli. s. C. 3 Bann.& A. 148; Noyos r. Willard, 320; Farley r. Kitson, 120 U. S. .30:!; 1 Woods, 187. Kellner v. Mutual Life Ins. Co , 43 Fed. 8 Newby v. Oregon Central By. Co., 1 B. 623, 626. Saw. 63, 67. ''' Wheeler v. McCormick, 8 Blatchf G Sharon v. Hill, 22 Fed. R. 28. 267. § 140. 1 Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, part 2. § 140.] AEGUMINT OF A PLEA. 245 overruled J " In the first case the plea is determined to be a full bar to so much of the bill as it covers, if the matter pleaded, with the averments necessary to sup])ort it, are true." ^ If, therefore, a plea is allowed upon argument the pkuntiff may take issue upon it, and have a trial of tiie truth of the facts ujton which it is sought to be sui)ported.^ " If a plea accompanied by an answer is allowed, the answer may be read at the hearing of the cause to counterprove the plea." ^ If upon the hearing any demurrer or plea be allowed, the defendant is entitled to his costs. But the court may, in its discretion, upon motion of the plaintiff, allow him to amund his bill upon such terms as it shall deem rea- sonable.^ " If, upon argument, the benefit of a plea is saved to the hearing, it is considered that so far as appears to the court it is a full defence, but that there may be matter disclosed in evidence which would avoid it, supposing the matter pleaded to be strictly true ; and the court therefore will not preclude the question." ^^ In such a case, the truth of the plea must be established, and at the hearing the plaintiff may avoid it by other matter, which he is at liberty to prove.^^ '' When a plea is ordered to stand for an answer, it is merely determined that it contains matter which may be a defence, or part of a defence ; but that it is not a full defence, or it has been informally offered by way of plea, or it has not been properly supported by answ^er, so that the truth of it is doubtful. For if a plea requires an answer to support it, upon argument of the plea the answer may be read to counterprove the plea ; and if the defendant appears not to have sufficiently supported his ])lea by his answer, the plea must be overruled, or ordered to stand for an answer only. A plea is usually ordered to stand for an answer where it states matter which may be a defence to the bill, though perhaps not proper for a plea, or informally pleaded. But if a })lea states nothing which can be a defence, it is merely over- ruled. If a plea is ordered to stand for an answer, it is allowed to be a sufficient answer to so much of the bill as it covers, unless by the bill liberty is given to except. But that liberty may be qualified, so as to protect the defendant from any par- 7 Mitford PI. ch. 2. § 2, part 2; See R. i" Mitfonl's PI. ch. 2. § 2, part 2. I V. Mass., 14 Pet. 21o!^ 2r,7--2r>9. u Story's Eq. PI. § 698; Kliode Island 8 Mitford's PI. cli. 2, § 2, part 2. r. Massachusetts, 14* Pet. 210, 257-259. ^ Rule 35. 246 PLEAS. [chap. IX. ticular discovery which we ought not to be compelled to make : and if a plea is accompanied by an answer, and is ordered to stand for an answer without liberty to except, the plaintiff may yet except to the answer as insufticient to the parts of the bill not covered by the plea." ^^ Where one defense is made by the plea and another by an answer filed with it, the plea may be ordered to stand for an answer.^^ A plea formerly might have been overruled for three reasons ; because it was bad, as defective in foi'm, or insufficient in point of law ; because, though good as to a part of the bill, it was filed to more than it could cover ; and because the defendant anwered some or all of the matters covered by it.^"* Now, however, a pure plea, though filed to the whole bill, may be sustained as to a part only.^^ But an answer to the whole bill will over- rule a plea in bar filed by the answering defendant. ^"^ " The rule that no plea is to be held bad only because the answer may extend to some part of the same matter as may be covered by the plea, is not a])plicaljle where the answer extends to the whole of the matter covered by the plea." ^" If upon the hear- ing any plea is overruled, the plaintiff is entitled to his costs in the cause up to that period, unless the court is satisfied that the defendant has good ground, in point of law or fact, to interpose the same, and it was not interposed vexatiously or for delay. And upon the o^■erruling of any plea, the defendant is assigned to answer the bill, or so much thereof as is covered by the plea, the next succeeding rule-day, or at such other period as, con- sistently with justice and the rights of the defendant, the same can in the judgment of the court be reasonably done ; in default whereof, the bill is taken against him pro confesso, and the matter thereof proceeded in and decreed accordingly.^^ Under this rule it has been held that permission to answer cannot be 12 Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, part 2. 505. But see Milligan v. IMilledge, 3 1=^ Lewis V. Baird, o McLean, 56, 62. Crancli, 220. 14 Wijrram on Discovery (Isted.), 172- i" Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 121 181 ; Story's Eq. PI. §§ 688, G93 ; Tliring U. S. 105, 115; Dakin v. Union Pacific V. Edgar, 2 Sim. & S. 274; Salkeld v. By. Co., 5 Fed. R. 665; Crescent City Science, 2 Vcs. Sen. 107 ; Cliamberlain Live Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union Live r. Agar, 2 V. & B. 250 ; Stearns r. Page, Stock Co., 12 Fed. R. 225. But see 1 Story, 204 ; Ferguson v. O'llarra, Pet. Hayes v. Dayton, 8 Fed. R. 702, 706. C. C. 49.1 " Grant r. Piioenix Life In3. Co., 121 15 Rules 86. .37; Wytlie v. Pahiier, .3 U. S. 105, 115. Saw. 412 ; Kirkpatrick v. Wliite, 4 Wash. 18 Rule 36. § 142.] HEAPJNG UPON PLEAS. 247 denied the defendant.^^ Upon the overruling of a plea, permis- sion to amend it may he given ; ^o or a second plea upon a different ground may he interposed, hut only hy leave of the court.^^ If put in without leave, such a new plea will, on motion, he taken off the file.^ It seems that after his plea is overruled, the defendant may demur, at least to a part of the hill, hy leave of the court.'^-^ § 141. Motion for a Reference of a Plea. — There are SOme pleas upon \vhich no issue is taken. Such were pleas of outlawry and excommunication, which were always pleaded sub sic/illo, that is, under the seal of the court which had pronounced the sentence. The truth of the fact pleaded in them could, therefore, be ascer- tained from the form of pleading. The plaintifi' was, however, at liberty to show that the plea was defective in form, or that it did not apply to the particular case ; and for these purposes he might have the plea argued.^ " Pleas of a former decree, or of another suit depending, are generally in the same predicament, being referred to a master to inquire into the fact. If in any of these cases, the master reports the fact true, the bill stands instantly dismissed, uuless the court otherwise orders. But the plaintiff may except to the master's report, and bring on the matter to be argued before the court ; and if he conceives the plea to be defective, in point of form or otherwise, independent of the mere truth of the fact pleaded, he may set down the plea to be argued as in the case of pleas in general." ^ Where it is manifest upon the face of the plea that the two suits are not alike, no reference will be ordered.^ By the English practice, if the plaintiff set down a plea for argument, he admitted its truth; and if good in form it was sustained.* § 142. Hearing upon Pleas, — If the complainant deems a plea sufficient in form, or it has been so held by the court, he can 19 Wooster v. Blake, 7 Fed. R. 816. bel, 1 Ves. Sen. 240 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. -^ Sanders v. King, 6 Madd. 61 ; Loving (5tli Am. ed.) 702. V. Fairchild, 1 McLean, 333 ; U. S. R. S. § 141. i Mitford's Vl ch. 2, § 2, part 2. § 954. 2 Mitford's VI cli. 2. § 2, part 2. See -1 McKewan v. Sanderson, L. R. 16 also Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Emma Eq. 316 ; Cliadwick v. Broadwood, 3 Silver Mining Company of New York, Beav. 316; Lamb 2-. Starr, Dendy, 350; 1 Fed. R. 39; Jones v. Segueira, 1 Wiieeler i-. McCormick, 8 Blatchford, Phillips, 82; Story's Eq. PI. §§ 700, 267. 743, 744. ^^ McKewan v. Sanderson, L. R. 10 ^ Loring r. Marsh, 2 Cliff. .311. Eq. 316. * Tarleton v. Barnes, 2 Keen, 632. 23 The East India Company v. Camp- See Story's Eq. PI. §§ 743, 744. 248 PLEAS. [chap. IX. still test its truth by taking issue upon it.^ He does this by filing the general replication.^ The proceedings in taking testi- mony, and bringing the cause to a hearing, are substantially the same as after an issue raised upon an answer.^ At the hearing, the defendant has the right to open and close the argument, and the burden of proof rests upon him.'* If the })lea be then found false, the plaintiff may, if he so choose, have the bill taken pro eonfesso/' " Having put the plaintiff to the trouble and delay of an issue, the defendant cannot, after it has been found against him, claim the right to file an answer, although, if the complain- ant desires a discovery, which the plea is sought to avoid, he may undoubtedly insist upon it." '^ In an extraordinary case, how- ever, the court might still allow the defendant to answer.'^ If the plea were found true, according to the former practice the plea was held a complete defense to so much of the bill as it was intended to apply to ; and if filed to the whole bill, the bill would be dismissed as of course, irrespective of the sufficiency of the plea.^ Now, however, the equity rules provide that " if, upon an issue, the facts stated in the plea be determined for the defendant, they shall avail him as far as in law and equity they ought to avail him." ^ Under this rule, it has been held that after a replication has been filed and testimony taken, the court may, without examining the testimony, overrule the jilea for insuffi- ciency and allow the defendant to answer.^^ If, however, the trutli of a plea upon which issue has been joined is not estab- § 142. 1 Mitfnrd's PI. ch. 2, § 2, Taney, in Poultney r. City of La Fayette, part 2 ; Khode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 472, 474. 14 Pet. 210 257. ^ Hughes v. Blake, 6 Wheat. 453; 2 Hughes !'. Blake, 6 Wheat. 453. s. c. 1 Mason, 515; Rliode Island v. 3 Reissner v. Anness, 13 Off. Gaz. 7 ; Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 210, 257 ; Myers Lilienthal v. Washburn, 8 Fed. R. 707 ; r. Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 22 ; Theberath i: Hughes r. Blake, 6 Wheat. 453, 472; Rubber & Celluloid Harness Trimming Farlev v. Kittson, 120 IT. S. 303. Co., 5 Bann. & A. 584 ; Cottle r. 4 Stead's Executors v. Course, 4 Krcmentz. 25 Fed. R. 494 ; Birdseye v. rrnnch, 403, 413; Gernon v. Boecaline, Heilner. 20 Fed. R. 147; Bean v. Clark, 2 Wa.^ii. 109; Farley v. Kittson, 120 30 Fed. R. 225. V S. .303; Lilienthal v. Washburn. 8 9 i{„ip :;;^. But see Myers »•. Dorr, 13 Fed. R. 707 ; Sharon v. Hill, 22 Fed. Blatchf. 22. 11 28. ^^ Mattl\ews v. Lalance & G. Manuf. 5 Kennedy v. Creswell. 101 U. S. 641, Co., 2 Fed. R. 232. But see Myers v. 644; Mitford's PI. ch. 2. § 2, part 2. Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 22 ; Theberatli >■. Ruh- 6 Mr. Justice Bradley in Kennedy v. her & Celluloid Harness Trimminti Co., Creswell, 101 U. S. 041, 644. 5 Bann. & A. 584 ; Cottle v. Krementz, T In the language of Chief Justice 25 Fed. R. 494. § 143.] GENERAL REMARKS UPON PLEAS. 249 lished, the bill cannot before answer be dismissed for want of equity. ^1 Leave to withdraw the replication and amend or to set down the plea for argument may under special circumstances he obtained.^2 By replying to a plea, objections to its form or for a failure to support it by answer are waived. ^^ § 143. General Remarks upon Pleas. — In conclusion, it may be remarked that the cautious practitioner will act wisely in eschew- ing the use of pleas, unless he desires to plead matter in abate- ment, or in extraordinary cases. For it is as true now as in the time of Beames, that the subject of pleas in equity is one " con- cerning which so much still remains to be elucidated, that it may be said of them, 77iaxi77ia j^i^rs eoi'um quae scimus est minima eoi'um quae igyioraynus.^^ ^ 11 Farley v. KiUson, 120 U. S. 303. " Stead's Executors v. Course, 4 1- Cottle I'. Krenientz, 25 Fed. R. 404; Cranch, 403; Farley v. Kittson, 120 U. S. Hughes V. Blake, 6 Wheat. 453, 473: 303. Rules 29 and 35. § 143. i Beames on Pleas, 61. 250 ANSWEES AND DISCLAIMERS. [CHAP. X. CHAPTER X. ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. § 144. Pleading Defenses in an Answer. — An answer in equity serves two purposes, the setting up of the defenses to the suit, and discovery. It cannot ordinarily pray relief against the complain- ant, and never against a co-defendant.^ If a defendant desires such relief he must ordinarily file a cross-bill.^ The defendant is entitled in all cases by answer to insist upon all matters of defense (not being matters of abatement, or to the character of the parties, or matters of form), in bar of or to the merits of the bill, of which he may be entitled to avail himself by a plea in bar.^ Matters in abatement, such as lis pendens, which do not affect the jurisdic- tion, cannot be set up by answer.^ An answer may contain de- fenses which have been previously raised by plea or demurrer and overruled .5 Facts that have occurred since the filing of the bill may be pleaded in an answer.^ The defenses must not be incon- sistent with each other.^ If so, it seems, that both will be disre- garded,^ unless the inconsistent allegations are trifling, when they may be treated as surplusage.^ It is not considered inconsistent for a defendant l)oth to deny the complainant's title and to allege that he has waived a right which he claims under it.^'^ The de- fense of a license from the plaintiff to commit the acts complained of is, in the absence of special covenants or recitals in the license, not inconsistent with other defenses impugning the validity of § 144. 1 Ford y. Douglas, 5 How. 143; Cli. C. 305; Turner v. Robinson, 1 Sim. Hubbard v. Turner, 2 McLean, 519 ; & S. 3. Morgans. Tipton, 3 McLean, 339 ; Cliapin ■? Chapman r. School District No. 1, V. Walker, 6 Fed. K. 794; s. c. 2 Me- Deady, 108, 115; .Jesus College r. Gibbs, Crary, 175. 1 Y. '&, C. 145, 147 ; Leech v. Bailey, 6 2 See cliapter XIII., Cross-Bills. Price, 504; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. 3 Rule 39. ed.) 714. * Pierce v. Feagans, 39 Fed. R. 587 ; ^ Jesus College v. Gibbs, 1 Y. & C jr(/;)w, § 125. 145 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 714. 6 Crawford v. The William Penn, 3 ^ Jenkinson v. Royston, 5 Price, 496, Wash. 484 ; Burnley v. Town of Jeffer- 510; Daniell's Cli. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 714. sonville, 3 McLean, 336; Storms v. Kan- i" Carte v. Ball, 3 Atk. 490, 499 ; Com- sas Pacific Ry. Co., 5 Dill. 480; Rhode stock v. Herron, 45 Fed. R. 600; Daniell's Island V. Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 210. Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 714. s Earl of Leicester v. Perry, 1 Brown § 145.] DEFENSES PECULIAR TO PATENT CASES. 251 complainant's patent.^^ The defenses must be pleaded witli suffi- cient certainty ; ^^ although it seems that the same degree of cer- tainty is not required in an answer as in a bill,^^ or a plea.^* It has been said that " the respondent cannot set up as a defense that if comi)lainant's patent be so construed as to cover the ma- chine made and sold by him, then the machine embraced in said patent was known and used prior to the invention thereof by the patentee." ^^ An averment that a patent " was obtained upon false and fraudulent representations by the plaintiffs, or some of them, made to the commissioner of patents, and is wholly void at law," is also too uncertain to be sufficient to constitute a defense. ^^ The general rule is that no affirmative defense can be proved un- less it has been set u}) in the answer.^' In a suit to restrain the infringement of a patent, a license is an affirmative defense. ^^ It has been said that, if a defendant states in his answer certain facts as evidence of a particular case, which he represents to be the consequence of those facts, and upon which he rests his defense, he is not permitted afterwards to make use of the same facts, for the purpose of establishing a different defense from that to which, by his answer, he has drawn the plaintiff's attention. ^'^ Thus it has been said that where fraud is set up in the answer " the party making the charge, if it is denied in a proper pleading, will be confined to that issue." ^'^ § 145. Defenses peculiar to Patent Cases. — The Revised Statutes provide that the defendant to a suit in equity for relief against an alleged infringement of a patent may set up in his answer any one or more of the following defenses, and give notice therein that he will offer proof of the same : " First, that for the purpose of deceiving the public the descri[)tion and specification filed by the patentee in the Patent Office was made to contain less than the whole truth relative to his invention or discovery, or more than is necessary to produce the desired effect ; or, second, that he had 11 National Manuf. Co. v. Meyers, 7 (S. C.) Eq. 509, 520; Burnham v. Dai- Fed. R. 355. ling, 3 C. E. Green (18 N. J. Eq.), 132 ; 12 Graham v. Mason, 4 Cliff. 88; Arm- Daniell's Cli. Pr. (.5th Am.ed.) 712 ; Black strong V. Lear, 8 Pet. 52. v. Thorne, 10 Blatchf. 66, 84 ; Sperry v. i» Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 714. Erie My. Co., Blatchf. 425. 1* Maury v. Mason, 8 Porter (Ala.), 213, '» Watson v. Smith. 7 Fed. K. .350. 228. 1" Lanedell's Eq. PI. § 79; Bennett v. 15 Graham v. Mason, 4 Cliff. 88. Neale. Wightwick, -324. 1'' Clark V. Scott, 5 Fisher, 245. -^ French ('. Shoemaker, 14 Wall. 314, 1" Stanley v. Robinson, 1 Russ. & M. 335. See § 70. 527 ; Cummings v. Coleman, 7 Rich. 252 ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMEKS. [CHAP. X. surreptitiously or unjustly obtained the patent for that which was in fact invented by another, who was using reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting the same ; or, third, that it had been patent- ed or described in some printed publication })rior to his supposed invention or discovery thereof ; or, fourth, that he was nut the origi- nator and first inventor or discoverer of any material and substantial part of the thing patented ; or, fifth, that it had been in public nse or on sale in this country for more than two years before his appli- cation for a patent, or had been abandoned to the public. And in notices as to proof of previous invention, knowledge, or use of the thing patented, the defendant shall state the names of patentees and the dates of their patents, and when granted, and the names and residences of the persons alleged to have invented, or to have had the prior knowledge of the thing patented, and where and by whom it had been used ; and if any one or more of the special matters al- leged shall be found for the defendant, a decree shall be entered in his favor with costs." ^ Such a notice need not be under oath, and a consent to an order that the answer be considered as amended by the insertion of such defense and notice is a waiver of any further oath.2 Under this statute, it has been held that no evidence can be admitted in support of any of these defenses, unless it has been properly pleaded and the requisite notice has been given to the com- plainant ;^ but that the respondent, after pleading these defenses or some of them, with the names of such of the persons therein referred to as he then knows, may also plead a general allegation, "that the same had been previously invented and known and used by many other persons, whose names are unknown to the respondent, which, when known, the respondent prays leave to insert and set forth in the answer.""* Upon the subsequent discovery of any such persons, testimony concerning them may be taken, and leave obtained from the court to insert their names in the answer by amendment nunc •pro tunc. An order to this effect may be obtained before or after the testimony has been taken.* It seems that when a previous patent has not been referred to in an answer, such patent may still be § 145. 1 U. S. R. S. § 4920. 54 ; Salam.ander Co. r. Haven, .3 Dill. 131 ; 2 Campbell v. Mayor uf N. Y., 45 Fed. Jennings v. Pierce, 15 Blatchf. 42; Will- R. 243. liams v. Boston & A. R. K. Co., 17 Blatclif. ^ Teese I'. Huntington, 2.J How. 2 ; Aga- 21; Decker i\ Grote, 10 Biatclif. o31. warn Co. V. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583; Bianchard < Koemer r. Simon, Uo U. S. 214, 220 ; V. Putnam, 8 Wall. 420 ; Bates r. Coe, 08 Brown v. Hall, G Blatchf. 405. U. S. 31 ; Pitts V. Edmonds, 2 Pislier, 52, § 145.] DEFENSES PECULIAR TO PATENT CASES. 253 proved, as evidence of a prior use of the invention, which has heen properly pleaded,^ to show the state of the art at the date of the complainant's alleged invention.^ It is unsettled whether the de- fense of insufficient description can be set up without alleging an intent to deceive the public." It has been said concerning the defense of want of novelty : " Where the thing patented is an entirety, consisting of a separate device or of a single combina- tion of old elements incapable of division or separate use, the respondent cannot make good the defense in question by proving that a part of the entire invention is found in one prior patent, printed publication, or machine, and another part in another, and so on indefinitely, and from the whole or any given number expect the court to determine the issue of novelty adversely to the complainant." ^ " Defenses of the kind, if the thing patented is an entirety, incapable of division or of separate use, must be addressed to the invention, and not to a part of it, or to one or more claims of the patent, if less than the entire invention. More than one patent ma}' be included in one suit, and more than one invention may be secured in the same patent ; in which cases the several defences may be made to each patent in the suit, and to each invention, to which the charge of infringement relates." ^ It has been said that a defense charging that the origi- nal patentee " fraudulently and surreptitiously obtained the patent for that which he well knew was invented by another, unaccompanied by the further allegation that the alleged first inventor was at the time using reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting the invention, is not sufficient to defeat the patent, and constitutes no defense to the charge of infringe- ment." ^^ The question whether a defendant has an interest in the patent which is the foundation of the bill, and whether he has a license to use such patent, cannot be considered unless specifically raised by plea or answer.^^ 5 Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 1 92. » Mr. Justice Clifford in Parks v. Booth, But see Parks v. Bootli, 102 U. S. 9(3, 105. 102 U. S. 96, 104 ; citing Bates v. Coe, 98 « American Saddle Co. r. Un^g, 1 U. S. 31. Holmes, 133; s. c. Fisiier, 67; Steven- ^ Mr. Justice Clifford in Parks i-. Booth, son V. Magowan, 31 Fed. K 824. 102 U. S. 96, 104, 105. ■? Loom Co. V. Higgins, 105 U. S. 580, i' Mr. Justice Clifford in Agawam Co 588, 589; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218; v. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583, 597. Whitiemore v. Cutter, 1 Gall. 429; Low- " Puetz v. Brausford, 31 Fed. R. 458. ell V. Lewis, 1 Mason, 182 ; Gray v. James, Pet. C. C. 394. 254 ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. [CHAP, X. § 146. Admissions and Denials independent of Discovery. — Ac- cording to Professor Ltingdell, " If the defendant has no affirma- tive defense, the answer need contain nothing but discovery, unless the defendant proposes to offer a line of evidence in dis- proof of the bill which may take the plaintiff by surprise ; in which case it will be prudent to indicate the nature of such evi- dence in the answer. This should be done also whenever it is at all doubtful whether the evidence establishes an affirmative defence or is in denial of the bill." ^ Although the weight of authority is in support of the rule that a failure to deny an alle- gation in the bill does not operate as an admission of its trutli, provided some answer is made,^ it is more prudent and is cus- tomary, even when an answer under oath is waived, for the defendant to deny or admit every allegation in the bill ; and out of abundant caution a general traverse denying the unlawful combination charged in the bill, and all other matters therein contained, is still often inserted after the specific denials.^ The statement that the respondent believes an allegation to be true is equivalent to an admission;'* but the statement that he has no knowledge upon the subject seems to be equivalent to a denial,^ although, if full discovery be required, it is subject to exception for insufficiency.^ The denial of a conclusion of law is of no effect.^ Thus, when the bill alleged that the defendant executed and delivered a deed, a denial by the defendant of its delivery, accompanied by an admission that he made the deed and placed it upon record, is equivalent to an admission of its deliver}-.^ There is no need of a denial of the common confederacy clause unless accompanied by special charges of combination,^ When defendants avoided answering specific interrogatories concerning a charged infringement, but merely denied the use of any ma- § 146. 1 Langdcll's Eq. PI. § 79. 6 Kittredge v. Claremont Bank, 1 W. 2 Young V. Grundy, G Crancli, 51 ; & M. 244. Brown (J. Pierce, 7 Wall 205, 211; Brooks ''Adams v. Adams, 21 Wall. 185; D.Byam,l Story, 290,302; Rule 61. But Union Mutual Ins. Co. v. Commercial see Commercial Mutual Marine Ins. Co. Mutual Marine Ins. Co., 2 Curt. 524 ; V. Union Mutual Ins. Co., 19 How. .318, s. c. on appeal, as Commercial Mutual 323 ; Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. Marine Ins. Co. r. Union Mutual Ins. 58.3, GOO ; Webb v. Powers, 2 W. & M. Co. 19 How. 318, 319. 497, 510 ; Meyers v. Busby, -32 Fed. R. G70. *" Adams v. Adams, 21 Wall. 185. 3 See Story's Eq. PI. § 870. ^ Story's Eq, PI. §§ 30 with note, and * Brooks V. Byam, 1 Story, 296, 311. 856 ; Rule 32. 5 Brown v. Pierce, 7 Wall. 205,212; Brooks V. Byam, 1 Story, 296. § 147.] LMPEKTINENCE AND SCANDAL. 255 cTiinery " in violation and infringement of any rights of the plain- tiff, or that they are using, or have made, or sold, or used any machines not protected or covered by the proviso in the act of Congress," it seems that they thereby presumptively admit in- fringement.i^ An admission in an answer that the defendants had made locks of the kind described in the patent sued upon, " is satisfied, by assuming that the smallest number of locks were made consistent with the use of that word in the plural, and with the use by the defendants of any part of the patent which is valid." ^^ An admission that a deed bears a certain date does not estop the respondent from showing that it was fraudulently antedated. ^^ § 147. Impertinence and Scandal. — An answer should contain no impertinence or scandal.^ What constitute scandal and imper- tinence has been explained in the chapter on Bills.- Usually nothing is considered scandalous which is relevant or responsive to the allegations of the bill.^ But in an English case brought by a clergyman, wiiere the defendant included in a schedule of accounts a charge for money paid by him for an order of filiation of a bastard made upon the plaintiff, the court held the item, although relevant, a proper subject of exception, because the mode of bringing it forward was intended to drive the plaintiff out of his parish.* It may be doubted whether so much respect for the cloth would be shown by an American court. An allegation that a previous decree was made " without a full reading of the proofs in the cause, or a careful consideration of the briefs of the counsel filed therein," and not " after full con- sideration," is not scandalous ; for it contains no imputation upon the court.^ "Exceptions for impertinence are only allowed when it is apparent that the matter excepted to is not material or relevant, or is stated with needless prolixity. If it may be mate- rial, the exception will not be allowed, as that would leave the defendant without remedy, but the allegations excepted to will w Agawam Co. v. Jordan, 7 Wall. 583, 2 See § 68. GOO. 3 Peck V. Peck, Mosely, 45; "Woods 11 Mr. Justice Miller in Jones u. More- v. Morrell, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 103, 106; head, 1 Wall. 1-55, 165. But compare Fisher v. Owen, L. R. 8 Ch. D. 645, 653 ; Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Corning, 6 Story's Eq. PI. § 862. Blatchf . 328, 336, 337. ■* Attorney-General v. Hewit, in Chanc. 12 Holbrook v. Worcester Bank, 2 Curt. July, 1801 ; cited in Cooper's Eq. PI. 319; 244. St Jry's Eq. PI. § 862. § 147. 1 Story's Eq. PI. §§ 861-863 ; ^ Miller v. Buchanan, 5 Fed. R. 366. Langdon r. Goddard, 3 Story, 13. 256 ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. [CHAP. X. be allowed to remain in the answer, and the effect thereof, if found to be true, determined on the final hearing."*^ It has been held that a short sentence inserted out of abundant caution will not be expunged as impertinent/ Neitlier is new matter not responsive to the bill, setting up an insufficient defense, the I)roper subject of an exception for impertinence ; ^ although such matter has been expunged by motion.^ A demurrer to an answer is not permitted^*' Exceptions to answers for scandal and imper- tinence are taken and disposed of in substantially the same man- ner as exceptions to bills for the same reasons.^^ Exceptions for impertinence should be filed and disposed of before exceptions for insufficiency are filed. ^^ § 148. Discovery. — Discovery, or answer under oath, which was formerly one of the principal grounds of equitable juris- diction, is now of little practical importance. For the statutes of the United States,^ as well as those of all of the individual members of the American Union with which the writer has any acquaintance, allow the full benefits of discovery to be ob- tained by the oral examination of any party or person otherwise interested in the cause on trial. Moreover, a recent amendment to the equity rules provides that, " if the complainant, in his bill, shall waive an answer under oath, or shall only require an answer under oath with regard to certain specified interroga- tories, the answer of the defendant, though under oath, except such part thereof as shall be directly responsive to such inter- rogatories, shall not be evidence in his favor, unless the cause be set down for hearing on bill and answer only ; but may never- theless be used as an affidavit, wath the same effect as heretofore upon a motion to grant or dissolve an injunction, or on any other incidental motion in the cause ; but this shall not prevent a defendant from becoming a witness in his own behalf under section 3 of the act of Congress of July 2, 1864." 2 (U. S. R. S. " Deady, J., in Chapman i-. School ^'^ Crouch v. Kerr, "8 Fed. R. 540. District No. 1, Deady, 108, 110. n See Rules 20 and 27 ; Hood v. In- ' Desplaces v. Goris, 1 Edward's Ch. man, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 4.37 ; Langdon v. (N. Y.) 350. Goddard, .3 Story. 13 ; § 68. ** Adams v. Bridg. Iron Co., 6 Fed. R. -'- Patriotic Bank »•. Bank of Washing- 179; Bower Barff Rustless Iron Co. v. ton, 5 Cranch C. C. 602. Wells Rustless Iron Co., 43 Fed. R. 391. § 148. i U. S. R. S. § 858. But see Ford i". Douglas, 5 How. 143, 165. 2 Amendment of December, 1871, to ^ Armstrong r. Chem. Nat. Bank, 37 Rule 41. See Woodruff v. Dubuque & S. Fed. R. 466; Adams v. Bridg. Iron Co., 6 C. R. R. Co., 30 Fed. R. 91. Fed. R. 179 ; Gilchrist v. Helena, &c. R. Co., 47 Fed. R. 593. § 1-13.] . DISCOVERY. 257 Sec. 858.) Consequently, an answer under oath is now usually waived by the coni[)lainant."^ AViien no such waiver is made, liowever, the old rule still prevails ; and the sworn statement by the defendant in direct response to an allegation in the bill is deemed to be true, unless contradicted by two witnesses, or a single witness and corroborating circumstances.* Irresponsive allegations are not evidence.^ Neither are allegations upon information and belief,*^ nor allegations sworn to positively, con- cerning facts of which it is evident that the respondent can have no personal knowledge." The admissions of the defendant are bindhig upon him ; and unless he can obtain leave to amend his answers by withdrawing them, he cannot disprove them at the hearing.^ When discovery is required, the defendant must answer every allegation in the bill which is material to the plain- tiff's case, and an answer admitting which would not expose him to a penalty, forfeiture, or criminal prosecution, or expose a privileged communication.^ ''It is not a sufficient foundation of exception that a fact charged in a bill is not answered, unless the fact is material and might contribute to support the equity of the plaintiff's case, and induce the court to give the relief sought by the bill.'' ^^ The former practice required that if a defendant submitted to answer, he must in general answer fully ; and that he could usually protect himself from a full discovery only by a plea or demurrer to the objectionable part of the bill.^i Now, however, the Equity Rules provide that " the rule that if a de- fendant submits to answer he shall answer fully to all the matters of the bill, shall no longer a[)ply in cases where he might by plea protect himself from such answer and discover3\ And the defendant shall be entitled in all cases by answer to insist upon all matters of defense (not being matters of abate- 3 See Slcssinger v. Buckingham, 17 9 Cranch, 153, IGl ; Allen v. O'Donald, Fed. R. 454, 450. 28 P'eil. R. 17. * Clark's Executors r. Van Rienisdyk, * Gold & Silver Ore Separating Co. v. 9 Cranch, 153, 160 ; Union Bank of U. S. Disintegrating Ore Co., G Blatchf. Georgetown i;. Geary, 5 Pet. 99, 110; 307,310. See Troy Iron & Nail Factory Seitz V. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580, 582 ; v. Corning, Blatchf. 328, 336. Vigel V. IIopp, 104 U. S. 441 ; Slessinger » Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39. V. Buckingham, 17 Fed. R. 454, 456. i" Ciiief Justice Taney in Hardeman ^ Sargent v. Larned, 2 Curt. 340 ; v. Harris, 7 How. 726. Seitz r. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580. i' Hare on Discovery, pp. 247, 296,297 ; 6 Berry v. Sawyer. 19 Fed. R. 286; Story's Eq. PI. §§ 605, 606, 009, 846; Allen V. O'Donald, 28 Fed. R. 17. Mazarredo v. Maitland, 3 Madd. (iO, 72 ; ■^ Clark's Executors v. Van Riemsdyk, c. Harrison, 4 Madd. 252. vou. I. — 17 25S ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. [CHAP. X. nient, or to the character of the parties, or matters of form) in bar of or to the merits of the bill, of which he may be entitled to avail himself by a plea in bar ; and in such answer he shall not be compellable to answer any other matters than he would be compellable to answer and discover upon filing a plea in bar and an answer in support of such plea, touching the matters set forth in the bill, to avoid or repel the bar or defense. Thus, for ex- ample, a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice, may set up that defense by way of answer instead of plea, and shall be entitled to the same protection, and shall not be compellable to make any further answer or discovery of his title than he would be in any answer in support of such plea." ^ " A defendant shall be at liberty, by answer, to decline answering any interrogatory, or part of an interrogatory, from answering which he might have protected himself by demurrer ; and he shall be at liberty so to decline, notwithstanding he shall answer other parts of the bill from which he might have pro- tected himself by demurrer." ^^ If the plaintiff is- the only person who can enforce a penalty or forfeiture, and he waives it in his bill, the defendant may be compelled to answer disclosing his liability thereto.'*^ There has been much controversy as to whether the defendant to a bill demanding an account can be obliged to give discovery as to the account when he answers denying the equity of the bill and the complainant's right to an account.^^ The better opinion seems to be that he can. Such is the doctrine of Professor Langdell,^^ and of the last English case upon the subject.^" No discovery can be required of an infant,^^ or other person under a disability ; ^^ nor, it seems, of a corporation,^'^ or a public officer when sued in his official ca- pacity .'^^ But it has been held that, although a corporation can- 1- Rule 39. 13 Mickletliwaitcr. Atkinson,! Coll ITo. 1-^ Rule 44. -" Union Bank of Georgetown r. Geary, 1* Lord Uxbriflge v. Staveland, 1 Ves. 5 Pet. 99, 110 ; Wallace v. Wallace, Sen. 5G; Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. Halst. (N. J.) Dig. 17.']; Smith v. St. 39. Louis Mutual Life Ins. Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. 15 The authorities have been well col- 599 ; Burpee v. First National Bank, 5 lected by Chancellor Cooper in French v. Biss. 405. But see Kittredge v. Clare- Rainey, 2 Tenn. Ch. G40. mont Bank, .3 Story, 590 ; s. c. 1 W. & M. i« LangdeU's Eq. PI. §§ 70-73. 245. 1' Elmer v. Creasy, L. R. 9 Ch. 69, 71. -i Davison r. Attorney-General, 5 Price, 18 Copeland v. Wheeler, 4 Brown Ch. .398, note; Attorney-General r. Lambirth, C. 2.56; Lucas v. Lucas, 13 Ves. 274; 5 Price, .380, 398 ;'u. S. i-. McLaughlin, Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 214. 24 Fed. R. 823. § 148.] DISCOVEKY. 259 not be compelled to answer under oath, it can be compelled to answer, and to answer fuiiy.^^ The defendant must answer spe- ciiically and categoricall}', distinguishing between matters w ithin his personal knowledge and those witiiin his information and be- lief.-^ If he asserts ignorance as to any matter, he must aver that he is ignorant both of his own knowledge and as to information and belief.^^ He cannot deny that he has no knowledge as to a subject wdiich the bill charges as a personal transaction in which he took part.^^ This last rule, it has been said, applies to officers of corporations.^*" If new officers have succeeded those in oliice at the time when the matters charged aie said to have occurred, it is their duty, when called upon for discovery, to ascertain the facts by searching the records of the cor[)oration and by inquiry of their predecessors.^'' It has been said that " a corporate answer should he made by the principal officer of the corporation, who should be able to admit or deny the facts charged and inter- rogated about, or to state want of knowdedge clearly and truly as a reason for not doing it."-'' It is insufficient to deny any "■ recollection or belief as to a transaction in which the defendant is said to have been personally engaged." ^^ " The defendant in his answer must state the facts as the}^ then are." '^*^ But where a bill charged that the defendant would in future infringe a patent as he was charged to have done before, it was held insufficient for him to merely deny that he had done so since the tiial of an action at law which established the complainant's rights.^' He had also to answer as to his future intentions. ^2 In drawing such an answei', it is usual and often advantageous to interweave the discovery with a narrative of tlie transactions from the defend- ant's point of view in a continuous statement, so that it will be hard for the plaintiff to read as evidence the defendant's admis- " Hale V. Continental Life Insurance -' Kittredge v. Claremont Bank, 1 W. Company, 16 Fed. R. 718 ; s. c. '20 Fed. & M. 244. R 344. -'^ Wheeler, J., in Hale v. Continental -^ Brooks V. Byam, 1 Story, 296; Kit- Life Insurance Co., IG Fed. R. 718, 71'.!. tredjre v. Claremont Bank, 3 Story, .5".iG; -'•' Taylor v. Luther, 2 Sumner, 228. s. c. 1 VV. & M. 244. " ^^ Sir Thomas Plumer, V. C, in Kniglit •-■4 Brooks r. Byam, 1 Story, 20G ; Kit- r. Matthews, 1 Madd. 5(')G. trcdger. Claremont Bank, 1 W. & M. 244. -^^ Poppenhusen v. N. Y. Gutta-Percha -'> Burpee v. First National Bank, 5 Comb Co., 4 Blatchf. 185 ; s. c. 2 Fisher, Biss, 405. 74. -" Burpee r. First National Bank, 5 *- Poppenhusen r. N. Y. Gutta-Perclia Biss. 405 ; Kittredge f. Claremont Bank, Comb Co., 4 Blatchf. 185 ; s. c. 2 Fisher, 1 \V. & M. 244. 74. 260 ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. [CHAP. X. sions without also reading the lattei's own explanation and account of the controversy. §149. Proceedings to compel Answ.er. — The defendant nuisfc file in tlie clerk's office on the rule-day next succeeding that of entering his appearance, an tmswer to so much of the bill as he does not cover by a plea or demurrer. In default thereof, unless his time to answer has been enlarged, for cause shown by a judge of the court, upon motion for that purpose, the bill may be taken against him pro confesso.^ When a plea or demurrer is overruled, with leave to the defendant to answer within a certain time, and he fails so to do, the bill may tlien also be taken jjro confesso? Otherwise the plaintiff, if he requires any discovery or answer to enable him to obtain a proper decree, is entitled to pro- cess of attachment against the defendant to compel an answer, and the defendant, when arrested upon such process, is not dis- charged therefrom unless upon filing his answer, or otherwise complying with such order as the court or judge thereof may direct, as to pleading to or fully answering the bill, within a period to be fixed by the court or judge, and undertaking to speed the cause.^ If the attachment is returned non est inventus, a commission of rebellion will issue.* If this proves insufficient, it will be followed by a writ of sequestration.^ § 150. Frame of Answer.— An answer should be entitled in the cause, so as to agree with the names of the parties as they appear in the l)ill at the time the answer is filed. ^ It seems that the defendant may not correct or alter the names of the parties as they appear in the bill, and that if there is a mistake he must correct it in the part following the title of the cause ; thus, " The answer of the defendants, the Mayor, Aldermen, and commonalty in the bill called the Mayor, Aldermen, and citizens of the city of New York. "2 The answer should begin substantially thus: " The answ^er of Joljn Aber, one of the above-named defendants, to the bill of complaint of the above-named plaintiff; " if the bill has been amended after answer, "to the amended bill of com- § 149. 1 Rule 18. See Cliapter VI. 6 Smith's Cli. Pr (2cl ed. A. D. 1837) - Suydam v. Bcals, 4 McLean, 12. 183-188. 3 Rule 18. § 150. 1 Danicll's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. * Boudinot v. Symmcs, Wall. C. C. ed.) 731. 139 ; Smitli's Ch. Pr. (2d ed. A. D. 1837), - Attorney-General v. Worcester Cor- 183-180. poration, 1 C. P. Cooper, 18 ; Daniell's Cli. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 731. § 150.] FRAME OF ANSWER. 261 plaint." ^ If two oi- more defendants join in the same answer, it usually begins, " The joint and several answer ; " '* unless they are iiu>band and wife, when it is ''The joint answer "^ but an answer is not defective if [Uit in by several as a joint answer merely.^ When discovery is required, all of the defendants who join in an answer must swear to the same." When the same solicitor is employed for two or more defendants, and separate answers are filed, or other proceedings had by two or more defendants sepa- rately, costs are allowed for such separate answers or other pro- ceedings, unless a master, upon reference to him, certifies that such separate answers and other proceedings were necessarj' or ])roper, and ought not to have been joined together.^ A female defendant who has married since tlie filing of the bill usually begins : " The answer of John Aber and Anna, his wife, lately in the bill called Anna Brown, spinster," or widow, as the case may be.^ A title, " The several answer of John Peck, Esq., one of the defendants to the bill of complaint of Anna Baines, alias Green, assumuig to herself the name of Anna Peck, as pretended wife of John Peck, Esq., deceased, and of Anna Maria Green, assuming to herself the name of Anna Maria Peck, as daughter of the said John Peck, Esq., deceased," was held scandalous. ^^ An aftswer by a person defending by guardian or next friend should state that fact: "James Fifield by Edward Jennings, his next friend." When an answer and another pleading are united, it should so state : " The demurrer, plea, and answer of," &c.^^ Next followed formerly a clause reserving to the defendant any and all advantages that might be taken by exception to the bill.^- This always was and still is useless, ^^ although man}^ practition- ers still use it. Then comes the substantive part of the answer, setting up the matters of affirmative defense and giving the dis- covery required.^* The answer usually closes with a general traverse inserted out of abundant caution, denying the unlawful combination charged in the bill, and all other matters therein 3 Daniell's Ch Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 731 ; » Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.), 731. Kigby 1-. Rigby, 9 Bcav. .311, 313. lo Peck i: Peck, Mosely, 45. ^ Davis V. Davidson. 4 McLean, 1.36. " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.), 731 5 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 731. i'^ Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, part 3. 6 Davis r. Davidson, 4 McLean, 136. Story's Eq. PI. § 870. 7 Baihn- Washing Machine Co. v. i^ Story's Eq PI. § 870 ; Rules 39, 44. Younir, ri'niatclif. lyy. i* Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, part 3. » Rule 62. 262 ANSWERS AND DISCLlIMEKS. [chap. X. contained. ^^ In the answers of infants and ocher persons under D disability, the reservation and general traverse have always been deemed properly omitted. ^"^ The answer in such cases gen- erally is that the infant knows nothing of the matter, and there- fore neither admits nor denies the charges, but leaves the plaintiff to prove them as he shall be advised, and throws liimself on the protection of the court.^^ But if such a defendant has any substantive defence, he should plead the same.^^ §151. Signature and Oath to Answer. — An answer must be signed by the defendant making it ; even, it seems, when an answer under oath has been waived,^ unless he answer by guar- dian, when the latter should sign it,^ or unless an order has been obtained dispensing with such signature on account of the de- fendant's absence, or for some other reason. ^ A person answering in a dual capacity need sign but once.* An answer by a cor- poration must be under its corporate seal.^ In such a case it is advisable to have the seal attested by one of the corporate ofh- cers.*^' When an answer is made without oath, the signature of the defendant should also be attested. ■*■ Tliis is usually done b}' his solicitor.^ The answer, unless it is taken by commissioners, should also be signed by counsel.^ Unless an answer under oath is waived in the bill, the defendant, if a natural peison, must swear ; ^"^ or, ''if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, in lieu thereof make solemn affirmation to the truth of the facts stated by him." ^^ The oath or affirmation may be taken before a justice or judge of any court of the United States, or before a commissioner appointed by a Circuit Court to take testimony or depositions, or before a master in chancery appointed by a Cir- 15 Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, part 3 ; Story's Kq. PI. § 870. i« Story's P:q. PI. § 871. 4 Anon ; 2 ,T. & W. 55?.. 5 Haight r. Proprietors of the Morris Aqueduct, 4 Wasli. GOl, 005; Daniell's 1" Ciiancellor Kent in Mills v. Dennis, Ch. Pr. ^5th Am. ed.) 735, and note 2. 3.1. Ch. (N. Y.), 3t)7, 3G8. i8 Hoklen v. Ilearn, 1 Beav. 445, 455 ; Lane v. Hardwicke, 9 Beav. 148, 149. § 151. 1 Story's Eq. PI. § 875 ; Davis v. Davidson, 4 McLean, 136; Bayley v. De Walkiers, 10 Vcs. 441 ; Fulton Bank v. Beach, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 307; Denison v. Bassford, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 370. 2 Anon ; 2 J. & W. 553 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. od.) 733. '■' Story's Eti- Pi. § 875 ; v. Lake, G Vcs. 171 ; V. Gwillini, G Ves. 285. 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am ed.) 735, note 2. " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5t!i Am. ed ) 738. 8 Dariell's Cli. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 738. ^ Davis V. Davidson, 4 McLean, 13G; Story's Kq. PI. § 87(). 1" Fulton Bank v. Bcacli, 2 Paige (N. Y), 307; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 735. 11 Rule 91. See U. S. R. S. § 5013. § 152] MOTIONS TO TAKE ANrfWEHb OFF THE FILE. 263 cuit Court, or before a judge of a court of a State or Territory ; '' or before a notary public, when acting within the limits of their res[)ective jurisdictions. ^^ An answer can be verified without the United States before coinniissioners appointed for that purpose ; ^^ or probably before any secretary of legation or consular officer at the post, port, place, or within the limits of his legation, consulate, or commercial agency. i'* The following form of oath or affirmation is given by Daniell in his valuable work on Chancery Practice : " You swear, or solemnly affirm, that what is contained in this your answer (or plea and answer), as far as concerns your ov\ n act and Cumil, is true to your own knowledge, and that what relates to the act and deed of an}' other person or persons, you believe to be true." ^^ When sworn to in a foreign country, it seems that it must be " administered in the most solemn form observed by the law s and usages " of that country.^^ Every alteraiion and interlineation in the answer should be authenti- cated by the initials of the officer who administers "the oatli." When the verification of an answer is in the form of an affidavit, tlie name of the defendant making it must be subscribed at the foot of the affidavit. When in the form of a certificate of the officer administering the oath, the defendant's name should be subscribed at the foot of the answer.^" § 152. Motions to take Answers off the File. — When an an- swer is in any respect irregular,^ or is filed by a person not named as a defendant in the bill,^ or is filed too late, it may upon the plaintiff's motion be taken off the file.^ This may also be done when the paper purporting to be an answer is so evasive that it is in fact no answer.^ If it is taken off the file for an error in form,tlie court may allow the same paper to be corrected, and then filed anew.^ By setting the cause down for a hearing 12 Rule 59. L.1876, eh 3^4. §152. i Bailey Washing Machine Co. ^3 Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 335. v. Young, 12 Blatchf. l'J9. 1* U. S. R. S. § 1750. But see Itead - Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 3G5, V Consequa, 4 Wasli. 335. 367. 1^ 2 Daniell's Cli. Pr. ch. 15 §2, p. 270; » Allen r. The Mayor and Board of Story's Eq. PI. § 872, note 4. Education of New York, 18 Blatchf. ^«'Rea.l r. Consequa, 4 Wash. 335. 231>. " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 743; •* Tomkin v. Lethbridge, 9 Ves. 178; Hathaway v. Scott, 11 Paige (N. Y.), Smitli c Searle, 14 Ves. 415. 173. 17H : Pincers i'. Robertson, 9 C. E. ^ Bailey Washing Machine Co. i;. Grceii (24 N. J. Eq.J, 348. Young, 12 Blatchf. 199. 264 ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. [CHAP. X. upon bill and answer, or by filing exceptions or the general repli- cation, such a defect would be waived.^ A failure to enter an order taking a bill as confessed, does not authorize the filing of an answer after the prescribed time.' § 153. Exceptions for Insufficiency. — After an answer is filed on any rule-day, the plaintiff is allowed until the next rule-day to file in the clerk's office exceptions thereto for insufficiency, and no longer, unless a longer time is allowed for the purpose, upon cause shown to the court or a judge thereof; and if no ex- ceptions are filed thereto witliin that period, the answer is deemed and taken to be sufficient. ^ The time may, however, under extra- ordinary circumstances be abridged by the court.'^ The court may, to avoid delay, allow the bill to be amended, and exceptions to be filed at the same time to the answer to the original bill ; requiring the defendant to at once answer the amended bill and the exceptions.^ Exceptions to an answer for insufficiency can be filed after exceptions for impertinence have been filed and dis- posed of.^ Tt seems that, if a plea is ordered to stand for an answer, without leave to accept being granted in the order, no exception for insufficiency can be taken to so much of the answer as is covered by the plea;^ and that where an answer is accom- panied by a demurrer or plea to the discovery, and the com- plainant excepts to the answer before the otlier pleading has been disposed of, he thereby admits the lattei- to be good, and, if set down for argument, it may be stricken off the calendar.^ In the latter case leave to withdraw the exceptions may be given." No exceptions for insufficiency can be filed to the answer of an infant or other person under a disability.^ It has been held that excep- tions will lie for insufficiency, and discovery may be required although an answer under oath is waived.^ After exceptions for 6 Fulton Bank v. Beach, 2 Paiere See, however, Darnell v. Keyny, 1 Vern. (N. Y.), 307; Glassington v. Thwaites, 344. 2 Russell, 4.58, 461. ' Boyd v. Mills, 1-3 Ves. 85. ^ Allen V. Mayor, 7 Fed. H. 48-3. ** Copeland v. Wheeler, 4 Brown, Ch. § 153. 1 Rule 61. C. 256; Lucas r. Lucas, 13 Ves. 274; 2 Read i\ Conseqna, 4 Wash. 33.'i. Mickietiiwaite v. Atkinson, 1 Collyer, 3 Kittredge v. Ciaremont Bank, 3 173; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) Story, 5<»0. 160. * Patriotic Bank r. Bank of Washing- ^ Uhlmann v. Amholt & Schaeffer ton, 5 Cranoh C. C. 602. Brewing Co., 41 Fed. R. 369; Colgate r. 5 Sellon V. Lewen, 3 P. Wms. 2-30. Compagnie Francaise. 23 Fed. R. 82. But t> Brownell i: Cnrtis, 10 Paige (N. Y.) see United States »•. McLnnuhlin, 24 Fed. 210, 211; Mitf. PI. ch. 2, § 2, part 3. R. 823; McCorraick v. Chamberlin, 11 § 153.] EXCEPTIONS FOR INSUFFICIENCY. 265 insufficiency have been filed, no new exceptions can regularly be added ;i^ but leave to amend those on file may under special cir- cumstances be obtained. ^^ When defendants answer separately, separate exceptions should be filed to each answer.^^ Exceptions to an answer for insufficiency must be in writing,^^ and signed by counsel.^* It seems that they must specify that the answer ex- cepted to is an answer to the bill.^^ They should state the charges in the bill and the interrogatory applicable thereto, to which the exceptionable part of the answer should be addressed, and then state the terms of that part of the answer verbatim^ so that the court, without searching the bill and answer throughout, may at once perceive the ground of the exception, and asceitain its suffi- ciency.^^ An exception to an answer, " because, in stating in the said answer what he has been informed of by the said Byam, he does not say whether he actually believes the same to be true," was said to be irregular in form.^" Such an objection, or any irregularity in the form of an exception for insullicicncy, can be raised by a motion to take the exception off tlie file.^^ By setting the exception down for a hearing, an objection for irregularity is waived. 19 AVhere exceptions have been filed to an answer for insufficiency, within the period prescribed, if the defendant- do not submit to the same and file an amended answer on the next succeeding rule-day, the plaintiff should forthwith set them down for a hearing on the next succeeding rule-day thereafter, l)efore a judge of the court, and should enter, as of course, in the order-book an order for that purpose ; and if he do not so set down the same for a hearing, the oxcejitions are deemed aban- doned, and the answer deemed sufficient ; but the court or any judge thereof, may, for good cause shown, enlarge the time for filing exceptions or for answering the same, in his discretion, upon such terms as he may deem reasonable.-*^ It has been said Paige (N. Y.) 54.3; Slieppard r. Akers, i* Yates !•. Hardy, Jacob, 223. 1 Tenn. Ch. 326. is Earl of Lichfield v. Bond, 5 Bcav. 10 Partridge v. Hay craft, 11 Ves. 570, 513. 575. i« Brooks r. Byam, 1 Story, 298, ,303 ; u Dolder v. Bank of England, 10 Ves. Bower Barff Rustless Iron Co. v. Wells 284; Bancroft v. Wentworth, 10 Ves. Rustless Iron Co., 43 Fed. R. 391. 285 n. ; Northcote v. Northcote, 1 Dick. i^ Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 298, 303. 22. 1^ Yates v. Hardy, Jacob, 223; Wil- 1- Sydolph V. Monkston, 2 Dick. 609. liams v. Davies, 1 Sim. & S. 426. 13 Brooks V. Byam, 1 Story, 296 ; Yates i" Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 298, 803. V. Hardy, Jacob, 223; Woods r. Morrell, 20 Rule 63. 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 103. 266 ANSWERS AND DISCLAIMERS. [CHAP. X. that to refer such exceptions to a master on a day not a rule-day " is to do what is not authorized by the rules, and, unless af- firmed or cured by some subsequent action of the court, is a nullity." 2^ If, at the hearing, the exceptions are allowed, the defendant is bound to put in a full and complete answer thereto on the next succeeding rule-day ; otherwise the plaintiff will, as of course, be entitled to take the bill, so far as the matter of such exceptions is concerned, as confessed, or at his election, he may have a writ of attachment to compel the defendant to make a better answer to the matter of the exceptions ; and the de- fendant, when he is in custody upon such writ, cannot be dis- charged therefrom but by an order of the court, or of a judge thereof, upon his putting in such answer, and complying with such other terms as the court or judge may direct.^ If, upon argument, the plaintiff's exceptions are overruled, or the answer adjudged insufficient, the prevailing party is entitled to all the costs thereby occasioned, unless otherwise directed by the court, or the judge thereof, at the hearing upon the exceptions.^^ An exception for insufficiency may be allowed in part and overruled in part.^ Where an exception for insufficiency was sustained, and a further answer put in, which the i)laintiff deemed still insufficient, by the former English practice he had three weeks wherein to refer the same to a master upon the old exceptions ; otherwise the further answer was deemed sufficient.^^ If the further answer was found insufficient, the defendant was required to put in a third answer ; and if that too was found insufficient, he was committed to the Fleet, and examined upon interrogato- ries.2*^ When an order was obtained after answer, allowing the plaintiff to amend his bill, and requiring the defendant to answer the amendments and the exceptions to the answer to the original bill together ; upon such answer the plaintiff could only file new exceptions for a failure to fully answer the amendments.^" A further answer is in every respect similar, and is considered a part of the original answer. If, therefore, it repeats any matter contained in a former answer, the repetition, unless it varies the 21 La Vega v. Lapsley, 1 Woods, 428, 247; Hoffmann v. rostill, L. R. 4 Cli. 432, Woods, .1. App. gt;;. •z-2 Huie (54. -^ -Smith Cli. Pr. (2d ed. 18:1(1), 285. 23 Rule Cr,. -6 Smitli Cli. Pr. (2d ed. 1800), 285, 280. 24 E. I. Co. V. Campbell, 1 Ves. Sen. 27 Partridge r. Haycraft, 11 Ves. 570, 581 ; Smith Ch. Pr. (2d ed. 1836), 286. § 155.] DISCLAIMERS. 267 defence in point of substance, or is otherwise necessary, is con- sidered as impertinent.^^ The criterion of the materiality of an interrogatory is not whether an affirmative answer will prove the bill, but whether it will tend to })rove the bill.-'^ § 154. Supplemental Answers. — A supplemental answer is filed to bring- to .the attention of the court some fact which was not inserted in the original answer through mistake or igno- rance,^ or which has occurred subsequently to the filing of the same.2 They can only be filed by leave of the court, which may impose terms upon the applicant.^ The rules regulating supple- mental answers of the former class will be found in the chapter upon Amendments. Those of the second class have been little considered in the books. Their functions may also be performed by cross-bills.'* It is too late after answer and decree to object to the regularity of a proceeding in which facts were set up by petition when a cross-bill or supplemental answer would have been the proper practice.^ § 155. Disclaimers. — A disclaimer is a pleading by which the defendant renounces all claim to property which the plaintiff seeks in his bill to obtain.' It is said that it is distinct in its substance from an answ^er, although sometimes confounded with one.2 It must, however, in most cases be accompanied by an answer, for where a defendant has been made a party by mis- take, having had an interest with wdiich he has parted, the plaintiff may require an answer sufficient to ascertain what the facts are, and to whom he has transferred his interest.^ More- over, a defendant, although he may disclaim an interest, cannot disclaim a liability.^ The only cases in which a disclaimer with- out an answer is sufficient seem to be those where the bill simply •-» Story's Eq. PI. § 8G8. See Gier v. 5 Kelsey r. Hobby, IG Pet. 2fi9, 277 ; Greggr, 4 McLean, 208. Coburn v. Cedar Valley L^nd & Coal Co., ■^ Ulilmann c. Ainholt & S. Brewing 138 U. S. 196, 222. Co., 41 Fed. R. 369. See supra, § 82. § 155. ^ Mounsey v. Burnliam, 1 Hare, § 154. 1 Smith r. Babcoek, 3 Sumner, 15. 583; Williams v. Oibbes, 20 How. 535; ^ Story's Eq PI. § 8-38. Caster (.-. Wood, Baldwin, 289; Suydam " Story's Eq. PI. § 838. See Ellsworth V. Triiesdale, 6 McLean, 4-59 v. Curtis, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 105 ; Carring- - Kelsey r. Hobby, 16 Pet. 269, 277 ; ton r. Lentz, 40 Fed. R. 18. Talmage v. Pell, 9 Paige (N. Y.), 410, 413. * Glassington v. Thwaites, 2 Puss. 4.58 ; ^ Smith r. Babcoek, 3 Sumner, 583; Graham r. Coape, U Simons, 93, 102 ; s. c. Caster v. Wood, Baldwin, 289. 3 Myl. & Cr. 638. * Kelsey v. Hobby, 16 Pet. 269, 277 ; ii)/ra, § 171. ^68 ANSWEES AND DISCLAIMERS. [CIIAP. X. alleges that the defendant claims an interest in the property in question without specifying the claim.^ Under very special cir- cumstances, a disclaimer may be withdrawn, and an answer filed setting up a claim.^ Where a disclaimer is made, and it ajjpears that the defendant was made a party without apparent reason, the bill will be dismissed with costsJ Otherwise, a decree may be entered without costs against the defendant and all claiming under him since the filing of the bill.^ The plaintiff should not file a replication to a disclaimer alone.^ When the disclaimer is insufficient it may be stricken off the file upon motion, or excep- tions to it for insufficiency, if filed, will be sustained. i*^ A dis- claimer may be accompanied by a plea, answer, or demurrer, or all of these, provided that each refers to a separate ])art of the bill.^^ If a disclaimer and answer by the same defendant are inconsistent, the matter will be taken most strongly against the defendant upon the disclaimer. ^2 ^]^q following is a form of a mere disclaimer : " The disclaimer of Richard Flagg, the defend- ant, to the bill of complaint of Robert Aber, complainant. This defendant, saving and reserving to himself [here follows the usual general reservation in an answer], saith, that he doth not know that he, this defendant, to his knowledge and belief, ever had, nor did he claim or pretend to have, nor doth he now claim, any right, title, or interest of, in, or to the estates and premises, situate [describing them], in the said complainant's bill set forth, or any part thereof; and this defendant doth disclaim all right, title, and interest to the said estate and premises in [naming their situation], in the said comi)lainant's bill mentioned, and every part thereof." A disclaimer concludes in the same way as an answer.^3 6 Story's Eq. PI. § 888. See Graliam i" Graham v. Coape, 9 Simons, 03, 102 ; r. Coape, Simons, 93, 102 ; s. c. 3 xMyl. s. c. 3 Myl. & Cr. 638. & Cr. (138. " Story's Eq. PI. § 839 ; Mitford's PI. 6 Story's Eq. PI. § 841. ch. 2, § 2, part 3. ' Story's Eq. PI. § 842. ^- Mitford's PL di. 2, § 2, part 2. « Story's Eq. PI. § 842. 13 Story's Eq. Pi. § 844, note 0. 3 Story's Eq. PI. § 842. ,. . § 156.] DEFINITION" AND HISTORY OF REPLICATIONS. 269 CHAPTER XI. REPLICATIONS. § 156. Definition and History of Replications. — A replication is a pleading bj which the plaintiff puts in issue the matters pleaded in a defendant's answer or plea. No replication can be filed to a demurrer.^ Replications were formerly of two kinds, general and special."^ A general replication consists of a general denial of the truth of the defendant's plea or answer, and of the sufficiency of the matter alleged therein to bar the plaintiff's suit, together with an assertion of the truth and sufficiency of the bill.^ A special replication sets up new matter in avoidance of a sub- stantive defence contained in the answer or plea.* To this the defendant was obliged to file a rejoinder, giving the discovery required in it.^ This might then be succeeded by a sur- rejoinder and a rebutter.'' Special replications and their con- sequences were, on account of the inconvenience therefrom resulting, almost obsolete by the time of Lord Eldon.'^ A special replication to an answer is forbidden by the Equity Rides, which provide that " no special replication to any answer shall be filed. But if any matter alleged in the answer shall make it necessary for the plaintiff to amend his bill, he may have leave to amend the same with or without the payment of costs, as the court or a judge thereof may in his discretion direct." ^ It has been held, that a special replication is equally improper to a plea.^ Allegations of new matter in a replication will therefore be disregarded, and the pleading, if allowed to remain upon the file, will be given no more effect than if it were simply general. ^*^ The proper course, however, is for the de- §156. 1 Mason v. Hartford, Provi- 6 Mitford's PI. ch. 3; Story's Eq, Pi. dence, & Fishkill U. R. Co., 10 Fed. K. § 878. 334. - Mitford's PI. ch. 3 ; Story's Eq. PI. 2 Mitford's PI. ch. 3. § 878. 3 Story's Eq. PI. § 878. 8 Rule 45. < Story's Eq, PI. § 878. ^ Mason i-. Hartford, Providence & 5 Mitford's PI. cii. 3; Story's Eq. PI. Fishkill U. R. Co, 10 Fed. R. Z^L § 878. 1' Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Pet. 252, 273 ; 270 EEPLICATIONS. [CHAP. ?:T. fendant to move the special replication off the file.^^ After the disuse in England of special replications, it was customary for the plaintiff to sue out and serve upon the defendant a subpoena to rejoin. ^2 This practice never prevailed generally in the United States ;^2 and the Equity Rules provide that "in all cases where the general replication is filed, the cause shall be deemed to all intents and purjioses at issue, without any rejoinder or other pleading on either side." ^^ § 157. When a Replication should be Filed. — The equity rules provide that if the plaintiff does not reply to any plea, or set it down for argument on the rule-day when the same is filed, or on the next succeeding rule-day, he shall be deemed to admit the truth and sufficiency thereof, and his bill shall be dismissed as of course, unless a judge of the court shall allow him furtiier time for the purpose.^ Whenever the answer of the defendant is not excepted to, or is adjudged or deemed sufficient, the plaintiff must file the general replication thereto on or before the next succeeding rule-day thereafter.^ If the plaintiff omits or refuses to file such replication within tlie prescribed period, the de- fendant is entitled to an order, as of course, for a dismissal of the suit ; and the suit is thereupon dismissed, unless the court, or a judge thereof, shall, upon motion for cause shown, allow a repli- cation to be filed nunc pro tunc, the plaintiff submitting to speed the cause and to such other terms as may be directed.^ It has been held that such an order may be entered by the clerk w^ith- out an}' application to the judge.* No replication need or should be filed when the cause is set down for hearing upon bill and answer.^ Where tliere are several defendants a replication should be filed within the prescribed time after one of them has filed an answer or plea, although the others may not have done so,^ It is the safer practice to file a separate replication after tlie other answers have come in.' The court may grant leave to withdraw a replication, and amend, or have the cause set down Duponti i\ Mussy, 4 Wasli. 128 ; Wren v. 2 T^nlc fi6. SpL-ncer OpticalManuf. Co., 18 Off. Gaz. » Rule 66. 8o7. * Kobinson v. Satterlce, 3 Saw. l?A. " Mason r. Ilartfonl, Providence & ^ i^ey^olds r. Crawfordsville First Nat. Fisiikill R. R. Co., 10 Fed. R. 334. Rank, 112 U. S. 405; Gaines v. Agncliy, 1- Story's Eq. Rl. § 87!). 1 Woods, 2.38. !'5 Story's Eq. RI. § 879, note 5. ^ Coleman v. Martin, 6 Rlatehf. 291. 1* Rule" 66. ^ See Smitli's Cli. Rr. (2d Kng. ed ) § 157. 1 Rule 38. vol. i. p. 330. § 150.] FRAME OF A REPLICATION. 271 for a hearing upon bill and answer.^ It has been held that the pendency of a motion affecting the plea or answer will excuse the plaintiff from replying before the motion has been decided.^ Only a party whose plea or answer lias received no proper reply can have a bill dismissed for a failure to comply- with these rules.^° The court exercises great liberality in allowing a replication to he filed nu7ic pro tunc,^^ or in allowing one filed too late to stand. ^ The taking of testimony by the defendant, or any other proceeding taken by him in the cause, would probably be held a waiver of his right to have a bill dismissed for want of a repli- cation.^^ An objection upon this ground cannot be raised for the first time upon appeal. i'* After a cause has been heard upon bill and answer the court will rarely allow a replication to be filed.15 § 158. Effect of a Replication. — The complainant, by filing a general replication, admits the suflEiciency as regards discovery,^ but not as a defense,^ of the plea or answer to which it is filed, and denies every allegation in the plea or answer which is not directly responsive to the bill.^ § 159. Frame of a Replication. — The full title of the cause, as it stands at the time the replication is filed, must be set forth in the heading of the replication, but only the names of such of the defendants as have appeared should be inserted or referred to in the body. If a defendant's name has been misspelt by the plaintiff, and such defendant has corrected the same by his an- swer, but the plaintiff has not afterwards amended his bill with respect to such name, the correction should be shown in the title of the replication ; in the body of the replication, however, ^ Ixo^crs V. Goore, 17 Ves. 130 ; Brown Blatchf. 26 ; Reynolds t\ Crawfordsville V. Ricketts, 2 J. Cli. (N. Y.) 425; Dan- First Nat. Bank" 112 U. S. 405. iell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 479; Ibid " Clements v. Moore, G Wall. 299; (3d Am. ed.) 830. Fretz v. Stover, 22 Wall. 198. 9 AUis V. Stowell, 5 Fed. R. 203. i^ Bullinger v. Mackey, 14 Blatchf. " Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. r. Union 355 ; Peirce v. West's Executors, Pet. Rolling Mill Co., 109 U. S. 702, 717. C. C. 351. " Pierce v. West's E.xecutors, Pet. § 158. 1 Story's Eq. PI. § 877 ; Hughes C. C. 351 ; Sayles v. Erie Railway Co., v. Blake, Wheat. 453. 2 N. J. L. J. 212"; Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. - Rule 33 ; Matthews v. Lalance & G. R. 76 ; s. c. 19 Blatchf. 2(3 ; Jones v. Manuf. Co., 2 Fed R. 232. But see Brittan, 1 Woods, 6(57. Myers v. Dorr, 13 Blatchf. 22 ; Theberath 1- Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 76 ; s. 0. v. Rubber & Celluloid Harness Trinmiing 19 Blatchf. 26. ' Co., 5 Bann. & A. 584. 13 Jones V. Brittan, 1 Woods. 667; 3 Humes r. Scruggs, 91 U. S. 22. Fischer v. Ilnyes, Fed. R. 70 ; s. c. 19 272 REPLICATIOMS. [CHAP. XI. the correct name only should be inserted. When any defendant has died since the bill was filed, the words " since deceased " should follow his name in the title, but liis name should be omitted in the body of the replication. If the plaintiff joins issue with all the defendants their names need not be repeated in the body; it is sufficient in such case to designate them as '' all the defendants ; " but if he does not join issue with all, the names of the defendants must be set out in the body.^ If the defendant has filed both a plea and answer, the replication should refer to both.^ The body of a genei-al replication is substantially as follows : " This repliant, saving and reserving to himself all and all manner of advantage of exception, which may be had and taken to the manifold errors, uncertainties, and insufficiencies of the answer of the said defendants for replication thereunto, saith, that he doth and will aver, maintain, and prove his said bill to be true, certain, and sufficient in the law to be answered unto by the said defendants, and that the answer of the said defendants is very uncertain, evasive, and insufficient in law, to be replied unto by this repliant; without that, that any other matter or thing in the said answer contained, material or effectual in the law to be replied unto, and not herein and hereby well and sufficiently replied unto, confessed or avoided, traversed or denied, is true ; all which matters and things this repliant is ready to aver, maintain, and prove as this honorable court shall direct, and humbly prays as in and by his said bill he hath al- ready prayed."'^ A replication should be signed by the plaintiff's solicitors. The signature of counsel is unnecessary.* A repli- cation, like all other papers in a suit in equit}-, should contain no scandal or impertinence. Proceedings thereon on account of its containing scandalous or impertinent matter are similar to those upon an answer of that character. In Queen Elizabeth's time, the plaintiff, for putting in too long a replication, was fined ten pounds, and imprisoned, and a hole made through the replication, which was hung about his neck, while he was obliged to go thus carrying it from bar to bar.^ § 159. 1 Danicll'sCh.Pr. (4th Am.ed.) ^ Story's Eq. Tl. § 881; DanicU's CIi. 830, 831. Pr. (4th Am. ed.) 830. ■■^ Niccol V. ■Wiseman, 2 Vern. 40. ^ Mihvard v. Wt'ldcn, 8 Eliz. li. B. fo. 3 Story's Eq. PI. § 878, note 4. 678; Tothill, 101. § 161.] WHEN BILLS CAN BE AMENDED. 273 CHAPTER XII. AMENDMENTS. §160. Amendments in General. — "In reference to amend- ments of equity pleadings the courts have found it impracticable to lay down a rule that would govern all cases. Their allowance must, at everv stage of the cause, rest in the discretion of the court ; and that discretion must depend largel}' on the special circumstauces of each case. It may be said, generall}^ that in passing upon applications to amend, the ends of justice should never be sacrificed to technical lules of practice. Undoubtedly great caution should be exercised where the application comes after the litigation has continued for some time, or when the granting of it would cause serious inconvenience or expense to the opposite side " ^ The Revised Statutes provide that the court " may at any time permit either of the parties to amend any de- fect in the process or pleadings, upon such conditions as it shall, in its discretion and by its rules, prescribe." ^ States,^ charities,* infants,^ idiots, and lunatics, are allowed to amend in cases where courts might hesitate to grant the privilege to others. § 161. When Bills can be Amended. — The equity rules regu- late the amendment of bills as follows: "The plaintiff shall be at liberty, as a matter of course, and without payment of costs, to amend his bill, in any matters whatsoever, before any copy has been taken out of the clerk's office, and in any small matters afterwards, such as filling blanks, correcting errors of dates, mis- nomer of parties, misdescription of premises, clerical errors, and generally in matters of form. But if he amend in a material point, as he may do of course, after a copy has been so taken, before any answer or pica or demurrer to the bill, he shall pay § IGO. 1 Mr. Justice ITarlan in Hardin * President of St. Mary Magdalen's V. IJoyd, li:? U. S. 75G, 701. See Nellis College v. Sibthorp, 1 Russ. 154. V. Pennock Mannf. Co., 38 Fed. K. 379. ^ Serlo v. St. Eloy, 2 P. Wms. 386; 2 U. S. R. S. § 'J54. Pritcliard i-. Quinchant, Ambler, 147; 3 Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 13 Store's Kq. Pi. §§ 51), 892. Pet. 23. VOL. 1. — 18 274 AMENDMENTS. [CHAP. XIT. to the defendant the costs occasioned theiehy, and shall, -without delay, furnish him with a fair copy thereof, free of expense, with suitable references to the places where the same are to be in- serted. And if the amendments are numerous, he shall furnish in like manner to the defendant a copy of the whole bill as amended ; and if there be more than one defendant, a copy shall be furnished to each defendant affected thereby." ^ For the purposes of this rule, an answer which has been held or admitted to be insufficient is, it seems, considered as no answer.^ It has been held that, after an insufficient answer, the eoniplainaiit can- not amend by leaving out the defendant's name, and thus discon- tinuing the suit witliout costs.^ After an answer, or plea, or demurrer is put in, and befoi'e replication, the plaintiff may, upon motion or petition, without notice, obtain an order from any judge of the court to amend his bill on or before the next suc- ceeding rule-day, upon payment of costs or without payment of costs, as the court or a judge thereof may in his discretion direct. But after replication filed, the plaintiff shall not be permitted to withdraw it and to amend bis bill, except upon a special order of a judge of the court, upon motion or petition, after due notice to the other party, and upon proof by affidavit that the same is not made for the purpose of vexation or delay, or that the matter of the proposed amendment is materia], and could not with reasonable diligence have been sooner introduced into the bill, and upon the plaintiff's submitting to such other terms as may be imposed by the judge for speeding the cause.^ This rule applies only where leave to amend is asked before a demurrer or plea is allowed.^ " If the plaintiff so obtaining any order to amend his bill after answer, or plea, or denuurer, or after repli- cation, shall not file his amendments or amended bill, as the case ma}' require, in the clerk's office on or before the next succeed- ing rule-day, he shall be considered to have abandoned the same, and the cause shall proceed as if no application for any amend- ment had been made." ^ " No special replication to au}^ answer shall be filed. But if any matter alleged in the answer shall make it necessary for tiie plaintiff to amend his bill, he may have § 101. 1 Rule 28. i TJuio 29. ■■^ Daniell's Cli. I'r. (2il Am. ed.) 473. ^ National Bank f. Carpenter, 101 U.S. See Chase v. Dunham, 1 Paipe(N. Y.)..")72. 0G7, 508. 3 Chase v. Dunliam, 1 I'aige (N. V.), c ^ule 30. 572. § 162.] FORM AND EFFEQT OF AMENDMENT OF A BILL. 0-n leave to amend the same with or without the payment of costs, as the court or a judge thereof may iu his discretion direct." " Such an amendment must be asked for whenever the plaintiff wishes to avoid and not merely deny a defense in the answer which has not been anticipated in the original bill.*' Thus, where an answer to a bill for an injunction against the infi'ingement of a patent set up a license, the complainant was not allowed to prove the abandonment of the license because the bill containeil no allegation to that effect.^ If upon a hearing any demurrer or plea is allowed, the court may, in its discretion, upon motion of the plaintiff, allow him to amend his bill upon such terms as it shall deem reasonable. ^^ When the plaintiff wishes to amend the bill after replication by the addition of new facts or charges, the regular practice is for him to appl}' for leave to withdraw his replication and amend. ^^ An amendment may be allowed by the court at any time even after a final decree. ^^ § 162. Form and Effect of Amendment of a Bill. — "Wherever leave to amend the bill is granted, it is more proper to file an amended bill than to interline the original bill, particularly if some of the defendants had before answered that bill." ^ "The rule is that the amended bill should state no more of the original bill than may be necessary to introduce, and to make intelligible, the new matter, which should alone constitute the chief subject of the bill. The reasons for this rule are obvious. Not only is the incorporating of the old bill into the amended bill unneces- sary, but it increases the costs, and exposes the defendants, par- ticularly those who have answered the original bill, to the trouble of searching out and separating the old from the new matter, at the peril of having their answer excepted to if any mistake should happen, and all the matter of tiie amended bill should not be answered." ^ Accordingly, an amended bill which was obnoxious to this rule was held impertinent.^ It is the better practice for the counsel to sign the amendments, if they are not as to matteis of mere form.* The amendment of a bill is usually considered 7 Rule 45. § 102. ' Peirce v. West's Executor, 3 8 Wilson V. StoUey, 4 McLean, 275; Wash. .354, 355. Piatt )\ Vatticr, 9 I'et. 40.5. '^ IVirce v. West's Executor, 3 Wash. y Wilson V. Stolley, 4 McLean, 275. 354. .35.5. ^^ Rule .3.5. a Peirce r. West's E.xecutor, 3 Wash. " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2(1 Am p-l ) 470. 354, 3.55. 1- Tremaine c. Hitchcock, 23 Wall. 518. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 313. 276 AMENDMENTS. [CHAP. XII. as an admission of the sufficiency of the answer as regards dis- coverv;^ but an aniendaient which merely brings in a new de- fendant does not have this effect;^ and the court may, to prevent delay, entertain a motion to amend a bill in equity at the same time that exceptions to the answer are filed, and may then re- quire the defendant to answer the amendments and the excep- tions together.'^ An amendment of a bill, at least before answer, will not, it seems, dissolve an injunction previously granted.^ It is, however, the usual and the safer practice to have a clause inserted in the order stating that the amendment may be made without prejudice to the injunction.^ Unless otherwise provided in the order, it seems tiiat an amendment of a bill will discharge all contempt proceedings 2:)reviously instituted. i'^ § 163. What Amendments to Bills may be made. — " An amend- ment should rarely if ever be permitted where it would materially change the very substance of the case made by the bill, and to which the parties have directed their proofs." ^ Thus, where a bill was filed fur the enforcement of a judgment lien upon specified property filed against certain specified defendants, an amendment was refused after a hearing, when it was sought to seek discovery and relief against all purchasers of both the prop- erty referred to in the original bill and other property of the judgment debtor,^ A bill to restrain the infringement of a patent cannot be amended so as to allege that the title to the patent is in a different person from the one who in the original bill is alleged to hold it.^ But such a bill may be amended so as to set up a reissue of the original patent, w^hich occurred before the original bill was filed, but was not mentioned therein.* Such a bill may also be amended so as to include claims for damages and profits due previous owners of the patent, who have assigned them to the complainant.^ The allegation that certain machines 5 Smith's Ch. Pr. (2d Eng. erl ) 307. § 163. i Mr. Justice Harlan in Hardin 6 Taylor v. Wrench, 9 Ves. 31.5. v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 756, 761. ^ Kittredge t'. Claremont Banli,3Story, - Snead u. McCoull, 12 How. 407, 422. 590. 3 Goodyear v. Bourn, 3 Blatchf. 266. » Read v. Consequa, 4 Wasli. 174, 180 ; See Bylands v. LaTouclie, 2 Bligh, .586. Sniitli's Ch. Pr. (2d Eng. ed ) 306; Dan- * Tiie Tremolo Patent, Tremaine v. iell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 424, 42-5. Hitclicock, 23 Wall. 518; Reay r. Hay- s' Read v. Consequa, 4 Wasii. 174 ; Dan- nor, 19 Fed. R. 308 ; Reay v. Berlin & iell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 424, 42.5. Jones Envelope Co., 30 Fed. R. 448. But 1" Smith's Ch. Pr. (2d Eng. ed.) .305; see Jones r. Barker, 11 Fed. R. 5',t7. Gray c Campbell, 1 U. & M. 323; Synionds ^ New York (Irapc Sugar Co. r. Buffalo V. Duchess of Cumberland, 2 Cox, 411. Grape Sugar Co., 20 Fed. li. 505. § 163.] WHAT AMENDMENTS MAY BE MADE. 277 alleged to be used in violation of a patent were infringements when made, may also be added by amendment.*^ It v/as held that a bill for a new trial of an action for the price of stock alleged to have been sold the defendant, could not be changed b}'- amendment so as to charge that the defendant held the stock in trust for the complainant.'' It is unsettled whether a bill for discovery can be amended so as also to pray relief^ It was held that a bill filed against persons in their individual capacity cannot be amended so as to sue them as officers of a corporation.^ A bill filed by several creditors praying tlie sale of their debtor's land in one State, and the satisfaction of their claims out of the proceeds of such sale, cannot be changed by amendment so as to pray relief to one against another of the plaintiffs, in respect to the receipt by the latter of the proceeds of the sale of other land of the same debtor situated in another State, and sold under a decree in another suit in another conrt.^^ A bill by the Land Company of New Mexico to enforce an executory contract by the defendant Smoot for the sale of an interest in land of which the defendant Elkins had the legal title, and which it was alleged that Smoot was about to assign to the defendant Butler with Elkins's connivance, was held not amendable " by omitting all the parties but Elkins, and proceeding against him upon the theory that complainant has acquired Smoot's interest by an al,)Solute and unconditional transfer."'^* A bill to set aside a sheriff's sale may be amended so as to add a tender of the pur- chase-price and a prayer for a redemption of property.^^ A bill to set aside a contract for the sale of land as obtained, by fraud may be amended by the addition of an alternative prayer for the specific performance of the contract. ^^ A bill to remove a cloud upon the title to laud may be amended so as to seek the enforce- ment of trusts relating to the same property.^^ It has been said, « Eeay v. Raynor, 19 Fed. R. 308. w Smith v. Woolfolk, 115 U. S. 143, " Ogleshy v. Attrill, 14 Fed. R. 214. 148. ^ See llorsburg v. Baker, 1 Pet. 2o2 ; i^ Land Co. of New Mexico v. Elkins, Butterworth v. Bailey, 15 Ves. 358 ; Hild- 20 Fed. H. 545. yard v. Cressy, 3 Atlc. .303 ; Crow v. Tyr- i- Graffam v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 180. ell, 2 Madd. 397 ; Jackson v. Strong, '^ Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 750. dis- 1 McClel. 245; Lousada v. Templer, 2 tinguisliing Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. Kiiss. 5C)5; Daniell's Ch. Tr. (2d Am. ed.) 130. 403-465. 1* Partee v. Thomas, 11 Fed. R. 769. 3 Tyler r. Onlloway, 13 Fed. R 477. See also Neale v. Neales, 9 Wall. 1 ; Bat- But see Woniersley y Merritt, L. K. 4 Eq. tie r. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 10 Blatchf. Oj5. 417 ; Burgess v. Graffam, 10 Fed. R. 216, 278 AMENDMENTS. [CHAP. XII. that where the bill originally sets out one agrGement which it seeks to enforce, and the answer admits the execution of another agreement of a similar character, but with provisions different from those alleged in the bill, the plaintiff may amend, abandon- ing the agreement first pleaded by him, and obtain the enforce- ment of that admitted by the defendant ; but that he cannot, while still praying the enforcement of the agreement as set out by him, amend so as to seek, in case he fail in proving that, an enforcement of the one admitted in the auswer.^^ A cross-bill may be amended so as to radically change the ground of the re- lief sought, when the proofs which make the amendment neces- sary have been furnished by the complainant in support of the latter's original bill.^*' It was held that a creditor's bill, filed to obtain tlie appointment of a receiver of the property of a city, and the application by him of its assets to the satisfaction of its debts, could not be amended so as to seek relief against a receiver and back-tax collector, appointed by a subsequent statute of the State to collect tlie city's assets.^" When the suit was begun in a Federal court, that court may allow an amendment setting forth the facts essential to the Federal jurisdiction.^^ Allegations in a remittitur filed after judgment cannot be considered as amend- ments to the pleading.'^ Great liberality is allowed as to amend- ments which strike out parties,-*^ or bring in new parties,^' except as to bills for discovery, to which in England no new ])ar- ties could be added.^^ A bill filed by a married woman can al- most always be amended by the addition of the name of a next friend when necessary .-^ A bill filed on behalf of one's self and others may be amended by striking out the invitation to otliers to join, provided none of them have come in ; -^ and a bill filed in one's own name may be amended ))y the addition of words suffi- cient to make it a bill in behalf of a class.-'^ A bill filed against 15 Lindsay v. Lynch, 2 Sell. & Lef. 1, 0, 20 Conolly v. Tavlor, 2 Pet. 556 ; Dwiglit i« Cliicago, M. & St. P. Hy. Co. v. Third v. Humpiireys, 3 McLean, 104. National Bank of Chicago, 134 U. S. 27(), -i Fisher r. Rutlierford, Baldwin, 188 ; 28!). Patterson r Stapler, 7 Fed. R. 210 1^ Meriwether ?'. Garrett, 102 U. S.472, '-- Marqui.s Cliolmondeiey r. Lord Clin- 502. But see Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. ton, 2 Meri. 71. 27. -J Douiilas r. Butler, G Fed. R. 228. 18 Continental Ins. Co. v. Rhoads, 110 2t Yates c. Arden, 5 Cranch C. C 52(>. U. S. 237; Halsted v. Buster, 119 U. S. 2i Riohnmnd v. Irons, 121 U. S. 27; 341 ; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U. S. 121, 124. Good v. Blewitt, 13 Ves. 397, 401 ; Attor- " Denny v. Pironi, 141 U S. 121. ney-General y. Newcombe, 14 Ves. 1, (3; § 164.] AMENDMENTS ADDING MATTER SUBSEQUENT. 279 a defendant as executor may be amended so as to charge him as administrator of the same pcrson.^^ In an Entilish case, a hill in behalf of a charity was changed by amendment into an information.^" § 164. Amendment by Pleading Matters subsequent to the Filing of the Bill. ^ Tiie general rule is that nothing which has occurred since the filing of a bill can be added to it by amendment.^ Such matters, when admissible, should ordinarily be introduced by a supplemental bill.^ It was held incompetent to amend a bill, stating that certain notes and mortgages were executed under a threat by the defendant that he would kill the complainant if they were not executed and paid at their maturity, by adding the allegation, " that in pursuance of such threat the defendant did, subsequently to the commencement of this suit, take the life of the original comi)lainant." ^ Such a murder does not add to the complainant's cause of action, although it might be put in evi- dence as tending to prove the original duress.* An amendment therefore speaks as of the date of the original bill ; and an amendment alleging the requisite difference of citizenship in the present time is sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the court.^ A bill may perhaps be amended before answer, demur- rer, or plea, l)y alleging new matter that has occurred since it was first filed.^ And it has been held that where a plaintiff has, at the time of filing his original bill, an inchoate right, to perfect which a formal act alone is necessary, and such formal act is not performed till afterwards ; as where an executor files a bill be- fore probate, and subsequently proves the testament," or the next of kin files a bill to protect the personal estate of an intestate and subsequently procures her appointment as administratrix,*^ or a foreign administrator files a bill before obtaining ancillary letters of administration, and sucli letters are subsequently issued Keese River Silver Mining Co. v. Atweli, '■^ Lyster r. Stickney, 12 Feci. R. 609, L. R. 7 Eq. 347. 010. ••2« Randolph v. Barrett, 16 Pet. 138. ■• Lyster r. Stickney, 12 Fed. R. 609. -1 President of St. Mary Magdalen Col- ^ Birdsall v. Perego, 5 Blatchf. 251. lege V. Sibthorp, 1 Russ. 154. o Story's Eq. PI. § 885 ; Candler v. § 164. 1 Wrayr. Hiitciiinson, 2 Myl. Pettit, I'Paige (N. Y.), 168; Ogden v. & k. 235; Mason n. Hartford, Providence Gibbons, Halst N J. Dig. 172. & Fislikill R. U. Co., 10 Fed. R. 334; " Belloat r. Morse, 2 Hayw. (N. C.) Copen V. Flesber. 1 Bond, 440; Lyster v. 157; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 460. Stickney, 12 Fed. R. 609. * Humphreys v. Humphreys, 3 P. 2 See Chapter XIV. Wms. .348; Bradford v. Felder, 2 M'Cord (S. C), Ch. 170. 280 AMENDMENTS. [CHAP. XII. to him ; ^ the introduction of the fact by amendment will be per- mitted.^^ It has been also held in England that the " defendant, when he puts in his answer, must state the facts as they then are ; and if circumstances are then introduced in the answer which occurred subsequent to the filing of the bill, the plaintiff must be allowed to make amendments to the bill, so as to show that such new circumstances mentioned in the answer are not of the color he represents them, and so as to obtain a complete answer as to such circumstances." ^^ § 165. Proceedings upon an Amended Bill. — When the amend- ment merely brings in new parties defendant, they alone need be served with a new subpoena.^ If, however, a bill is substantially amended by the addition of new charges, according to the Eng- lish practice a subpcena to answer the amendments had to be sued out and served upon all the defendants.^ Where the bill is amended before answer or plea, no matter how trivial the amend- ment may be, the defendant may demur to it, although a de- murrer to the original bill has been overruled.^ If, however, a defendant has answered the original bill, he cannot, without ob- taining leave to withdraw his first answer, demur, plead, or answer to any more than the new matter, unless the amendments virtu- ally make a new case.* For if the answer whicli still remains upon the record applies to any part of the amended bill, it will overrule a general demurrer.^ Where the amendments seek to introduce new matter which is properly the subject of a supple- mental bill, the defendant must raise that objection by demurrer.^ plea, or answer.''' Otherwise, the objection will be waived.^ The equity rules provide that, " In any case where an amendment shall ^ Swatzel V. Arnold, Woolw. 338; Lean, 514; Angerstein t\ Clarke,! Ves. Black V. Henry G. Allen Co., 42 Fed. Jr. 2.3U ; Skeffington v. , 4 Ves. 6G. R. 018, 624. Contra, Mason v. Hartford, 2 Cooker. Davies, T. & R. 309; Bram- Providence & Fishkill R. R. Co., 10 Fed. ston r. Carter, 2 Simons, 458. See Ken- R. 3.d4. dall V. Beckett, 1 Russ. 152. If Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am ed.) 400, ''■ Bosaiiquet r. Marsham, 4 Simons, 4G1 ; Swatzel v. Arnold, Woolw. ."jH:] ; 573; Bancroft c Warden, 2 Dickens, 672. Black ('. Henry G. Allen Co., 42 Fed. R. ^ Keeiiei'.Wheatley, 9 American Law filB, 624; Humphreys v. Humphreys, 3 Register, 33, 00 ; Atkinson ;•. Han way, 1 P. Wms. 348. ('outni. Mason r. Hartford, Co.\ Kq. 300; Ellice v. Goodson. 3 m'. & Providence & Fishkill R. R. Co., 10 Fed. C. 053 ; Ritchie v. Aylwin, 15 Ves. 70. R. 3.34. '^ Ellice v. Goodson, 3 M. & C. 05.3, 11 Sir Thomas Plumer, V. C.,in Knight •■ Brown r. Iligden, 1 Atk. 291. V. Matthews, 1 Madd. 566. ' Wray r. Ilutclnnson, 2 M. & K. 235. § 165. 1 Longwortli v. Taylor, 1 Me- ** Archbishop of York v. Stnpleton, 2 Atk. 136. § 167.] AMENDMENT OF ANSWERS. 2S1 be made after answer filed, the defendant shall put in a new- answer or supplemental answer on or before the next succeeding rule-day after that on which the amendment or amended bill is filed, unless the time is enlarged or otherwise ordered by a judge of the court ; and upon his default, the like proceedings may be had as in cases of an omission to put in an answer." ^ An an- swer to an amended bill is imi)ertinent if it contains any matter which was pleaded in the answer to the bill before amendment.^*' It seems to have been the English rule that an answer to an amended bill might set up an entirely new defense inconsistent with that in his former answer.^^ The court may after amend- ment refuse leave to file an answer which' does not plead a de- fense to the new matter.'^ § 166. Amendments of Demurrers, Pleas, and Replications. — The court may allow a demurrer to be amended as to matters of form,^ and also in substance by narrowing ^ its extent, and otherwise. When a substantial amendment of a demurrer is allowed, it is customary to give the plaintiff leave to amend his bill at the same time.^ An amendment of a plea, except as to a matter of form,* is less frequently allowed ; and only upon an application in which the court must be told precisely what the amendment is to be, and how the slip happened which it is to correct.^ In sacli a case, the defendant is usually given a very short time within which to amend.^ The amendment of a replication will almost always be allowed.' § 167. Amendment of Answers. — The equity rule affecting the amendment of answers is as follows : " After an answer is put in, it may be amended, as of course, in any matter of form, or by filling up a blank, or correcting a date, or reference to a document, or other small matter, and be resworn at any time before a replication is put in, or the cause set down for hearing 9 Rule 46. r. Mellisli, 11 Ves. 70; Story's Eq. PI. 1'' Gier v. Gregg, 4 McLean, 202. § 894. 11 Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2(1 Am. ed.) 468 ; 3 Gregg v. Legli, 4 Madrlock, 198, 207 ; citing Bolton r. Bolton, MS. See also Atwill v. Ferrett, 2 Blatclif. 39, 49. Trust & Fire Insurance Co. v. Jenkins, 8 « U. S. R. S. § 954. Paige (N. Y.), 589. 5 Story's Fq. PI. § 895. See Giant '2 Chicago, M. &. St. P. Ry. Co. v. Tliinl Powder Co. v. Safety Nitre Powder Co., 19 Nat. Bank of Chicago, 184 IJ. S. 276, 289. Fed. R. 509. § 166. 1 U. S. R. S. § 954. e Story's Eq. PI. § 895. 3 Gregg V. Legh, 4 Madd. 19.3, 207 ; ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (4th Am. ed.) 831. Atwill V. Ferrett, 2 Blatchf. 39, 49 ; Baker 282 AMENDMENTS. [CHAP. XII. upon bill and answer. But after replication, of such setting down for hearing, it shall not be amended in any material matters, as by adding new matters, facts, or defenses, or quali- fying or altering the original statements, except by special leave of the court, or of a judge thereof, upon motion and cause shown, after due notice to the adverse party, sui)ported if re- quired, by affidavit; and in every case where leave is so granted, the court or the judge granting the same may, in his discretion, require that the same be separately engrossed, and added as a distinct amendment to the original answer, so as to be distin- guishable therefrom." ^ The principles upon which the courts proceed in allowing such amendments is thus stated by Judge Story. " In mere matters of form, or mistakes of dates, or ver- bal inaccuracies, courts of equity are very indulgent in allowing amendments. But when application is made to amend an answer in material facts, or to change essentially the grounds taken in the original answer, courts of equity are exceedingly slow and reluctant in acceding to it. To support such applications, they require very cogent circumstances, and such as to repel the no- tion of any attempt of the party to evade the justice of the cause, or to set up new and ingeniously contrived defenses or subter- fuges. When the object is to let in new facts and defenses wholly dependent upon parol evidence, the reluctance of the court is greatly increased, since it has a natural tendency to encourage carelessness and indifference in making answers, and leaves much room for the introduction of testimony manufactured for tlie occasion. But when tlie new facts sought to lie introduced are written papers or documents, which have been omitted by accident or mistake, there the same reason does not apply in its full force ; for such papers and documents cannot be made to speak a different language from that which originally belonged to them. The whole matter rests in the sound discretion of the court." ^ " It seems to me that before any court of equity should allow such amended answers, it should be perfectly sat- isfied that the reasons assigned for the application are cogent and satisfactory ; that the mistakes to be corrected, or the facts to be added are made highly probable, if not certain; that they are material to the merits of the case in controversy ; that § 167. 1 Rule 60. 2 Smith v. Babcock, .3 Sumner, 583, 586. § 167.] AMENDMENT OF ANSWERS. 283 the party has not been guilty of gross negligence ; and that the mistakes have been ascertained, and the new facts have come to the knowledge of the party, since the original answer was put in and sworn to. Where the party relies upon new facts which have come to his knowledge since the answer was put in, or where it is manifest that he has been taken by surprise, or where the mistake or omission is manifestly a mere inadvertence and oversight, there is generally less reason to object to the amend- ment than there is where the whole bearing of the facts and evidence must have been well known before the answer was ))ut in." ^ An amendment of an answer changing the character of the defense will rarely be allowed after the court has rendered an opinion adverse to the position originally taken by the defendant.* The defendant will rarely be allowed to withdraw an admission which he has made.'^ Leave to amend will be denied when the complainant proves by affidavit that the new matter sought to be introduced is false.^ Ordinarily, leave to amend an answer will be denied when the defendant knew of the facts which lie wishes to introduce, at the time his original answer was drawn;" or might have then discovered them by the exercise of reasonable diligence.*^ An omission due to a mistake of law cannot ordinarily be cured by amendment.^ The court may refuse to allow an amendment which would introduce an uncon- scientious defense, sucli as the statute of limitations,^*^ the statute of frauds,^! or that a contract made by a complainant corpora- tion was not authorized by its charter.^^ When the proposed amendment is trivial the answer may be removed from the file, altered, resworn to, and refiled;!^ but if it is of any length, it is customary to file a supplemental answer setting it forth. ^* 3 Smith V. Babcock, .3 Sumner, 583, 8 Blatchf. 85; Webster Loom Co. v. Hig- 586. gins, 13 Blatclif. 349. * Calloway v. Dobson, 1 Brock. IID. ■> Webster Loom Co. v. Wiggins, 13 See Waklen v. Bodley, 14 Pet. 150; Blatchf. 349; Cross y. Morgan, Fed. R. Hamilton v. Nevada G. & S. Min. Co., 241. 33 Fed. K. 562, 568. i* Cock ». Evans, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 287. 5 Ruggles V. Eddy, 11 Blatchf. 524. " Cook c. Bee, 2 Tenn. Ch. 344. 6 Hicks V. Otto, 17 Fed. 11. 539. '- Tiiird Avenue Savings Bank v. Di- ^ India Rubber Comb Co. v. Phelps, mock, 9 C. E. Green (24 N. J. Eq.), 20. 8 Blatclif. 85; Webster Loom Co. ?'. Hig- i-^ Bailey Washing Machine Co. r. gins, 13 Blatchf. 349; Cross v. Morgan, Young, 12 Blatchf. 190. 6 Fed. R. 241 ; Suydam r. Truesdale, 6 '^ Dolder v. Bank of England, 10 Yes. McLean, 4-50. 284, 285 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5tli Am. ed.) 8 India Rubber Comb Co. v. Phelps, 779, 780. 284 AMENDMENTS. [CHAP. XII. Leave to withdraw an answer and file a demurrer or plea may ^^ but very rarely will be granted. ^"^ § 168. Practice in obtaining Leave to Amend. — The application for leave to amend must be in writing, stating the new matter which the applicant desires to introduce by amendment, and must be supported by an affidavit, stating the reason why this matter was not included in the original jilcading.^ Where the former pleading was verified, oath must be made to the truth of the proposed amendments.^ Where the proposed amendment consists of matters disclosed by documentary evidence, the docu- ments themselves must be produced if possible.^ The court may impose terms as a condition precedent to amendment ; for ex- ample, a disclosure of the names of the witnesses whom the party expects to call to prove the new matter.* The order allowing the amendment should state the new matter to be inserted.^ If the amended pleading states new matter not allowed by the order, it may be stricken from the file.^ The court upon ap[)eal will dis- regard an amended pleading filed without leave," unless the other party has treated it as valid, when he cannot raise the objection for the first time upon appeal.^ When both parties have con- ducted the case as if the i)leadings contained certain allegations therein omitted, an amendment inserting sucli allegations may be allowed at almost any stage of the cause.^ The Supreme Court may,^^ but rarely will,^i reverse a decree for an error in refusing permission to make an amendment ; never unless the proposed amendment appears upon the record. ^^ It has been said tliat a decree will not be reversed for an error in allowing an amend- ment. ^^ The Supreme Court will not allow a pleading to be 15 U. S. V. American Bell Tel. Co., 39 ^ Strange v. Collins, 2 V. & B. 1G3, Fed. R. 716. 1C7. 16 Piielps V. Elliott, 30 Fed. K. 306. 1 Terry v. McLure, 103 U. S 442. § 108. 1 Snead v. M'CouU, 12 How. « Clements r. Moore, 6 Wall. 299. 407, 422 ; National Bank v. Carpenter, ^ Tremaine v. Ilitciicock, 2o Wall. 101 U. S. 507, 568; Wells v. Wood, 10 518. Ves. 401; Nabob of tlie Carnatic v. East w Ri,Mie v. Wliiteliill, 135 U. S. 021, India Co., 1 Ves. Jr. .374, 385; Kod^jers v. 027, 040. Kodgers, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 424; Daniell's n National Bank v. Carpenter, 101 U. Ch. IV. (5tli Am. ed.) 781. S. 507, 508. But see Riddle r. Wiiitebill, 2 Rodgers i: Rodger?, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 135 U. S. 621, 027, 040 424. 1- National Bank v. Carpenter, 107 U. •5 Churton v. Frewen, L. R. 1 Eq. 238 ; S. 507, 608. Daniell's Cii. Pr. (5tii Am. ed.) 781. '3 Ciiapman v. Barney, 120 U. S. 077, ■« Caster r. Wood, 1 Baldwin. 280. 081. 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 410. § 168.] PKACTICE IN OBTAINING LEAVE TO AMEND. 285 amended upon appeal to it i* except by coiisent.i^ j^ l^as been held, however, that a Circuit Court has power to allow an amend- ment to a pleading when hearing an appeal from a District Court.16 14 Pacific Railroad of Mo. v. Ketchum, i^ Kennedy v. Georgia State Bank, 8 95 U. S. 1. How. 586. 16 Warren v. Moody, 9 Fed. R. 673. 286 CROSS-BILLS. [chap. XIIL CHAPTER XIIL CliOSS-BILLS. § 169. Definition and Origin of Cross Bills. — A cross-bill IS a hill filed by a defendant in a suit in equity against one or more of the other parties, in order to obtain either discovery of facts in aid of his defence, or complete relief to all parties as to the mat- ters charged in the original bill.^ It was borrowed, through the canon, from the reconventio of the later civil law;^ and from it is derived the counterclaim of code-pleading.^ It was origi- nally used chiefly for the purpose of set-off and discovery, which modern statutory enactments have made it now possible to obtain in a simpler way. § 170. When a Cross-Bill should be Filed. — A cross-bill is filed by one of the defendants to a suit in equity either for his own pro- tection, or by the direction of the court at the hearing, if the pleadings are then insufficient to enable it to determine the rights of all the parties sufficiently to make a complete decree upon the subject-matter of the suit.^ This latter case most frequently happens when persons in opjaosite interests are co- defendants. Although a defendant can by his answer obtain the benefit of any defense he may have against the plaintiffs claim, he can, except in a very few cases, obtain no relief against the latter in the same suit beyond what results neces- sarily from the denial of the jirayer of the original bill.^ '' If the facts which a defendant wishes to set up destroy the plain- tiff's apparent cause of action, they constitute a defense, and should be set up by answer or plea; but if they only furnish a reason why the court should make a decree depriving the §100. 1 Mr. Justice Nelson in Ayrcs Field i'. SchieffL'lIn, 7 J. Ch. (N. Y.) V. Carver, 17 How. 5U1, at page 5%. 250. '^ Story's Eq. PI. § 402; Langdell's ^ Carnochan v. Christie, 11 Wlicat. Eq. Pi. §§ 152, 154. 446 ; Ford c. Douglas, 5 How. 143 ; Chapin 3 See Brande v. Gilchrist, 18 Fed. R. v. Walker, G Fed. R. 794 ; Brande v. Gil- 465. Christ, 18 Fed. R. 405; Denver & R. G. § 170. 1 Langdell's Eq. PI. § 124 ; Ry. Co. v. Denver, S. P. & P. R. Co., 17 Dauiell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1550; Fed. R. 807. § 171.] WHEN A CROSS-BILL SHOULD NOT BE FILED. 287 plaintiff of his cause of action, they must be set up by a cross-bill ; and in the latter case the defendant's answer to the original bill should strictly contain nothing but discovery." ^ Where the plaintiff's right depends upon an instrument or conveyance which is not void, but merely voidable on account of fraud or otherwise, the defendant can in most cases only set up the facts showing its invalidity by a cross-bill.* In a suit to set aside a contract, the defendant cannot have the contract enforced unless he files a cross-bill.5 It has been held that a discharge in bankruptcy must be pleaded in a cross-bill.*^ There are very few cases ' in which a court can give one defendant relief against another, unless the former files a cross-bill.^ In a case where the original bill prayed a confirmation of a title under a deed absolute in form, a cross-bill by one of the defendants, claiming that the deed be declared a trust deed for her sole benefit, was held to be germane to the subject-matter of tlie suit, and sufficient to support a decree bind- ing the other defendants as well as the plaintiff,^ No party is obliged to file a cross-bill unless the court orders him to do so. Otherwise, he may seek by an independent bill the relief which he desires.^*' A cross-bill may be filed at any time before the final hearing if not at any time before the final decree. ^^ § 171. When a Cross-Bill should not be Filed. — There are two important classes of cases in which tlie court gives relief to the defendant without a cross-bill. Suits for an account, in which, if it finally appears that the balance is in favor of the defendant, the court will give him a decree for the sum found to be due to him ; ^ and bills for the specific performance of contracts, in 3 Langdell's Eq. § 15-5. ^ s,„it|^ „. Woolfolk, 115 U. S. 143, * Ford V. Douglas, 5 How. 14.3 ; Lang- 148 ; Clianiley r. Lord Dunsany, 2 Sch. dell's Eq. PI. § 131 ; Jacobs v. Kichard, & Lef. 690,718; Conry y. Caulfield, 2Ball ISBeav. 300; Beddoes y. Fugh, 20 Heav. & Beatty, 255; Elliott t: Pell, 1 Paige 407,410, 417; llolderness o. Kaiikin, 2 (N. Y.), 263; Langdell's Eq. PI. §§ 155, l)e Gex, F. & J. 258; Eddleston v. Col- 156. See § 172. lins, 3 De Gex, M. & G. 1, 16; Cliapin s Langdi-11's Eq. PI. §§ 15-5, 156; Tal- r. Walker, 2 M'Crary, 175. But see bot ?;. Mc(iee, 4 Monroe (Kv.), 375, 379; Dayton i'. Melick, 27 N. J. Eq. (12 C. E. Beacli v. Rice, 131 U. S. 293. Green) 862; Pitts v. Powledge, 66 Ala. » Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 147 ; Kennedy v. Green, 3 My. & K. 699, 650, 677. 718; Eyry ;;. Huglies, 2 Cli. D. 148; Os- w Washburn & Moen Manuf. Co. i;. borne v. Barge, 30 Fed. R. 805. Scutt, 22 Fed. R. 710. 5 Meissnerc. Buck,28Fed.R.161; Car- " Neal r. Foster, 34 Fed. R. 496; noclian r, Christie, 11 Wheaton, 446, 447. Rogers v. Reissner, 31 Federal Reporter, ^ Banque Franco-Egyptienne i;.Brown, 592. 24 Fed. R. 106, 107. § 171. i Clarke v. Tipping, 4 Beav. 588; 288 CROSS-BILLS. [chap. XIII. which, if the parties differ as to the terms of the contract, and that question is decided in the defendant's favor, the court will compel the plaintiff to perform the contract thus established.^ But these exceptions illustrate the rule ; for they proceed dis- tinctly upon the theory that the court only entertains such bills upon the condition that the plaintiff will consent to the same justice being rendered to the defendant that he asks for himself ; and formerly this consent was required to be expressly given in the bill.^ So, when a question had been fully litigated between a plaintiff and one defendant, and it appeared that the latter was liable, not to the former, but to a co-defendant, who was himself liable to the plaintiff to the same extent, the court has allowed a decree in favor of the latter defendant against the other without the filing of any cross-bill.* " When the decision of a controversy between a plaintiff and two defendants raises an incidental and collateral question between the co-defendants, the court will sometimes dispose of the latter by means of a ref- erence to a master, and thus save the expense of a separate suit,^ and the same course has been taken when it was impossible to give the plaintiff' the relief to which he was entitled without first deciding a question between co-defendants." ^ " When the right claimed by a defendant consists simply in excluding the plaintiff from the right asserted by the latter, of course there is no occa- sion for a cross-bill. Therefore, when a bill is filed by a mort- gagor against a mortgagee for redemption, if the defendant can show that the plaintiff is not entitled to redeem, he can obtain the benefit of a foreclosure witliout filing a cross-bill for the pur- pose ; for the dismissal of a bill to redeem upon its merits is itself a foreclosure." ' It has been said that where an original bill seeks to enforce an equitable title against several defendants, it is improper for a defendant to file a cross-bill seeking the enforce- Toulmin r. Reid, 14 Beav. 499 ; Jervis v. 14 Beav. 505 ; Kennington v. Hougliton, Berridge, L. R. 8 Ch. 357 ; Campbell v. 2 Y. & C. N. R. 630. Campbell, 4 Halst. Eq. (N. J.) 740; Little •'La Touclie v. Lord Dmisany, 1 r. Merrill, 62 Me. 328. Sclioales & Lefroy, 137, IGO, 167 ; s. c. ms 2 Fife y. Clayton, 13 Ve.s. 540 ; Stapyl- Cliamley r. Lord Diiiisany, 2 SL-lioale* ton V. Scott, 13 Ves. 425; Bradford v. & Lefroy, 690, 718; Langdell's Eq. VI Union Bank of Tennessee, 13 How. 57 ; § 125. Northern Railroad v. Ogdensburg &Lake ^ Hood v. Clapham, 19 Beav. 90. See Champlain R. R. Co., 18 Fed. R. 815. Elliott r. Pell, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 263. But see s. c 20 Fed. R. 347. " Langdell's Eq. PI. § 125. ■i LangdeU's Eq. PI. § 122; Clarke v. ' Langdell's Eq. PI. § 123. See Hilton Tipping, 4 Beav. 588; Toulmin j;. Reid, r. Barrow, 1 Ves. Jr. 284. § 171.] WHEN A CROSS-BILL SHOULD NOT BE FILED. 289 meiit of a title paramount against his co-defendants.^ It was held, where a bill was filed by one tenant in common of a mort- gage against the two others, who .had bought in separate parcels the mortgaged property, the complainant seeking to recover from them his share of the purchase-money, that a cross-bill could not be filed by one defendant against the other to recover a balance due him " resulting from the price severally paid and to be paid by them, as compared with the respective amounts" of their interests in the mortgage.^ Where a bill was filed to restrain a sale under an execution, the defendant was allowed to file a cross- bill praying a decree, declaring that he had a lien upon the prop- erty on which he had levied, appointing a receiver, and directing the sale of such property.!^ Where the mortgagee filed a bill to collect rents from a lessee and a sub-lessee of the mortgaged rail- road, and for a declaration that the lease was binding upon the sub-lessee, a cross-bill by the lessee against the mortgagor, who was a defendant to the original, seeking a cancellation of the lease, was held properly filed." Where the original bill prayed for an injunction against the infringement of a patent relating to electric signals granted William R. Sykes, leave to file a cross- bill praying an injunction against the use by complainant of the term "The Sykes System" was denied.^^ In a suit to enjoin the alleged infringement of a patent, a cross-bill seeking an injunc- tion against the publication of circulars by plaintiff to defendant's customers, threatening them with suits and penalties if they use defendant's wares, which are charged to be infringements of plaintiff's patent, has been held improper.^^ Where a bill was filed against the stockholders of an insolvent corporation to col- lect out of their unpaid subscriptions the amount of a judgment against it, a cross-bill filed by one who had paid a larger pro- portion of his subscription than the rest, praying for an account- ing, and that the others be compelled to pay the judgment, was held bad upon demurrer." Where a bill was filed by a remainder- 8 Ayres I'. Carver, 17 How. 591. 59-3. ^^ International Tooth-Crown Co. v. y Weaver v. Alter, 3 Woods, 152. Carniichael, 44 Fed. R. 350. See Fou- 10 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. !'. Third geres v. Murbarger, 44 Fed. 292, cited Nat. Bank of Chicago, 134 U. S. 276. supra, § 74. Contra, Ide i;. Ball Engine " Jesup V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 43 Fed. Co., 31 Fed. R. 901. R. 483. ^* Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 365, 1- Johnson R. R. Signal Co. r. Union 373. Switch & Signal Co , 43 Fed. R. 331. VOL. 1. — 19 290 . CROSS-BILLS. [chap. XIII. man under a will, claiming that certain provisions of the will establishing prior estates to his own were invalid, and praying that the trustees appointed by the will convey the property devised, either to him, or to the heirs-at-law, or to the State, a bill filed by the heirs-at-law, not impugning the estate of the equitable tenant for life, but praying that the estates in remainder, some of which were to persons yet unborn, should be declared invalid, was held improper as a cross-bilL^^ A cross-bill should not be filed merely to procure the appointment of a receiver.!^ Where, on a bill by several persons to restrain the infringement of a patent and for an account, the defenses being invalidity of the patent and a license, the court sustains the patent and decrees damages ; a bill cannot be sustained as a cross-bill, which sets up a judgment in another suit against one of the complainants, and prays that they all set forth and discover what share of the dam- ages is claimed by each, so that the defendant who files the cross- bill may set off his judgment against the share claimed by his judgment debtor.^''' A cross-bill in a suit to restrain the infringe- ment of a patent will not be sustained when filed by a defendant who claims no title to the patented invention, for the sole pur- pose of a discovery of the weakness of the complainant's title, an injunction against his suing to enforce his patent, and a decree declaring the patent void.^® It has been held that, in such a suit, a third party who has been allowed to intervene cannot file a cross-hill which could not have been maintained by the original defendant.^^ It has been held that in a suit brought under U. S. R. S. § 4918, touching interfering patents, affirmative relief may be given the defendant upon his answer ; and that a cross-bill is unnecessary ,20 but may be filed if the defendant so chooscs.^^ An answer in such a suit cannot be treated as a bill to enjoin an infringement.^^ Cross-bills were formerly used to bring to the 15 Cross V. DeValle, 1 Wall. 5. See ^o Lookwood v. Cleveland, 6 Fed. R. Neal V. Foster, 34 Fed. R. 490, 408; Os- 721; Foster v. Lind! Northern Railroad v. Ogdensbursj & ^ Savage v. Carter, 9 Dana (Ky.), 409, Lake Champlain R. R. Co,, 18 Fed. R. 815; 414. s. c. 20 Fed. R. 347. * Hudson >-. Hudson, 3 Randolph (Va.), «• Kelsey !?. Hobby, 16 Pet. 269,277; 117. 292 CROSS-BILLS. [chap, xiil tion.^ Where a stranger bj leave of the state court niterveiied and then removed the case, and after removal the complainant amended his bill so as to omit all allegations affecting the inter- venor, and then moved to remand ; the fact that the intervenor had filed a cross-bill against the original parties to the suit was held no bar to the remand.^ It seems that a cross-bill may in some cases pray relief which could not be obtained by original bill because of a remedy at law. Thus, it has been held that a defendant who is not in possession of land, when a bill is filed against him to remove a cloud to the title to the same, may, if he can show a better title than that of the complainant, obtain possession of tlie land by cross-bill.' A cross-bill filed simply for discovery need show no equity for discovery, as the court's juris- diction for that purpose is sufficiently supplied by the original bill.^ When a cross-bill is brought by one defendant against another, it seems that the original complainant must be made a party to it.^ It has been said by a judge of great authority that " new parties cannot be introduced into a cause by a cross-bill." ^^ It was then held that this could not be done when the result would be to ar- range parties of the same citizenship upon different sides of a controversy over which a Federal court would have no original jurisdiction.^^ It has been said, however, that such an objection can be raised only by the new parties thus sought to be brought in.'^ And in a suit to restrain the infringement of a patent, a cross-bill was sustained which brought in as defendant to it a new party, the assignor of the patent to the original complainant ; claimed that that assignor had previously assigned the equitable title thereto to the orator of the cross-bill, and that the legal as- signee had bought with notice thereof ; and prayed a conveyance of the patent and an injunction against further annoy ance.^^ A 6 Peay I'.Schenck & Bliss, Woolw. 175; ch. 1, § 3; Doble i'. Potman, Ilardres, Cross V. beValle, 1 Wall. 5 ; Osborne Co. 160. V. Barpc, 80 Fed. R. 805; Jesup v. Illinois ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 17-17 ; Cent. R. Co., 4.3 Fed. R. 48o; Morgan's Putnam i'. New Albany, 4 Biss. S65, La. & T. R. R., S.S. Co. v. Texas Central 373. Ry. Co., 137 U. S. 171. But see Veach i^ Mr. Justice Curtis in Shields ?•. Bar- V. Rice, 131 U. S. 203, 318. row, 17 How. 130, 145. See Randolph v. 6 Iowa Homestead Co. r. Dcs Moines Robinson, 2 N. J. L. J. 171. Nav. & R. R. Co., 8 Fed. R. 97. " Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130. ■^ Greenwalt v. Duncan, 10 Fed. R. 35. '- Brandon Manuf. Co. v. Prime, 14 Contra, Calverley v. Williams, 1 Ves. Jr. Blatchf. 371, 373. 211,213; Story's Eq. PI. § 398. '^ Brandon Manuf. Co. i'. Prime, 14 8 Story's Eq. PI. §399; Mitford's PI. Blatchf. 371. See also Blodgett v. Ho- § 173.] PROCEEDINGS UPON CROSS-BILLS. 293 stranger to a suit cannot file a cross-bill without permission from the court.^* A cross-bill filed by a stranger without such permis- sion may be stricken from the file.^^ It is the better practice for a defendant to apply for leave before filing a cross-bill. ^^ In England a cross-bill could be filed in a different court from that where the original bill was pending ; ^^ but a cross-bill cannot be filed in a State court to a bill pending in a Circuit Court of the United States.^^ It is no objection to a cross-bill in a Federal court that an original bill for the same relief was previously filed in a court of the State where the Federal court was held ; ^^ but after a removal of the suit begun in the State court, the two suits may be consolidated.^*^ A cross-bill should be signed by counsel.'^^ In other respects cross-bills should conform to the requirements of original bills.-^ It is irregular to unite a cross-bill and an answer in the same pleading.^^ A petition " by way of a cross-bill " filed by a defendant, " referring to the case by title, and stating that ' the facts fully appear in the case,' praying the reverse of what the complainant had prayed, but not making anybody defendant nor praying process, and under which no process was obtained," was held a mere nullity, which should have been stricken from the file, and was disregarded by the court upon appeal. ^^ It seems that a bill filed as a cross-bill, if irregular in that respect alone, may yet be sustained as an original bill.'-^^ A bill in- tended as a bill of review, but defective in that respect, may be sustained as a cross-bill.^^ § 173. Proceedings upon Cross-Bills. — It has been held at cir- bart, 18 Vt. 414 ; Hurd v. Case, 32 111. 45 ; 21 Smith's Ch. Pr. Book II. ch. i. Jones V. Smith, 14 111. 229. 22 Smith's Ch. Pr. Book II. ch. i. ; Dan- i* Bronson v. La Crosse & Milwaukee iell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) ch. xxxiv. § 1. R. R. Co., 2 Wall. 283; Forbes u. Mem- See Mason v. Gardiner, 4 Brown Ch. C. phis. El Paso & Pacific R. R. Co., 2 436; Greenwalt i'. Duncan, 16 Fed. R. .35. Woods, 323. 23 Hubbard v. Turner, 2 McLean, 510, 1^ Bronson v. La Crosse & Milwaukee 540; Morgan v. Tipton, 3 McLean, 839, R. R. Co., 2 Wall. 283, 294, 303; Putnam 344. But see Talbot v. McGee, 4 Monr. V. New Albany, 4 Biss. 365, 367. (Ky.) 375, 378. 1® See International Tooth-Crown Co. -* Washington R. R. v. Bradleys, 10 i;. Carmichael, 44 Fed. R. 350. Wall. 299, 300, 303. '^ Parker v. Leigh, 6 Madd. 115 ; '^^ Foss u. First Nat. Bank, 1 McCrarv, Story's Eq. PI. § 400. 474. 18 Story's Eq. PI. § 400. 2g Houghton v. West, 2 Brown Pari. 19 Brandon Manuf. Co. v. Prime, 14 Rep., by Tomlins, 88, Story's Eq. PI. Blatchf. 371. § 401a. 20 Wabash, St. L., & P. Ry. Co. v. Cen- tral Trust Co. of N. Y., 23 Fed. R. 513. 294 CEOSS-BILLS. [chap. XIII. cuit that a subpoena to answer a cross-bill may, by express leave of the court, be served by substitution upon the attorney for the complainant to the original bill when his client is beyond the ju- risdiction of the court.i In that case the original bill was filed to foreclose a mortgage, of which the cross-bill prayed a cancella- tion. The court said : " The reason of this rule would seem to limit it in equity cases to cross-bills, either wholly or partly de- fensive in their character, and to deny its application to cross- bills setting up facts not alleged in the original bill, and which new facts, though they relate, as they must, to the subject-matter of the original bill, are made the basis for the affirmative relief." ^ Leave to make substituted service was refused in a case where the plaintiffs offered to stipulate that the matter sought to be pleaded by cross-bill might be set up by answer.^ Service by publication of a subpoena upon a cross-bill is improper.* " Where a defendant in equity files a cross-bill for discovery only against the plaintiff to the original bill, the defendant to the original bill shall first answer thereto before the original plaintiff shall be compellable to- answer the cross-bill. The answer of the original plaintiff to such cross-bill may be read and used by the party fil- ing the cross-bill at the hearing, in the same manner and under the same restrictions as the answer praying relief may now be read and used."^ By amending his bill, the plaintiff was held in England to lose the benefit of a similar rule,*^ provided that, when he made the amendment, he knew that the cross-bill had been filed.'' The testimony taken under the cross-bill may be read for or against the original bill ; and the testimony taken under the original bill can be read for or against the cross-bill. In either case a formal order granting leave to do this, " saving all just exceptions," should first be obtained ex imrte? Both bills are usually heard together both in the first instance ^ and upon ap- § 173. 1 Lowenstein I'. Glidewell, 5Dill. < Webster Loom Co. v. Sliort, 10 Off. .325 ; Kingsbury v. Buc-kner, i:}4 U. S. 650, Gaz. 1019. 67F), Peiiy r. Sobenck & Bliss, Woolw. & Rule 72. 175; Johnson K. K. Signal Co. c Union « NoeW'. King, 2 Madd. 392 ; Hannah r. Switch & Signal Co., 43 Fed. R. 331. Rut Hodgson, 30 Beav. 19. see Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 807, ^ Gray v. Haig, 13 Beav. 65. 810, 811 ; § 96 and citations. ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1552, 2 Caldwell, J., in Lowenstein v. Glide- 1553; Lubiere v. Genou, 2 V^es Sen. 579. v^ell, 5 Dill. 325, .328. See Rubber Co. v. « Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591 ; Moore Goodyear, 9 Wall. 807, 810, 811; and iv Huntington, 17 Wall 417, 4-22 , /v.'/wr/e supra, § 96. Railroad Co., 95 U S. 221 ; Daniell's Ch. 3 Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 9 Blatchf. 316. Tr. (2d Am. ed.) 1751. § 173.] PEOCEEDINGS UPON CROSS-BILLS. 295 peal.i^ Where a decree had been made dismissing a cross-hill before a decree upon the original bill, it was held that an appeal therefrom taken before a decree upon the original bill must be dismissed.i^ A decree upon the original bill will supersede a pre- vious decree upon a cross-bill if the two are inconsistent.^^ Where tiie cross-bill seeks relief, the voluntary dismissal of the original bill will not dismiss the cross-bill.^^ It is otherwise where the cross-bill merely seeks discovery.!'^ It has been held that a dis- missal of the original bill by the court after a hearing operates as a dismissal of a cross-bill between the defendants, even though the cross-bill show a good case for relief ; " but as a cross-bill, it must follow the fate of the original bill." ^^ A cross-bill should not be filed before the answer to the original bill.^^ It should regularly be filed with, or immediately after, the defendant's answer,^^ but may be allowed any time before the final decree. ^^ But a creditor who has come in under a decree for the benefit of creditors may file a cross-bill without leave of the court, if his rights cannot be otherwise adequately protected. ^^ In a case where the defendant, after answer, learned of facts tending to show that the plaintiff had before suit parted with all interest in the subject-matter to a citizen of the same State as the defendant, the proceedings were stayed until the complainant answered a cross-bill charging such a transfer.^o When an abatement takes place after a cross-bill has been filed, it seems that there should be a bill of revivor filed in both the orginal and the cross cause.^^ Otherwise, proceedings upon cross-bills are substantially the same as those upon original bills.^ 10 Ayres v. Carver, 17 How. 591 ; Ex Coast L. J. 211 ; Jesup v. Illinois Cent. R. parte Railroad Co., 95 U. S. 221. Co., 4.3 Fed. R. 483. " A3Tes V. Carver, 17 How. 591. ^6 Allen v. Allen, Hempst. 58. i'^ Ex parte Railroad Co., 95 U. S. 221, i" Daniell's Ch. Pr. {2d Am. ed.) 1745; 22-5. White y. Buloid, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 164; 1-^ Lowenstein v. Glidewell, 5 Dill. 325 ; Allen v. Allen, Hempst. 58. Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Union is Neal v. Foster, 34 Fed. R. 49G ; Rolling Mill Co., 109 U. S. 702. Rogers v. Reissner, 31 Fed. R 592. " Donohoe r. Mariposa Land & Mining ^^ La Touche v. Lord Dunsany, 1 Sch. Co., 1 Pacific Coast L. J. 211, 219. & Lef. 137 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 397. 1'^ Mr. Justice Field in Dows v. Chicago, -" Young v. Pott, 4 Wash. 521. 11 Wall. 108, 112. See also Cross v. 21 Story's Eq. PI. § 303. DeValle, 1 Wall. 5, 14. But see Wabash, 22 See, however, Lautz r. Gordon, 28 St. L. & P. Ry. Co. I'. Central Trust Co. Fed. R. 204; Puetz v. Bransford, 31 Fed. of N. Y., 22 Fed. R. 138, 142 ; Donohoe v. R. 458. Mariposa Land & Mining Co., 1 Pacific 296 BILLS OF KEVIVOK, ETC. [CHAP. XIV. CHAPTER XIV. BILLS OF REVIVOR, SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS, BILLS OF REVIVOR AND SUPPLEMENT, AND BILLS IN THE NATURE OF THE SAME. § 174. Abatement. — If any event happens after the fihno: of a hill ill equity which makes it necessary to hring in a new party, either plaintiff or defendant, in order to ohtain a complete or satisfactory determination of the controversy, the suit will either abate or become defective.^ The abatement or defect must be remedied by the filing of a bill of revivor, a bill in the nature of a bill of a revivor, a supplemental bill, a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, or a bill of revivor and supplement.^ An abate- ment takes place by the death of one of tlie parties, or, where a married woman is under a disability, by the marriage of a female plaintiff.^ An action entirely abates by the death of any of the plaintiffs : ■* unless his interest therein wholly ceases by his death,^ or survives to another party to the suit,^ or he has been previously discharged by a decree in an interpleader '' suit, or a suit in the nature of an interpleader ; when it does not. Formerly a suit abated by the marriage of a female plaintiff ; ^ but it may be doubted whether this rule would be followed where a married woman has the same power over her property as if she were single.^ By the marriage of a female defendant, a suit never abated, though her husband had to be named in all subsequent proceedings.^'^ When the husband of a female plaintiff died, by the former practice she could at her option continue the suit without filing any bill of revivor ; but if she did not, it was con- sidered abated and she was not liable for the costs.^^ A suit abates upon the death of a defendant who has appeared so far as § 174. 1 Mitford's PI. c)i. I, § S. ' Anon., 1 Vern. 351 ; Ji'nnings v. '•^ Mitford's PI. cli. 1, § 3. See infra, Nugent, 1 Molloy, \Zi; Daniell's Cii. Pr. § 373, for proceeding.^ at coniraon law. (2d Am. ed.) 1765. •^ Mitford'-s Pi. oil. 1, § 3. » Mitford's PI. cli. 1, § 8; Story's Eq. * Mitford's PI. oh. 1, § 3 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 354. PI. § .354. 9 Lorillard v. Standard Oil Company, 5 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) IG98 ; 2 P'ed. R. Wl. Mitford's PI. ch. I, § .3. J ' Mitford's PI. ch. 1 § 3 ; Story's Eq. 6 Fallowes v. Williamson, 11 Ves. .309; PI. § 351. Boddy c. Kent. 1 Mer. 3G4 ; Fisher v. " Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 3. Kutherford, Baldw. 188; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am ed.) 1099. § 174.] ABATEMENT. 297 proceedings against him or his interest arc concerned, and if he were an indispensable party to a decree all proceedings must be suspended till his representatives have been brought in.^^ If, however, his interest wholly ceases by his death, or wholly sur- vives to one of the other parties, no revivor will be necessary .^"^ A suit al)ates by the death of a member of a firm during a suit against it.^* The death of a defendant before appearance does not abate the suit. For, according to the former practice, till his appearance, or a decree taken against him i^ro confesso, there was no cause against him : but a bill had to be filed against his representative, which was an original bill as far as respected the defendant, but a supplemental bill with respect to the suit.^^ It has been held that the death of a sole defendant to a suit for an injunction against the infringement of a patent and for an ac- counting, when it occurs before a decree for an account, abates and terminates so much of the suit as seeks an injunction, so that it cannot be revived against his executor, unless it be shown that the latter continues the infringement ; ^'^ but that the suit may be continued against his personal representative for an accounting of profits and for damages.^' After an interlocutory decree for an accounting, such a suit may be revived against the personal repre- sentatives of the deceased defendant. ^*^ Unless there be some clause in its charter to the contrary a suit by or against a corpora- tion ordinarily abates by the dissolution of the corporation ; ^^ but it has been held that the entrance into liquidation and the closing of the business of a national banking association does not abate a suit brought in its name.^*^ After a decree has been reversed upon appeal, and the cause sent back with a special mandate directing the further proceedings to be taken, or affirmed upon appeal and sent back with a mandate directing its enforcement, it is too late to claim for the first time that the suit has abated 12 Story's Eq PI. § 369. Co., 44 Fed. R. 539. But see Draper v. " Mitford'sPl. ch. 1, §3 ; Daniell's Ch. Hudson, 1 Holmes, 208. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1698, 1699; Story's Eq. i^ Atterbury v. Gill, 13 Off. Gaz. 276. PI- §357. 19 Nat. Bank v. Colby, 21 Wall. 609; » Wilson V. Seligman, 10 Repr. 651, Greeley i-. Smith, 3 Story, 658; Mumma A. D. 1880. v. Potomac Co., 8 Pet. 281. But see 1^ Sliadwell, V. C, in Crowfoot!'. Man- Lake Superior Iron Co. v Brown, Bonnell der, 9 Simons, 396. See United States & Co., 44 Fed. R. 539; as to municipal V Fields, 4 Blatclif. 326. corporations, Hemingway v. Stansell. 106 1'' Draper v. Hudson, 1 Holmes, 208; U. S 399 ; Grantland ;• Memphis, 12 Fe Thompson r. Took, 1 Dickens, 115; 2 Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1714; Peters r. Robinson, 1 Dickens, IIG; Sin- Griswold ('. Hill, 1 Paine, 483. clair v. James, 1 Dickens, 277. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 171-5. i" Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 171G ; * Finch V. Lord VVinchelsea, 1 Eq. Lee r. Lee, 1 Hare, 022 ; Ilawley i;. Ben- Cas. Abr. 2; Roundell v. Currer, 6 Ves. nett, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 103. 250; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1715. " Gregson v. Oswald, 1 Cox Eq 343. ^ Wa.sliington Insurance Co. v. Slee, 2 '^ Jones r. IMasscy, Brown r. Warner, Paige (N. Y.), .305, 3G8. Turner i\ Cole, all quotoil in Cliowick v. § 176] WHEN A SUIT MAY BE REVIVED AND EFFECT OF REVIVOR. 299 decree for a perpetual injunction ; for that " would be in effect decreeing a perpetual suit." ^^ The power of the court to make an order that the representatives of a deceased plaintiff revive within a certain limited time after notice to them, or that the bill be dis- missed, is doubtful.i^ Where the abatement is partial, as where it is caused by the death of a defendant, it prevents those proceed- ings only by which his interest may be affected.^^ Thus, if there be a decree against trustees and the beneficiary of their trust for a conveyance, and the beneficiary die, the trustees may still be obliged to convey ; ^^ and, after the death of one defendant, process of con- tempt may be issued and executed against the others. ^'^ It has also been held that the death of a defendant after hearing but before a decree does not necessarily prevent judgment ; ^^ and that, if practicable, a decree made before a defendant's death, for ex- ample, a decree for a sale, may bo enforced without revivor.^^ § 176. When a Suit may be Revived and Effect of Revivor. — A suit which has abated may generally be revived when anything further remains to be done therein.^ But a suit will not be allowed to be revived merely for costs which are untaxed, and liave not been previously directed to be paid out of a par- ticular estate or fund, or decreed against an executor out of assets.^ Nor can a bill of revivor be brought upon a bill filed merely for discovery, after the discovery required thereby has been obtained.^ A suit cannot be revived seven years after its dismissal for a defect of parties caused by a failure to revive,'* Where the abatement is by the death or marriage of a plaintiff, an order to revive the suit places it and all proceedings in it in precisely " the same plight, state, and condition that the Dimes, 3 Beav. 290, 202. 293 ; Chester v. i' Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2(1 Am. ed.) 1716. Life Assoc, of America, 4 Ferl. R. 487. '^ Davies v. Davies, 9 \^es. 461; Dan- 13 Askew V. Townsend, 2 Dickens, 471. iell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1717. ^* Compare dictum of Judge Story in i^ Wliiting v. Bank of tlie United Hoxie V. Carr, 1 Sumner, 173, 178, and States, 13 Pet. 6. the case of Chowick i\ Dimes, 3 Beav. § 176. ^ Gilbert's Forum Romanum, 290, where Lord Langdale, M. R., granted 181; Jolinson c. Peck, 2 Ves. wSen. 465; such an order; witli that of Lee v. Lee. Fitzpatrick v. Domingo, 14 Fed. R. 216; 1 Hare, 617, wliere Vice-Chanceller Wig- Daniell's Ch- Pr. (2d Am. pd.) 1694. ram lield that the court had no power to ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1694- make one. 1697; Story Eq. PI. § 371; Blower v. 15 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1716 ; Morrets, 3 Atk. 772; Kemp v. M.ackrell, Finch V. Lord Winchelsca, 1 Eq. Cas. 3 Atk. 812; Travis v. Waters, IJ. Ch. Abr. 2. (N. Y.) 85. '" Finch r. Lord Winchelsea, 1 Eq. Cas. ^ Horsburg v. Baker, 1 Pet. 232. Abr. 2; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) < Houth v. Owens, 30 Fed. R. 910. 1716. 300 BILLS OF KEVIVOE, ETC. [CHAP. XIV. same were in at the time when tlie abatement took place." ^ The new plaintiff may then take the same proceedings that the original plaintiff might have done.^ Thus, tlie new plaintiff may prosecute process of contempt against the defendant, taking it up where it stood at the abatement ; and if a process has been previously issued it will be revived with the revivor of the suit.° But where the abatement is caused hy the death of a defendant, "the process, being personal, cannot be revived."'' In general, however, an order to revive against the representatives of a de- ceased defendant, will place the suit as fully in the same position with regard to such representatives as can be done with refer- ence to the change of the individuals before the court.^ After revivor testimony previously taken can be used.^ § 177. Who may Revive a Suit. — It is generally necessary in order to entitle one to revive, that there should be a privity between him and the j^arty whose death caused the abatement. Therefore, upon the death of one suing in a representative capa- city, the defect can usually be remedied only by a supplemental bill, and not by a bill of revivor.^ It has been held, however, that upon the death of an administrator, the administrator de boriis 71071 may file a bill of revivor, " though there is no actual privity between him and the original plaintiff." ^ But Judge Story sug- gests that a bill in the nature of a bill of revivor would be more appropriate.^ It is said by Lord Redesdale that in the case of a bill by creditors on behalf of themselves and other creditors, any creditor may revive ; ^ but according to Daniell, in practice the form of a bill in such a case is that of a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of revivor, and not of a mere bill of revivor.^ Be- fore decree, a suit can only be revived by one or all of the sui-- viving plaintiffs, or the representatives of one that has died.'^ If any of these refuse to join, he must be made a defendant to tlie bill filed to revive the suit.'' If the suit concerned solely thi- 5 Gregson v. Oswald, 1 Cox Eq. 344. 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2cl Am. ed.) IGU? ; 6 Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Pet. 'lb'2, 266; Mitford's PI. cli. 1, § 3; Iluggins v. York Philips V. IJerbic, 1 Dickens, 98; Hyde Building Co., 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 3; Owen v. V. Forster, I Dickens, 132; Daniell's Ch. Curzon, 2 Vern. 237. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1778. a Story's Eq. PI. § 882, note 4. ' Hyde i: Forster, 1 Dickens, 132; * Mitford PI. oh. 1, § 3. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1778. ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.)1703. « Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1778. <^ Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1700; ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1778. Chester v. Life Association of America, i'^ Vattier v. Hinde, 7 Pet. 252, 206. 4 Fed. R. 487. § 197. 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1700; ed.) 1G97 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 310. Fallowes v. AVilliamson, 11 Ves. SOU. § 178.] MANNER OF EEVIVOR IX GENERAL. 301 real estate of a deceased plaintiff, his heirs alone are entitled to represent him therein ; ^ if solely his personal estate, his execu- tor or administrator ; ^ if both, separate bills may be revived by both his heirs and personal representatives, and the neglect of one to revive will not prejudice the other.^*^ In the case of a suit by a corporation sole, the death of the plaintiff, if he were entitled to the subject-matter for his own benefit, caused an abatement ; and the suit could be revived by his personal repre- sentative.^^ If, however, he were only entitled to the subject- matter in his corporate capacity, the suit became defective, and could only be continued by his successor by means of an original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill.^- After a decree, a suit may be revived by any defendant, or by the representative of any deceased defendant, Avho has acquired any right thereunder, as well as by any plaintiff. ^-^ § 178. Manner of Revivor in General. — " When a suit became abated after a decree signed and inrolled, it was anciently the practice to revive the decree by a subpoena in the nature of a scire facias, upon the return of which the party to whom it was directed might show cause against the reviving of the decree, by insisting that he was not bound by the decree, or that for some other reason it ought not to be enforced against him, or that the person suing the subpoena was not entitled to the benefit of the decree. If the opinion of the court was in his favor he was dis- missed with costs. If it was against him, or if he did not oppose the reviving of the decree, interrogatories were exhibited for his examination touching any matter necessary to the proceedings. If he opposed the reviving of the decree on the ground of facts which were disputed, he was also to be examined upon interrog- atories, to which he might answer or plead ; and issue being joined, and witnesses examined, the matter was finally heard and determined by the court. But if there had been any proceeding subsequent to the decree, this process was ineffectual, as it 8 Mitford's Equity Pleadinpr, ch. 1, 125; Ferrers v. Cherry, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. § .3 ; Ferrers v. Cherry, 1 Equity Cases 3, 4. Abridsred, 3, 4; Melius v. Thompson, 1 " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed) 28, Cliff. 125. 1701 ; 1 Kyd on Corporations, 77. 9 Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 3; Melius v. i-^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2(1 Am. ed.) 28 & Thompson, 1 Cliff. 125; Ferrers v. Cherry, 1701 ; 2 Bac. Abr. Corporation, E. 2. 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 3, 4. 13 Williams v. Cooke, 10 Ves. 406 ; l'3 Mitford's PI. ch. 1. § 3; Story's Eq. Devaynes v. Morris, 1 Myl. & Cr. 213, PI. § 367; Melius i'. Thomson, 1 Cliff. 225. 302 BILLS OF REVIVOR, ETC. [CHAP. XIV. revived the decree only, and the subsequent proceedings would not be revived but by bill, and the inrollment of decrees being now much disused, it is become the practice to revive in all cases indiscriminately by bill." ^ The writer is not acquainted with any instance of such practice in the United States. The only methods of reviving a suit in equity in the Federal courts seem to be a bill of revivor, a bill in the nature of a bill of revivor, a bill of revivor and supplement, or a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of revivor. It was held in one case that the personal representatives of a deceased defendant may voluntarily come in and be made a party upon motion.^ When a board of public officers was abolished by statute and a new board sub- stituted for it, it was held, without determining whether or not a revivor was necessary, that the members of the new board could properly be made parties to the suit by means of a bill of revivor.^ § 179. Definition of Bills of Revivor and Parties to the Same. — A bill of revivor is a continuance of the original bill, when, by death, some party to it has become incapable of prosecuting or defending a suit, or a female plaintiff has by marriage incapaci- tated herself from suing alone.^ " Whenever a suit abates by death, and the interest of the person whose death has caused the abatement is transmitted to that representative which the law gives or ascertains, as an heir-at-law, executor, or administrator ; so that the title cannot be disputed, at least in the court of chan- cery, but the person in whom the title is vested is alone to be ascertained ; the suit ma}" be continued by bill of revivor merel}'. If a suit abates by marriage of a female plaintiff, and no act is done to affect the rights of the party but the marriage, no title can be disputed ; the person of the husband is the sole fact to be ascertained; and therefore the suit may be continued in this case likewise by bill of revivor merely."^ The persons who may be plaintiffs in a bill of revivor have been specified in a preceding section.3 If the abatement be caused by the death or marriage of a plaintiff, all previous defendants to the suit must be made § 178. Mitfonl's Clianccrv Pleadings, 164 ; Allen v. The Mayor, 18 Blatchf. 230 ; ch. 1, § 3. ' 8. c. 7 Fed. R. 483. 2 Griswold r. Hill, 1 Paine, 48.3. See § 179. i Mitford's PI. cli. 1, § 3; Fitz- U. S. K. S. § 055. Patrick v. Domingo, 14 Fed. R. 210. 8 Hemingway v. Stansell, 106 U. S. - Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 3. 399,402. SeealsoTheSapphire, 11 Wall. » § 177. § 180.] FKAME OF A BILL OF REVIVOR. 303 parties to the bill of revivor ; unless it be file d after a decree, when all whose rights or duties have been fixed and ascertained thereby must be joined.* If any of the previous plaintiffs refuse to join in the continuance of the suit, they also must be made defendants to the bill of revivor.^ If the abatement be caused by the death of a defendant, only his heirs or personal representa- tives, or both, according as the suit affected his interest in real or personal property, should be made defendants to the bill of revivor ; ^ unless the bill be filed after a decree, when all parties interested thereunder should be joined.'^ There is no need of any difference of citizenship among the different parties to such a bill, provided that the court had jurisdiction of the original suit.^ A bill of revivor cannot be filed against the representatives of a de- fendant not served with process under the original bill.^ They can only be brought in by a bill in the nature of an original bill.io § 180. Frame of a Bill of Revivor. — A bill of revivor must state the filing of the original bill, and the several proceedings thereon, and the abatement ; ^ but it need not set forth any of the state- ments in the original suit, unless the special circumstances of the case require it.^ " It must show a title to revive, and charge that the cause ought to be revived, and stand in the same condi- tion with respect to the parties in the bill of revivor as it was in with respect to the parties to the original bill at the time the abatement happened ; and it must pray that the suit may be re- vived accordingly. " ^ If a bill of revivor seeks simply to revive the suit, it prays only for a subpoena to revive. If it requires an answer, it should pray a subpoena to revive and answer.* This is usually only required in two classes of cases. Where the bill is filed against an executor or administrator, and requires an admission of assets, the prayer usually is, not only that the suit may be revived, but also that, in case the defendant shall not ad- * Danicll's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. cd.) 1703, 9 United States v. Fields, 4 Blatclif. 1704. 326. » Finch r.Lord Winchelsca,! Eq. Cas. w See § 174. Abr. 2; Danieli's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) § 180. i Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 3. 1700. 2 Rule 58. 6 Bettes V. Dana, 2 Sumner, 383; ^ Mitford's PI. cli. 1, § 3. Danieli's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1704. * Mitford's PI. ch. l' § 3; Danieli's 7 DanicH's Ch. Pr. 1704. Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.J 1707. s Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164; 8. c. 2 Sumner, 262. 304 BILLS OF EEVIVOR, ETC. [CHAP. XIV. mit assets to answer the purposes of the suit, an account of the estate of the deceased party may be taken ; " and so far the bill is in the nature of an original bill." ^ " If a defendant to an original bill dies before putting in an answer, or after an answer to which exceptions have been taken, or after an amendment of the bill to which no answer has been given, the bill of revivor, though requiring in itself no answer, must ptay that the person against whom it seeks to revive the suit may answer the original bill, or so much of it as the exceptions taken to the answer of the former defendant extend to, or the amendment remaining unanswered."^ A bill of revivor should be signed by counsel, and in general comply so far as is practicable with the require- ments for original bills.'^ § 181. Proceedings upon Bills of Revivor. — The Equity Rules provide that " whenever a suit in equity shall become abated by the death of either party, or by any other event, the same may be revived by a bill of revivor, or a bill in the nature of a bill of revivor, as the circumstances of the case may require, filed by the proper parties entitled to revive the same, which bill may be filed in the clerk's office at any time ; and upon suggestion of the facts, the proper process of subpoena shall, as of course, be issued by the clerk, requiring the projjer reiDresen- tatives of the other party to appear and show cause, if any they have, why the cause should not be revived. And if no cause shall be shown at the next rule-day which shall occur after fourteen days from the time of the service of the same process, the suit shall stand revived, as of course."^ The Revised Statutes pro- vide that " when either of the parties, whether plaintiff, peti- tioner, or defendant, dies before final judgment, the executor or administrator may, if the suit survives, prosecute or defend to final judgment. The defendant shall answer, and the cause will be heard and determined, and judgment rendered for or against the executor or administrator. If the executor or ad- ministrator neglects or refuses to become a party twenty days after being served with a scire facias, the court mav nevertheless render judgment against the deceased party. The executor or administrator on becoming a party is entitled to a continuance 5 Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 3. § 181. i Rule 56. See Oliver v. Deca- 6 Mitford's PI. cli. 1. § 3. tur, 4 Cranch C. C. 692. 7 Danidl's Ch. Pr. ('Jd Am. ed.) 1707. § 181.] PKOCEEDIXCS UPON BILLS OF REVIVOR. 305 until the next term."^ The form of the subpoena upon a bill of revivor is the same as that upon an original bill, except that it states the nature of the bill to which the defendant is required to appear, and the time allowed him by the rules in which to do so.^ The subpoena is also sued out and served in the same man- ner as one upon an original bill;* but substituted service of the subpoena upon the attorney of the defendant to the original bill may be allowed when the original defendant is beyond the reach of process.^ But it has been held that a suit cannot be revived against the foreign executor or adminstrator of a deceased de- fendant who has not taken out letters within the jurisdiction of the court, and has no assets there.^ If the defendant refuses to appear, process of contempt may be issued against him.' A defendant who wishes to oppose the revivor, should demur or plead to the bill, or perhaps show cause by affidavit to the con- trary.^ Where an answer is required that should probably accom- pany the demurrer or plea. It is not expedient to take in the answer any objection to the revivor. For the English rule was that an objection thus taken would not prevent the order to revive, and the point could then only be determined by bring- ing the cause regularly to a hearing.^ ■ A bill of revivor is demurrable if it does not show a sufficient ground for reviving the suit or any part of it, either by or against the person by or against whom it is filed ;^*^ for want of parties apparent upon its face, though not for the omision of such as had not appeared before, or were not before the court at the time of the abatement ; ^^ and for any serious defect in form. Upon a demurrer to a bill of revivor, the sufficiency of the original bill cannot be considered. ^^ Should however, the original bill fail to state facts giving the Federal courts juris- 2 U. S. R. S..§ 955. See Griswold v. Lewis i'. Bridgjman, 2 Simons, 465; Cod- Hill, 1 Paine, 483. rington v. Houlditch, 5 Simons, 286. 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1707. ^" Harris v. Pollard, 3 P. Wms. 348; * Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1707. University College v. Foxcroft, 2 Ch. 5 Dunn V. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1,2 ; Norton v. Rep. 244 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) Hepworth, 1 Hall& Tw. 158. See § 96. 1709, 1710 ; Story's Eq. PI. §§ G17, 829. 6 Melius V. Thompson, 1 Cliff. 125. 'i Metcalfe v. Metcalfe, 1 Keen, 74 ; ■^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1707. Crowfoot v. Mander, 9 Simons, 396 ; Dan- » Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1709, iell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1710. 1710; Rule 58. i- Mason v. Hartford, P. & F. Ry. Co., 9 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1700, 19 Fed. R. 5.3, 55; Sharon v. Terry. 36 1711; Harris r. Pollard, 3 P. Wms. 348; Fed. K. 337. VOL. I. — 20 306 BILLS OF KEVIVOR, ETC. [CHAP. XIV. diction, tlmt objection may be raised by a demurrer to the bill of revivor. ^^ If a bill of revivor be brought without sufficient cause to revive, and this be not apparent upon its face, or if the plaintiff is not entitled to revive the suit at all, though a title is stated in the bill so that it is not demurrable, the de- fendant may set up his objections to it by plea.^* The running of the statute of limitations after the time when a person became entitled to revive is also in most cases, except after a decree for an account,^'^ a defense and a bar to a bill of revivor, wliich may be set up by plea.^° No plea can be put in against a bill of revivor which has been pleaded to the original bill and over- ruled, although if a plea has been put in and the suit abated before argument, it may subsequently be pleaded anew to the original bill.^' When an answer to a bill of revivor is required, it must be confined to such matters as are called for by the bill, or as would be material to the defense with reference to the order made upon it.^^ Allegations which might have been pleaded before abatement to the original bill will be considered as impertinent,^^ and disregarded.^*^ It will not, however, be im- pertinent, if it states matters of defense which have occurred since the answer to the original bill was filed, though these do not affect the title of the plaintiff to revive.^^ Such an answer is impertinent when it describes and complains of irregularities in the suit before the abatement.-^ Such an answer should be signed by counsel ;^^ and exceptions will lie to it for insufficiency, scandal, and impertinence.-'* If it does not admit the plaintiff's title to revive or state any circumstances which he is desirous of controverting, it must, if the abatement has taken place after decree or issue joined in the original cause, be replied to.^^ Otherwise, a separate replication will be unnecessar}^ and one replication will put in issue both tlie allegations in that and 13 Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. R. 337. " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2*d Am. ed.) 1711 ; » Daniell's Ch. Tr. (2d Am. ed.) 1710; Story's Eq. PI. § 808 a. Lewis V. Brid Mitfonl's PI. ch. l", § 3 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1(505; Marriott v. Tarp- Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1665; Owen r Curz ii, ley, 9 vSimons, 279. 2 Vern. 237 ; Iliiirfiiiis r. York Biiildiii said formerly : " I do not find tliat there are any precise or posi- tive boundaries between motions and petitions, as they are to be ap})lied to carry into effect decrees and orders, so as to ex- clude all discretion in the court to grant or refuse them, accord- / 6 Johnston v. Todd, 5 Beav. 394 ; Dan- « Dnniell's Ch Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1593 iell's CU. Pr. (2(1 Am. ed ) 1793. " U. S. C. C, S. 1). N. Y. Kule HI. " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1797, § 199. i 2 Barbour's Cli. Pr. 579. 1798. 330 INTEKLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [^.HAP XV. ing to circumstances ; but, generally speaking, motions which have for their object the giving effect to decree? or orders, should be confined to cases wliere the order which is to be made upon the motion arises out of recent proceedings upon which there is no doubt ; for as the adverse party knows nothing but by the notice, containing only the name of the cause and what is prayed of the court, the proceedings ought to be recent and notorious, so as that the adverse party may be su}i})0sed to be perfectly conusant of all the steps and proceedings in the cause, as much as if, at a greater expense, they were recited in the petition." ^ But petitions are now rarely filed by a party to a cause, since any relief which he desires can usually be obtained equally well by a motion supported by an affidavit containing the allegations which would be necessary in a petition. Petitions are usually filed by some person not a party in order to obtain the benefit of })roceedings in a cause pending in the court, or else to obtain an order in relation to some matter which is not the subject of any litigation in it. Petitions which are made in a cause are termed cause ])etitions.'^ The most common in- stances of cause petitions are petitions for the appointment of a next friend, petitions of intervention, petitions for payment out of a fund in the hands of an officer of the court, and petitions for leave to sue a receiver. The most common instances of petitions which are not cause petitions are petitions for the appointment, removal, or resignation of a trustee, and petitions for the ap- pointment of the guardian of an infant, and tlie maintenance of the infant out of his jiroperty. But in most, if not all, of these cnses the ajiplication can also be made Ity motion, unless a long statement of facts is needed to show the right of the ajijilicant to relief.^ After a decree which jturports to finally dispose of the suit, one plaintiff cannot obtain relief against another by means of a petition setting up matters which could not have been introduced by an amended or suj))^lemental bill ; at least without notice to the party ngainst whom he seeks relief.^ Ordi- narily, a petition cannot be presented in a cause before the bill has been filed.^ A petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis 2 Lord Sbipbrooke v. Lord Flinchin- ■* Jones v. Roberts, 12 Simons, 189; brook, 18 Ves. 387, 393. See, liowever, Barker r. Todd, IT) Fed H. 2t>ri. Nicholson v. Squire, 16 Ves. 'JoO, -im ° Smith v. Woolfolk. 11') U. S. 143. =i Daniel's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1801. ^ ]):,nieU's Ch. Pr. (2d Am ed ) 180L § 200.] PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO SUE IN FORMA PAUPERIS. 331 is an exception to this rule ; and in an extraordinary case a stay- order might perhaps be granted uj)un a jjctitiun before the liling of a bill.' The ol)jection that a party who has proceeded by a petition sliould have filed a cross-bill, a supplemental bill, or a supplemental answer, is too late when not taken till after an answer to the petition and a decree thereupon.^ § 200. Petitions for Leave to Sue in forma pauperis. — " The right to sue in forma pauperis originated in the statute of Hen. Vn. This and the subsequent statute of Hen. VUL are con- fined to actions in the courts of common law, and do not extend to defendants. The courts of equity have adopted the principle of these statutes, and proceeding further, have extended the relief to the case of defendants." ^ An infant may sue or defend in this manner 2 in equity, but, unless so authorized by State statute, not at common law.-'^ In the Southern District of New Yorlv, it has been held that a non-resident may sue in forma pauperis at common law.* A party may take an appeal^ to the Supi'eme Court, or sue out a writ of habeas corpus ^ there in forma pauperis. A person suing or being sued in a representative capacity could not obtain an order of this character." According to the English practice, the person desiring permission to sue or defend in forma pauperis was obliged to present a petition to the Master of the Rolls, containing a short statement of his case or defense, and of the proceedings, if any, which had been had in the cause, and praying to be admitted to sue in forma pauperis, and that a coun- sel and solicitor might be assigned to him.^ The petition, when filed by a complainant, had to be accompanied by a certificate signed by counsel " that he conceives the plaintiff has just cause to be relieved touching the matter of the petition for which he has exhil)ited his bill;" and in all cases by the affidavit of the party himself " that he is not worth in all the world the sum of ^ Mnyor of London v. Bolt, 5 Ves 129 ; « Ilecknian v Mackey, ?,2 Fed. R. 574. Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1801. ^ ^ee In ?v Mills, 135 U. S. 263. 8 Kelsey v. Hobby, 16 Pet. 269, 277 ; ^ /,, ,.^ jviiHg^ 135 u. S. 263. Coburn I'. Cedar Valley Coal & Land Co., " Oldfield v. Cobbett, 1 Phil. 61.3; 138 U. S. 196, 222. Dnniell's Cb. Pr. (2d Am. ed ) 44; Anon., § 200. 1 Lord Lyndbnrst in Oldfield v. 1 Ves. Jr. 409. But see Tbompson v. Cobbett, 1 Phil. 613, 61-5. See Ferguson Thompson, cifpii in 1 Turner & V. Chan. V. Dent, 15 Fed. R. 771. Pr. 513; Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. R. 2 Ferguson t\ Dent, 15 Fed. R 771. 771. 3 Rov V Louisville, N. O. & T. U. Co., « Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 46. 34 Fed R 276 332 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [CHAP. X"V. 5^. after payment of his just debts, his wearing apparel and the matters in question in the cause only excepted."' ^ When the petition was approved, the Master of the Rolls underwrote an order admitting the petitioner to sue or defend in forma pauperh, and assigned a counsel and solicitor to act on his behalf.^" Such counsel or solicitor could not refuse so to act unless excused by the court for a sufficient reason. ^^ They could not take any fee, profit, or reward of the pauper for the desijatch of business, while the cause was pending and the party continued in. forma panperis, except paupers' fees, which were twopence a sheet for the labor of copying.'^ Nor could any agreement be made for the payment of any recompense afterwards. ^^ For an offence in either of these respects, both the lawyer and the client were guilty of con- tempt of court ; and the client was dispaupered, and forever dis(]ualified from suing as a pauper in the same suit.^^ When it was made to appear to the court that a pauper had sold or contracted for the benefit of his suit, or any part thereof, while the same was depending, his suit was dismissed absolutely.^^ No fees except paupers' fees could be collected from the ))auper, nor could costs be decreed against him,!^ except for scandal.^' In case of success, however, the court might allow him full costs. " For though he is at no costs, or but small expense, yet the counsel and clerks do not give their labor to the defendant, but to tlie pauper." ^^ The order permitting a party to sue or defend in forma pauperis had to be served upon the opposite party as soon as possible. For the pauper was liable for all costs decreed against him before the service of the order.^^ A party could be dispaupered for improper or vexatious conduct in the suit."^° § 201. Petitions of Intervention. — A petition of intervention is filed in a pending cause by a person who is not a party to it; and prays permission to intervene and become a party, either 9 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 4G ; Scatclimer v. Foulkard. 1 Eq. Cases Abr. Wilkinson v. Helslier, 2 Brown Ch. C. 125. 272. iMiattray !'. Georfie, 16 Ves 2:>2. Sec i'^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 47. also Murphy r.Oldis, 2 Molloy, 475 : Kii^h- 1' Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 47,48. ardson v. Kichardson, 5 Paisie (N. Y.) 58 12 Daniell's Ch. l^r. (2d Am. ed.) 47. i* Scatclimer v. Foulkard, 1 Eq Cases i'5 Daniell's Ch. Pr (2d Am. ed.) 47. Abr. 125: Rattray v. Genr-. Harman, 5 Price, 31 '.»; Saviors R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 323. c. Saviors, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 525; Bird- 3 Ogilvie V. Kno.\ Ins. Co., 2 Black, song r. Birdsong, 2 Head (Tenn), 280; 630; s. c. 22 How. 380; Myers r. Venn. Carter v. New Orleans, 19 Fed. R. 059 ; 5 Wall. 205 ; Er parte Jord'ui. 94 U. S. F. L. & Tr. Co. v. Mo. I. & N. Ry. Co , 248; First Nat. Ins. Co. r. Salisbury. 130 21 Fed. R. 204. Mass. 303; Hallett v. H;illett, 2 Paige " Richards r. Che'^apeike & (). R. R. (N. Y.), 432; Leigh r. Thomas, 2 Ves. Co., 1 Hughes. 28,30 : Ski)ffin v. Cliattanoogu Water (2d Am. ed.) 12()3, 1270. & Power Co., 44 Fed. f)-)!). '** Cutting v. Florida Ry. &Nav. Co., 45 " Galveston Railroad r. Cowdroy, U Fed. R. 444. Wall. 459, 464; French v. Gapen, 105 ^'■> Florida r. Georgia, 17 IIow. 478; U. S. 500, 525. supra, § 14. ij Barker v. Todd. 15 Fed. R. 265. But -' Ransom v. Davis' Adm'rs, 18 How. see Washurn Jvr Moen Manuf. Co. v. Col- 295. well Steel Harl. Feiu'c Co . 1 Fed. R. 225; Cochrane v. Dt-eiier, 95 U S. 355. § 1^02.] FOKM OF rETrno>.'s and tkactice upon them. 335 statement of the petitioner's view of the case, and pray in addi- tion to intervention the final relief which he desires.^^ A paper termed a cross- bill, if otherwise correct in form, may be sustained as a petition of intervention.-^ If any of the original parties de- sires to contest the petitioner's right to intervene, he must do so specifically at the hearing- upon the petition.^^ Leave to intervene when granted should be given by order ; ^^ but by proceeding with- out objection an omission to enter such an order will be waived.^^ After intervention the new parties are treated to all intents and purposes as if they had been original jnirtics to the suit.^^ Their citizenship, if tlic suit is pending in a Federal court at the time of their intervention, docs not affect the jurisdiction.^" If the suit is then pending in a State court, in a proper case they may remove it.-^ ^i'hey liave the right to appeal from the final decree, and can then object to all interlocutory proceedings taken after tlieir intervention.^^ § 202. Form of Petitions and Practice upon Them. — A petition sbould be properly entitled in the cause in wbich it is presented, ^ When not a cause petition, a petition is entitled " In the matter of the application of," &c. The petitioner, if not a party to a cause in which the petition is filed, should state his name, resi- dence, and description.^ A petition should contain no scandal or impertinence ; for which, like any otlier proceeding, it may be referred.^ A petition need not be signed by counsel unless it seeks a rehearing or an appeal.* Petitions are usually signed by the pai'ty making them, either ])ers(mally or by his solicitor.^ '' Petitions are either for orders of course, or for special orders. Petitions for orders of course are fortliwith granted, without any attendance being ordered ; if they are for special matters a day is appointed for hearing them. Most things which may be moved for of course, may also be obtained, as of course, upon petition." ^ ■21 French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 519, Fed. R. 356. But !=ee Town Homoste.nd 520. Co p. Des Moines Nav. & R. R. Co , 8 •■^■2 French v. Gapen, 10.') U S. 509, 519. Fed. R. 97. -3 French v. Gapen, 105 U. S. 509, 525; ^^ Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 248, 252; Myers v. Fenn, 5 Wall. 205. Williams v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684. '-■' For ihe form of an order, see £'.r;7n!We § 202. ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am ed.) Jordan, 94 U. S. 248, 249. 1802. ■^5 Myers V. Fenn, 5 Wall 205. ^ Glazbrook ;;. Gillatt, 9 Beav. 492. ■-" French r. Gapen, 105 U. S. .509, 525. 3 Danieli's CIi. Pr. (2d Am. ed ) 1803. •-" Krippeiidorf !•. Hyde, 110 U. S. 270, « Danieli's Cli Pr. (2d Am. ed ) 1803, 28.V284, 5 n.inieH's Ch, Pr, (2d Am, ed.) 180:]. 2« Hack r. Ciiicago & G, S, Ry, Co., 23 « Danieli's Cii, Pr. (2d Am. ed,) 1802, 336 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [CIIAP. XV. All petitions which are for matters not granted as of course must be served upon all parties interested in the matter prayed for in them. Service is made substantially in the same way and at the same time before the hearing as that of notices of motions.' If actual, and not constructive, service is required, it seems that it must be made by delivering a copy of the petition, and at the same time showing the original to the person served,^ unless tlie court otherwise directs. Objections to the form of a petition can only be taken by de- murrer.^ By answering a respondent loses his right to demur,^*^ and, it has been held, waives the objections that the petitioner bad a complete and adequate remedy at law,^^ that he should have proceeded by bill instead of by jietition;^- and, if a receiver, that he has not obtained leave to sue.^^ Adverse parties may file answers denying the facts stated in a petition, or setting up other facts in avoidance. Such answers should be verified by affidavit.^* If the parties are at issue as to the facts, accord- ing to the more formal practice testimony may be taken as in the regidar course of a suit ; ^^ but the more usual course is for the parties on either side to support their claim by affidavits, in the same manner as when supporting or opposing a motion. ^^ Proceedings upon the hearing of petitions are similar to those upon the hearing of motions.^' It has been said by Daniell that a petition cannot be amended by adding to it a statement of facts which have occurred since it was filed ; ^^ but an English judge has held otherwise. ^^ § 203. Orders. — An order IS a direction of the court or a judge thereof in writing. Wiicn contained in a decree, an order is termed a decretal order. ^ Orders may be made at any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court ; and in a Circuit Court, if all judges authorized to sit therein are absent from the circuit, it seems that they may be made by a justice of the 7 Sec Rules .5 &(>; DanieU's Cli. Pr. i^ Mitford's & Tyler's PI 448. (2.1 Am. c(l.) 1804. ^'' DanieU's Cii. I'r. (otli Am. ed.) 1608 » DanieU's Oh. Pr ('id Am ed ) ISOi. '' DanieU's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1805. 8 U.S. 11. S § 954 ; .Vewnian c. Moody, i** DanieU's Cli. Pr. (5Ui Am. ed.) 1010. 19 Fed. 11. 858. ' ''■> .Malins, V. C. In re Westbrook's i« Newman v. Moody, 10 Fed. R 8.-8. Trusts, L. R. 11 Eq. 252. 11 Newman v. Moody, U) Fed. R. 858. § 203 i U. S. R. S. § 719. See Good- ie Newman r Moody, 19 Fed. U. 858. year Dental Vulcanite Co. v Folsom, 3 i-i Newmnn r. MoodV. P.i Fed R. 858. Fed. R. 509. 1* Mitford's & Tvler's IM 448. § 203.] ORDERS. 337 Supreme Court sitting anywhere within the United States.^ It has been held, that when a district judge has, under the order of the circuit judge, tried a case in another district than his own, he may hear in his own district a motion for a new trial when the counsel for all parties waive his return to the district of the trial for the purpose of hearing and deciding the motion.^ Orders upon interlocutory applications should be served upon the solici- tor of the opposite party. If the other party takes a step in the action after an ex imrte order has been obtained but before its service, " that step being in itself regular, the order which had been obtained and not served cannot afterwards be acted upon, if it will interfere with the step so taken." * If it is intended to enforce the order by contempt proceedings, it should be served personally upon the party to be affected by it,-^ unless possibly in an extraordinary case an order should be granted allowing substituted service.^ Interlocutory orders made upon motion may be altered or va- cated at any time ;' and orders made ex parte upon petition may also be discharged upon motion for irregularity.^ According to the English practice, orders made after a hearing upon a peti- tion could not be altered or discharged without the filing of a petition for a rehearing, or upon appeal.^ A court has, during the term at which it is entered, the power to review and mod- ify or set aside any order or decree, interlocutory or final.^*^ It has been held that even in a criminal case the court may nunc pro tunc at a term after final judgment enter an order correcting a clerical error nunc pro tunc as of the preceding term.^^ An order granted after a hearing before one judge of a court will, unless under extraordinary circumstances, not be modified or va- 2 United States v. Louisville & P. 1807 ; Eslava v. Mazange, 1 Woods, 623, Canal Co., 4 Dill. 601 ; Searies v. Jack- 627; Nelson ;•. Barker, 3 McLean, 370. sonville, V. & M. R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 8 /„ re Marrow, Craitr, & I'M. 142 ; 621 ; U. S. R. S. § 71'J ; 8 Ry. & Corp. L. Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1807. J. 200. Bishop v. Willis, 2 Ves. Sen. 113; 3 Cheesman v. Hart, 42 Fed. R. 98, lOo. In re Marrow, Craiar & Ph. 142 ; Daniell's < Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1789 ; Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1808. But see In re Church y. Marsh, 2 Hare, 652. Dovenhj' Hospital. 1 Myl. & Cr. 279; 6 Re Cary, 10 Fed. R. 622. West v. Smith, ?, Reav. 306 6 Hunter (7. . 6 Simons, 420 ; Lnr- " Doss v. Tyack. 14 How. 297, 313; ton r. Seaman, 9 Paige, (N. Y), 600; Basset ?•. United States, 9 Wall. 38,41; People V. Brower, 4 Paige (N. Y.),40-5; Henderson v. Carbondaie Coal & Coke Stafford V. Brown, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 360. Co., 140 U. S. 2-5, 40. 7 Daniel's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. eil.) imO, " In re Wight, 134 U. S. 136. VOL. I, — 22 338 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [CHAP. XV". cated by another except upon appeal.^- Unless limited by their terms, or, as in the case of injunctions granted by district judges, by statute,^'^ orders within tlie jurisdiction of the judge or court that grants them remain in force until discharged by a subse- quent order ; i* or until the final decree, when, unless renewed by its terms, all orders expire. ^^ Before the Evarts' Act, no ap- peal lay before the final decree from an interlocutory order which was not final in its nature.^^ It has been said by Chief Justice Taney, that " In this respect tlie practice of the United States chancery courts differs from the English practice. For appeals to the House of Lords may be taken from an interlocutory order of the chancellor, which decides a right of property in dispute ; and therefore there is no irreparable injury to the part}' by order- ing his deed to be cancelled, or the property he holds to l)e deliv- ered up, Ijecause he may immediately appeal, and the execution of the order is suspended until the decision of the appellate court. But the case is otherwise in the coui'ts of the Uuitcd States, where tlie right to appeal is by law limited to final decrees. And if bv an interlocutory order or decree he is required to deliver up prop- erty which he claims, or to pay money which he denies to be due, and the order is immediately carried into execution l)y the Cir- cuit Court, his right of appeal is of very little value to him, and he may be ruined before he is permitted to avail himself of the right. It is exceedingly important, tlierefore, that the Circuit Courts of the United States, in framing their interlocutory or- ders, and in carrying them into execution, should keep in view the difference between the riglit of appeal, as practised in the English chancery jurisdiction, and as restricted by tlie act of Congress, and abstain from changing unnccessai'ily the possession of property, or compelling the i)ayincnt of money by an inter- locutory order." 1" By the Evarts' Act an ajipeal lies to the Cir- cuit Court of Appeals from an interlocutory order or decree grant- ing or continuing an injunction. ^^ § 204. Judges who may grant Orders. — An order may be made by any judge authorized to sit in the court in which the cause is '- Cole Silver Mininsr Co. v. Virn;inia ^■' Gardner r. Gartlner. 87 N. Y. 14 ; & G. II. \V. Co., 1 Saw. 685, 689 ; Oglcsby DanicU's Cli. Pr. (2(1 Am. ed.) H)02. V. Attrill, 14 Fed. R. 214. ^'"' See i))frn, Cliapter.s on Writ.s of Krror 13 U. S. R. S. § 719; Gray r. Chicago, and Appeals. I. & N. R. R. Co., 1 Woolw.V)8. 1- Forfiay /•. Conrad, ('> How. 201, 20-5. 14 Eslava c. Mazange.l Woods, 62-3,627. is 26 St. at L. cli. 517, § 11, p. 829. § 204.] JUDGES WHO may grant orders. 839 pending. In the Supreme Court it is the custom for each justice to refer to the full bench every application of importance which is made to him.^ An order in a case pending in a Circuit Court may be made by the justice of the Supreme Court allotted to that circuit; 2 or by any justice of the Supreme Court requested, in writing, by the circuit justice to hold court in his circuit ; ^ or if there is no justice of the Supreme Court allotted to that circuit, by any justice of the Supreme Court requested by the Chief Jus- tice to hold court there ;^ l)y the circuit judge of that circuit ;^ by the district judge of that district ;'^ or by any judge authorized to hold the District Court in that district ;' or by any two of those judges.*^ There are nine circuits.^ The first circuit includes the districts of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. ^'^ The second circuit includes the districts of Vermont, Connecticut, and New York. ^^ The third circuit includes the districts of Penn- sylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. ^^ The fourth circuit includes the districts of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.^-^ The fifth circuit includes the districts of Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. ^* The sixtli circuit includes the districts of Ohio, Michigan, Ken- tucky, and Tcuncssec.^^ The seventh circuit includes the districts of Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. i*^ The eighth circuit includes the districts of Arkansas, Colorado, Nebraska, ^linnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming,^" and the Territories of New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah.^^ The ninth circuit includes the districts of California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Montana, and Idaho,^^ and the Territories of Alaska and xVrizona.^*^ § 204. 1 Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. VM. " U. S. R. S. § 604. 2 U. S. R. S. §§ 605, 606, (iOO. " U. S. R. S. § 604. » U. S. R. S. § 617. See Supervisors is u. S R. S. § 604. V. Rogers, 7 Wall. 175. i8 U. S. U. S. § 604. 4 U. S. R. S. § 618. 1- U. S. H. S. § 604 ; 25 St. at L. ch. 5 U. S. R. S. § 600. 180, § 21 ; 26 St. at L. cli. 664, § 16, p. G U. S. R. S. § 609. 225. ^ U. S. R. S. §§ 591-003. IS 26 St. at L. cli. 517, § 15, p. 830 ; 1.39 8 U. S. R. S. § 600. U. S. 707. 9 U. S. R. S. § 604 ; supra, § 26. ^'■> U. S. R. S. § 604 ; 25 St. at L. ch. If U. S. K. S. § 604. 180, § 21 ; act of July 3, 1890; 26 St. at 11 U. S. R S. § 604. L. ch. 6.56, § 16, p 217. 12 U. S. R. S. § 004. 2" 20 St. at L. ch. 517, § 15, p. 830. 340 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS. [CHAP. XV. An order in a case pending in a District Court may be made by the judge of that district ; or, if such office is vacant, by the judge of any other district within the same State ;2^ in case of the disability of the district judge for that district, or such an accumulation or urgency of business as to make the public inter- est require his appointment, by any other district judge within the same circuit designated and appointed after a certificate, under the court's seal, by the clerk as to those facts, by the circuit jus- tice or circuit judge of the circuit, or, if both of them are absent from the circuit and unable to make such designation and appoint- ment, by the Chief Justice of the United States ;2^ in the District Court for the Northern District of New York, when the judge thereof is disabled and so notifies the judge of the Southern Dis- trict of New York, by the latter judge ;23 in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, when the judge thereof is disabled and so notifies the judge of the Eastern District, by the latter judge;-'* in the same court, by the judge of the Eastern District of New York, whenever the judge of the Southern Dis- trict deems it desirable on account of the pressure of public busi- ness that the former shall perform judicial duties in his district, and has entered an order to that effect ;2^ in one of the District Courts of Florida, by the judge of the other district, in a place where a term of such court is I'cgularly held, when the judge of the district has filed in the clerk's office a certificate stating that he is disabled to hold a term of court there, and requesting the judge of the other district to hold the same.^'^' An order made by the district judge of another district in the same State who was not sitting nor designated to sit in the district where the suit was ponding, the office of district judge of the latter district not being- vacant, was held null and void.'-^" An order signed by a judge after his successor has been appointed and he has received notice thereof is void.^^ -1 U S. K. S. cm ; Amorican Lnnn & "■' U. S. K. S. § 509. Trust Co. V. Kast & West H. Co., 40 Fed. -* U. S. H. S. § 5'.)(). R. 182. ^- U. S. K. S. § 600. 22 U. S. R. S §Sj .^ai-.WO. The appoint- ^o u. S. K. S. § 598. mcnt should be filed in tlie cleric's office ^t Anierican Loan & Trust Co. v. East of tlie District, nnt of the Circuit Court, & West R. Co., 40 Fed. R. 182. but a failure to file the same does not in- '-'** U. S. r. Alexander. 40 Fed. R. 728; validate the judjie's acts. National Home Norton r. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425. of Disabled Volunteers v. Rutler, 33 Fed. But see Manning v. Weeks, F'.D U. S. 504; R. 374. Ball v. United States, 140 U. S. 118. § 206.] INJUNCTIONS. 341 CHAPTER XVI. INJUNCTIONS. § 205. Definition, Classification, and Objects of Injunctions. — All injunction is a writ issued from a court of equity commanding a person to do an act or acts other than the payment to the cora- pLainant of a sum of money, or not to do an act or acts specified therein. According to the different aspects from which they are considered, injunctions are chissified as judicial writs, and writs remedial ; as mandatory and prohibitory ; as provisional and perpetual ; or as common and special. Before describing the different characteristics of each of these classes, it may be well to refer briefly to the different occasions for the issue of the writ. Injunctions may be obtained to enforce a trust or other purely equitable right, to compel obedience to a covenant or other con- tract affecting land, to compel the obedience of corporations to their charters, to prevent a multiplicity of suits, and generally to prevent an irreparable injury for which damages at law would be no adequate remedy, and also in cases in which they are ex- pressly authorized by statute. § 206. Injunctions to enforce Trusts and other purely Equitable Rights. — As trusts and other purely equitable rights are not recognized in courts of law, equity will always inteifere to pro- tect them by injunction when they are threatened with infringe- ment.^ On this account an injunction may be obtained to prevent the revelation or use of a secret of manufacture b}^ a workman who has learned it under an express or implied promise of secrecy, or one to whom such a person has disclosed it ; ^ and to restrain the publication of lectures,^ manuscripts,* or works of § 206. 1 Scott V. Becher, 4 Price 346 ; body v. Norfolk, 98 Mass. 452. But see In re Chertsy Market, 6 Price, 26 1 ; SIoo v. Newbery r. James, 2 Meriv. 446. Law, 3 Blatchf. 4o0 ; Draper v. Davis, » Abernetliy «. Hutchinson, 3 L. J. Cli. 104 U. S. 347 ; Co%Yles v. Wliitman, 10 209. Conn. 121 ; Bisphani's Eq. § 425 ; Kerr on * Staplcton v. Forcisn Vineyard As- Injunctions, 172, 17-1 sociatinn, 12 W. R.97G ; ScIieiler.Brakell, - Yovatt V. Winyard, 1 Jac. & Walk. 11 W. H. 796. See, bnwevtr, Southey v. 3)4; Morison v. Moat, 9 Hare, 241 ; Pea- Sherwood, 2 ^leriv 435. 342 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. art^ heard or obtained under au express or implied agreement not to publish or reproduce them. Whether or not the publication of private letters which liave no value as literaiy productions can be restrained at the prajer of their writer, upon the ground that it would be a breach of an implied trust, is, under the authorities, an open question.^ § 207. Injunctions to restrain Corporations from violating their Charters. — Tlie charters of curjiorutions are considered '' in the light of contracts made by the legislature on behalf of every person interested in anything to be done under them." ^ On account of the irreparable injury that would otherwise ensue, and in the case of coi'porations to whom the State's right of emi- nent domain is delegated, because they are trustees,- the diso- bedience of a corporation to its charter may be restrained by injunction, either at the suit of the attorney-general^ of the State to which it owes its existence, or of any individual who suffers special injury thereby.* This rule applies whether the act com- plained of has been forbidden expressly, or merely by implication as not included within the powers expressly given to the corpor- ation and those which are necessary for their proper exercise.^ *' It is," said Lord Hatherley, "" a principle of public policy that where Parliament has authorized a comjiany to I'aise a large capital for a specified purpose, the privilege confers no right upon the company to employ their capital in competition with the general public upon speculations of a different character." ^ " It is because these companies, being armed with the power of raising large sums of money, if they were allowed to apply their funds to purposes other than those for which they were constituted, might acquire such a preponderating influence and command over some particular branch of trade or commerce, 5 I'riiice Albert v. Strange, 1 Macn. & 2 M'Coy v. Chicago, I. St. L. & C. R. G. 25, 42. R. Co. 13 Fed. R. 3. *" Woolscy r. Judd,4 DuiT (N.Y.), .iTO; ^ Attorney-General y. Great Nortliern and Eyre v. Higtiee, 3.') B:irb. (N. Y.), 502, Ry. Co., 1 Dr. & Sin. 154 ; Attorney-Gen- hold that they can : and Judiie Story con- eral y. Railroad Companies, 35 Wis. 425. curs in this view, in Story's Eq. Jur. §§ But see Attorney-General ;•. Utica Ins. 946-948. But the opposite view is main- Co., 2 Joims. Ch. (N. Y.) 371. tained in Gee ;•. Pritchard, 2 Swanst. * Bostock v. North Staffordshire Ry. 4)2; Wetmore r. Scovell, 3 Edw. Ch. Co., 3 Sni. & Giff. 283; Colman v. The (N Y.) 615; and High on Injunctions, Eastern Counties Ry. Co., 10 Bcav. 1. § 1012. ^ Attorney-General v. Great Nortliern §207. ' Blakemore !'. Glatriorizanshire Ry. Co., 1 Dr. & Sni. 154. Canal Navigation, 1 Myl. & K. 154, 102. '' Cited in Kerr on Injunctions, p. 473. § 207.] INJUNCTIONS AGAINST COKPOEATIONS. 343 as would enable them to drive the ordinary private trader from the field, and create in their own favor a practical monopoly, whereby the interests of the public would be most seriously injured."'^ When the corporation violates its charter by re- fusing to perform an act thereby expressly or impliedly com- manded, it has been held that the attorney-general cannot compel its obedience by a mandatory injunction, but should in such a case apply for a mandamus.^ A private individual suing to enjoin a corporation from violating its charter must show some special damage caused to himself by the breach.^ A shareholder in a company is considered to incur special damage by its diverting its funds to other purposes than its charter auth- oiizes, and can obtain an injunction to restrain its so doing,^'' even, it has been held, if he bought shares in the company for the very object of preventing it;^^ provided that he sues in good faith, and does not act as the mere puppet of a rival corpora- tion ;i2 jiiid ti^at the suit is not brought "against the corporation and other parties, founded on rights which may properly be asserted by the corporation." ^^ The holder of a security for an indebtedness of a corporation is also, it seems, entitled to an in- junction in a similar case ; ^* but not an unsecured creditor,^^ except under very extraordinary circumstances.^^ One whose land has been taken from him for the use of a corporation by the exercise of the State's right of eminent domain can obtain an in- junction to restrain the use of the land for any other purpose than is allowed by the company's charter,^" provided at least that he can show that he is thereby injured.^^ It is, however, no proper T Attorney-General y. Great Northern don, B. & S. C. Ry. 1 H. & M. 489; Ry. Co., 1 Dr. & Sra. 154, 159, IGO. Robson v. Dodds.L. R.8 Eq. 301 ; Rogers 8 Attorney-General v. Birminghnm & c. Oxford, Worcester, & Wolverhampton Oxford Junction Ry. Co., 15 Jur. 1024 ; Ry. Co., 2 De G. & J. 002. The People 1-. The Albany & Vt. R. R. Co , i3 Rule 94; Hawes v. Oakland, 104 24 N. Y. 2(31. U. S. 450. See supra, §§ 12, 70, 87. 9 Chamberlaine v. Chester & B. Ry. 1* Bagshaw y. Eastern Union Ry. Co., 2 Co., 1 Exch. 8G9, 877; Railroad Co. v. Macn. &G. 389; Herrick y. Grand Trunk EUerman, 105 U. S. 1G6, 173, 174. Ry. Co., 7 Up. Canada Law Journal, 240. 10 Colnian y. The Eastern Counties Ry. is Syers v. Brighton Brewery Co., 11 Co., 10 Beav. 1. L. T. (n. s.) 560; Mills v. Northern Ry. of 1- Colnian v. The Eastern Counties Ry. Buenos Ayres Co., 2.3 L. T. (n. s.) 719. Co., 10 Beav. 1 ; Attorney-General v. !<> Evans v. Coventry, 5 De G. M. & G. Great Northern Ry. Co., 1 Dr. & Sm. 911. 154 ; Bloxam v Met. Ry. Co., L. R. 3 Ch. i' Bostock v. North Staffordshire Ry. 337. Co., 3 Sm. & Giff. 283. 12 Forrest v. Manchester, S. & L. Ry. is p^ast & West India Docks & Birming- Co., 4 De G. F. & J. 120; Filder v. Lon- ham Junction Ry. Co. v. Dawes, 11 Hare, 344 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI, ground for complaint by an individual that a corporation by exercising po\^ers not conferred upon it by its charter enters into competition with him, and thereby diminishes the profits of his trade or calling. ^^ An English judge has said : '' Where a statute prohibits the doing of a particular act affecting the public, no person has a right of action against another merely because he has done the prohibited act. It is incumbent on the party com- plaining to allege and prove, that the doing of the act prohibited has caused him some special damage, some peculiar injury, be- yond that which he may be supposed to sustain in common with the rest of the Queen's subjects, by an infringement of the law. But where the act prohibited is obviously ])rc)hil)ited for tlie protection of a particular party, there it is not necessary to allege special damage." ^o § 208. Injunctions to enforce the Specific Performance of Cov- enants and other Contracts affecting Laud. — As no two pieces of land are exactly alike, equity considers that in no case can dam- ages in money be adequate compensation for the breach of a covenant or other contract affecting land.^ Accordingly, the specific performance of contracts for the purchase or sale of land and of covenants affecting the same, will be specifically enforced with the aid of an injunction, whenever they are mutual,^ cer- tain,^ not unconscionable ; ^ and their enforcement would be practicable.^ The rule concerning the enforcement of cove- nants affecting land has been thus stated : " If the construction of the instrument be clear and the breach clear, then it is not a question of damage, but the mere circumstance of the breach of covenant affords sufficient ground for the court to interfere by injunction."^ This is, however, subject to the ex- 36.3; Lee r. Milner, 2 Y. & C. (Ul ; Ware * Surpet r.Byers,Hempst.715; Eound- V. Kcgents Canal Co , o De G. & J. 212. tree r. McLaiii, Hernpst. 245; Miss. & Mo. !>' Railroad Co. v. Ellerman, 103 U. S. K. R. Co. r. Cromwell, 91 U. S. 643; Bis- 160, 173, 174. pliani's Eq. § 37G. See Kaiulolph's Ex'r. -" Pollock, C. B , in Clianiberlaine r. v. Quidnick Company, 135 U. S. 457. Chester & B. Ry. Co., 1 E.xcheqiier, 869, & Ross v. Union Pacific R. R. Co , I 877. See Blakemore r. Giamnrganshire Woohv. 26 ; Fallon v. Railroad Co., 1 Dill. Canal Navigation, 1 Mylne & Keen, 154, 121 ; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. i: Marshall, 162. 130 U. S. 393; Bispham's Eq. § 377. § 208. 1 Adderlcy r. Di.xon, 1 Sim. & ^ Vice Chancellor Wood in Tipping v. Stu. 007; Bispham's Eq. § 375. Eckersloy, 2 K. & J. 264. See also Lord 2 Dorsey v. Packwood, 12 How. 120; IManners v. .Johnson, L. R. 1 Ch. D. 073; Bispham's Eq. § 377. Lloyd r. London, Chatham, & Dover Ry. 3 Colson V. Tiiompson, 3 Wheat. 336 ; Co." 2 De G. J. & S. 508 ; Trustees of Co- Bispiiam's Eq. § 377. himhia College v. Lynch, 70 N. Y. 404. § 209.] INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN A MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS. 345 ception that if it would be against public policy to enforce the covenant, — for example, if a change of circumstances have ren- dered it improper to use land in accordance with the terms of a covenant regulating its use, or if, on account of such a change, the object of the parties to the covenant would not be accom- plished by its enforcement, — equity will not interfere.'^ § 209. Injunctions to restrain a Multiplicity of Suits. — Injunc- tions are granted in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits under bills of peace. Bills of peace are bills to restrain a number of persons from endeavoring to enforce in different suits the same or similar claims ; ^ or to prevent a single person from reiterating in several successive suits the same unsuccessful claim ; ^ or to prevent a person from levying a tax, the payment of which will subject the plaintiff to the hazard of a number of suits from other parties ;^ bills of interpleader"^ and in the nature of interpleader ;^ bills to enjoin a continuing trespass,^ nuisance,'^ infringement of patents,^ copyrights^ and trade-marks;^^ and bills to quiet possession.^^ Each of these classes of bills, except the last two, have been already sufficiently described. Injunctions to restrain a continuing trespass, nuisance, and the infringement of patents, coj^yrights and trade-marks, are more often said to be granted to prevent irreparable injury, and will, therefore, be considered under that head. An injunction to quiet the possession before the hearing formerly issued to restrain the party to whom it was directed from taking forcible possession of lands pending litiga- tion concerning them. It was issued at the request of either a plaintiff or a defendant to a suit, if the applicant had had peace- able possession of the premises for the three years preceding the ' Duke of Bcilford r. British Museum, • * Louisiana State Lottery Co. r. Clark, 2 M. & K. 65ii ; Troy & B. R. R. Co. v. 16 Fed. R. 20 ; s. c. 4 Woods, 169 ; jMc- Boston, II. T. & W. Ry. Co., 86 N. Y. Lauj^'ldin v. Swann, 18 How. 217; City 107 ; Trustees of Columbia College v. Bank v. Skelton, 2 Blatchf. 14. 8ee § 88. Thacher, 87 N. Y. 311 ; Leake's Digest of ^ Dorn c. Fox, Gl N. Y. 264. See § 89. tlie Law of Contracts, 1152. But see ^ Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Bur- Lloj'd V. London, Cliatham, & Dover Ry. lington & ^lissouri R. R. Co , 2 McCrary, Co , 11 Jur. (n s ) 380. 203. See § 215. § 209. 1 Sheffield Water Works v. Yco- "! Woodruff r. North Bloomfield Gravel mans, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 8. Mining Co., 18 Fed. R. 753. See § 214. 2 Earl of Bath v. Sherwin, 4 Brown 8 u. S. R. S. § 4921. See § 216. Parliamentary Cases, 373. 9 U. S. R. S. § 4970. See § 217. 3 Cunnnings v. National Bank, 101 i^ Shaw Stocking Co. v. Mack, 12 Fed. U. S. 153, 157 ; Pelton v. National Bank, R. 707. See § 218. 101 U. S. 143, 148; Hills v. Exchange " Hughes v. Mordcn College, 1 Ves. Bank, 105 U. S. 319. See sn/mi, § 12. Sen. 188. See supra, § 7. 346 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. filing of the bill, and his interest therein had not been determined by forfeiture, surrender, or other lawful means. He was required to swear to these facts in his bill, and according to the practice before Lord Bacon's time, to give a bond to the amount of £10 as a security that the information so given was true.^^ Such injunctions were formerly very common ; but have now fallen into disuse. The last reported instance of one was in Lord Hardwicke's time.^^ § 210. Injunctions to prevent Irreparable Injury for Avhicli the Remedy at Law is inadequate ; in general. — The most ordinary ground u})on which an injunction issues, and one, indeed, which includes all but the first of those previousl}^ mentioned, is that, otherwise, the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury, for which damages at law would be no adequate remedy. It would be impossible specifically to mention here all the different in- stances in wdiich an injunction issues for this reason ; but the following is an enumeration of those of more frequent occurrence which have not been previously described. An injunction will issue on account of the inadequacy of the remedy at common law ; to stay proceedings in otlier courts, either of law, equit}', or admiralty ;i to restrain the indorsement or negotiation of notes and bills of exchange, the sale of land, the sailing of a ship, the transfer of stock, or the alienation of a specific chattel ;2 to restrain the commission of every species of waste or act in the nature of waste ;^ to suppress the continuance of a public or pii- vate nuisance ;^ to prevent a threatened destructive trespass ;^ to prevent the infringement of patents ;*^ to prevent the violation of cop}Tight, whether by printed publications, or theatrical represen- tation, or otherwise;' to prevent the unauthorized use of trade- marks,^ and the opening of private letters;^ to com[)el the j)er- formance or prevent the breach of contracts other than those for the payment of money only ; ^° and, under very extraordinary circumstances, to compel the deliverv of personal properly wrongfully withheld. ^^ § 211. Injunctions to stay Proceedings in other Courts. — In- junctions to stay proceedings in other courts are of much less '- Eck'ii on Injunctions, ch. xvi. p. 8 § 213. 8 §218. 210. * § 214. » §219. 13 Iliiglies V. Morden College, 1 Ve3. 5 § 215 10 § 220. Sen. 188. 6 S 210. " §221. §210. 1 §211. 2 §212. ■? §217. § 211.] INJUNCTIONS TO STAY TKOCEEDINGS IN OTHER COUKTS. 347 frequent occurrence now that discovery and the inspection of documents can be obtained at common law without the aid of equity than they were formerly ; but they are still occasionally issued, especially in banlcruptcy.^ Such injunctions must not be confounded with writs of i)rohibition, which are addressed to the judges of a court, whereas injunctions are directed to the ])arties to the proceedings which it is desired to restrain.^ Ordi- narily, when two courts have a concurrent jurisdiction over the same thing, whichever court was first possessed of the cause has a right to proceed with the same, and proceedings in it will not be prohibited or restrained in another,'^ Tiie Revised Statutes of the United States expressly provide that " The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State, except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law re- lating to proceedings in bankruptcy." * Accordingly a Federal court has refused to enjoin a railway company from taking pos- session of land upon the termination of condemnation proceed- ings in a State court.^ A State court has no power to stay by injunction a proceeding in a court of the United States.^ It has been held, however, that a Federal court has power to issue an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court which interfere with the enforcement of one of its own judgments, and to stay proceedings which have been instituted or continued after the beginning or the removal of the suit in the Federal jurisdiction.' §211. 1 McLean r. Lafayette Bank, 3 Blatchf. 48; Yick Wo v. Crowley, 26 McLean, 185. In re Scliwarz, 14 Fed. R. Fed. U. 207. 787. 6 Dillon v. Kansas City S. B. Ry. Co., ^ See Eden on Injunctions, ch. ii. ; 43 Fed. R. 109. Peck V. Jenness, 7 IIow. 624; Dillon v. ^ McKim v. Voorliies, 7 Cranch, 279 ; Kansas City S. B. Ky. Co., 43 Fed. R. Duncan v. Darst, 1 How. 301-30G ; City 109, 111. Bank of New York (-. Skelton, 2 Blatchf. ^ Niciiolas V. Nicholas, Prec. in Ch. 14. 516; Daniel's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1845; ^ French r. Hay, 22 Wall. 250; supra §§ 9, 10. But see the Erie Ry. Co. Dietzsch c. Iluidekopcr, 103 U. S. 4'.l4 ; V. Ramsey, 45 N. Y. 637. Fisk i-. Union Pacific R. R. Co , 10 4 U. S. R. S. § 720. See the Slaughter Blatchf. 518; Sharon v. Terry, 36 Fed. House Cases, 10 Wall. 273; Haines v. R. 3.37; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Ford, Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254; Dial v. Rey- 35 Fed. R. 170. nolds, 96 U. S. 340 ; Rensselaer & S. R. R. Jesup v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., Co. V. Bennington & R. R. R. Co., 18 Fed. 44 Fed. R. 663, 664-667. per Ricks,',!. : — R. 617 ; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. " The plaintiff, in his petition in said Scott, 13 Fed. R. 793; .s. c 4 Woods, court of common pleas, bases his right to 386; Hamilton v. Walsh, 23 Fed. R. recover against tlie defendant, as the re- 420; Tifft r. Iron Clad Miinuf. Co., 10 organized railroad company and pur- 348 INJUNCTIONS [chap. XVI. Such an injunction will rarely be issued.^ But proceedings in a State court cannot be enjoined upon the sole ground that they are taken under a State statute which is repugnant to the chnser of tlie property foreclosed, as above biateil, upon tlie giuuud that the circuit courts of the United States, in foreclos- ing said property, made a decree or order providing tliat the said receiver, John McNulty, should turn over to the pur- chasers of said railroad property all the assets, books, vouchers, accounts and property in his custody as such receiver, and be discharged from all further liabil- ity as such receiver, upon tlie following conditions, which I quote from the order of the court : — " ' Tlie court orders the delivery of such receivership assets, papers, and prop- erty to the Wabash Railroad Company, on the express condition that the last- named corporation agrees to pay, satisfy, and finally discharge all the debts and liabilities of such receivership oi every kind now remaining unpaid, and that it may further defend in the name of such receiver all litigated claims or demands against such receivership now pending in this or other courts, and will fully abide by and pay any and all judgments and recoveries, together with costs, which may be rendered in any of such actions or litigations, and always protect and save liarmless the said receiver from such claims or any of tiiem.' " This order was made by this court after the confirmation of the sale there- tofore made, ami the conditions therein required to be performed by the purchaser were substantially and in fact a part of the consideration exacted from such pur- chasers for said railroad projierty. This court authorized tlie receiver to deliver to the said purchaser all of the assets and . property in his hands, upon the condition that said purchaser would save harmless the said receiver from all claims of every kind that might be preferred against him. It is therefore clearly the duty of this court to see that such purchaser is not required to pay or satisfy any claim or judgment of any kind that would not be a proper and just liability of said re- ceiver. If this court had not discharged said receiver upon the conditions recited •in the order, releasing him from further responsibility in connection with this prop- erty, it would have retained the assets, books, and vouchers in his hands, and adjusted all the liabilities incurred by him as receiver, by and through the pro- ceedings customary in such cases. It is clearly the duty of this court to protect the purchaser of this property to the same extent, and in the same manner, that it would have protected the receiver if he had been retained for the purpose of set- tling all these outstanding claims. When the purchaser bought tliis {)roperty it pur- chased it upon the conditions named in the decree and order of sale. The pur- chase price so obtained became a fund in the hands of this court for distribution to the beneficiaries imder its decree. The court would certainly protect tiiis fund from being diverted. It would take every precaution to see that no party received any portion of it unless just!}' entitled thereto. But this agreement to pay sucli just claims as might be allowed against the receiver, as before stated, is, in fact, a part of the price paid by the said pur- chaser for the road, and it is the duty of the court to protect it against any unjust claims, by the same diligence and care that it would protect the fund if actually in the registry of the court for distribu- tion. The distributioti of this fund, and the allowance of claims against the re- ceiver, which is in fact a part of the pur- chase price, is exclusively within the control of this court. As the court would not allow any other tribunal to distribute any part of the purchase price, so it can- not properly or safely allow any other tribunal to say what are proper claims against the receiver to be paid out of this fund, or by the purchaser as a part of its purchase price, for the property. In order to so fully protect the purchaser and fairly retain control of all claims against the receiver which such purchaser ^ Frishman v. Insurance Co., 41 Fed. II. 449. § 211.] INJUNCTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER COURTS. 349 Federal Constitution.^ A judge of a Circuit or District Court has no power to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment in a State court after an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States sliouhl be required to pay, tliis court must retain jurisdiction of all cases which involve the liability of its receiver. It must retain or acquire such jurisdic- tion in order that such liability may be adjusted and determined according; to the equitable principles controlling this court in such proceedings. The plaintiff in this case had the right, under the act of August, 1888, to sue tliis receiver in the Court of Common Pleas of Defiance County for the torts committed by iiini as such receiver. He had the right to bring such action without the leave of this court. Any judgment that he might have obtained in such court would have been subject to the equitable scrutiny of this court before it would have been allowed as a valid claim against the receiver; but the plaintiff's right to sue the receiver was fixed and indisputable. He chose not to avail himself of this right while it existed, but after the dis- charge of the receiver, and, when the purchaser of the foreclosed railroad prop- erty assumed the possession and manage- ment of it, he institutes this suit against such purchaser, and seeks to hold it liable for torts committed by the receiver during his management of said property under the orders of this court. While he bases his right to recover upon the ex- press stipulation of the purchaser, made in this court, that it would pay all the liabilities of tlie receiver upon condition that the assets of the receiver and the control of the property purchased were turned over to it, yet the plaintiff elected to bring this suit against the purcliascr instead of the receiver, because of some supposed legal advantage he could derive by reason of a suit against the former instead of the latter. But liis right of action no longer exists against the re- ceiver, because the receiver has been dis- charged, and released from all liabilit}' by express order of this court. He ought, therefore, to liave no greater right against the purchaser than he has against the receiver. Whatever right or claim he has is against the fund in this court arising from the sale of said mortgaged properly. " The promise and agreement of the purchaser constituted an adilitional con- sideration, and thereby added to said fund, as we have before stateil ; but in good faith to said purchaser it is the duty of this court to sift, scrutinize, and finally determine what claims shall be paid, and what claims shall be rejected. In order to do this satisfactoril}' this court should require all parties who assert any claim against such fund, or who claim any riglit to recover against said purchaser because of the stipulation and covenant made in this court, to establish such claim in this tribunal by proceedings usual in this class of cases. But if the said Potterf were permitted to prosecute his action in the State court, and recover a judgment thereon, lie would have a right to satisfy said judgment out of any property sub- ject to levy in the hands of the purchaser, the Wabash Railway Company ; where- as, under the covenants and agreements made in this court between the court and the jmrchaser, placing upon said cove- nants the legal construction hereinbefore given, any claim he might have against the receiver was to be satisfied out of t!ie fund arising from the sale of tiiis mort- gaged property. While counsel in argu- ing the case assured the court that they expected, in case they recovered a judg- ment, to come to this court and ask to have it allowed and paid by the purchaser on this covenant, to wliich reference has been made, yet there is no legal barrier which would prevent the plaintiff from satisf^'ing such judgment by levy and sale of subsequently acquired property in the hands of the purchaser. This places him in a more advantageous legal position than he occupied with a claim against the receiver, which could be satis- fied only out of the fund or property in the receiver's control. 9 Pensselaer & S. R. Co. v. Bennington & R. R. Co., 18 Fed. R. fil7. 350 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. and a supersedeas}^ That can only be done, if at all, by a justice of the Sii|)rerae Coui-t.^^ It has been held that a Federal court may enjoin proceedings in a State court which would deprive a citizen of the United States, or other person within the jurisdic- tion thereof, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States ; ^'^ that a Federal court can prevent by injunction the levy of a State sheriff under State process against a State judgment-debtor upon the property of a stranger to the suit and process ; ^^ that a Federal court may enjoin the inequitable use of a judgment of a State court when the validity of the judgment is not thereby impaired ; ^^ that under the act of Congress limiting the liability of the owners of shi|)S, a District Court of the United States may issue a stay-order restraining proceedings previously begun in State courts ; ^^ and that when a creditor of a corporation has begun proceedings in a Federal court to enforce his claim against the corporation, the defendant corporation may be enjoined " from taking proceedings for its own dissolution, or for the appointment of a receiver of its effects, or for the distribution thereof among its stock- " But it is further contended by coun- sel that tlie Wabash Railway Company cannot now ask for this stay of proceed- ings because it entered its ajipearance in the State court, and thereby conceded its jurisdiction. Tlie appearanc.'e entered by tlie counsel for the said railway com- pany would not have prevented it from askiig the State court to remove said case to this court if tlie citizenship of the parties and the amount involved had l>pen such as to justify such a request, and I do not think it prevents the said railway company from asking the relief it now demands. The jurisdiction of tlie court of common pleas, so far as tlie resi- dence of the parties is concerned, is un- disputed. It is because of the subject- matter of said contention that this court acquires jurisdiction. The exact cliar- actcr and nature of the suit were only developed by tiie motions made by the counsel for tlie defemlant in tlie State court after tlie original suit was insti- tuted ; and when the pleadings properly revealed the actual basis upon which the plaintiff founded his action, the petitioner at once invoked tlie jurisdiction of tiiis court to restrain said proceedings because of the nature thereof. For these reasons I think tlie order heretofore made re- straining said plaintiff from further pro- ceeding against the receiver in the State court was properly ahowed, and an order may now be drawn authorizing an injunc- tion to issue perpetually restraining iiim from further prosecuting said suit. If said Potterf chooses to avail himself of the privilege of filing liis claim in this court, against the receiver, he may do so, and such further jiroceedings will be di- rected as the equities of the case demand. A decree may be prepared in accordance with this opinion." See infra, § "251. i« Murray r. Overstoltz, 8 Fed. \\. 110. 11 Murray r. Overstoltz, 8 Fed. H. 110. 12 Tucliman v. Welch, 42 Fed. R. -548; reversed s. c. 4.5 Fed. R. 28;3; criticised in 24 American Law Review, G61. See U. S. R. S. § 1079. '■^ Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. 4()5. 1' Linton v. Mosgrove, 14 Fed R. 543. y^ In re Long Island, N. S. P. & F. Transportation Co , 5 Fed. R. 509. See Providence & N. Y. S. S. Co. v. Hill Mnnuf (\), 109 U. S. 578,600. § 211.] INJUNCTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER COURTS. 351 holders and any otlicr persons, and from making any distribu- tion or transfer of any of its effects." ^^ An injunction granted by a State court to stay proceedings in the same or another tri- bunal of the State remains in force after a removal to a Federal court of the suit in which it was granted,^" although such an in- junction could not be originally issued in the Federal court in a suit removed from a State court.^*^ Except in an extraordinary case to prevent irreparable injury to property or business inter- ests/-^ an injunction will not be issued to stay a criminal pro- ceeding,-'^ a proceeding in its nature criminal, as for the removal of an officer,-^ or an a{)plication for a mandamus. -^ " This court," said Lord Hardwicko, " has no jurisdiction to stay proceedings on a mandamus ; nor to an indictment ; nor to an information ; nor to a writ of prohibition, that I know of." '^'^ Judge Billings re- cently said : " The extent to which such a bill will lie is well defined. It is when the parties sought to be enjoined have, as plaintiffs, submitted themselves to the court by a bill in equity as to the matters affected by or involved in the criminal procedure. In such case the court will by a decree affecting the parties so situated personally enjoin." -"^ It has been doubted whether a Federal Circuit Court has the power to enjoin the prosecution of a suit in a Federal court in another circuit.^'^ Such an injunc- tion has been refused when sought by a defendant to a patent-suit for the purpose of enjoining the prosecution of suits previously brought upon the same patent.^^ The subsequent commencement of suits upon the same patent has been enjoined.-" It was at first iG Fisk I- Railroad Co., 10 Bliitclif. 518. Noble, 31 Fed. E. 855; Fn re Sawyer, But see Kessler c. Continental, C. & I. 124 U. S. 200. But see M. Scliandler Co., 42 Fed. R. 258. Bottling Co. v. Weldi, 42 Fed. R. 561; i" Smith y. Schwed, 6 Fed. R. 455; reversed s. c. 45 Fed. R. 288. Perry <;. Sharpe, 8 Fed. R. 15. But see ^i In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200. Lawrence v Morgan's R. R. & S. S. Co., "- Lord Montagne i\ Dudman, 2 Ves. 121 U. S. 634. Sen. ?.9G, 398. 1=* Diggs V Wolcott, 4 Crancli, 170. -^ Lord Montague r. Dudman, 2 Ves. 19 M. Schandler Bottling Co. v. Welch, Sen. 396, 398. 42 Fed. R. .561 ; Tuchman v. Welch, 42 ■^^ Spink r. Francis, 19 Fed. R. 670, 071 ; Fed. R. 548. Same cases reversed, 45 s. c 20 Fed. R. 507, 569. So held in Fed. R. 283 , criticised in 24 American Mayor of York v. Piikington, 2 Atk. 302. Law Review, 661. -5 Kelley r. Ypsilanti Dress Stay Manuf. -' Lord Montague v Dudman, 2 Ves. Co., 44 Fed. \l 19,20, /)er Brownj! ,1. Sen. 396, Attorney-General v. Cleaver, -'' Kelley r. Ypsilanti Dress-Stay Manuf 18 Ves 211, 220; Saull v. Browne, L. R. Co., 44 Fed. R. 19. 10 Ch. App. 64 . Spink v Francis, 19 Fed. 27 Birdsall c. Manuf. Co., 1 Hughes, 64. R. 670; s. c 20 Fed. R. 567; Suess v. 352 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. held that a court had no power to restrain a defendant from suing in a foi'eigii court ;2^ but it seems now to be established that it can do so,'"^^ though such a power is exercised with great caution.^*' It has been held that, in a suit by tlie United States to vacate a patent for an invention, a preliminary injunction will not be granted to restrain the prosecution by the defendant of suits for the infringement of the patent.-^^ Where a plaintiff is bringing suits upon the same patent against different defendants, who rely upon the same defenses, the court may stay proceedings in all but one till the validity of the patent has been finally determined in the excepted case.^^ But where some of the defendauts set up different defenses, it was held that the court " could not restrain in part and permit in part the prosecution of the cases. It would have no right to issue an injunction which should [sic] have the effect to split up the cases, enjoining their prosecution as to some branches of the controversy and permitting it as to the others." ^■'^ An injunction order providing " that all suits and proceedings on the part of " certain persons " against the said bankrupt, to collect the debt set forth, be, and tbe same are hereby stayed, to await the determination of the Court in bankruptcy on the ques- tion of the discharge therein," was held violated by those who, after discontinuing a suit then pending, subsequently instituted another to recover the same claim, with new allegations charging fraud.3-1 § 212. Injunctions to restrain the Alienation of Property. — lu- junctions may be obtained to prevent the alieuation of property " where it would work irremediable or gross injustice." ^ An injunction will, therefore, issue to prevent the transfer of notes, bills of exchange, and other documents, whether negotiable or not, whose possession gives their holder a presumptive title to the rights which they evidence,^ when obtained from the plain- 28 Love y. Baker, 1 Cli. Cas. 07, flec'ided •''■- Birdsell v. Hagerstowii Afj. Imp. b\' Lord Clarendon ; but the reporter add- Man. (^o., 1 IIuf;hes,64; Kninford Cliein- ed, " sfid qnare, for all the bar was of ical Works c. Hecker, 5 Off. Gaz. C44 ; another opinion.'' Allis r. Stowell, 10 Fed. R. 78:> ; Nat. Cash 2" Banbury >k Bunbury, 1 Beav. ol8; Retjister Co v. Boston Cash I. & R. Co, Pehon V. Foster, 4 Allen (Mass.), 545. 41 Fed. R. 51. Enfiel V. Sclieuerman, 40 Ga. '20Q; Massie ^^ Dyer, .1., in Allis v. Stowell, 16 Fed. V. Watts, Cranch, 148. R. 788" 700. 3' Vail V. Knapp, 49 Barb. (X.Y.),299; ^* In tlie Matter of Schwarz, 14 Fed. Story's Eq. Jnr. §§ 81)9, 900. R. 787. 31 'United States v. Colgate, 21 Fed. R. § -^12. ^ Story's Eq. Jur. § 953. 318. 2 Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 § 213.] INJUNCTIONS TO PREVENT WASTE. 353 tiff bj the defendant through duress, fraud, or other iniquity ; or when forged ; ^ or when, though the holder may have properly obtained them, he threatens or is about to use them in an in- equitable manner.* An injunction may be granted to prevent a party from making vexatious alienations of land pending a suit concerning the title to the same.^ For it was said that, otherwise, the plaintiff might be put to the expense of making each vendee or grantor a party to the proceedings ; and, at all events, his title, if he prevails in the suit, may be embarrassed by the new outstanding claims of title under the threatened transfer.^ The sale or transfer,' or removal beyond the jurisdiction of the court ^ of a chattel, the loss of which could not be compensated in damages, may also be thus restrained ; and so has been the sale of other personal property.^ Injunctions have also been granted at the suit of a part-owner to prevent the sailing of a ship until his share could be ascertained, and a bond given to secure him against loss upon the voyage ; ^^ to prevent the removal of timber wrongfully cut down ; ^^ and to prevent the trustees of a dissent- ing chapel from appointing as a minister a person not duly quali- fied according to its constitution.^^ § 213. Injunctions to prevent Waste. — An injunction will isSue to prevent waste, whether legal or purely equitable. ^ Waste is a permanent injury to real estate committed by a person in pos- session with a limited interest in the same. Legal waste consists of such acts as would be considered waste at common law; equitable waste, of such acts as at law would not, under the cir- cumstances of the case, be considered waste, but which are so Wlieat. 738, 845 ; Lloyd v. Gurdon, 2 » Bateau v. Bernard, 3 Blatchf. 244 ; Swanst. 180; Hood v. Aston, 1 Russ. 412 ; Higgins v. Jenks, 3 Ware, 17. Lord Cliedwortli c. Edwards, 8 Ves. 46 ; lo Haly r. Goodson, 2 Mer. 77 ; Christie Reeve v. Parkins, 2 J. & W. .390; Scher- v. Craig, 2 Mer. 137. But see Wilkinson merhorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 Dall. 360. v. Dobbie, 12 Blatchf. 298. 8 Esdaile v. La Naiize, 1 Y. & C. 394. " Bradley i;. Reed, 2 Pittsb. (Pa.) 519; 4 Anon., 6Madd. 10. Anon., 1 Ves. Jr. 93; Daniell'a Ch. Pr. £ Daly V. Kelly, 4 Dow, 417; Echliff (2d Am. ed.) 1874. V. Baldwin, 16 Ves. 267. But see Turner i^ Milligan r. Mitchell, 1 M. & K. 446. t. Wight,4Beav. 40. § 213. i Garths. Cotton, 1 Dickens, 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1873. 183 ; Thruston i-. Mustin, 3 Cranch C. C. 7 Gibson V. Lewis, 11 Phila. (Pa.) 476; 335; United States v. Gear, 3 How. 120; Lady Arundell y. Phipps, 10 Ves. 139; Fletcher ?•. New Orleans N. E. R. R. Co., Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. cd.) 1872. 20 Fed. R. 345 ; Lanier v. Alison, 31 Fed. 8 Green v. Hanberry, 2 Brock. 403 ; R. 100 ; Bispham's Eq. §§ 429-432. Haly V. Goodson, 2 Mer. 77 ; Christie v. Craig, 2 Mer. 187. VOL. I. — 23 354 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. esteemed in the view of a court of equity, from their manifest injury to the inheritance, though not inconsistent with the legal rights of the party committing tliem.^ Such is wilful and wanton injury to land committed by a tenant without impeachment for waste.^ The interference of equity in cases of this kind is justi- fied, not only by the fear of irremediable injury, but also because the tenant for life or years is considered to stand in a trust rela- tion toward the remainder-man. So anxious is equity to prevent waste, that it has sustained a bill praying such an injunction filed in behalf of a child in its mother's womb.'* An iuj unction will be granted to restrain acts in the nature of waste committed by one in possession of land the title to which is in litigation.^ It has been held that an applicant for the purchase of government land whose claim is disputed in the land office cannot obtain an injunction to prevent acts of waste by county officers.*^ § 214. Injunctions to prevent the Continuance of a Nuisance. — The interference of equity to enjoin the continuance of a nui- sance is not only due to the fact that the acts complained of produce irre])arable injury, but also is allowed to prevent the multiplicity of suits that would be necessary were the jjlaintiff confined to his remedy at common law.^ Nuisances are of two kinds : those which are injurious to the public at large, and those which are injurious to the rights and interests of private persons.^ The use of this remedy to suppress a public nuisance is of very ancient date.^ It was applicable in England, both to nuisances strictly so called and to purpre8tures. " By jnirpres- ture is meant, in its present acceptation, an incroachment upon the Crown, either upon part of the demesne lands, or upon the high roads, rivers, j)orts, or streets ; and the difference between purprcstures and nuisances consists in this, that where the jus jyrivatum of the Crown is invaded it is a j)urpresture., but where the jus p)uhUcum is violated it is a nuisance. In cases of pur- 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2cl Am. ed.) 1854, ^ United St;ites v. Parrott, 1 IMcAll. 1855. 271 ; Lanier v. Alison, .31 Fed. R. 100. 3 Vane v. Lord Barnard, 2 Vern. 738 ; ^ McBride v. Board of Commissioners Garth ?;. Sir Jolm Hind Cotton, 1 Dickens, of Pierce Countj- 44 Fed. R. 17. 183; s. 0. 1 Wiiite & Tudor's Leading § 214. ^ Fislnnongers' Co. v. East In- Cases in Equity (Gth ed.), 806 ; Bispham's dia Co., 1 Dickens, lOM ; Attorney-General Eq. § 4.34. V. Nicbol, 16 Vcs. 3.38, .34-3. * Miiscrrave r. Parry, 2 Vern. 710; 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1857. Lutterel's Case, cited Free. Ch. 50; 3 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1857. Scattervvood v. Edge, 1 Salk. 229. § 214.] TO PEEVEXT THE CONTIXUAXCE OF A NUISANCE. 355 prcsture the remedy is cither by infovniation for an intrusion at the common law, or by information in equity at the suit of the attorney-general. The consequence of a judgment at common law being the abatement of the erection or grievance complained of, whether it is or is not a nuisance, whilst upon an information in equity, where the trespass does not produce any })ublic injury, the court may direct an inquiry whether it is most beneficial to the Crown to abate the purpresture, or to suffer the erection to remain and be assessed as a part of the legal revenue." * Cases of j)ublic nuisance may be enjoined at the suit of the attorney- general, who in England sues by information.^ A public nuisance may also be restrained at the suit of any who have suffered by it special damage distinct from that which it causes to the public at large ; but not otherwise.^ A bill, for example, may be filed by a State to enjoin the erection of a bridge across a navigable stream which will injure her commerce;' but not by a city for a similar reason,^ unless its property, for example, a wharf, is thereby injured.^ The United States may obtain an injunction against a nuisance which threatens injury to works in aid of com- merce which are constructed under the authority of the national government. ^° A private nuisance is an act, or series of acts, unaccompanied by an act of trespass, which causes a substantial injury to a person's property, health, or comfort. It will always be restrained when it would otherwise cause an irreparable injury or a multiplicity of suits.^^ " It used to be thought, that if a man knew there was a nuisance, and went and lived near it, he could not recover, because, it was said, it is he that goes to the nuisance, and not the nuisance to him. This, however, is not the law * Daniell's Cli. Pr. (id Am. ed) 1857. ^ Georgetown r. Alexandria Canal Co., citing Attorney-General i'. Richards, 2 12 Pet. 91. Anst. G03; Attorney-General r. Johnson, 9 St. Louis r. Knapp Co., 104 U. S. 2 J. Wil. 87. See also United States v. 658. Gear, 3 How. 120. ^> United States v. Mississippi & R. R. & Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am ed.) 1858 Boom Co, 3 Fed. R. 548; s. c. 1 Mc- 8 Baines v. Baker, Anib. 158 ; Missis- Crary, 601. Bippi & Missouri R. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 " Osburne v. Barter & Goddins, anno Black, 485; Georgetown v. Alexandria 26 Eliz., Choyce Cases in Chancery (ed. Canal Co., 12 Pet. 91 ; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 of 1870), p. 176 ; Parker f. Winnipiseogee How. 10; Spooner v. McConnell, 1 Mc- Lake C. & W. Co., 2 Black, 545; Wood- Lean, 337 ; Works v. Junction R. R., 5 ruff v North Bloomfield Gravel Mining McLean, 425. Co.', 18 Fed. R. 753; St. Helen's Smelting ^ Pennsylvania!'. Wlieeling& Belmont Co. y. Tipping, 11 H. L. C. 642. Bridge Co., 13 How. 518. 356 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. xyi. now." ^2 Formerly, an injunction was rarely issued to restrain a nuisance until the plaintiff's right of action had been established at law ; " but now a suit at law is no longer a necessary prelimi- nary, and the right to an injunction, in a proper case, in England and most of the States, is just as fixed and certain as the right to any other provisional remedy." ^^ Formerly, it was a fundamen- tal objection to an order for an injunction to restrain a nuisance to land when the legal title was disputed, that the order con- tained no provision for putting the question in a course of legal investigation.^* § 215. Injunctions to restrain Trespass. — Injunctions to restrain trespass are of quite recent origin. The first that is to be found in the books was granted by Lord Thurlow.^ They are only granted when the trespass is destructive or continuous. The rule upon the subject has been thus stated by yice-Chancellor Kindersley : " Where, therefore, the plaintiff is in possession and the person doing the acts complained of is an utter stranger, not claiming under color of right, the tendency of the court is not to grant an injunction, unless there are special circum- stances, but to leave the plaintiff to his remedy at law; though, where the acts tend to the destruction of the estate, the court will grant it.^ But where the party in possession seeks to re- strain one who claims by adverse title, then the tendency will be to grant the injunction, at least where the acts done either did or might tend to the destruction of the estate." ^ The destruction of credit by an illegal seizure of one's stock in trade,"* and the injury to a farm done by the illegal taking of all tlie stock and tools upon it, have been held instances of such irreparable injury.^ An attempt by a railroad company to build its road upon private property without payment of compensation, may be thus pre- ^'- Byles, J., in Hole v. Barlow, 4 C. B. Lord Eldon in Hanson v. Gardiner, 7 Yes. y. s. .334. See St. Helen's Smelting Co. 305. For injunctions against the col- V. Tipping, 11 H. L. C. 642; Campbell v. lection of an illegal tax, see supra, § 12. Seaman, 15.3 N. Y. 568. 2 See Jerome i'. Boss, 7 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 18 Judge Earl in Campbell r. Seaman, 315; Troy & B. R. R. Co. r. Boston, H. 63 N. Y. 508, 582. See, bowever, Irwin r. T. & W. Ry. Co. 86 N. Y. 107; Van Dixion, 9 How. 10 ; Murtagh v. Pbiladel- Norden v. Morton, 99 U. S. 378. phia, 1 Weekly Notes of Cases, 37. But ^ Lowndes v. Bettle, 33 L. J. Ch. 4G1. see McBride v. Board of Commissioners * Watson v. Sutherland, 5 AVall. 74 ; of Pierce County, 44 Fed. R. 17. Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. 465 ; North " Harman v. Jones. Cr. & Ph. 299; t-. Peters, 1-38 U. S. 271. Sanxter v. Foster, Cr. & Ph. 802. ^ Breeden v. Lee, 2 Hughes, 484. § 215. 1 Flamang's case, cited by § 216.] TO RESTRAIN THE INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS. 357 vented.^ It is not certain, M^hether tlie fact that a person who threatens to commit a wrong is insolvent and unable to pay any damages which could be recovered at law, is in itself a sufficient ground for the interference of equity by injunction; but the weight of authority seems to hold that it isJ It was held, where there was a dispute as to the possession and as to right to the possession of a railroad track, that the court would not interfere by injunction to assist in " a scramble for possession." ^ A num- ber of cases decided in the courts of different States hold that an injunction cannot be obtained to restrain an illegal arrest; since it is said that the writ of habeas corpus followed by an action for damages always affords an adequate remedy for any injury re- sulting therefrom ; ^ but if the result of the arrests would be an irreparable injury to the business of the complainant, an injunc- tion might perhaps be issued.^'^ § 216. Injuuctious to restrain the Infringement of Patents. — Injunctions to restrain the infringement of patents and copy- rights are of ancient use in equity. They are founded upon both the irreparable injury that would otherwise be caused to the com- plainant, and the desire of the court to prevent a multiplicity of suits. 1 This inherent power of the courts is confirmed in the United States by statute. The provision of the Revised Statutes authorizing injunctions to restrain the infringement of patents is « Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Burling- « St. Louis, K. C. & C. Ry. Co. v. ton & M. R. R. Co.,2 McCrary, 203; s. c. Dewees, 2.i Feil. R. 691. See Latham 4 Fed. R. 298. See also Missouri, K. & v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 45 Fed. R. 721. T. Ry. Co. V. Texas & St. Louis Ry. Co., ^ Cohen v. Commissioners of Gokls- 10 Fed. R. 497. boro, 77 N. C. 2 ; Burnett v. Craig, 30 " Connolly v. Belt, 5 Craneli C. C. 405; Ala. 135; Burch v. Cavanaugh, 12 Abb. M'Elroy i*. Kansas City, 21 Fed. R. 257, Pr. n. s. (N. Y.) 410; Davis v. American 262; Agar v. Regent's Canal Co., cited in Society for Prevention of Cruelty to An- 1 Swanst. 250; Musselman v. Marquis, imals, 6 Daly (N. Y.), 81 ; s. c. on appeal, 1 Bush (Ky.), 463 ; Hicks v. Compton, 18 75 N. Y. .362. See also Yick Wo v. Crow- Cal. 206 ; Britton v. Hill, 12 C. E. Green ley, 26 Fed. R. 207 ; and supra, § 211. (N. J.), 389; Lloyd (!. Heath, Busbee'sEq. i" Louisiana State Lottery Co w. Fitz- (N. C.) 39; Cause v. Perkins, 3 .Jones Eq. patrick, 3 Woods, 222 ; Dinsmore v. New (N. C.) 177; Chesapeake & Ohio R. R. York Board of Police, 12 Abb. N. Cas. Co. V. Patton, 5 W. Va. 234 ; Bispham's (N. Y.) 436 ; Manhattan Iron Works Co. Eq. § 436; Caro v. Met. El. Ry. Co., 40 v. French, 12 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 440. N. Y. Super. Ct. 138. Contra, Heilman v. § 216. i Eden on Injunctions, chs. xii. The Union Canal Co., 37 Pa. St. 100; and xiii. ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (.5th Am. ed.) Thompson v. Williams, 1 Jones Eq. 1G42-1648; Hogg m. Kirby. 8 Ves. 215; (N. C.) 176; Nessle v. Reese, 19 Abb. Wilkins r. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422. Pr. (N. Y.) 240; Higli on Injunctions, §18. 358 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. xvi. as follows : " The several courts vested with jurisdiction of cases arising- under the patent laws shall have power to grant injunc- tions according to the course and princi})les of courts of equity, to prevent the violation of any right secured by a patent, ujion such terms as the court may deem reasonable ; and upon a decree being rendered in any such case for an infringement, the com- plainant sliall be entitled to recover, in addition to the profits to be accounted for by the defendant, the damages the complainant has sustained thereby ; and the court shall assess the same or cause the same to be assessed under its direction. And the court shall have the same power to increase such damages, in its discretion, as is given to increase damages found by verdicts in actions in the nature of actions of trespass upon the case,"^ It seems to have been formerly the oi)inioii that courts of equity would not interfere to protect a patent right by injunction, until the right had been establislied at law; but since Lord Ehlon's time their jurisdiction to thus interfere, when tlie title of a complainant is established l)y the ])reponderance of evidence, has been undisj)uted.-'^ In a recent case Judge Lowell said : "The princi})lcs which govern courts in granting or refusing preliminary injunctions in })ateiit cases are well established. As a general rule, if the plaintiff had made out a clear title, and the question of iiifi'ingemcnt lu'esents no difiiculty, an injunction will be granted. The hearing is had u{)on e.r- 'parte affidavits, and if the questions to be decided are difficult and complicated, especially if they involve disputed facts which have never been passed ujion by a court or jury, then, although the court may be inclined to think the complainant is right, yet it will not interfere at this stage of the cause, whether the questions relate to title or to infringement. And even where the title is clear, yet if there are peculiar circumstances which show that the defendant's interests would be injuriously affected by an injunc- tion, while thoso of tlie plaintiff would not be so affected by refusing it, it may 1»(^ refused. 8uch were the cases of Howe V, Morton, Fisher's Pat. Cases, vol. i. o8G, decided by Judge Sprague, and the Burring-machine cuf^c, Morris \. Loivell 3I'f^g ■- U.S. H. S. § 4021. See .w/>m, §§ 77, Tliompson, ."^ Meriv. 022; Pierpont v. 144. ' Fowle, 2 W. & M. 2:1; Motto ?•. Bennett, ■* Universities of Oxforil .and Cam- 2 Fisher, 042 ; Kerr on Iiijimctions, 272. bridge v. Ricliardson, G Ves. 089; Hill v. § 216] TO KESTRAIN THE INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS. 359 Co., Fisher's Pat. Cases, vol. iii. 67, which came before me ; in both of which the patent was about to expire, and the defend- ant's business would be very seriously interfered with for the few weeks that the exclusive right would remain in force, only to be resumed again immediately afterward at great expense and loss. There is, therefore, always an element of discretion entering into the consideration of this question, and all that a complainant is entitled to is the best judgment of the court upon a question of judicial discretion, and not absolutely to an injunction on any given state of facts. . . . These cases being tried, as I have said, on ex parte evidence, must be decided on broad views of the riglits of the parties. It is usual to present proof, either of long and general acquiescence in the plaintiff's exclusive rights, or of tlieir having been sustained by the courts. The ground on which acquiescence is important is that it shows exclusive possession, which, if it has been of long standing, open and notorious, is a clear foundation of a presumption of title. It is not always, however, so satisfactory as positive adjudica- tions, because it may have arisen from the comparatively small commercial value of the invention, and in that case shows only that no one has thought it worth infringing." * If serious public inconvenience would result from a preliminary injunction, the application may be denied.^ If previous adjudications in the same or other Circuit Courts have established the validity of the plaintiff's patent, a preliminary injunction will be granted him almost as of course in a subsequent suit, to prevent the infringement of the same by a person not a party to tliose suits,^ unless the latter can produce new evidence,' or show that such judgments were obtained by consent, collusion, or fraud.^ In 1 Potter V. Whitney, 1 Lowell, 87, 88, 5 Fisher, 130; Kirby Bung Jlanuf. Co. v. 89, See also Hill r. Thompson, 3 Meriv. White, 1 Fed. R. 604 ; High on Injunc- 622 ; Wasliburn & Moen Manuf. Co. v. tions, §§ 953-950 ; Kerr on Injunctions, Haish, 4 Fed. R. 900; Foster v. Moore, 273. Rut see Many i-. Sizer, 1 Fisiier Pat. 1 Curt. 279 ; McKay r. Dibert, 5 Fed. R. Cas. 31. 587 " Page v. Holmes Burglar Alarm Tel. * Southwestern Brush E. L. & P. Co. Co., 2 Fed. R. 300; s. c. 18 Blatchf. V Louisiana El. L. Co., 45 Fed. R. 893 ; 118. Bliss V. City of Brooklyn, 4 Fisher's Pat. ^ American Nicolson Pavement Co. v. Cas. 59G; Robinson on Patents, § 1200 City of Elizabeth, 4 Fisher, 189; Pager, and cases cited. H. B. A. Tel. Co., 2 Fed. R. 330 ; Amer- 6 Newall V. Wilson, 2 DeG., M. & G. ican Middlings Purifier Co. v. Vail, 15 280; Orr v. Littlefield, 1 W. & i\I. 13; Blatchf. 315. But see Orri-. Littlefield, Thayer v. Wales, 9 Blatchf. 170 ; s. c. 1 W. & M. 13. 360 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. xvi. such cases the courts will usually examine only the question of the infringement.^ But it may, and before granting a perpetual injunction often does, reconsider the whole question.^^ Other- wise, however, when the patent is of recent issue, and its validity is denied by sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge as to a question either of fact or of law; a preliminary injunction will usually be refused ;^^ although now that, in the Federal courts, the same judges sit both at law and in equity, and when sitting in equity have the power to submit a disputed question of fact to a jury, such a court usually deter- mines the whole question upon its final decree, without adopting the circuitous method of first directing a trial at law.^^ Formerly the custom was, when any doubt remained in the mind of the court after the final hearing, to deny the complainant a perpetual injunction at that time ; but to direct that the cause " stand over a reasonable time for the bringing of a suit at law against the defendants for an infringement ; and, if such a suit is brought, until a sufficient time for the trial thereof has elapsed. And if, in such suit, there shall be final judgment for the ]>laintiffs, they will be entitled to a decree for injunction and account, as prayed for in the bill ; and if, in such suit, thei'c shall be final judgment for the defendants, the bill will be dismissed with costs ; and so, also, it will be dismissed with costs on an aj)plication of the defendants, if such suit is not brought within a reasonai>le time, and prosecuted with reasonable diligence." ^'^ An ex parte appli- cation for an injunction to restrain the infringement of a patent should, it seems, be supported by an affidavit, or an allegation in a bill verified by affidavit of the plaintiff, stating that he believes that the person to whom the patent was issued was the original invcnt-or thereof, or that the invention was new, or had not been " Robertson v. Hill, G Fislier, 465; Fisher Pat. Cas. 181; Mowry y. Grand Odorless E.xcavating Co. v. Lauman, 12 Street & N. R. Co., 10 Blatchf. 89 ; s. c. 5 Fed. R. 788. Fisher, 586 ; Smith v. Cummings, 1 Fislier ii^ Many I'. Sizer, 1 Fisher Pat. Cas. 31 ; Pat. Cas. 152 ; IMcGuire v. Fames, 15 Day f. Hartshorn, .3 Fisher, 32; Parker Blatchf. 312 ; Kirby Bmig Manuf. Co. v. V. Sears, 1 Fisher Pat. Cas. 93 ; Poppen- Wiiite, 1 Fed. R. (;64. husen v. Faulko, 4 Blatclif . 4!»3 ; Sargent i- See Pierpont v. Fowle, 2 W. & M. Manuf. Co. v. Woodruff, 5 Biss. 444. 23, 30. " Parker v. Sears, 1 Fisher Pat. Cas. ''' Judge Hall in Muscan Hair Manu- 93; American Nicolson Pavement Co. ?-. facturing Co. v. American Hair iManu- City of Klizabeth, 4 Fisher, 189; Dodge facturing Co., 1 Fisher Pat. Cas. 320, t'. Card, 2 Fisher, 116; Sullivan v. Red- 325. field, 1 Paine, 441 ; Winans v. Eaton, 1 § 217.] TO RESTRAIN THE INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS. 361 introduced into public use in the United States for more than two years prior to the application upon which the patent was issued.^* After the expiration of a patent an injunction inay issue to pre- vent the use of a machine made while the patent was in force ; and an injunction previously issued will, until dissolved by order, remain in force so as still to forbid such a use.^^ But a bill praying- for such an injunction must allege either that the de- fendant is using macliincs manufactured during the term of the patent and in violation of it, or that the plaintiff has cause to fear such a usc.^'' An injunction against the manufacture or sale of articles in violation of a patent right is violated by their sale or manufacture within the United States, but beyond the juris- diction of the court.^'' " In deciding whether a given complainant has made out a prima facie case for a preliminary injunction to restrain infringement of a patent, the judge is guided by the presence or absence of two presumptions and one certainty. Those presumptions relate to the validity of the patent and to the defendant's infringement thereof, and that certainty relates to the complainant's title thereto. If that certainty or either of those presumptions are absent in a given case, no preliminary injunction will be granted ; but such a writ will not be granted whore they are all present, unless the defendant interposes some good defence to the motion, or unless the court takes a bond from the defendant instead of subjecting him to an injunction." ^^ § 217. Injunctions to restrain the Infringement of Copyrights. — The Revised Statutes authorize injunctions to prevent the in- fringement of copyrights, as follows : " The circuit courts, and district courts having the jurisdiction of circuit courts, shall have powder, upon bill in equity, filed by any party aggrieved, to grant injunctions to prevent the violation of any right secured by the laws respecting copyrights, according to the course and prin- ciples of courts of equity, on such terms as the court may deem reasonable." ^ This statute is, however, merely declaratory of ^* Hill V. Thompson, 3 Meriv. 622 ; house v. Carpenter, 4.3 Fed. 1\. 894 ; infrn, Sturz V. De La Rue, 5 Kuss. 322, 329 ; § 230. Sullivan v. Kedfiekl, 1 Paine, 441 ; Q. S. ^'^ American Diamond Rock Borinc; Co. R. S. §§ 4886, 4887. v Rutland Marhle Co., 2 Fed. R. 355. 1^ American Diamond Rock Boring Co. i" Macaulay v. White Sewing Machine V. Rutland Marhle Co., 2 F\'d. R. 3.5(5. But Co., 1) Fed. R. 098. see American Cable Ry. Co. v. Chicago ^^ Walker on Patent?, § 6G5. City Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R. 522 ; Westing- § 217. i U S. R. S § 4970. 362 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. the previous rule in equity which, it was said by Lord Eldon, was " founded upon this ; that the law does not give a complete remedy to those whose literary property is invaded ; for if })ubli- cation after |)ublication is to be made a distinct cause of action^ the remedy would soon become worse than the disease. This court, therefore, interposes by injunction ; but not in cases where an action cannot be maintained." ^ The rules regulating the issue of injunctions to prevent the infringement of copyrights are in general similar to those regulating the issue of injunctions restraining the infringement of patents. The plaintiff must show a clear title to his copyright, and an infringement or threat- ened infringement by the defendant.^ The injunction will be denied if the defendant shows that the plaintiff has consented to his infringement, or has been guilty of unreasonaljle delay after he learned that it had occurred or was threatened.'* How long a time must have elapsed to bar the plaintift"*s right to an in- junction has not been definitely settled. In has been held in England, however, that an injunction may be obtained after the copyright has been infringed to the plaintiff's knowledge during four years.^ ]\Ioreover, delay will not prejudice him, if solely caused by liis waiting until the result of litigation, whetlier prosecuted by himself or others, to settle a doubtful question of law involving the validity of his title.*^ As has been said, an injunction will not be granted unless the plaintiff shows a plain title to the copyright which he claims ; but " the copyright is prima facie evidence that he is the author, and the burden of })roof is upon the defendant to show the contrary," ' or that, for some other reason, tliere is a defect in the title claimed.^ And the court will protect an equitable title against infringement unless the defendant possesses su})erior equities to those of the complainant.^ The com])lainant is not obliged to prove damage 2 Lawrence v. Smith, Jacob, 471, 472. G7 ; Miller v. M'Elroy, 1 Ain. Law Reg. 3 Cliasc V. Sanborn, 6 Off. Gaz. 932; 198. Parkinson v. Laselle, o Saw. 330; Law- ^ Hogg i'. Scott, L. R. 18 Eq. 444,454; rc-nce v. Dana, 4 Cliff. 1; Yuengling v. Drone on Copyright, 504, 512. Schile, 12 Fed. R. 97 ; Drone on Coi)y- « Buxton u. James, 5 De G. & Sm. 80; right, ch. .xi. pp. 490-543. Runifonl Cliemical Works v. Vice, 14 •* Rundcll V. Murray, Jacob, 311 ; Blatchf. 179. Saunders ;•. Smitli, 3 Myl. & Cr. 711; '^ Chief Justice Taney in Reed v. Cliappcll ('. Slieard, 1 ,Tur. n. s. 09() ; Carusi, Taney, 72, 74. Tinsh'V '•. Lacv, 1 Mom. &M. 747; Keene " Drone on Coyiyright, 490; Story's V. Clarke, 5 Robertson (N. Y.), 38, GG, Eq. Jur. § 03r), note (?. y Little V. Gould, 2 Blatchf. 105. § 217.] TO RESTRAIN THE INFRINGEMENT OF COrYRIGHTS. 363 from the breach of copyright.^'' If there is any doubt concerning the infringement, and its ascertainment will necessitate the ex- amination of a great deal of matter, the court, in this country, usually directs a reference to a master to hear testimony and state the facts, together with his oi)inion for its consideration, before granting an injunction.'^ Such a reference is usually ordered before the final hearing, but may be at the decree. ^^ j^ England, however, laborious examinations have frequently been made by the judges themselves, unassisted, except by counsel.^^ Instead of a reference, an issue at law may l)e directed.^^ The plaintiff need not specify in either his bill or his affidavit the parts of the defendant's publication which he thinks have been taken from his work. A general allegation of infringement accompanied by a verification by affidavit of the two works is sufficient.'-^ The practice has been that, " wh.en the injunction has been moved for, the two works have been brought into court, and the counsel have pointed out to the court the passages which they rely upon as showing the piracy." ^^ Clearer proof and a stronger case than would be sufficient to entitle a plaintiff to an injunction after the hearing is often required before he can obtain an interlocutory injunction. i" The difticLdty of accurately determining the damages resulting from an unauthorized publi- cation of his work will often have weight in leading the court to grant a preliminary injunction, when otherwise it might refuse one.^^ But, on the other hand, the court will often refuse an injunction before the hearing, when it is plain that the defendant would suffer more injury from being obliged to discontinue the publication than will result to the plaintiff' from his continuing it.^^ It has been held in England that if a work is libellous, im- 10 Reed r. HoUiday, 10 Fed. R. 325, .327. i^ Jollie v. Jaqiics, 1 Elatclif. G18. 11 Folsom V. Marsh, 2 Story, 100 ; Webb i^ Farmer r. Calvert Lithojjiraphing: Co., V Powers, 2 W. & M. 497; Story v. 1 Flippin, 228, 235 ; Sweet v Maugham, Derby, 4 McLean, 160 ; Greene v. Bishop, 11 Simons, 51 ; Drone on Copyright, 513. 1 Cliff. 186 Lawrence v. Dana, 4 Cliff. i*^ Sweet t-. Maugham, 11 Simons, 51,53. 1 ; Drone on Copyright, 513. But see " Johnson ;•. Wyatt, 2 De G. J. & S. Smith V Johnson, 4 Blatchf. 2-52. 18; Drone on Copyriglit, 517, 518. 1- Lawrence v Dana, 4 Cliff. 1 ; Drone i** Matthewson v. Stockdale, 12 Ves. on Copyright, 513, 270; Wilson v. Luke, 1 Victorian Law 13 Lewis V. Fullarton, 2 Beav, G ; Mur- Rep. 127 ; Prince Albert >\ Strange, 1 ray v. Bogue, 1 Drew. 353; Jarrold (;. Mac. & G. 25, 46; Little i: Gould, 2 Houlston,3 Kay & J 70S; Pike c Nicho- Blatchf. 165; Drone on Copyright, 516- las, L. R. 5 Ch. 251 ; Drone on (^opy- 519. rigiit, 513. !'•* Spottiswoode v. Clarke, 2 Phil. 154- 364 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. moral, or blasphemous, which last named term would include one *■' which impug-ned the doctrines of the immateriality and immor- tality of the soul," '^^ there can be no copyright therein, and a piratical edition thereof will not be enjoined.^i These decisions, however, one of which stigmatized as unworthy of protection Byron's " Cain," 2- have been severely criticised,-^ and it is not likely that they would be fully sustained if the question should be raised in the United States ; although in a case in the Federal courts Judge Deady assigned as one among several reasons for refusing to enjoin an unauthorized representation of " The Black Crook," that it " only attracts attention as it panders to a pru- rient curiosity or an obscene imagination by very questionable exhibitions and attitudes of the female person." ^^ The injunc- tion forbids the publication of only so much of the defendant's work as infringes upon the copyright of the ])laintiff.-'^ § 218. Injunctious to restrain the Unlawful Use of Trade-marks. — Injunctious to restrain the use of trade-marks by others than their owners are granted by courts of equity, it has been said, partly to prevent the fraud upon tlie })ublic which would other- wise be perpetrated, and partly on account of the ditiliculty of estimating the injury which would be caused the owner of a trade-mark from its improper use.^ The former ground of the interference of the court has, however, been expressly repudiated by a great judge, Lord Westbury, who said, when Lord Chan- cellor, in delivering the judgment in a leading case : " Imposi- tion upon the public becomes the test of the property in the ti'adc-mark having been invaded and injured, but not the ground on whicli the Court rests its jui'isdiction." - "• Trade-marks are Cox V. Land & Water Jourii.al Co., L. R. -^ Judge Deady in Martinetti v. Ma- 9 Eq. 324 ; Lodge v. Stoddart, 9 Reporter, guire, 1 Deady, 216, 22.3. 1.37. But see Emerson v. Davies, 3 Story, -^ Webb v. Powers, 2 W. & M 497 ; 708. ' Story v. Holcombe, 4 McLean, 806; 2' Lawrence v. Smitli, Jacob, 471. Farmer v. Elstner, 33 Fed. R. 494. 21 AValcot t'. Walker, 7 Ves. 1 ; Stock- § 218. i Perry v. Truefit, 6 Beav. 66, dale c Onwliyn, 5 Barn. & Cr. 173; Mur- 7-3; Croft v. Day, 7 Beav. 84; Leatlicr ray r. Benbow, 6 Petersd. Abr. 659 ; Clotli Co. v. The American Leatlier Clotb Lawrence v. Smitli, Jacob, 471 ; Soutliey Co., 10 Jur. (n. s.) 81 ; Walton v. Crow- i'. Sherwood, 2 Meriv. 4;5.5. But see Bur- ley, 3 Blatchf. 440; Sliaw Stocking Co. nett V. Chetwood, 2 Meriv. 441. v. Mack, 12 Fed. K. 707. 2""i Murray v. Benbow, 6 Petersd. Abr. ^ 'phe Leather Cloth Co. v. The Amer- 559. ican Leatlier Cloth Co., 10 Jur. (n. s.) 81. -^ Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chan- But see the langnage of Judge Coxe in cellors, ch. ccxiii.; Drone on Cojiyright, Shaw Stocking Co. v. Mack, 12 Fed. R. 181-196. ■ ' 707, 710. § 218.] TO RESTKAIN THE UNLAWFUL USE OF TRADE-MARKS. 365 of two kinds. They may consist of pictures or symbols or a peculiar form and fashion of label, or simply of a word or words, which, in whatever form printed or represented, continue to be the distinguishing mark of the manufacturer who has appropri- ated it or them, and the name by which his products are known and dealt in." ^ " Where the trade-mark consists of a picture or symbol, or in any peculiarity in the appearance of the label, the imitation must be such as to amount to a false representation, liable to deceive the public, and enable the imitator to pass off his goods as those of the person whose trade-mark is imitated. And wlien there is such an absence of resemblance that ordinary attention would enable customers to discriminate between the trade-marks of different parties, the court will not interfere." ^ " But where the trade-mark consists of a word, it may be used by the manufacturer who has appropriated it, in any style of print, or in any form of label, and its use by another is unlawful. The statute " of New York " requires only that the imitation should be either the same to the eye, or in sound to the ear, as the genuine trade-mark, and this accords with the authorities." ^ " To make an exclusive right to use a name or symbol as a trade- mark, such use must be new ; if ever before used as applicable to a like article, it cannot be exclusively appropriated. If the arti- cle is known to commerce in general, by the term claimed, as a trade-mark, the claim is ill-founded. If the term employed indi- cates the nature, kind, or quality of the article, instead of show- ing its origin, an exclusive right to its use is not maintainable." ^ In accordance with the maxim that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands, it is well established that, if the trade- mark for which protection is sought contains representations cal- culated to deceive the public, an injunction will be denied the plaintiff." An act of Congress allowing suits to enjoin the use of trade-marks to be brought in a Federal court against a citizen of the same State as the complainant, was held unconstitutional.^ 3 Judge Rapallo in Hier v. Abrahams, ^ Leather Cloth Co. r. The American 82 N. Y. 519, 523. Leather Cloth Co., 11 H. L. C. 523 ; s c. ■4 Judge Rapallo in Hier i;. Abrahams, in a lower court, 10 Jur. (n. s.) 81; 82 N, Y. 519, 523, Fowle v. Spear, 7 Penn. L. J. 176; Heath * Judge Rapallo in Hier v. Abrahams, v. Wright, 3 Wall. Jr. 141 ; Ginter v. Kin- 82 N, Y. 519, 524. ney Tobacco Co., 12 Fed. R. 782. 6 Van Beil v. Prescott (The Rye & » Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82. Rock Case), 82 N. Y. 630. 366 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. xyi. A subsequent act of Congress gives the Federal courts jurisdic- tion of such a suit when the plaintiff has registered his trade- mark for use in foreign commerce or commerce with the Indian tribes, and the defendant has used such registered trade-mark in such commerce.^ § 219. Injunctions to prevent the Opening of Letters. — In Eng- land an injunction has been issued to prevent the tenants of a building formerly occupied by the members of another firm from opening letters addressed to the latter. ^ § 220. Injunctions to compel the Performance or prevent the Breach of Contracts not affecting Land. — The performance of a contract not affecting lands will be enforced in equity by means of an injunction when, and only when, a judgment for damages would be no adequate remedy for its breach;^ and it docs not require a purely personal act which it would be impossible for the court to enforce.^ The inadequacy of tlie remedy at law which will entitle one to specific performance of a contract may, it lias been held, be proved by the fact that the damages in money cannot be ascertained.^ In some cases an injunction may be obtained to restrain a defendant from violating a negative promise contained in a contract, although the court has no power specifically to enforce the affirmative promises contained therein. Thus, when opera singers had contracted to sing at the plaintiffs' theatre and nowhere else, injunctions have been granted to re- strain them from singing in rival establishments, although they could not be compelled to sing for the plaintiffs.* The rule has been thus stated by Judge Lowell : " I think the fair result of the later cases may be thus expressed : If the case is one in which the negative remedy of injunction will do substantial justice be- tween the parties, by obliging the defendant either to carry out his contract or lose all benefit of the breach, and the remedy at law is inadequate, and there is no reason of policy against it, the court will interfere to restrain conduct which is contrary to the 9 21 St at L. 502 (1 Snpp U S R. S. - Clarke v. Price, 2 Wilson Ch Cases. 600); Graveley v. Gravelev, 42 Fed. K. 1-57; Mair v. Himalaya Tea Co., L. K. 1 2G4. ' Eq 411 § 219. 1 Scheile v. Brakell, 11 W R. ^ Adderley r. Dixon, 1 Sim. & Stu. 796. G07 ; Sullivan v. Tuck, 1 Md. Ch 59 ; Fin- § 220. 1 Buxton v. Lister, .3 Atk.38.3; ley v. Aiken, 1 Grant's Cases (Pa.), 83; Robinson v. Catlicart, 2 Cranch C. C 590 ; Bispliam's Kq § 369. Tayloe v. Merchants' Fire Ins. Co., 9 * Lumley v. Wagner, 1 He G., M. & G. How. 390; Very v. Levy, 13 How 345. 601 ; McCaull v. Braham, 16 Fed K. 37. § 222.] INJUNCTIONS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE. 367 contract, although it may be unable to enforce a specific per- formance of it."^ But where the affirmative promise cannot be specifically enforced^ the court will not import into it a negative covenant, neither expressly nor by a fair implication contained therein.*^ § 221. Injunctions to compel the Delivery of Personal Property tortiously withheld. — Under very extraordinary circumstances, equity Avill interfere to compel by injunction the delivery or re- turn of letters, documents, or other articles of such a unique character that it would be imi)ossible to replace them, when they are tortiously withheld from their rightful owners.^ § 222. Injunctions authorized by Statute. — The statutes of the United States also authorize an injunction in the following cases, besides those arising from infringements of patents and copy- rights : " Any person who considers himself aggrieved by any warrant of distress issued under the" provisions of the statutes authorizing one to be issued by the Solicitor of the Treasury against an officer in default for not accounting for and paying over public money received by him, " may j)rcfer a bill of com- plaint to any district judge of the United States, setting forth therein the nature and extent of the injury of which ho com- plains ; and thereupon the judge may grant an injunction to stay proceedinTS on such warrant altogether, or for so much thereof as the nature of the case requires. But no injunction shall issue till the party applying for it gives bond with sufticient security, in a sum to be prescribed by the judge, for the performance of such judgment as may be awarded against him ; nor shall the issuing of such injunction in any manner impair the lien pro- duced by the issuing of the warrant. And the same |)roceedings shall be had in such injunction as in other cases, except that no answer shall be necessary on the part of the United States ; and if, upon dissolving the injunction, it appears to the satisfaction of the judge that the application for the injunction was merely 5 Singer Co. v. Union Co., 1 Holmes, Birmingham Ry. Co., 3 De G., INI. & O. 253, 258. See also Goddard ;;. Wilde, 17 914 ; Bispliam's ICq. § 4G-1 ; Kerr on In- Fed. R. 845; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Union junctions, 524. Pacific Ry. Co., 3 Fed. R. 423; W. U. § 221. i Pusey v. Pusey, 1 Vern. 273; Tel. Co. V. St. Joseph & W. Ry. Co., 3 Duke of Somerset v. Cookson, 3 P. Wins. Fed. R. 430. 389 ; Clarke v. White, 12 Pet. 178 ; Prince 6 Clarke v. Price, 2 Wilson Ch. C. 157 ; Alhert v. Strange, 1 Macn. & G. 25, 42; Pickering v. Bishop of Ely, 2 Y. & C. McGowin v. Remington, 12 Pa. St. 66. Ch. C. 249; Johnson v. Shrewsbury & 368 INJUNCTIONS. [CIIAP. XYI. for delay, the judge may add to the lawful interest assessed on all sums found due against the complainant such damages as, with such lawful interest, shall not exceed the rate of ten per centum a year. Such injunction may be granted or dissolved by the district judge either in or out of court." ^ " When the dis- trict judge refuses to grant an injunction to stay proceedings on a distress warrant, as aforesaid, or dissolves such injunction after it is granted, any person who considers himself aggrieved by the decision in the premises may lay before the circuit justice, or cir- cuit judge of the circuit within which such district lies, a copy of the proceeding had before the district judge ; and thereupon the circuit justice or circuit judge may grant an injunction, or permit an appeal, as the case may be, if, in his opinion, the equity of the case requires it. The same proceedings, subject to the same con- ditions, shall be had upon such injunction in the circuit court as are prescribed in the district court." ^ " Whenever an association against which proceedings have been instituted, on account of any alleged refusal to redeem its circulating notes as aforesaid, denies having failed to do so, it may, at any time within ten days after it has been notified of the appointment of an agent, as provided in section fifty-two hundred and twenty-seven " of the Revised Statutes of the United States, " apply to the nearest circuit, or district, or territorial court of the United States to enjoin fur- ther proceedings in the premises ; and such court, after citing the Comptroller of the Currency to show cause why further proceed- ings should not be enjoined, and after the decision of the court or finding of a jury that such association has not refused to redeem its circulating notes, when legally presented, in the lawful money of the United States, shall make an order enjoining the Comp- troller, and any receiver acting under his direction, from all further proceedings on account of such alleged refusal." ^ A district attorney of the United States acting under the direction of the Attorney-General may upon a petition obtain an injunc- tion to restrain a contract, combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, or a conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce, or a monopoly of any part of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations.* Compliance with the § 222. 1 U. S. R. S. § 3636. » U. S. R. S. § 5237. 2 U. S. R. S. § 3637. 4 26 St. at L. ch. 647, p. 209. § 223.] WHEN INJUNCTIONS WILL NOT ISSUE. 369 Inter-State Commerce Act may also in certain cases be com- pelled by an injunction.^ § 223. When Injunctions will not Issue. — As a general rule, it may be stated that an injunction will not issue at the prayer of one who will suffer no pecuniary injury from the act which he wishes to prevent.^ Thus, one will not bo granted at the suit of a State to prevent the invasion of a purely political right ;^ or of adjacent property owners and church members to prevent a railroad from outraging their religious feelings by running cars upon Sunday ; ^ nor at the suit of minister of the gospel to pre- vent the use of his building for theatrical purposes, under a lease the validity of which he disputes.* The Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, however, was allowed an injunction to prevent Kossuth and his associates from manufacturing in England paper currency not })urporting to be issued by imperial authority, intended for circulation in Hungary, upon the ground that his property rights were thereby injured.^ An injunction will not issue to prevent an injury which is not actually threatened to the complainant.^ Thus an injunction will not be granted to pre- vent an injury to a navigable stream, at the suit of an individual who is not engaged in navigating the same;' nor, at the suit of a coupon holder who is not liable to the payment of taxes to a State, to prevent the State officers from refusing to receive his coupons, when tendered by others to whom he has agreed to assign them for the payment of their taxes, in pursuance of a contract made by the State with its creditors and their successors.^ " No court sits to determine questions of law m thesir ^ A threat of irreparable injury to a right actually enjoyed and exercised by the complainant, or acts indicating a preparation to commit such a wrong, are, however, always a ground for the issue of an injunction. ^"^ And after a defendant has once infringed a patent 5 24 St. at L. 380; 2-5 St. at L. 855; ' Spooner c. McConnell, 1 McLean, Interstate Commerce Commission v. 337. See also Mason v. Rollins, 'I Biss. Baltimore & O. R. Co.. 43 Fed. R. 37. 99. Compare Works v. Junction R. R., § 223. 1 High on Injunctions, § 20. 5 McLean, 42.5. - Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50. ^ Virginia Conpon Cases, Marj-e v. 8 Sparkawk v. Union P. R. R. Co., 54 Parsons, 114 U. S. 325. Pa. St. 401. ^ Mr. Justice Matthews in Virginia * Bodwell I'. Crawford, 26 Kan. 202. Coupon Cases, Marye i-. Parsons, 114 5 Emperor of Austria v. Day, 2 Giff 628 ; U. S. 325, 330. 8. c. on appeal, 3 De G., F. & J. 217. ^"' St. Louis v. Knapp Co., 104 U. S. 6 Slessinger i'. Buckingham, 17 Fed. 658; Sherman c. Nutt, 35 Fed. R. 149; R. 454. Butz Thermo-Electric Regulator Co. v. VOL. I. — 24 370 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. xvI. owned by the plaintiff, it seems that the court will usually enjoin him from doing so in the future, even though lie swears that he has no intention of doing so again ; unless in addition to so swearing he shows that he has paid all damages occasioned by his infringement, and has desisted from it.^^ The Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York has refused to grant a preliminary injunction to restrain an obstruction to navigation in a navigable channel coming up from the Bay of New York, caused by a structure projecting from the New Jersey shore.^^ ^^ injunction cannot be issued against the United States ; ^^ nor against an officer to interfere with the exercise of his dis- cretion ; ^* nor, it has been suggested, against an officer of the United States to prevent the infringement of a patent by liim while in the exercise of his official duties. ^^ The Revised Stat- utes provide that " No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax " imposed by the United States for purposes of internal revenue, " shall be maintained in any court." ^^' Under this provision, it has been held that wher- ever a tax is imposed by a person in office having authority over the assessment of taxes for the United States, and acting under color of a statute, no injunction will be issued to restrain its col- lection, no matter how erroneous the assessment may be, and althougli the person against wliom the assessment is made does not own the property taxed.^^ " It is sufficient that a statute has authorized the assessor to entertain the general subject of tax- ation ; that it was in fact entertained, and a judgment, lawful or unlawful, was rendered concerning it." ^^ It seems tliat the unconstitutionality of tlie statute imposing the tax will not Jacobs Electric Co., 36 Fed. R. 191 ; Mc- Walker v. Smith, 21 How. 579 ; McElrath ' Arthur v. Kelly, 5 Uliio, 139; Frearson v. Mcintosh, 1 Law Repr. (n.s.) 399. V. Loe, L. R. 9 Ch. D. 48. See also i^ james r. Campbell, 104 U. S. 356; Piek I'. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 6 Biss. Hollister v. Benedict & B. Manaf. Co., 113 177. U. S. 69, 67. 11 Jenkins v. Greenwald, 1 Bond, 126; le U. S. R. S. § 3224. s. c. 2 Fisher, 37; Sickeis v. Mitchell, 3 H Kensett v. Stivers, 10 Fed. R. 517; Biatchf. 548; Poppenhusen r. New York Pullan v. Kinsinger, 2 Abb. U. S. 94; Giitta Pcrcha Comb Co., 4 Biatchf. 184; Rowland v. Soule, Deady, 413; Delaware Celluloid Manuf. Co. r. Arlington Manuf. R. Co. v. Prettyman, 17 int. Rev. Rec. 99 ; Co., 34 Fed. R. 324. Alkan v. Bean, 23 Int. Rev. Roc. 351 ; Kis- 1- Atlantic Dredging Co. r. Bergen singer r. Bean, 7 Biss. 60; United States Neck Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 208. v. Black, 11 Biatchf. 538. But see Frayser 13 United States v. McLemore, 4 IIow. v. Russell, 3 Hughes, 227. 286; Hill v. United States, 9 How. .386. i« Emmons, J., in Pullan v. Kinsinger, 1* Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475 ; 2 Abb. U. S. 94, 99. § 223.] WHEN INJUNCTIONS WILL NOT ISSUE. 371 authorize the issue of an injunction. ^^ It lias been lield that an injunction will not be granted to restrain the Commissioner of Patents from issuing letters-patent.^'' An injunction cannot be issued against a State at the suit of a citizen of another State or of a foreign State.-^ Nor can a mandatory injunction be issued against an officer of a State so as to compel the action of the State against its expressed will.-^ But an otticcr of a State may be enjoined from an invasion of private rights which would cause irreparable injury, when about to act under an unconstitutional act of the legislature of the State.^^ As has been said before, an injunction will not ordinarily be granted to stay proceedings in a State court.-* In England, a person may be restrained from petitioning or applying to the legislature in order to procure the passage of an act relating solely to private interests, provided he be under an express or implied agreement not to do so, or his doing so would amount to a breach of trust.-"^ This doctrine has, however, never been upheld in the United States, and in a well- considered case in New Jersey was expressly repudiated.-^ The early English cases held that an injunction would not issue to restrain the publication of a slander or libel, no matter how inju- rious it might be to the complainant.^' Since the passage of the Judicature Act, however, such injunctions have been granted there in order to protect rights of property .^^ An injunction was denied when sought to prevent a defendant from advertising that a patent was void, and it appeared that he honestly believed it to be so, and published the statement for the sole purpose of pro- tecting what he believed to be his rights.-^ "Whether a Federal '9 Kobbins v. Freelaml, 14 Int. Rev. Works Co., 2 Russ. & M.470 ; Tlie Stnck- Rec. 28. ton & H. Ry. Co. r. The Leeds & Th. Ry. 2' Illingworth v. Atha, 42 Fed. R. 141. Co., 2 Pli"iL Gf.6 ; Heathcote v. North -1 Eleventh Amendment of the Con- Staffordshire Ry. Co., 2 Mac. & G. 100. stitution. 2e Story v. The Jersey City & Bergen 2- Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711; Point Phink Road Co., 1 C. E. Green (16 Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769, 782- N. J. Eq.) 1.3. 784 ; Cunningliam v. Macon & Bruns- -^ Prudential Assur. Co. v. Knott, T.,.R. wick R. R. Co., 100 U. S 44G. 10 Ch. 142 ; Clark v. Freeman. 11 Beav. ■-'3 0. Easterbrook, U. S. 269. See, however, In re Avers, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 339; Wren v. Weild, 123 U. S. 443. ' L. R. 4 Q B 730. 2* U. S. R. § 720: supra, § 211. -9 Ilalsey v. Brotherhood, 45 L. T. n. 8. 25 Ware i-. The Grand Junction Water 640 ; Celluloid Manuf. Co. v. Goodyear 372 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. court will in any case grant an injunction against the publication of a libel is a disputed question.^*' It has been held that an injunction may be granted against the publication and circulation of posters and handbills in aid of a boycott.^^ An injunction will not issue to assist in the maintenance of a monopoly injurious to public policy ; ^ nor in any other case when its operation would be repugnant to public policy .^^ An injunction will not be issued when the moving party has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law.^ § 224. Distinction between the Judicial Writ and the "Writ Remedial. — Injunctions were formerly either judicial writs or writs remedial. A judicial writ was a direction to yield up, to quiet, or to continue the possession of lands, and is said to be in tlie nature of a writ of execution.^ It was issued in aid of, and only after a final decree in equity ; and, in extraordinary circum- stances, in aid of a judgment at law.^ Under the equity rules, however, it is never necessary ; and it had previously fallen into disuse in England. All other injunctions are writs remedial. § 225. Distinction betw^een Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunc- tions. — Injunctions are either mandatory or prohibitory. A mandatory injunction is one that commands a defendant to per- form a certain act or acts ; a prohibitory injunction, one that forbids a defendant's doing a certain act or acts. Mandatory are far less common than are prohibitory injunctions. Those most frequently issued have been such as commanded a defendant to Dental Vulcanite Co., 13 Blatchf. 375; C, E. D. Wis, by Jenkins J. See Pentiarge v. Pentlarge, 14 Repr. 579. Francis v. Flinn, 118 U. S. 385 ; Kelley 3' Held that it can, in Ide v. Ball v. Ypsilanti, D. S. M.Co., 44 Fed.K. 19, 23. Engine Co., 31 Fed. R. 901, U. S.C. C, S. 3i Casey v. Cincinnati Typographical 1). Illinois, by Allen J. ; Emack v. Kane, Union No. 3, 45 Fed. R. 135. 31 Fed. R. 46, U. S. C. C, N. D. Illinois, ^'- Pullman Palace Car Co. r. Texas & by Blodgett, J. Cf. Palmer r. Travers, Pacific Ry. Co., 11 Fed. R. 625; s. c. 4 20 Fed. R. 501, U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y., Woods, 317 ; Foil's Appeal, 91 Pa. St. by Wheeler. J. ; Celluloid Manuf. Co. v. 434, 438. Goodyear D. V. Co., 13 Blatchf. 375, U. ^^ Bryant v. W. U. Tel. Co., 17 Fed R. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y., by Hunt, J. Held 825 ; Blake v. Greenwood Cemetery, U that it cannot, in Kidd v. Horrv, 28 Fed. Blatchf. 342 ; Denehey v. Ilarrisburg, i; R. 773, U. S. C. C, E D. Pa., bv Bradley Pearson (Pa.), 330, 334. and McKennan, JJ. ; Baltimore Car- ^4 u. S. R. S. § 723. Wheel Co. v. Bemis, 29 Fed. R. 95, U. S. § 224. i Eden on Injunctions, chs. ;. C. C, D. Mass., by Colt and Carpenter, and xvii.,pp. 1-2, 201-262; Beames' Or. JJ. ; Fougeres v. Murbarger, 44 Fed. R. ders, 8, 16. 292, U. S. C. C.,D. Indiana, by Woods, ^ ^oult v. Blunt, Gary, 72; Eden on J. ; International Tooth-Crown Co. v. Injunctions, 262. Carmichael, 44 Fed. R. 350, 351, U. S. C. § 225.] DISTINCTION BETWEEN MANDATORY AND PEOHIBITORY. 373 abate a nuisance,^ or to deliver the possession of land.^ They have also been granted to compel the return of letters and other docmnents,^ the delivery of personal property whose loss could not be compensated in damages,'* the giving of collateral security in obedience to a contract,^ the making of a policy of insurance,* the stopping and receiving freight by a railroad company at a particular place,' and the performance of a contract by one rail- road company to send freight over the lines of another railroad.^ The court, in a case involving the constitutionality of certam Kentucky statutes, refused a mandatory injunction compelling a distribution of the money raised by a tax upon white people partly among public schools for colored children, in the absence of any contract right or legislative authority for such a distribu- tion ; but it granted " a decree enjoining and restraining the proper parties from applying to the use of the schools organized for and at which white children only are allowed to attend, one- fourth of the money heretofore, or which may be hereafter, collected under the authority of the act of 1871 and its amend- ments." ^ Mandatory injunctions are usually issued in a neg- ative form, restraining a defendant from desisting or refusing to do an act.^*^ They are very rarely granted upon an interlocutory motion. 1^ § 225. 1 Lane v. Newdigate, 10 Ves. » Cliicago & A. Ry. Co. v. N. Y., L. E. 192 ; Robinson v. Lord Byron, 1 Bro. C.C. & W, R. Co., 34 Fed. R. 516. 588; Hervey v. Smith, 1 K. & J. 389; ^ Barr, J. in Clay brook v. City of Rankin v. Huskisson, 4 Simons, 13; Bick- Owensboro, 23 Fed. R. 034, 63G. ett V. Morris, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 47 ; Cole " Southern Express Co. v. St. Louis, Silver Mining Co. v. Virginia & G. H. Iron M., & Southern Ry. Co., 10 Fed. R. Water Co., 1 Saw. 470. 210, 869 ; Smith v. Smitli, L. R. 20 Eq 500, - Hepburn v Auld, 5 Cranch, 2G2 ; 504 ; Cole Silver Mining Co. v. Virginia Hepburn v. Dunlop, 1 Wiieat. 179 ; Find- & G. H. Water Co., 1 Saw. 470. lay V. Hinde, 1 Pet. 241. " Denver & N. O. R. Co. v. Atchison, 3 Evitt V. Price, 1 Simons, 483; Seton T. & S. F. R. Co., 13 Fed. R. 54G ; Mc- on Decrees (4th ed.), 179. See also Cauley t-. Kellogg, 2 Woods, 13 ; Camblos Clarke v. White, 12 Pet. 178. v. The Philadelphia & R. R. R. Co., 9 * Pusey V. Pusey, 1 Vern. 273; Duke Phila. (Pa.) 411; s. c. 4 Brewster (Pa.), of Somerset v. Cookson, 3 P. Wms. 389 ; 563 ; Rogers Locomotive Works v. Erie Greatrex v. Greatrex, 1 De G. & Sm. 092 ; Ry. Co., 5 C. E. Green (20 N. J. Eq), 379. McGowin v. Remington, 12 Pa. St. 56. But see Dinsmore v. Louisville, C. & L. * Robinson v. Cathcart, 2 Cranch C. C. Ry. Co., 2 Fed. R. 46.5 ; Disnmore v. 590. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. R. Co., 3 Fed. " Union Mutual Ins. Co. I'. Commercial R. 593; Coe i'. Louisville & Nashville Mut. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Curt. 524. R. R. Co., 3 Fed. R. 775; Ormsby r. ' Coe V. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 4 Fed. R. 706; Co., 3 Fed. R. 775; McCoy i'. Cincinnati, Texas Express Co. v. Texas & Pacific I., St. L. & C. R. Co., 13 Fed. R. 3. Ry. Co., 6 Fed. R. 420; Chicago & A. 374 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. § 226. Distinction between Provisional and Perpetual Injunc- tions. — Provisional, also called preliminary or interlocutory, injunctions arc such as are to continue until a certain time usually specified therein ; for example, until the coming" in of the defendant's answer, the hearing of the cause, the master's report, or the further order of the court.^ Perpetual, also called final, injunctions are those which, as their name denotes, per- ]jetually restrain the defendant from the same act or acts. Pro- visional injunctions may be granted at any time during the progress of a suit. Perpetual injunctions can never he granted except at the time of the entry of the decree.^ The setting up of outstanding terms can, it has been said, only he restrained by a perpetual injunction.^ JNIandatory injunctions also will very rarely be granted before a decree^ "■ It is a rule of practice in the Circuit Courts of the United States not to allow an injunction to stay an ejectment suit until it can Ije investigated in equity, unless a judgment be entered therein." ° § 227. Distinction between Common and Special Injunctions. — Injunctions were formei'ly of two kinds, common and special. Common injunctions were those which were granted, as of course, upon the defendant's default either in appearing or answering, and wci'e only applicaljle to restrain proceedings at common law.^ Special injunctions were those which were granted, not as a mat- ter of course, but upon the special circumstances of the case as disclosed by the answer of the defendant or upon afifidavits.^ Common injunctions, although recognized by the ecpiity rules,^ have, it has been lield, been aljolished I)y the Revised Statutes.^ Ry. Co. r. N. Y , L. E. & W. R. Co , 34 & Macliiiie Works v Erie Ky. Co., 5 C. Fed. R. 516 ; C. S. M. Co. v. V. & (;. II. E. Gret-n (N. J.) o79. But see Dinsmore W. Co., 1 Saw. 68o ; Chicago, B. & Q. v. Louisville, C. & L. Ry. Co., 2 Fed. R. Hy. Co. V. Burlin,c:ton, C. R. & X. Ry. 46.5; Coe u. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. .34 Fed. R. 481. Co., 3 Fed. R. 775, and other cases cited • §226. 1 Daniell'sCh.Pr. (2dAm. ed.) under § 225. 1810; Eden on Injunctions, ch. xv. ^ Billing*, J., in Heirs of Szy wauski r. ■^ Daniell's Cli. I'r. (2d Am. ed ) 190:3; Zunts, 20 Fed. R. o(Jl, oG;5 , citing Turner Adams y. Crittenden, 17 Federal Reporter, r American Bapt. Missionary Union, 5 42. McLean, 344. 3 Hylton r. Morgan, r. Vps. 20?, : Byrne § 227. i Daniell's CIi. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) V Byrne, 2 Sch. & Lef. o:!7 ; Barmy r. 1877. Luckett, 1 Sim. & S. 41U ; Nortliey v. '^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1833. Pearce, 1 Sim. & S. 420. ' 3 i^,ie55. * Camblos r. The Plnladelpliia & R. « Pprry v. Parker, 1 W. & M. 280; R R. Co., 9 Phila. (Pa.) 411; s. c 4 Lawrence i^. Bowman, 1 McAU. 419. Brcw.^ter (Pa.), -503; Rogers Locomotive § 229.] INJUNCTIONS NOT PKAYED FOR IN THE BILL. 375 Tlic learning- upon the subject, which is very technical, seems now, therefore, useless, and will not be repeated here.^ s^ 228. Time and Place of Applications for Interlocutory Injunc- tions. — An injunction may be obtained, at any time, as well in vacation as in term, and whether the court be sitting or not, at any place within which the judge granting it has jurisdiction, and at almost any stage of the cause.^ In England it has been held, that, in a very extraordinary case, an injunction may be granted upon petition before the hling of a bill or the service of a subjxjena;^ and in the courts of the United States an injunc- tion has been issued upon the filing of the bill and before ser- vice of the subpfjcna.^ An injunction will not usually be granted while a demurrer or plea to the bill is pending.^ But in cases of emergency, the court may order the sufficiency of such a plead- ing to be argued before the regular time for such a proceeding, together with the motion for the injunction;^ or even grant a stay-order without waiting for the argument.*^ Should a motion be heard while a demurrer is on the file and undisposed of, it seems that upon the hearing of the motion the allegations in the bill will be considered as admittedJ An application for an in- junction has been refused because the bill had been referred for scandal.''^ § 229. Injunctions not prayed for in the Bill. — The English rule was that an injunction would not issue against a person not made a party to a bill specifically praying an injunction against him;^ and the injunction had to be prayed for not only in the prayer for relief, but also in the prayer for process.^ To this, however, there were four exceptional classes of cases. If the court had by its decree taken the distriliution or control of property into its own hands, it would prevent injury thereto either by the parties litigant or others, although no injunction had been ^ See Daniell'sCh. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) ^ Anon >: Britlsjewater Canal Co., 9 1811-18::!3. Simons, 378 ; Darnell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. § 228. 1 Daniell's Cli. Pr (5th Am.ed.) ed.) 1G71, 1663; Kerr on Injunctions, 543-545; ^ Wardle u. Claxton, 9 Simons, 412; Bacon v Jones, 4 Myl. & Cr 433. MaUby v. Bobo, 14 Blatchf. 53 , Fremont ^ Mayor of London v. Bolt, 5 Ves. 129. v. Merced Mining Co., 1 McAll. 267. 3 Scliermerhorn (^ L'Espenasse, 2 Dall. ^ Bayerque y. Cohen, McAII. 113. CUO. '' Davenport v. Davenport, 6 Madd. 4 Cousins V. Smith, 13 Ves. 164 ; Ket- 251. chum y. Drijrgs, 6 McLean, 13; Anon., § 229. ' Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. 2Atk. 113; Daniell's Ch Pr. (5th Am. ed j 1614-1G17. ed.; 1671. ^ Wood v. Beadell, 3 Simons, 273. 376 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. prayed by the bill.^ Thus, in a foreclosure suit, it would restrain waste by the mortgagor after a decree for an account;* and alter a decree for the administration of the assets of a dead man, it would enjoin a creditor not a party to the suit from proceeding at law against the testator's or intestate's estate to satisfy his individual claim, provided that the executor made an affidavit stating what assets he had in his hands, or had previously ad- mitted their amount.^ If the suit were brought by a legatee, such a statement or admission was not indispensable.'^ Secondly, an injunction was granted without a bill being filed, for the ex- press purpose of preventing a plaintiff from suing both at law and in equity at the same time and for the same matter, and to compel him to make an election.^ Thirdly, an injunction could always be obtained to compel respect and enforce obedience to the decrees and orders of the court. Thus, puljlications which were disrespectful to the court, or which unfairly reported its proceedings, could be enjoined.^ .So, too, an injunction could issue to restrain an action at law to recover damages for false imprisonment under process of contempt improperly issued;^ to compel compliance with the terms and spirit of a decree by one who had bought land under it;^*' to compel compliance with his lease by the tenant of a receiver ;i^ and to prevent an unauthor- ized action against a receiver.^^ And fourthly, there seems to be a class of cases not clearly defined in which the court granted an injunction, when without it " the whole object of the pro- ceedings would be defeated," although it was not prayed for in the biU.i^ § 230. Special Practice of the Federal Courts in the Issue of Injunctions. — The following regulations control the practice in issuing injunctions in the Federal courts. " The ])rayer of the bill shall ask the special relief to which the plaintiff supposes 3 Daniell'sCIi. Pr. (5tli Am. ed.) 1614. ett v. Commissioners of Heme B.ay, 24 « Wright V. Atkyns, 1 V. & B. 313. W. K. 845. But see U. S. II. S. § 725. ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed ) 1617; « Frowd r. Lawrence, 1 J & W. G55; Paxton y. Douglas. 8 Ves. 520; Thomp- Er p< trie Clarke,! K.&M. GG3 ; Daniell's son V. Brown, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 619. Ch. Pr. 511. 6 Katcliffe r. Winch, 16 Reav. 57G ; >" Casamajor »•. Strode, 1 Sim. & Stu. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1617. 381 ; Kerr on Injunctions, 543. ' Rogers v. Vosburgh, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) n Walton v Johnson, 15 Simons, 352. 84. 1-^ Angel v. Smith, 9 Ves.335. 8 Anon., 2 Ves. Sen. 520; Brook v. is Blomfield ir Eyre, 8 Beav. 250. See Evans, 29 L. J. Ch. 610 ; Coleman ». West Shainwald v. Lewis, 6 Fed. K. 766. Hartlepool Ry. Co., 8 W. R. 734 ; Mack- § 230.] FEDERAL PRACTICE AS TO INJUNCTIONS. 377 himself entitled, and also shall contain a prayer for general relief ; and if an injunction, or a writ of ne exeat regno ^ or any other special order, pending the suit, is required, it shall also be specially asked for." ^ " Whenever an injunction is asiicd for by the bill to stay proceedings at law, if the defendant do not enter his appearance, and plead, demur, or answer to the same witliin the time prescribed therefor by these rules, the plaintiff shall be entitled as of course, u[)on motion, without notice to such injunction.'-^ But special injunctions shall be grantable only upon due notice to the other party by the court in term, or by a judge thereof in vacation, after a hearing, which may be ex parte if the adverse party does not appear at the time and [)lace ordered. In every case where an injunction — either the com- mon injunction or a s})ecial injunction — is awarded in vacation, it shall, unless previously dissolved by the judge granting the same, continue until the next term of the court, or until it is dissolved by some other order of the court." ^ " Whenever notice is given of a motion for an injunction out of a circuit or dis- trict court, the court or judge thereof may, if there appears to be danger of irreparable injury from delay, grant an order re- straining the act sought to be enjoined until the decision upon the motion ; and such order may be granted with or without security, in the discretion of the court or judge." "^ "Writs of injunction may be granted by any justice of the Supreme Court in cases where they might be granted by the Supreme Court, and by any judge of a circuit court in cases where they might be granted by such court. But no justice of the Supreme Court shall hear or allow any application for an injunction or restrain- ing order in any cause pending in the circuit to wliich he is allotted, elsewhere than within such circuit, or at such place out- side of the same as the parties may stipulate in writing, except when it cannot be heard by the circuit judge of the circuit or the district judge of the district. And an injunction shall not be issued by a district judge, as one of the judges of a circuit court," except when holding such court,^ " in any case where a party has had a reasonable time to apply to the circuit court for § 230. 1 Kiile 21. But see SliainwaUl ■» U. S. K. S. § 718. See Yupn-rlintry. V. Lewis, 6 Fed. R. 76G. Johnson, 1 Hufjiios, (307 ; C. B. & Q. Wy. ■^ Perry v. Parker, 1 W. & M. 280. Co. v. B. C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 34 Fed. R. 48L 3 Rule 55. ^ Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. i». Folsoni, 3 Fed. R. 509. 378 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. xvi. the writ ; nor shall any injunction so issued by a district judge continue longer than to the circuit court next ensuing, unless so ordered by the circuit court." ^ It has been held under the fore- going statutory provision that absence or illness of the circuit and district judges is such a disability as authorizes the circuit justice to hear and grant the application at a place outside of the circuit;-" and that, if the circuit justice as well as the cir- cuit and district judges be absent from the circuit, the application may be heard and the writ granted by any justice of the Supreme Court in any jiart of the United States.^ A denial by the Circuit Court of an application to dissolve an injunction granted by a district judge may be treated as an order for its continuance.^ But if no order continuing it is made, such an injunction is dis- solved without an order. ^"^ In the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Xew York the rules provide as follows : — '•' \o motion for an injunction (except to stay waste) shall be heard unless a copy of the bill and of the depositions to be offered in its support shall be served on the adverse party, or his attor- ney, at least four days before motion made." ^^ " The defendant may show cause against the allowance of an injunction, cither by plea, answer, or demurrer to the bill, or by parol excci)tion to its legal sufficiency, or by deposition, disproving the equity on which the motion is founded." ^- " Suppletory, or supporting, proofs may, at the discretion of the court, or judge, be offered by the complainant to rebut the cause shown by the defendant ; but the reception of such additional proofs is not to permit the intro- duction of further proofs in opposition thereto by the defendant, previous to the final hearing upon the merits." ^^ " Hereafter, on motions for an injunction, because of the infringement of a patent right, the complainant shall not be permitted to give evi- dence to rebut the cause shown by the defendant against the allowance thereof, other than to a denial that the defendant uses 6 U. S. n. S. § 710. See Dudley's 12 Wlieat. 5G1. See Gray v. Chicago, I. Case, 1 Penn. L. J. 302. & N. R. 11. Co., 1 Woolw. 63. ' Searles v. Jaciksonvillc, P. & M. R. " Parker ;;. The Jutli^^es of Circuit R. Co., 2 Woods, (321. Court, 12 Wlieat. 561 ; Gray v. Chicago, *> United States v. Louisville & P. I. & N. R. R. Co., 1 Woolw. 03. Cnnal Co.. 1 Dill. GOO. " U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y. Rule 105. y Parker c. Judges of Circuit Court, i- U. S. C. C, S. D N. Y Pvule 100. 1^ U. S. C. C, S. D. N. V. Rule 107. § 231.] APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION. 379 tlic discovery or invention claimed by the complainant, or to a claim by the defendant tliat he acts under an assignment or license from the patentee, and on motions for injmictions to stay waste, only to a defence set up justifying- the waste ; and in neither case shall such suppletury or supporting proofs be re- ceived, unless the court, or on(i of the judges, on satisfactory cause shown, shall, by order j^reviously made, allow the same to be given. And so much of rule 107 of the standing Rules in Equity of this court adopted April 28, 1838, as may be incon- sistent herewith, is repealed. Motions for injunctions shall be brought on by the complainant on the day named in the notice, if the court is then in session ; and in default thereof, the de- fendant may move that the notice be discharged for the term, with costs, unless further time is given, or the hearing is delayed by order of the court." ^-^ § 231. Notice of Application for Interlocutory Injunction. — As a general rule, notice of an application for an injunction must always be given to the person against whom the injunction is de- sired ; but in very pressing cases, where the mischief sought to be prevented was serious, imminent, and irremediable, or where the mere act of giving notice to the defendant of the intention to make the application might have been of itself productive of the mischief apprehended, by inducing him to accelerate the act in order that it might be complete before the time for making the application should have arrived, the courts have always awarded injunctions without notice.^ On an application for an injunction without notice, the plaintiff should state in his affidavit the time when he first learned of the threatened mischief,- if the injunc- tion desired be to restrain the infringement of a j)atent that he believes that the i)erson to whom the patent was issued was the original inventor thereof, or that the thing or process patented was new or had not been introduced into public use in the United States for more than two years prior to the application upon which the patent was issued,^ and every material circumstance ^i U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y. -Rule of May 2 Calvert v. Gray, 2 Cooper's Cli. K. 18, 184(3. 171 n. §231. 1 DanieU'sCh. Pp. (oth Am.eil.) ^ mw ,. Thompson, 3 Meriv. 622; 16G4; Kerr on Injunctions, 545 ; Wing y. Sturz r. De la Rue, 5 Russ. 322, 321); Fairhaven,8Ciishin<;(Mass.),3G3, Scher- Sullivan r. Hodfield, 1 Paine, 441. See nicrhorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 Dall. 360 ; also U. S. R. S. §§ 4880, 48b7. Yuengling v. Johnson, 1 Iluglies, GOT. 380 INJUNCTIONS. [CHAr. XTI. connected with the case, whether the same bears for or against his application.^ If his affidavit be defective in any of these par- ticulars, according to the English practice, an injunction would not be issued, or if issued the order for it would be discharged.^ " The application for a special injunction is very much governed upon the same principles which govern insurances, matters whicli are said to require the utmost degree of good faith, ^uberrima fides.' In cases of insurance a party is required not only to state all matters within his knowledge, which he believes to be mate- rial to the question of the insurance, but all which in point of fact are so. If he conceals anything that he knows to be mate- rial, it is a fraud ; but besides that, if he conceals anything that may influence the rate of premium which the underwriter may re- quire, although he does not know that it would have that effect, such concealment entirely vitiates the policy. So here, if the party applying for a special injunction abstains from stating facts which the court thinks are most material to enable it to form its judgment, he disentitles himself to that relief which he asks the court to grant." ^ In the absence of any local rule upon the sub- ject, the practice in giving notice of an application for an injunc- tion, and of proceeding at the time when the application is made, are the same when an injunction is asked for as upon any other interlocutory application. It has been said that an application for an interlocutory special injunction, during term and after the beginning of a suit and before answer, can only be made by motion ; but that in vacation a judge may grant such an appli- cation upon petition.' The usual practice is, however, to apply by motion. It has been held that a mandatory injunction can only be granted upon notice.^ It has been further lield that the evidence which would prevent the issue of an interlocutory in- junction will be sufficient to induce the court to dissolve one previously granted.^ § 232. Affidavits upon an Application for an Injunction. — The affidavits upon which an injunction is sought are usually sworn * Balglish V. Jarvie, 2 Macnaghten & ^ Daniell's Ch. Vr. (5th Am. ed.) IG6G ; Gordon, 2?,\. Smith v. Clarke, 2 Dick. 455 ; Nichols v. 5 Daltrlisli V. Jarvie, 2 Macnaghten & Kearsly, 2 Dick. 645. Gordon, 201. s Chicago, B. & Q. K. Co. v. Burling- « The Lord Commissioner, Mr. Baron ton, C. R. & N. U. Co., ?A Fed. H. 481. Tlolfe, in Dalglish v. Jarvie, 2 Mac. & G. '' Cary v. Domestic Springbed Co., 20 231, 243, 244. Fed. K. 38. § 232.] AFFIDAVITS UPON AN APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION. 381 to by the plaintiffs or one of tliem,i but may be sworn to by any person acquainted with the facts,^ in which latter case the afli- davit should, it seems, state a s^ood reason for its not being sworn to by one of the plaintiff s.^ It is in general necessary that a ])laintiff should swear positively to his title.'* An injunction has been refused when a plaintiff merely swore upon information and belief that he was a remainder-man under a settlement.^ Upon an application for an injunction to stay waste, he must set out his title with particularity. A statement " that the plaintiff was entitled to tlie fee-simple of the estate" has been held insuf- ficient.^ It has been said that if fraud is relied upon as a basis for an injunction, it must be sworn to positively, and not merely upon information and belief^ The plaintiff should also in the affidavits show some actual violation of his rights, or a sufficient ground to aj)i)rehend it.^ An injunction may be granted though the bill is not sworn to, provided that the accompanying affi- davits show a proper case for it;^ but not unless a proper case is made out by the bill itself.^*^ If the defendant in his opposing affidavits set up as a defence new matter in avoidance of the case shown by the plaintiff, the latter may have leave to file further affidavits in rebuttal ; but generally no subseciuent affidavits can be filed by the defendant.^i Rebutting affidavits may also be used to support any allegations of the bill denied in the answer except such as state the plaintiff's title to property affected by the liti- gation. ^^ The authorities are conflicting as to whether or not the plaintiff's title, if denied in the answer, can be supported by re- § 232. ' Daniell's Cli. Pr. (5tli Am. ed.) » Smith v. Schwed, 6 Fed. R. 455. 1G69. i"* Cooper v. Mattlieys, 8 Law Rep. '- Lord Byron v. Jolinston, 2 Meriv. 413; Wilson i\ Stolley, 4 McLean, 272; 29; Brooks & Hardy v. O'llara Bros., 8 Leo v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 17 Fed. R. Fed. R. 52'.). 273 ; Land Co. of New Mexico v. Elkins, 3 Lord Byron v. Johnston, 2 Meriv. 20 Fed. R. 515 ; St. Louis Type Foun- 29; Spaldin-j; v. Keely, 7 Simons, 377; dry v. Carter & G. P. Co., 31 Fed. R. Scotson V. Gaury, 1 Hare, 99; Kerr on 624. Injunctions, 548. *^ Day v. New England Car Spring Co., ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1CG9. 3 Blatchf. 154. See Rule 107 and Rule 6 Davis V. Leo, 6 Ves. 784. of May, 184G, of U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y., " Whitelegg v. Whitelegg, 1 Brown quoted supra, § 230. Ch. C. 57. 12 Brooks v. BickncU, 3 McLean, 250 ; " Brooks & Hardy v. O'Hara Bros., 8 P"armer r. Calvert Lithographing Co., 1 Fed. R. 529. Flippin, 228. See Rule 113 and Rule of 8 Gibson v. Smith, 2 Atk. 182; Jack- May, 1846, of U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y. son V. Cator, 5 Ves. 088 ; Hanson v. Gar- diner, 7 Ves. 305. 382 INJUXCTIOXS. [CIIAP. XVI. butting affidavits.^^ Where an allegation in the bill is not denied in the answer, it is taken as admitted for the purposes of a mo- tion for a preliminary injunction.^^ Documentary^ proof, if of equal force with affidavits, can also be used in support or in opposition to a motion for an injunction.^^ Upon the hearing of a motion for a preliminary injunction, tlic rules of evidence are applied less strictly than upon the final hearing of the cause ; and con- sequently decrees entered in suits between strangers affecting the validity of a patent in question may be offered in evidence, in support of an application for a preliminary injunction, but not in support of an application for one tliat is to be perpetual. ^"^ Hearsay evidence may also be used.^' § 233. Rules cf Decision upon Applications for Interlocutory In- junctions. — The issue of an interlocutory injunction is never a matter of right, l)ut rests in the sound discretion of the court. In order to obtain one, the plaintiff must show either that there is no doubt of the wrongful nature of the act sought to be en- joined,^ or that his own claims of right have been acquiesced in without question for a long period of timc,^ or that the injury which will result to himself from a refusal of the injunction will be very great, and that to the defendant from the issue thereof very slight.^ Otherwise, an interlocutory injunction will be denied hiiu.^ In a suit under the act to protect trade and com- 13 Compare Poor v. Carleton, 3 Sum- ner, 70 ; Goodyear v. Mullee, 3 Fisher, 420; with Farmer v. Calvert Lithograpli- ing Co., 1 Flippin, 228 ; Parker v. Sears, 1 Fisher Pat. Cas. 9o ; United States v. Parrott, 1 McAll. 271. See Kule 107 and Kule of May, 1«4G, of U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y. !•* Young V. Grundy, 6 Cranch, 51. See § 146. 15 Schermerhorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 Dall. 360. i« Buck V. Hermance, 1 Rlatchf. 322 ; Matthews v. Ironclad Manuf. Co., 19 Fed. R. 321. 1" Casey i". Cincinnati Typographical Union No. 3, 45 Fed. R. 135, 147 ; wliere Judge Sage quotes this passage witli approval. § 233. 1 Minturn v. Larue, 1 McAH. 370; Buclianan r. Howiand, 2 Fisiier, 341 ; Douglity v. West, 2 Fislier, 553. - Varick v. Mayor of New York, 4 J. Cii. (N. Y) 53; Kirby Bung Manuf. Co. ('. Wliite, 1 Fed. R. 604 ; McKay v. Dibert, 5 Fed. R. 587 ; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 3 Fed. R. 721; Atlantic & Pacific Tel. Co. v. Union Paci- fic Ry. Co , 1 Fed. R. 745. 3 W. U. Tel. Co. V. St. Jo. & W. Ry. Co., 3 Fed. R. 430; W. U. Tel. Co. v. Burlington & S. W. Ry. Co., 11 Fed. R. 1 ; American Union Tcl. Co. v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 1 McCrary, 188; Atlantic & Pa- cific Tel. Co. V. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 1 McCrary, 541. ■* Cofieen r. Brunton, 5 McLean, 256 ; Smith V. Cunmiings, 1 Fisher Pat. Cas. 152; French v. Brewer, 3 Wall. Jr. 346 ; Pentlarge v. Beeston, 1 Fed. H. 862 ; Kirby Bung Manuf. Co. v. White, 1 Fed. R. 004 ; Te.xas & Pac. Ry. Co. i'. Inter- state Trans. Co., 45 Fed. R. 5. § 234.] THE WEIT OF INJUNCTION. 383 mercc against unlawful monopolies, a preliminary injunction was refused when doubtful questions of law and fact were involved, partly upon the ground that as the United States tendered no bond, more injury would result to the defendant from the issue than to the })laintiff from the refusal of the Avrit.^ A prelim- inary injunction to restrain the infringement of a patent will nearly always be refused, if the defendant has ample pecuniary responsibility, or gives security against loss to the plaintiff, and is willing to keep an account of his manufacture, use, and sale of the article claimed to be patented, and the damages which the plaintiff will suffer can be readily reckoned in money .^ Danger of inconvenience to the public is a ground for refusing a prelimi- nary injunction." A preliminary injunction may also be refused when the plaintiff has been guilty of laches in applying for it ; even though his delay has not been such as to disentitle him to a perpetual injunction after the hearing.® If an injunction has been obtained by an interlocutory order, and it is desired to con- tinue it provisionally after a hearing, a direction to that effect should be inserted in the interlocutory decree then entered.^ § 234. The Writ of Injunction. — Immediately upon the entry of an order for an injunction, the party who obtained it is entitled to have the writ issued from the clerk's office and served.^ He should attend to this within a reasonable time. Where the writ was tested six weeks after the entry of the order granting it and was not served till nearly a year afterwards, the court refused to punish the defendant for disobedience, saying that, after the lapse of so much time, the plaintiff should have applied for leave to use the writ.2 Like all other writs and processes issuing from the courts of the United States, writs of injunction must be under the seal of the court from which they issue, and signed by the 5 United States r. Jellico M. C. & C. ' Southwestern Brush El. L. & P. Co. Co., 43 Fed. R. SOS. v. Louisiana El. L. Co., 45 Fed. R. 893 ; 6 Foster v. .Moore, 1 Curt. 279; Morris supra, § 216. V. Shelbourne, 8 Blatchf . 26(5 ; Gilbert & ^ Gordon v. Cheltenham Ry. Co., 5 B. Manuf. Co. v. Bussing, 12 Blatchf. 426 ; Beav. 229 ; Mundy v. Kendall, 23 Fed. R. Swift V. Jenks, 19 Fed. R. 641; Hoe r. 591; Kerr on Injunctions, 22, 2.3. Boston Daily Advertiser Co., 14 Fed. R. « Daniell's cii. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1902. 914 ; U. S. Annunciator Co. v. Sanderson, § 234. i Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 3 Blatchf. 184. But see Gibson r. Van 1816, 1817, 1964. Dresar, 1 Blatchf. 532 ; Tracy v. Torrey, - McCormick v. Jerome, 3 Blatchf. 2 Blatchf 275 : Parkhurst t\ Kinsman, 2 486. Blatchf. 78; McWilliams Manuf. Co. v. Bluudell, 11 Fed. R. 419. 384 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. clerk thereof. Those issuing from the Supreme Court or a Cir- cuit Court must bear teste, from the date of such issue, of the Chief Justice of the United States, or, when that office is vacant, of the associate justice next in precedence, and those issuing from a District Court must bear teste of the judge, or when that office is vacant, of the clerk thereof.^ " The orders pronounced by the Court in cases of special injunctions before answer, have varied at different periods. The form most frequently adopted enjoined the pavty ' till further order.^ In. some cases the injunction has been till ' appearance and further order ; ' in others till ' answer and further order.' But the form at present used, and Avhich is estal)lished by a rule laid down by Lord Eldon, is ' till answer or further order.' This lias been adopted as giving defendant the liberty to move, if necessary, to dissolve upon affidavit, before he has answered the bill." ^ The writ should contain a concise description of the particular acts or things in respect to which the defendant is enjoined ; ^ and should conform to the directions of the order granting the injunction.^ If, however, the writ is broader than the order warrants, the defendant should apply to the court for an order setting it aside or modifying it.' It seems that he is not justified in disobeying it and raising the objection when a motion is made for an attachment against him.^ It seems that a writ is insufficient which designates the acts sought to be enjoined by a reference to the bill without describ- ing them.^ The English practice was to mention in the writ a money penalty to be incurred by the defendant if he disobeyed it; but that does not seem to be necessary here.^*^ The writ should be addressed to the persons whom it is desired to enjoin.^i If the injunction is against waste, or forbids the continuance of a nuisance, or some other similarly inequitable act, it is usually addressed to the defendant, his servants, workmen, and agents ; ^^ if to restrain proceedings in another court, to the defendant, his attorneys, and agents,!^ gyen though tlie bill prays for an injunc- 3 U. S. R. S. §§ oil, 912. 9 Whipple v. Hutcliinson, 4 Blatchf. 4 Daniell's Cli.'Pr. (2(1 Am. ed.) 1895; 190. Read v. Consequa, 4 Wasli. 174. ^" Low v. Hauol, 1 Wnll. Jr. 345. 6 Whipple V. Hutchinson, 4 Blatchf. " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1817. 190. 1- Kerr on Injunctions, 559; Daniell's •^ Sickehs r. Borden, 4 Blatclif. 14. Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1G73; Humphreys ' Sickels v. Borden, 4 Blatchf. 14. i-. Roberts, Scton's Decrees (4th ed.), 173. 8 Sickels V. Borden, 4 Blatchf. 14. i^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1673. § 235.] DISSOLUTION OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS. 385 tion against the defendant alone. But the lattcr's tenants cannot be thus enjoined, unless they have become such after the com- incnccment of the suit or have been made parties to it.^* The writ should be endorsed or subscribed with the name and office address of the plaintiff's solicitor, or with the name and residence of the ])laintiff if he appears in person.^'' § 235. Dissolution of Interlocutory Injunctions in General, — The common injunction was dissolved as of course upon the defend- ant's putting in a sufficient answer to the bill. The practice in such a case was for him to obtain an order nisi, upon the return of which the injunction was always dissolved, unless the plaintiff could show that the answer was insufficient for the purpose either of defence or of discovery.^ A special injunction can only be dissolved by a special motion, either in open court or at a special hearing appointed elsewhere for that purpose by a judge of the court.2 The motion may be made at any time before decree,^ even, it seems, before the defendant has been served with pro- cess,'^ and before he has aj)peared.° When a special injunction has been granted against several defendants, any of them may move to dissolve it as against himself; but he should in that case serve the others as well as the }>laintiff with a notice of his motion.^ In one case after answer, a notice left at the office of the solicitor for the plaintiff during his absence from the city three days before the motion was held sufficient." If the motion to dissolve is made before answer, it must be supported by affi- davits or documentary proof contradicting the statements upon which the injunction was obtained,^ unless the defendant can show that it is plain upon the face of the plaintiff's bill and affidavits that he was not entitled to the injunction.^ When the injunction i* Hodson V. Copparfl, 29 Beav. 4 ; Exclianjie '•. Chicago Board of Trade, 15 Kerr on Injunctions, 513. Fed. K. 847. '5 Kerr on Injunctions, 559; Daniell's ■* Shields r. McChing. 6 W. Va. 79. rii. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1674. 5 Menzies i'. liodrigues, 1 Price, 92. §235. 1 Daniell's Ch.Pr. (2d Am. ed.) ^ Thompson v. Geary, 5 Beav. 1-31; 1820-1829; Poor c. Carleton, 3 Sumner, Kerr on Injunctions, 564. But see Dan- 70; New York r. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 1, iell's Cii. Pr. (5th Am. ed ) 1670, note 1. 3, note 1, per VVasiiington, J. " Caldwell v. Walters, 4 Cranch C. C. •^ Kerr on Injunctions, 561 ; Daniell's 577. Ch. Pr. 1675; Wilkins r. -lordan, 3 Wash. 8 Daniell's Cli. Pr (5th Am. ed.) 1676 ; C. C. 226 ; Caldwell r. Waiters, 4 Cranch Young v. Grundy. 6 Cranch, 51. C. C. 577. ^ Hudson r. Maddison, 12 Simons. 416; ^ Kerr on Injunctions, 560; Daniell's Kidweli v. Masterson, 3 Crancli C. C. 52. Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1675; Met. G. & S. VOL. I. — 25 386 INJUNCTIONS. [chap. XVI. has been irregularly issued, the defendant should move to dis- charge the order granting it,^° If lie should move to dissolve it, he might be held to have by so doing recognized its regularity.^^ It has been held that after a demurrer ])ut in by him to the bill has been overruled a defendant can only move to dissolve by leave of the court ; which was, in one case, only granted upon his affidavit that the demurrer was not interposed for delay, and his giving security to pay all damage to the plaintiff thereby caused.^2 Where the application for dissolution was made after answer, it was originally thought that the plaintiff could not show that any of the allegations therein contained were false ; ^^ but that doctrine has been, in this country at least, exploded,^* and it is well settled that the plaintiff can not only dispute the truth of such allegations, whether they are positive or negative, but is at liberty to file counter affidavits in reply to new matter contained in the defendant's affidavits or answcr.^-^ When a stay -order has been made, and simultaneous applications, by the defendant to discharge the stay-order, and by the jilaintiff for an injunction, are heard together, the plaintiff has the riglit to open and close the argument. ^"^ .If upon the application to dissolve an injunction the court is not satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to retain it, it will dissolve the injunction, and may then direct an issue, an action at law, or a reference before the hearing. i" If, however, it is satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to the writ, the court will direct the injunction to be continued until the hearing.^^ Where the court dissolves the injunction upon the ground that it appears upon the face of the liill that the plaintiff is not entitled thereto, and that is the only relief prayed for by him, it cannot at the same time dismiss the bill ; for the plaintiff has still the right to bring the suit to a hcaring.^^ If the question i» A7igicr V. May, 3 W. R. 330 ; Dan- i^ Day i: New England Car Spring Co., iell's Cli. Pr. (5th Ani.ecl.) 1670; Kerr on 8 Blatclif. 154; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5tli Am. Injunctions, 564. ed.) 1676; Shoemaker f. Nat. Mechanics' 11 Vipan r. Mortlock, 2 Meriv. 476 ; Bank, 1 Hughes, 101. Kerr on Injunctions, 564. i" Fraser v. Wiiallcy, 2 Hem. & M. 10. i-i Woodworth v. Edwards, 3 W. & M. i' Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1897. 120. ''^ Packington v. Packington, 1 Dick- ie Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1676, ens, 101 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) note 4. 1678. '■♦ PoorivCarlet()n.3Sumner, 70; United i'-* Brooke v. Clarke, 1 Swanst. 550; States y. Parrott.l McAll. 271 ; Orr r. Lit- Blow v. Taylor, 4 Hen. & Munf. (Va.) tleficld, 1 W. & M. 13 ; ( )rr r Merrill, 1 W. 159. & M. 37(3 ; Clum v. Brewer, 2 Curt. 50G. § 236.] DISSOLUTION OF IXJUXCTIOXS. 387 is left in doubt upon tlic motion to dissolve, it seems that the motion will be denied.-'^ The ambiguity of the order granting the injunction is sufficient ground for its dissolution or modifica- tion.-' The defendant's delay in moving to dissolve the injunc- tion may deprive him of his right to have it dissolved.^^ When a special injunction has been granted after a full hearing, it will not be dissolved except on new evidence.-'^ It has been held that a preliminary injunction will not be dissolved after answer upon grounds shown by affidavits, which, from their not having been set up in the answer, cannot be used at the hearing of the whole casc.'^^ A judge will very rarely dissolve an injunction granted Ijy one of his judicial brethren.-'' After an injunction has been dissolved, if evidence subsequently taken shows that it was properly issued, it may be issued anew.^^ The dissolution of an ex parte injunction on account of a suppression of material facts does not preclude the plaintiff from applying for another injunction on the merits.^" § 236. Dissolution of Injunctions for Causes arising after their Issue. — An injunction may also- be dissolved if the plaintiff is guilty of gross and inexcusable delay in taking testimony or in bringing the cause to a hearing ; ^ and in general if from a change of circumstances its continuance would no longer serve any useful purpose.^ The subsequent passage of an act of Congress legaliz- ing a structure which has been enjoined as a nuisance is a reason for the dissolution of an injunction.^ It has been held that an injunction staying proceedings at law against a bankrupt is dis- solved ipso facto by his discharge,* but remains unaffected by his delay in applying for his discharge.^ The expiration of a -" Cooper V. Mattlieys, 5 Penn. L. J. v. Iron Silver Min. Co. .S3 Fed. R. 354; 38; s. c. Liuv Rep. 413; Fisher v. Lord, Klein r. Fleetford, 35 Fed. R. 98. 6 West L. J. 137 ; Woodwortli v. Hall, 1 -'' Tucker r. Carpenter, Hempst. 440. W. & M. 389; Woodwortli v. Rogers, 3 "-" Fitch v. Rochfort, 18 L. J. Ch. 458; W. & M. 135; Sparkinan v. Higgins, 1 Kerr on Injunctions, 564. Blatclif. 205. § 236. i Read v. Consequa, 4 Wasli. 21 Dalglish V. Jarvie, 2 Macn. & G. 231. C. C. 174 ; Bradley r. Heed, 12 Pitts L. J. " Florence Sewing Machine Co. v. G5; Shermerhorn v. L'Espenasse, 2 Dall. Grover & Baker Sewing ^Machine Co., 3CiO ; In the Matter of Sclnvarz, 14 Fed. 110 Mass. 1 ; Kerr on Injunctions, 505. R. 787. -^ Woodworth v. Hall, 1 AV. & M. 389. ^ /,, ,.p Jackson, 9 Fed. R. 493; Re -^ Union Paper Hag Maciiine Co. v. Pitts, 9 Fed. R. 542. Newell, 11 Blatchf. 549. 3 ijaird v. Shore Lino Ry. Co., 25 Cole Silver Mining Co. r. Virginia & Blatchf. 4(51. Gold Hill Water Co., 1 Saw. ()85 ; Pres- ■* In re Thomas, 3 N. B. R. 7. ton V. Walsh, 10 Fed. R. 315; Heynolds ^ /„ j-e Sohwarz, 14 Fed. R. 787, 789. 388 IXJUXCTIONS. [chap. XVI. patent does not without the order of the court dissolve an in- junction ao'ainst its infringement.^ It has been held that at the expiration of a patent the court will dissolve an injunction against its infringement, and leave the com[)lainant no remedy except his claim for damages against the subsequent sale and use of arti- cles manufactured while the patent was alive, in infringement of the patent." xVn injunction is not dissolved by an amendment of the bill ^ unless the amendment substantially changes the cause of action.^ But it is customary to include in the order allowing an amendment a direction that it be " without prejudice to the injunction." The allowance of a demurrer to the whole bill puts an end to an injunction which had previously been obtained ; ^^ but leave will usually be given to amend without prejudice to the injunction, when the demurrer is allowed on account of a defect in form,ii such as multifariousness.^- " The allowance of a plea does not dissolve an injunction. There may be some equity shown to continue it. An order for its dissolution must be ob- tained." ^'^ An injunction is not dissolved l)y an abatement or by a defect in the suit, but the defendant must, if he wishes to be freed from the restraint thereby imposed, move that the plaintiff or his representatives be required to revive or take such other steps as may be necessary within a limited time, and that if he fail to do so the injunction may be dissolved.^'* § 237. The Imposition of Terms upon the Issue, Denial, Dissolu- tion, or Continuance of an Injunction. — As the issue of a Special injunction is in its discretion, the court may impose terms upon the i)laintiff or defendant when granting or refusing the issue, dissolution, or continuance of the samc.^ The usual terms are ^ American Diamoml Rock Boring Co. i' rvawlings v. Lambert, 1 J. & H. 458 ; '•. Rutland Marble Co., 2 Fed. R. .S56. Kerr on Injunctions, 5G5, 5iu; ; r,eliigli 7 Wcstinghouse v. Carpenter, 43 Fed. Zinc & Iron Co. v. N. J. Zinc & Iron Co , R. 804, Miller and Love. JJ. ; American 4o Fed. R. 545, 550. Cable Ry. Co. v. Chicago City Ry. Co., '- Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. v. N. J. Zinc 41 Fed. R. 522. But see American D. R. & Iron Co., 48 Fed. R. 545, 550. B. Co. V. Rutland Marble Co., 2 Fed. R. ^'^ Kerr on Injunctions, 566; Philips r. 856 ; .s»/»v;, §§ 11, 216. Langhorn, Dickens, 148; Ferrand v. « Reed >: Conscqua, 4 Wash. C. C. 174 ; Ilamer, 4 M. & C. 14-3. Warburton >• London & Blackwall Ry. J' Chowick (-•. Dimes, 3Beav. 200 ; Lee (^o., 2 Bcav. 253. But see Sharp v. Ash- v. Lee, 1 Ilare, 622; Chester v. Life Asso- ton, 3 V. & B. 144. elation of America, 4 Fed. R. 487. •' Attorncy-Ceneral v. Marsh, 16 § 237. ^ Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. Simons, 572 ; Kerr on Injunctions, 560 433. i» Sclmeider v. Lizardi, Beav. 461, 4G8 ; Kerr on Injunctions, 565. § 237.] TEEMS UPON ISSUE OF IX JUNCTIONS. 389 the giving of a bond or undertaking with good security to in- demnify the other party against all loss that may result from the issue or withholding of the injunction.^ It is not usual to re- quire security from the United States when a preliminary in- junction is granted at its request in a suit in which it is i)laintiff.3 In some instances the court has withheld an injunction to restrain an infringement of a patent or copyright, upon the defendant's merely undertaking to keep an account of the sales made by him during the pendency of the suit.'^ Sometimes the terms are that the defendant shall give an undertaking to abide by the farther order of the court.-^ An injunction will never be issued to re- strain the collection of State taxes, unless the plaintiff first pays " what is conceded to be due, or what can be seen to be due on the face of the bill, or be shown by affidavits, whether conceded or not." ^ Whether or not, if the court upon the final hearing decides after a preliminary injunction has been denied that a perpetual one should issue, or dissolves an injunction pre- viously granted, the finally successful party can have his dam- ages assessed and the bond or undertaking given as security enforced by the court, or must bring an action at law, is under the authorities an open question. Mr. Justice Curtis held at circuit that he must sue at law ; "' but a recent opinion of the Supreme Court, although expressly reserving the question, seems to intimate that a court of equity has the power to assess the damages and enfoi'ce payment of the bond.^ The latter view seems more in harmony with the general principles gov- erning equity practice,^ and has ])een adopted by Judge Drum- mond in a recent case in a Circuit Court. ^"^ Such a court has, at all events, the power to absolve from all liability the persons held by the bond, and it would take a very strong case to 2 Russell V. Farley, 105 U. S 4:1:1; 4:16; .Jones r. Great Western Ry. Co., 1 Kirl.y Hung Manuf. Co. v. Wiiite, 1 Fed. [English] Railway Cases, 684. R. 004; Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. St. « State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. I'aul, Minneapolis & Manitoba R. R. Co., 575,617; National Bank );. Kimball, 10:1 2 McCrary, 260; s. c. 4 Fed. R. 688. U. S. 7:12; Parmley v. Railroad Compa- 3 United States v. Jellico, M. C. & C. nics, :l Dill. 25; Huntington v. Palmer, 8 Co., 4:1 Fed. R. 808. Fed. R. 449 ; supra § 84. ■* Furbush v. Bradford, 1 Fisher's Pat. '^ ^lerryfield v. Jones, 2 Curt. .306. See Cas. .317; McCrary >\ Penn. Canal Co, also Bein u. Heath, 13 How. 168. 5 Fed. R. ;107 ; Kerr on Injunctions, 29, » Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 4.33. 30. » See :Moore v. 'Moore. 25 Bear. 8; 5 Attornej'-Gcncral i-. Mancliesfor & Sugden v. Hull. 28 Beav. 26:1. Leeds My. Co., 1 [Englisli] Railway Cases, '» Lea v Deakin, Ul Fed. K. 514. 390 IX J UNCTIONS. [chap. xvi. induce an appellate court to interfere with such a decision bj' it.^^ In a recent case ^^ the English Court of Chancery had occasion to discuss the nature and effect of an undertaking given on obtaining an injunction. Sir George Jessel, the Master of the Rolls, said that these undertakings were invented by Lord Jus- tice Knight Bruce when Yice-Chancellor, and originally inserted only in ex jmrte injunctions. They were intended to protect the court as well as the suitor from improper ex ijarte applications. After a time this practice was extended to interlocutory injunc- tions granted upon notice to the defendant, first in special cases, then generally ; and now it is always inserted as a matter of course. The reason for the thing is that on an interlocutory application there is only a short time to get up the case, and it is impossible for tlie court to obtain a complete knowledge of the facts. Further, these ajiphcations are heard upon affidavit evidence, so that it is impossible to say which side will ulti- nuitely turn out to be right. Therefore the court reserves power to indemnify the defendant in case it should have been induced, upon an incomplete hearing of the facts, to make a wrong order.^^ One point gave rise to a diffci'ence of opinion in tlie court ; Jessel holding that the undertaking could not be enforced if the injunction was dissolved, on the ground that the court erred as to the law.^- The other judges did not concur in this,^^ and Lord Justice Cotton was e(]ually clear the other way.^^ The judges were also of opinion that the plaintiff could not recover for the loss of a contract into which he was ])reveuted from entering by the injunction ; since this, in the absence of fraud and malice, was too remote. The rule in IJadley v. Baxendale ^* was applied, that only the ])roximate, ordinary or natural damages could be recovered, unless there was notice of a ] (articular contract con- temjilated. The judges agreed that in this case the alleged contract was not made out ; but lickl that if one had been proved, the jtrevention of cariying it into effect was not suf- ficient to sustain a claim to recover the damages for its loss by proceeding on the undertaking.^'' 11 Kussell V. Farley, 105 U. S. 433. See i" Citing Novelio v. James, 5 De G. M. also Deakin y. Stanton, '6 Fed. R. 485; & G., 87(5. Grimily v. Youni;-, 2 Cranch C. C. 114; i^ 9 Ex. 341. Bentk-y c Joslin, Ilcnipst. 218. i^^ Smith v. Day, 21 Ch. D. 421, 42r,, '- Sniitli V. D.iv, 21 Ch. I). 421, 424, 428, 4:]0. See Leiimaii v. McQiiown. 31 42G, 428, 42'J, 4:;i'. Fed. \\. 138; infra p. 391. § 238.] PERPETUAL IXJUNCTIOXS. 391 It has beeu held that when a bond has been given to secure an injunction against the interference with the possession of per- sonal property, and the injunction has been subsequently dis- solved, damages can be recovered under the bond for the damage caused the defendant by his delay in obtaining possession of the property and the proceeds thereof ; that such damages include any loss caused by a fall in the market price of the property, provided it were property which had a market price and could have been sold at once on the market for a sum nearly equal to its value, but not if it were property which had no market price and could not have been sold immediately for a sum " any- thing like its value;" and that the profits which the defendant might have made by the use of the property in his business during the time that he was enjoined, are too remote and specu- lative to be recovered under the bond.^^ It has been held that •' an injunction bond in an action in the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, conditioned that the obligors 'will well and truly pay the' obligee, 'defendant in said injunction, all such damages as he may recover against us, in case it should be decided that the said writ of injunction was wrongfully issued,' which bond was made under an order of the court 'that the injunction be maintained on the complaining cred- itors giving bond and security to save the parties harmless from the effects of said injunction,' is a sufficient compliance with the order of the court, and when construed with reference to the rule prevailing in the Federal courts (contrary to that prevailing in the State courts of Louisiana), that without a bond and in the absence of malice no damages can be recovered in such case, means that the obligors will pay such damages as the obligee may recover against them in a suit on the bond itself, whether incurred before or after the giving of the bond."^''' § 238. Perpetual Injunctions. — Perpetual injunctions can only be granted at the entry of a decree.^ It is irregular to grant one upon affidavits.^ In patent, trademark and copyright cases, how- ever, they are often granted by an interlocutory decree which also directs a reference to a master for an accounting ; ^ but the court ^6 Lehman v. McQuown, 31 Fed. 11. 2 Adams v. Crittenden, 17 Fed. R. 42. 138; l>y Mr. Justice Brewer. 3 Kumford Chemical Works !a Hecker, " Meyers ;-. Block, 120 U. S. 206. 11 Off. Gnz. 330; Brown r. Deere, 6 Fed. § 238. 1 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) R. 484 ; s. c 2 McCrary, 425. 1903. 392 INJUNCTIONS. [CIIAP. XVI. has the power to suspend the injunction until an appeal can be taken.* A perpetual injunction is either originally granted, or continued. They may be granted originally in all cases in which temporary injunctions might have been granted, and also to re- strain the setting up of outstanding terms when it would be in- equitable to do so.^ In order to obtain a perpetual injunction, it is not necessary that a provisional injunction should have been, asked for.^ For after the commencement of a suit seeking to pre- A'ent an act upon the defendant's part, he is said to proceed at his peril, and if the court finally decides in favor of the plaintiff it may order him to undo the result of his acts since he first had notice of the suit.''' A perpetual injunction may be obtained in a case where a preliminary injunction has been asked for and refused, or obtained and dissolved.^ If, however, the plaintiff has not previously obtained a preliminary injunction and, at the hearing fails to make out a clear title, he usually will not be allowed to use the facts proved by him, as evidence of a i^rima facie case, entitling him then to a temporary injunction till he can establish his case beyond a doubt ;^ unless indeed, the in- junction sought be one that is never granted before a hearing.i^ The most common kinds of perpetual injunctions, however, are those which are made by continuing, or extending and making perpetual preliminary injunctions at the hearing. This can only be done by inserting a direction to that effect in the decree." In order to support a decree for a perpetual injunction, it has been said that the court requires that there should be nothing like a doubt in the casc.^"'^ The granting of such an injunction is in the discretion of the court, and, like a })rovisional injunc- * Barnard v. (libson, 7 How. 650, 658 ; Spottiswoodc, 1 Rcav. 382 ; Bacon v. Potter r. Mack, '6 Fisher, 428 ; Brown v. Jones, 4 M. & C. A'oi ; Tucker v. Carpcn- Deere, 6 Fed. U. 487 ; Munson v. Tlic ter, Hempst. 440. Mayor, 19 Fed. II. 3i;3. '•' Bacon v. Spottiswoode, 1 Beav. 382; '^ Askew V. PouUerers' Co., 2 Ves.Sen. s. c. on appeal, suJi iwm. Bacon v. Jones, 89; Duke of Buekinsham v. Duchess of 4 M. & C. 433, 438; Daniell's Ch. Pr. Buckingham, 2 Kq. Cases Abr. 527. (2d Am. ed.) IDOl. « Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am ed.) 1000. lo Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1001. See also Baily v. Taylor. 1 R. & M. 73. See supra, § 226. ■J Charles River Bridge v. Warren " Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1902 ; Bridge, G Pick. (Mass.) 376; Wing y. Gardner y. Gardner, 87 N. Y. 14. Fuirhaven, 8 Cush. (Mass.)3()3; Winslow i^ -whittingham i'. Wooler, 2 Swanst. r. Nayson, 113 Mass. 411 ; Smith v. Day, 428 n. ; Troy & B. R. R. Co r. Boston, H. L. R. 13 Ch. I), (wl. T. & W. Ry. Co., 86 N. Y. 107 ; Daniell's ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1900 ; Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1900. Bailey v. Taylor, 1 R. & M. 73; Bacon c. § 238.] PERPETUAL INJUNCTIONS. 393 tion, it may be allowed ^^ or refused ^* upon terms. On account of the weight as a precedent given to a decree for a perpetual injunction in a patent case, the court may refuse to grant one when the case has been compromised and the defendant abandons it at the hearing.!^ 13 Southern Express Co. v. St. Louis R. 367 ; Brown y. Deere, Mansur & Co., 6 Iron iM., & Southern Ky. Co., 10 Fed. K. Fed. R. 487. 210; 8. c. 10 Fed. R. 800. i5 Hayes v. Leton, 5 Fed. R. 521. " McCrary v. Peuu. Canal Co., 5 Fed. 394 KECEIVERS. [chap. XVII. CHAPTER XYII. RECEIVERS. § 239. Definition of Receiver. — A receiver is an officer appointed b\' a court of equity to assume the custody of property pending litigation concerning the same. The utmost effect of tlie appoint- ment of a receiver is to put the property from that time in his custody as an officer of the court, for the benefit of the party ulti- mately proved to be entitled, but not to change the title or even tlie right of possession to the property.^ In England tlie term is usuallv applied only to those appointed to receive the rents and profits of land and to get in outstanding property ; and one selected to carry on or superintend a trade or business is usually denominated " a manager," or " a receiver and manager." ^ But in the United States both classes of officers are called receivers. Tlie Revised Statutes authorize the Comptroller of the Currency to appoint in certain cases a receiver of a national banking asso- ciation, whose powers and duties are in many respects analogous to those of a receiver appointed by a court of equity.^ But, as the learning upon this subject does not concern the practice of courts of equity, it will not be considered here. § 240. When Receivers will be Appointed. ' — A receiver may be appointed to provide for the safety of property pending litigation to determine the title to the same ; to preserve property in danger of being dissipated or destroyed by those having the legal title to its possession ; to preserve the property of infants during their minority, when they have no guardian and their parents are dead or unfit to be trusted with it ; to preserve the property of idiots and lunatics when it is impossible to obtain a proper person as committee ; and when the appointment is authorized by statute.^ A I'cceiver may be ap|»ointed to provide for tlie safety of property § 289. 1 Union Rank of Chicago v. U. S. R. S. 21G; 24 St. at L. ch. 28, p. 8 ; Kansas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223, 286. Price v. Abbott, 17 Fed. R. 50G ; siij)ra, ■^ DMiiicll's {^h. Pr. (2(1 Am. ed.) 2006. § 15; and infm, §§ 210, 330. ' Soe U. S. R. S. §§ 5234-5237 ; Laws of § 240. i Kerr on Receivers {2d Am. 187G, ch. 150 (19 St.atL. G3) ; 1st. Supp. ed.j 3. § 240.] WHEN KECEIYERS WILL BE APrOINTED. 395 })cndiiig litigation ; to determine the title to the same, whether the litigation is in a com't of equity ,2 of probate,^ of bankruptcy,'* in a foreign court,^ and sometimes, though very rarely, in a court of law.*^ By far the most ordinary cases where a receiver is appointed are, however, suits in equity to obtain equitable assets, for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and for the dissolution or wind- ing up of the affairs of a partnership. It was the English rule that a receiver could not be appointed at the suit of a first mort- gagee, since he had it in his power to take possession himself J In this country, however, receivers are frequently appointed in such a casc.^ Asa general rule, a receiver of the effects of a partnership will not be appointed unless the bill prays a disso- lution and shows a proper case for the same.^ But it has been said that " where suits have been instituted to compel partners to act according to the provisions of instruments into which they have entered ; in such cases, the Court will take care that the decree shall not be defeated by anything to be done in the mean time, and will appoint a receiver to protect the property." ^^ Receivers may be appointed to preserve property in danger of being dissipated or destroyed by those having the legal title to its possession, at the suit of beneficiaries, legatees, next of kin, or creditors, when a trustee,^^ executor,^^ or administrator ^^ is in- 2 Davis I'. TlieDukeof Marlborough, ^ Goodman v. Whitcomb, 1 J. & W. 2 Swanst. 108; Curling v. Marquis 589; Oliver v. Hamilton, 2 Anst. 453; Townshend, 19 Ves. 628. Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1960, 1907 ; 3 King V. King, 6 Ves. 172 ; Matter of Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. cd.), 93. Colvin, 3 Mil. Ch. Dec. 279; Robinson r. i' Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1967; Taylor, 42 Fed. R. 803 ; Kerr on Ueceiv- Const v. Harris, T. & R. 49(i. ers (2d Am. ed.), 28-37. " McCosker ;;. Brady, 1 Barb. Ch. * Sedgwick c. Place, 3 N. B. R. 35; (N. Y.) 329; Brodie v. Jiarry, 3 Meriv. Alabama & Chattanooga R. R. Co, v. 095; Janeway i\ Green, 16 Abb. Pr. Jones, 5N. B. R. 97 ; Keenan ». Shannon, (N. Y.) 215, note. In Benedicts. St. 9 N. B. R. 441 ; Kerr on Receivers (2d Joseph & W. R. Co., 19 Fed. R. 173, the Am. ed.), 110-113. fact that there was a dispute between the 5 Transatlantic Co. i'. Pietroni, Johns, majority and a minority of thebondiiold- 604. ers, tlie former being in possession, was '' Talbot V. Scott, 4 K. & J. 90 ; Fin- held to make the appointment of a re- gal V. Blake, 2 Molloy, 50; Whitney v. ceiver necessary. Buckman, 26 Cal. 447 ; Horton y. White, i- Utterson r. Mair, 2 Ves. Jr. 95; 84 X. C. 297 ; Jefferys v. Smith, 1 J. & W. Scott r. Becher, 4 Price, 346. But see 298; Robinson y. Taylor, 42 Fed. R. 803; Gladdon v. Stoneman, 1 Madd. 143 n. ; Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 114-129. Langley v. Hawk, 5 Madd. 46; Kerr on ■^ Berney v. Sewell, 1 J. & W. 647. Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 20. 8 See, for example, Stanton I'. Alabama ^'^ Hervey r. Fitzpatrick, Kaj', 421; & Chattanooga R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 506 ; Ware v. Ware, 42 Ga. 408. Allen r. The Dallas & Wichita R. R. Co., 3 Woods, 316, 326. 396 KECEIVERS. [chap. XVII. solvent and has not given bonds, or is guilty of misconduct ; or when two trustees or executors disagree so that it is impossible for them to act together ; ^^ and at the suit of remainder-men, when the holder of the particular estate is guilty of voluntary or permissive waste,^^ or improperly refuses to renew leaseholds. ^"^ In the case of trustees, the court will thus interfere whether the trust is express or implied. ^^ A receiver may be a^jpointed over the property of an infant,^^ when the latter has no guardian, or his guardian is insolvent or has been guilty of misconduct ^^ and has no parents, or his parents are unfit to be entrusted with the care of his estate.'^'^ Receivers may be aiipointcd over the prop- erty of idiots and lunatics, when no person can bo found disposed to act as committee; 2^ or, it seems, when the committee is in- firm, or the management of the estate is very onerous, or the committee lives far from the estate." The statutes of the sev- eral States authorize the appointment of a receiver in numerous cases, especially in providing for the dissolution of corporations. The statutes of the United States authorize the appointment of a receiver of a national bank by the Comptroller of the Currency in certain specified cases.^^ Until the Comptroller has acted, a court of the United States may appoint a receiver of the assets of such a corporation.^ After the appointment by the Comp- troller of such a receiver, it is doubtful whether a court of the United States would appoint another ; and after the appointment of a receiver by a court of competent jurisdiction, it is doubtful whether the Com})troller of the Currency could thus interfere.-^ Independently of statutory authority a court of equity will ordi- " Ball V. Tomi)kins, 41 Fed. R. 486. -i Ex parte Warren, 10 Ves. 622 ; 15 Voscc. Heed, 1 Woods, 647, 050. Anon., 1 Atk. 578; Ex parte Kadcliffe, !'■■ Bennett v. Colley, 2 M. & K. 225 : J & W. 639 ; Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. s.c. 5 Simons, 181, 102 ; Lord Montford ed.), 113, 114. V. Lord Cadoti'an, 17 Ves. 485. -- Kerr on Receivers {2d Am. ed ), 118, 1^ Pritcliard v. Fleetwood, 1 Meriv. 54 ; 114, citing Re Birch, Sliclf. on Lun. 14() ; Daniell's Cli. I'r. (5th Am. ed.) 1724. lie Seaman, Shelf, on Lun. 146. i** Ilicks V. Hicks, 3 Atk. 277 ; Union '^^ U. S. R. S. §§ 5141, 5191, 5195, 5201, Trust Co. V. Illinois Midland Railway 5205, 5234, 52:].5, 5236 ; Laws of 1876, ch. Co., 117 U. S. 4.34; Sage v. Memphis & 150 (10 St. at L. p. 03) ; 1st Supp. U. S. LiUleRock R. R. Co., 125 U. S. 361; H. S. p. 21(i. Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.) 16-18. -* Wright r. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 1 1-' I'itcher u. Ilelliar, Dickens, 580; Flippin, 568; Irons v. Manufacturers' High on Receivers, §§ 725-732. Nat. Hank, 6 Biss. 301. 2' Butler >\ Freeman, Amb. 301 ; Kifiin -^ Harvey v. Lord, 10 Fed. R. 230. r. Kiffin, cited in 1 P. Wms. 705 ; Ktrron Receivers (2d Am. ed.) 10-18. § 240.] WHEN EECEIVEES WILL BE APPOINTED. 397 narily appoint a receiver of the property of a corporation in only seven cases : ^^ fii'stly, at tlic suit of mortgagees or other holders of liens upon it ;^" secondly, at the suit of judgment creditors seek- ing equitable assets after executions have been returned unsatis- fied, and the return shows that there is no corporate property upon which a levy can be made ;'^'^ thirdly, at the suit of persons inter- ested, whether as stockholders or creditors in the property, where there is a breach of duty by the directors, and an actual or threat- ened loss;-^ fourthly, where a corporation has been dissolved and has no officer to attend to its affairs ; ^'^ fifthly, where for a long- time the corporation has ceased to transact business and its offi- cers have ceased to act;^^ sixthly, where the governing body is so divided and engaged in such mutual contentions that its members cannot act together ;32 and seventhly, in one case, a receiver was appointed at the application of the corporation itself, made before a default in the payment of interest upon bonds secured by mort- gages, where it was for the interest of the public that the business carried on by the corporation — a railroad company — should be continued without interruption, and the corporation was hope- lessly insolvent, and there was danger of an attempt by creditors to gain a preference by attachment or otherwise in such a man- ner as would have prevented the continuance of the corporate business.^^ A court of equity will often appoint a receiver of a 25 See Kerr on Eeceivers ('2d Am. ed.), creditors, Syers v. Brighton Brewery Co., 80-83, Bispham's note ; Howe y. Deuel, 43 11 L. T. (n. s.) 560; Mills v. Northern Barb. (N. Y.) 504, 507. Ry. of Buenos Ayres Co., 23 L. T. (n s) 2- Mihvaukie & Minn. R. R. Co. v. 719. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510; Mercantile Trust ^' The Late Corporation of the Church Co. I'. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 30 Fed. of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. R. 221. United States, 136 U. S. 1 ; Lawrence v. ^ Covington Drawbridge Co. i-. Shep- The Greenwich Fire Ins. Co., 1 Paiga herd, 21 How. 112 ; Siiainwald v. Lewis, (N. Y.), 587. See also Hamilton v. Acces- 6 Fed. R. 166, 775; Buckeye Engine Co. sory Transit Co., 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 46; V. Donau Brewing Co., 47 Fed. R. 6. Murray v. Vanderbilt, 39 Barb, (N. Y.) See Brown v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 140. 134 U. S. 530, 534 ; Sage v. Memphis & 3i Warren v. Fake, 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) L. R. Co., 125 U. S. 361. 430, per Westbrook, J. -9 Evans v. Coventry, 5 De G. M. & G. ^- Featherstone v. Cooke, L. R. 16 Eq. 911 ; Sage V. Memphis & Little Rock R.R. 298; Trade Au.xiliary Co. r. Vickers, L. Co., 125 U.S. 361 ; Consolidated Tank K. 16 Eq. 303. Line Co. v. Kansas City Varnish Co., 43 ^-^ Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Cen- Fed. R. 204. See, as to the right of tral Trust Co. of N. Y., 22 Fed. R. 138; bondholders thus to interfere, Herrick v. s. c. 22 Fed. R. 272 ; s. c. 22 Fed. K. 518, Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 7 Upper Can. L.J. 51-5. See also Brassey i'. New York & 240. But see also, concerning and aj)- N. E. R. Co, 19 Fed. R. 663. Contra, parently denying the right of unsecured Hugh v. McRae, Chase, 460. 398 EECEIVERS. [chap. XYII. railroad in a suit for the foreclosiii'e of a mortgage containing a clause pledging its tolls and income, when it would nut do so if no such clause were included in the mortgage.^* In one case the court said : " The rights of liolders of negotiable bonds issued by a railroad company and secured by a mortgage on its property, are not to be measured by the same rules as are applied to an ordi- nary mortgage on a farm or house and lot, to secure one or two notes held by one mortgagee." ^ Usually a receiver will not be appointed at the suit of subsequent lienors over property of which a mortgagee is in possession ; but an injunction may be issued to prevent the mortgagor from applying the rents and profits to any other purpose than the satisfaction of the mortgage.^^ It has been held that an assignment made by a corporation for the ben- efit of creditors after the filing of a bill for the appointment of a receiver will not deprive the court of jurisdiction to appoint a receiver.^'' When a railroad is in the hands of receivers pending a foreclosure suit, the court may extend the receivership over a portion of the road for the benefit of an intervenor claiming a prior lien thcreupon.^^ Upon an interlocutory application, in a suit to enjoin the infringement of a patent by an insolvent de- fendant, a Circuit Court appointed a receiver of the profits made by such infringement."^ A receiver will not be appointed to assist a trust formed to maintain a monopoly, or otherwise to aid in the prosecution of an enterprise against puljlic policy .'^'^ § 241. Rules regulating the Appointment of Receivers. — It has been said, that in order to obtain the ap])ointment of a receiver, the moving party must show, first, either that he has a clear right to the property itself, or that he has some lien upon it, or that the property constitutes a special fund to which he has a right to resort for the satisfaction of his claim ; and, secondly, that the possession of the property by the defendant was obtained by fraud ; or that the property itself, or the income arising from it, is in danger of loss from the neglect, waste, misconduct, or 8* Allen V. The Dallas & Wichita R. R. 8" Belmont Nail Co. i: Columbia Iron Co., 3 Woods, 316 ; Tysen v. Wabasli R. & Steel Co., 46 Fed. K. 8. R. Co., 8 Biss. 247. 3s Mercantile Trust Co. v. Missouri K. 35 Allen V. The Dallas & Wichita R. R. & T. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R. 8, 9. Co., y Woods, .'JIG, 326, per Woods, J. "^ Parkhurst r. Kinsman, 2 Blatchf. 78. 3"^ United Slates v. Marich, 44 Fed. R. ■**' American Biscuit & Manuf. Co. v. 10. Klotz, 44 Fed R. 721. § 242 ] ANCILLAEY RECEIVERS. 399 insolvency of the defendant.^ The appointment of a receiver is alwavs in the discretion ^ of the court, which, however, must be exercised with great circumspection,^ and is subject to review by an appellate court.^ It has been said, tbat the appointment can be made only in accordance with the following rules: "1st. That the power of appointment is a delicate one, and to be exercised Avith great circumspection. 2d. That it must appear the claim- ant has a title to the property, and the court must be satisfied by affidavit that a receiver is necessary to preserve the property. 3d. That there is no case in which the court appoints a receiver merely because the measure can do no harm. 4th. That ' fraud or imminent danger, if the intermediate possession should not be taken by the court, must be clearly proved ; ' and 5th. That unless the necessity be of the most stringent character, the court will not appoint until the defendant is first heard in response to the application." '^ § 242. Ancillary Receivers. — An ancillary receiver is a receiver appointed in aid of a receiver appointed by another court.^ When a receiver has been appointed by one Federal Circuit Court, the others tlirough judicial comity will usually appoint the same per- son an ancillary receiver of so much of the same estate as is within their jurisdiction.^ In such a case the accounting of the re- ceivers, and nearly all proceedings affecting the estate, are usually first instituted in the court that first made the appointment.^ This subject, however, rests in the discretion of the court that has made the ancillary appointment, which has full control over the receiver whom it appointed.'* In a case wliere the judges sitting in the § 241. 1 Chancellor Buckner in Mays - Jennings v. Ph.& Reading R. R.Co., V. Rose, Freeman's Cli.(Miss.) R. 703, 718. 23 Fed. R. 56!) ; Central Trust Co. v. Wa- See also Beecher i'. Bininger, 7 Blatclif. bash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R.618, 170; Tysen v. The Wabash R. R. Co., 8 supra, § 10. See also Parsons v. Charter Biss. 247. Oak Life Ins. Co , 31 Fed. R. 305. But - Owen V. Homan, 4 H.LC 997, 1032. see Atkins v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. 3 Mihvaukie & Minn. R. R. Co. v. Co., 29 Fed. R. 161 ; Central Trust Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 521. Te.xas & St. L. Ry. Co., 22 Fed. R. 135. 4 Tysen v. The Wabash R. R. Co., 8 ^ Jennings v. Pliila & Reading R. R. Biss. 247. Co. 23 Fed. R. 569. 5 Le Grand, C. J., in Blondheini v. * Atkins v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Moore. 11 Md. 365, 374. Co., 29 Fed. R. 161 ; Central Trust Co. 'v. § 242. 1 .Jennings v. Phila.& Reading Texas & St. L. Ry. Co., 22 Fed. R. 135. R. R. Co., 23 Fed. R. 509 ; Williams v. But see Parsons ?•. Charter Oak Life Ins. Ilintermeister, 26 Fed. R. 889. But see Co., 31 Fed. R. 305. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Kanawha & O. Ry. Co., 39 Fed. R. 337 ; su/ira, § 10. 400 RECEIVERS. [chap. XVII. Circuit Courts of different districts in the same circuit differed in the instructions given by them to the same person, who had been appointed receiver of the same railroad in each district, the cir- cuit judge refused to interfere.^ A judgment against an ancillary receiver does not affect the assets in the jurisdiction where a re- ceiver was first appointed.*^ " Where a receiver or administrator or other custodian of an estate is appointed by the courts of one State, the courts of that State reserve to themselves full and ex- clusive jurisdiction over the assets of the estate within the limits of the State. "Whatever orders, judgments, or decrees may be rendered by the courts of another State, in respect to so much of the estate as is within its limits, must be accepted as con- clusive in the courts of primary administration ; and wliatever juatters are by the courts of primary administration permitted to be litigated in the courts of another State, come within the same rule of conclusiveness. Beyond this, the proceedings of the courts of a State in which ancillary administration is held are not conclusive upon the administration in the courts of the State in which primary administration is had. And this rule is not changed, although a party whose estate is being administered by the courts of one State permits himself or itself to be made a party to the litigation in the other. Whatever may be the rule, if jurisdiction is acquired by a court before administration pro- ceedings are commenced, the moment they are commenced, and the estate is taken possession of by a trilnmal of a State, the mo- ment the party whose estate is thus taken possession of ceases to have power to bind the estate in a court of another State, either voluntarily or by submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the latter court," ' § 243. Terms upon the Appointment of Receivers, and Prefer- ences in Foreclosure Suits. — xVs the appointment of a receiver is in its discretion, the court may impose terms upon the party applying for it. Thus, it may insist as a condition precedent to appointing a receiver to manage a colliery that the moving party advance the funds necessary to continue the business.^ So, a party or person interested in a suit was in England rarely appointed 5 Central Trust Co. c. Texas & St. L. " Eeynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 2oi, Ry., 22 Fed. R. ]-Vy. 272, per Mr. Justice Brewer. « Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, § 243. i Gibbs v. David, L. R. 20 Eq. 272. 373. § 243.] PREFERENCES IN FORECLOSURE SUITS. 401 receiver unless he agreed to act without compensation.^ In a lead- ing case, the Supreme Court laid down the rule as regards the appointment of receivers in suits for the foreclosure of railroad mortgages, as follows : " We have no doubt that when a court of chancery is asked by railroad mortgagees to appoint a receiver of railroad property, pending proceedings for foreclosure, the court, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, may, as a condi- tion of issuing the necessary order, impose such terms in refer- ence to the payment from the income during the receivership, of outstanding debts for labor, su[)plies, equipment, or perma- nent improvement of the mortgaged j)roperty as may, under the circumstances of the particular case, appear to be reasonable."-^ This is said elsewhere in the case to depend upon the application of the maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity.* It is the better practice for the court to provide for preferences as a condition upon the appointment of the receiver.^ " If no such order is made when the receiver is appointed, and it appears in the progress of the cause that bonded interest has been paid, additional equipment provided, or lasting and valuable improve- ments made out of earnings which ought in equity to have been employed to keep down debts for labor, supplies, and the like, it is within the power of the court to use the income of the receivership to discharge obligations whicli, but for the diversion of funds, would have been paid in the ordinary course of busi- ness. This, not because the creditors to whom such debts are due have in law a lien upon the mortgaged property or the income, but because, in a sense, the officers of the company are trustees of the earnings for the benefit of the different classes of creditors and the stockholders ; and if they give to one class of creditors that which properly belongs to another, the court may, upon an adjustment of the accounts, so use the income which comes into its own hands as, if practicable, to restore the parties to their original equitable rights. While, ordinarily, this power is con- fined to the appropriation of the income of the receivership and the proceeds of moneyed assets that have been taken from 2 Wilson V. Greenwood, 1 Swanston, 8Biss. 315. Cow^-rr, Coo r. N. J. Midland 471. Ry. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 37. 8 Chief Justice Waite in Fosdick v. ■* Fosdick r. Schall. 99 U. S. 235, 253. Solmli, 99 U. S. 235, 251, 252. See also 5 Central Trust Co. v. St. Louis A. & Turner r. Indianapolis, B. & W. Ry. Co., T. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. K. 551. vor,. I. — 2G 402 EECEIVEUS. [chap. XVII. the company, cases may arise where equity will require the use of the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property in the same way. Thus it often happens that, in the course of the administration of the cause, the court is called upon to take income which would otherwise be applied to the payment of old debts for current expenses, and use it to make permanent im- provements on the fixed property, or to buy additional equip- ment. In this way the value of the mortgaged property is not infrequently materially increased. It is not to be supposed that any such use of the income will be directed by the court, without giving the parties in interest an opportunity to be heard against it. Generally, as we know both from observation and experi- ence, all such orders are made at the request of the parties or with their consent. Under such circumstances, it is easy to see that there may sometimes be a propriety in paying back to the income from the proceeds of the sale what is thus again diverted from the current debt fund in order to increase the value of the l)roperty sold. The same may sometimes be true in respect to expenditures before the receivership. No fixed and inflexible rule can be laid down for the government of the courts in all cases. Each case will necessarily have its own peculiarities, which must to a greater or less extent influence the chancellor when he comes to act. The power rests upon the fact, that in the administration of the affairs of the company the mortgage creditors have got possession of that which in equity belonged to the whole or a i)art of the general creditors. Wiiatever is done, therefore, must be with a view to a restoration by the mortgage creditors of that which they have thus inequitably obtained. It follows that if there has been in reality no diver- sion, there can be no restoration ; and that the amount of res- toration should be made to depend upon the amount of the diversion. If, in the exercise of tliis ])0wer, errors are com- mitted, they, like others, are open to correction on aj)peal. All depends upon a proper application of well-settled rules of equity jurisprudence to the facts of the case, as established by the evidence." ^ Orcb'narily, claims of this nature are paid out of the Chief Justice Waite in Fosdick v. Union Trust Co. t-. Souther, 107 U.S. 591 ; Schall, 09 U. S. '2^>o, -258, 254. See also Union Trust Co. v. Walker, 107 U.S. 596 ; Fosdick V. Car Co., 99 U. S "256 ; Hale v- Burnhani v. Rowen, 111 U. S. 77(1 ; Blair Frost, 99 U. S. 389; Miltenbersrer v. Lo- v. St. Louis, H. & K. Ky. Co., 22 Fed. K. gansport Ily. Co., lOG U. tS. 2^0, 308; 471, -174, with a valuable note by Benj. F. § 1^43 ] rREFERENCES IN FORECLOSUKE SUITS. 403 earnings of the road, but they are sometimes paid from the pro- ceeds of its sale." This doctrine was extended in a subsequent case where, instead of a sale, the niortg-agees sought a decree of strict foreclosure ; which was granted saving the rights of inter- venors.^ The Supreme Court then said again : " As the diversion of the fund created in equrty a charge on the property as secu- rity for its restoration, it is clear that if the mortgagees prefer to 'take the property under a decree of strict foreclosure, they take it subject to the charge in favor of the current debt creditor whose money they have got, and that he can insist on a sale of the property for his benefit if they fail to make the payment without."^ "We do not now hold, any more than we did in Fosdick V. Schall [99 U. S. 235] or HuideJcoper v. Locomotive Works, 99 U. S. 258, 260, that the income of a railroad in the liands of a receiver, for the benefit of mortgage creditors who have a lien upon it under their mortgage, can be taken away from them and used to pay the general creditors of the road. All we then decided, and all we now decide, is, that if current earnings are used for the benefit of mortgage creditors before current expenses are paid, the mortgage security is chargeable in equity with the restoration of the fund which has been thus improperly a{)plied to their use." ^^ In a proper case the disburse- ments of a prior receiver appointed at the suit of a junior incum- brancer may be thus given a preference when they were essential for the maintenance of the mortgaged property.^* In a recent case the Supreme Court said : " The appointment of a receiver vests in the coi>rt no absolute control over the prop- erty, and no general authority to displace vested contract liens. Because in a few specified and limited cases this court has de- clared that unsecured claims were entitled to priority over mort- gage debts, an idea seems to have ol)tained tliat a court appointing a receiver acquires power to give such j)reference to any general liex, Esq , of tlie St Louis bar ; Porter '•. ' Brewer, J., in Blair >■ Sr. Louis, II. & Pittsburgh Bessemer Steel Co., 120 U. S. K Py Co , 22 Fed R 47L 474. 649, Douglas '-.Cline, 12 Bush (Ky.), 608. 8 Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776. But see Penn r. Calhoun, 121 U. S. 251 ; 9 Chief Justice Waite in Burnham v. St Louis, A. & T. H R. R. Co. v. Cleve- Bowen, 111 U. S 77fi, 782, 783. land, C C. & I. Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 058 ; J" Chief Justice Waite in Burnham v. Wood r. Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit Bowen, 111 U. S. 776, 783. Co, 128 U. S. 416, U. S. Trust Co. r. " Kneeland t-. Bass Foundry & Machine X Y. W, S. & B. R. Co., 25 Fed. R. Works, 140 U. S. 502; Milteuborger v 1*00. Logansport Ry. Co.. lOG U. S. 28G.^ 404 EECEIVERS. [CIIAP. XVIT. and unsecured claims. It has been assumed that a court appoint- ing a receiver could rightfully burden the mortgaged property for the payment of any unsecured indebtedness. Indeed, we are ad- A'ised that some courts have made the appointment of a receiver conditional upon the payment of all unsecured indebtedness in preference to the mortgage liens sought to be enforced. Can anything be conceived wliich more thoroughly destroys the sacred- ness of contract obligations ? One holding a mortgage debt upon a railroad has the same right to demand and expect of the court respect for his vested and contracted priority as the holder of a mortgage on a farm or lot. So, when a court appoints a receiver of railroad property, it has no right to make that receivership con- ditional on the jiayment of other than those few unsecured claims v.hich, by the rulings of this court, have been declared to have an equitable priority. No one is bound to sell to a railroad company or to work for it, and who ever has dealings with a company whose property is mortgaged must be assumed to have dealt with it on the faith of its personal responsibility, and not in expectation of subsequently disi)lacing the priority of tlie mortgage liens. It is the exception and not the rule that such priority of liens can be displaced. We emphasize this fact of the sacredness of contract liens, for the reason that there seems to be growing an idea, that the cliancellor, in the exercise of his equitable powers, has unlim- ited discretion in this matter of tlie displacement of vested liens. Riiilroad Co. v. Railway Co.^ 125 U. S. 658, 673. So that these intervenors acquired no right of ])riority by virtue of their ante- cedent contracts of sale. But it is urged, and with force, that the court did not allow contract price, but only rental, and the fpiestion is asked, may a court, through its receiver, take pos- session of proi»erty and })ay no rental for it? If it may legiti- mately compel the operation of the railroad in the hands of it.", i-eceiver, in order to discharge the oV)ligations of the comjjany to the public, may it not also, and must it not also l)urden tb:;t receivership, and the property in charge of the receiver, Avith all the expenses connected with the operation of the road, together with reasonable rentals for tlie property used and necessary for the operation of the road ? As to the general answer to these inquiries, we have no doubt. A court which appoints a receiver acquires, l)y virtue of that appointment, certain rights and as- sumes certain obligalious. and the expenses which the court ere- § 243] PREFERENCES IN FORECLOSURE SUITS. 405 atcs in discharge of those obligations are burdens necessarily on the property taken possession of, and this irrespective of the question who may be the ultimate owner, or who may have the preferred lien, or who may invoke the receivership. So if, at tlie instance of any party rightfully entitled thereto, a court should appoint a receiver of property, the same being railroad property, and therefore under an obligation to the public of continued oper- ation, it, in the administration of such receivership, might right- fully contract debts necessary for the operation of the road, either for labor, supplies, or rentals, and make such expenses a prior lien on the property itself." ^- The mere fact that money loaned to the mortgagor was ex- pended in paying interest upon the mortgage bonds and oper- ating expenses so as to enable the railway company to maintain itself as a going concern, is insufficient to entitle the lender to a preference. ^'5 In accordance with these principles, it has become the practice in the seventh circuit to impose as a condition upon the appoint- ment of a receiver in a suit for the foreclosure of a railroad mort- gage, that debts for materials and supplies and labor furnished to the mortgagor within the six previous months be paid out of the net income or the proceeds of the sale of the road, before the debt secured by the mortgage.^* This is called " the six months rule." ^^ Other circuits adopt a similar practice. ^^ Three months is a not uncommon limitation of time.^'' Claims due eight ^^ and eleven ^^ months before the receivership have been given a preference. And in one case those who advanced money, after a default in interest but two years before the receivership, to pay the arrears of wages due striking laborers, under a promise from the presi- 1- Kneeland v. American Loan & Trust Bay & Minn. R. R. Co., 5 Fed. R. 840, 851, Co., 130 U. S. 97, 98, per Mr. Justice note. Brewer. 16 Atkins i\ Petersburg R. R. Co., 3 53 Morgan's La. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co. Hughes, 307 ; Blair r. iSt. Louis, H. & K. V. Texas Central Ry. Co., 137 U. S. 17L Ry. Co., 22 Fed. R. 471, 474 ; Olypliant v. See George *'. St. Louis Cable & W. Ry. St. Louis Ore & Steel Co., 22 Fed. R. Co., 44 Fed. R. 117. 170 ; Taylor /■. Pliila. & Reading R. R. 1* lure Kelly v. Receiver of Green Ray Co., 7 Fed. R. 377. & Minn. R. R. Co., 5 Fed. R. 846. See i" Fosdick r. Scliall, 09 U. S. 2-35, 238 ; Union Trust Co. v. Souther, 107 U. S. Hale i: Frost, 99 U. S. 389 : Miltenberger 591, 593 ; Union Trust Co. v. 111. Midland v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 l^ S. 286, 308. Ry. Co., 117 U.S. 434; Blair 1-. St. Louis, i^ Skiddy v. Atlantic, Miss. & Ohio H. & K. Ry. Co., 22 Fed. R. 471, 474, R. R. Co., 3 Huglies, 320. i5 In re Kelly v. Receiver of Green i'-* Burnham c. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776. 406 EECEIVERS. [CIIAr. XVII. dent of the mortgagor that they would bo repaid out of the current earnings of the road, were given a preferences*^ Had security been taken and no such promise been made, no such preference would probably have been given them."^^ A claim for the price of rails furnished a year before the receivership was denied a preference.-^ So was a claim by a contractor for the construction of a part of the road due three years before the appointment of the receiver.^s The ])rice of gas meters was held not to be a part of the " o})crating expenses " of a gas companv.2^ 'Yi^q claim of a secretary for a balance of salary due him within the jirescribed time has been thus prcferred.^^ A president forfeits any right he may })0ssess to such a preference by publishing in the annual report a statement that his salary has been paid.'-'^ A debt due an attorney for services performed immediately before the appointment of the receiver has been preferred under this rule;-' but nut, in the absence of special circumstances, a debt due for such services, i-endered more than a year before the a})pointment ; -^ nor for his payment, at the refpiest of the president of the comjiany, a few weeks before its default, under a promise of reimljurscment within a few months, of judgments and other claims against it for wages and injuries to cattle;-'' nor for his payment as suix'ty upon appeal bonds of judgments against the railroad upon claims two or three years old, although the appeals were taken a few months before the appointment of the receiver, and the payment made after that appointment.'"^*^ When the order of appointment gives a preference to " wages of employees," counsel fees due an attorney who was not employed as general counsel are not included ; but if such ^'> Atkins r. The Petersburg R. R. Co., 2S Addison ?•. Lewis, 75 Va. 701, 713. 3 Huglies, 307. -' Blair n. St. Louis, H. & K. lly. Co. -1 Duncan r. Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co , (Norton, Intcrvenor), 23 Fed. R. 521. 2 Woods, 542 ; Addison v. Lewis, 75 Va. Rut see Louisville, E. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. 701, 713, 714. Wilson, 138 U. 8. 501. ^ Skiddy v. Atlantic, Miss. & Ohio -^ Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. Ry. Co. R. R. Co., 3 Hughes, 320. (Norton, Intcrvenor), 23 Fed. R. 521. ^3 Addison v. Lewis, 75 Va. 701, 714, But see Louisville, E. & St. L. R. R. Co. 71.-,. V. Wilson, 138 U. S. 501. -^ Reyburii r. ("onsuniers' Gas, Fuel & -'' Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. Ry. Co. Light Co , 20 Fed. R. 5r,l. (Norton, Intervener), 23 Fed. R. 521. ■■^■> Olyphant r. St. Louis Ore & Steel •'■' Blair r. St. Louis, II. & K. Ry. Co. Co., 22 Fed. R. 170. But see Wells v. (Norton, Intcrvenor), 23 Fed. R. 523. But Southern Minn. Ry. Co., 1 Fed. R. 270; see Union Trust Co. c. Morrison, 125 Addison v. Lewis, 75 Va. 701, 712, 713. U. S. 591. §243.] PREFERENCES IN FORECLOSURE SUITS. 407 services resulted in a benefit to the mortgaged property, their reasonable value may be paid the attorney before payment is made upon the bonds, but not otherwise.^^ The counsel fees of the attorney for tlie mortgagor cannot be awarded a preference, unless the mortgage so provides.^^ j^ ^ bondholder's foreclosure suit, the fees of a counsel in a foreclosure suit previously insti- tuted bv him at the request of the ti-ustees, and suspended under their instructions without any default on his part, may be allowed a preference.^^ Preferences have thus been given to claims for fuel,^* locomotives,^^ cars,^^ reasonable car-rent,-^' car-springs and spirals,-^ repairs,-^^ and " limited amounts due other aud connecting lines of road for materials and repairs, and for upaid ticivct and freight balances, the outcome of indis- pensable business relations, where a stoppage of the continu- ance of such business relations would be a probable result. 31 Louisville, E. & St, L. R. R. Co. r. Wilson, 138 U. S. 501. But see Gurney >: Atlantic & G. W. Ry. Co., 58 N. Y. 3-58. ^- Mercantile Trust Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Hy. Co., 41 Fed. R. 8, 10. Coxirn, Bound i\ South Carolina R. Co., 43 Fed. R. 404. 33 Cowdrey v. Galveston, H. & H. R. R. Co., 93 U. S. .3.52. 3'' Burnliani i\ Bowen, 111 U. S. 776. 35 Fosdick V. Schall, 99 U. S. 235, 238. 3-3 Fosdick V. Schall, 99 U. S. 2.35, 238 ; Fosdick V. Car Co., 99 U. S. 2-56 ; Frank V. Denver & R. G. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R. 123. 3" Thomas v. Peoria & R. I. Ry. Co , .36 Fed. R. 808 ; Kneeland v. American Loan Co., 136 U. S. 89-100, 101-103 ; per Mr. Justice Brewer: — " Now, when the holder of a first lien upon the realty alone asks the court of chancery to take possession, not only of the real but also of personal property, used for the benefit of the real, that application is a consent on its part that the rental value of the personalty thus taken possession of and operated for the benefit of the realty shall lie i)aid in pref- erence to its own claim. The proposition is a simple one. The application may not be a consent that the contract price of the personalt}' shall be paid in prefer- ence to his lien ; but it certainly is a con- sent that the rental value of that person- alty, during the time of the possession by the receiver appointed at his instance, may iiave priority to his claim." " But one answer can be made to this inquiry, and that is that its application is a consent to the payment of reasonable rental during the possession of the re- ceiver, — a rental not based upon the use actually made l)y the receiver, but on the ordinar\^ value of the rental of such prop- erty. So, although it may be true, as claimed by counsel, that more was taken possession of than was needed, and that there was only a limited use of each car and engine, yet the case is to be taken as though all were needed and full use made of all ; and that sum which would be rea- sonable rental value for such use should be paid. Such value is not to be deter- mined by the amount of actual use, but by what, in the first instance and before the use had been had, would be adjudged a reasonable rental value. Upon such basis no complaint can be made of the amount fixed hy the court, reducing as it did the amount reported by the master." See also Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Chi- cago & A. Ry. Co., 42 Fed. R. 26. 38 Hale V. Frost, 99 U. S. 889. 3" Fosdick V. Schall, 99 U. S. 2.35, 2-38; Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 286, 311. 408 KECEIVERS. [chap. XVII. in case of non-payment, the general consequence involving largely, also, the interests and accommodation of travel and traffic.""*^ Where a balance is due upon the purchase price of cars or locomotives delivered to the railroad company under a contract of conditional sale, and the seller reclaims them or the receiver rejects them, a claim for the value of their use or for the injury done to tliem while in the possession of the railroad is not entitled to a preference. ^i If, however, the re- ceiver retains tliem with the assent of the seller, the balance of the purchase money, or at least the reasonable value of their use by the receiver,^''^ may be a preferred claim to that of a prior mortgagee,^'^ at whose suit the receiver was appointed, but not the value of their use by a former receiver appointed at the suit of a judgment creditor to which the mortgagee was a party ; ** and where the value of the purchase price is allowed a preference, it is inferior to the claims of laborers for service rendered immedi- ately before the appointment of the receiver and subsequently to the delivery of the rolling stock to the company.^^ In one case it was held, that a claim for oil necessary for use in operating a railroad, which was furnished bef()re a default in interest, was inferior to that of the mortgagees ; but that a claimant for such oil furnished since a default in the payment of interest had an equitable lien superior to the mortgagees, when the claimant had accepted a promissory note of the railroad com- pany on account of part of both classes of indebtedness ; which, note he surrendered to the receiver upon petitioning for the pay- ment of his claim.'''' Where, before the appointment of a receiver, a bondliolder accepted a compromise which scaled down the in- dcl)tedncss ; in pursuance thereof surrendered liis bonds and coupons, under an agreement to receive in exchange new bonds secured by a subsequent mortgage ; and did receive new bonds 4'^ Miltenberger v. Lo^ansport "Rv. Co., ^ Kneeland i\ American Loan & Trust lOG U S. 28(5, 311, per Blatelifonl, J Co., l-W U. S. 89, 97. But see Kneeland 41 Fosdick V. Schall, 99 U. S. 28.5, 2.55; v. Bass Foundry & Machine Works, 140 Iluidekoper '■. Locomotive Works, 99 U. R. 592; Miltcnberger v. Logansport U. S. 258; Kneeland v. American Loan Ky. Co., 106 U. S. 2S0. & Trust Co., 13G U. «. 89, 97. '•^ Frank o. Denver & K, G. Ky. Co., 23 12 Fosdick V. Car Co., 99 U. S. '256 ; Fed. R. 123. Frank v. Denver & R G. Ry. Co , 23 Fed. *« Central Trust Co. v. Texas & St. L. K. 123. Ry. Co., In re Waters Pierce Oil Co., In 43 Kneeland r. American Loan & Trust tervenor, 23 Fed. R. 703. Co., 136 U. S. 89, 103. § 243.] PREFERENCES IN FORECLOSURE SUITS. 409 sufficient to replace the greater part of those which he surren- dered; but there were a few for which no new bonds were issued, apparently because no new bonds were issued for so small an amount, — it was held that his unadjusted claim for this balance remained secured by the old mortgage, and was superior to those under the subsequent mortgage given to secure the new bonds."^^ In two cases, decided by the same judge, a preference was given to clahns for personal injuries through negligence within the prescribed time.^*^ Claims for damages by fire to 4" Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. Tty. Co. (Greene, Intervenor), 23 Fed. R. 524. *8 Central Trust Co. of N. Y. v. Texas & St. L. Ry. Co., 22 Fed. R. 135 ; Dow v. Memphis & L. R. R. Co., 20 Fed. R. 2G0, 260, 267, Caldwell, J. But see Central Trust Co. V. East Tenn., V. & G. R. Co , 30 Fed. R. 895; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. V. Green Bay, W. & St. P. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. R. 6G4, 066, 667, per Jenkins, J. : " Tlie principle is here sought to be extended to embrace a claim for a death occurring in the operation of the road within tlie limited period. In an able and ingenious argument tlie counsel for the petitioner insists that, although the liability for the death here rests upon statute law, and is to a stranger to the contract of hiring, and arises from failure of duty enjoined by the law of master and servant, 3-et that the liability is im- posed by the law upon, and constitutes a term of, the contract of hiring, and so must be regarded as a liability incurred in the operation of the road, having pri- ority of paj'ment over a precedent mort- gage. This proposition finds support in tlie case of Dow v. Railroad Co., 20 Fed. Hep. 2G0. Tiiere Judge Caldwell, in ap- pointing a receiver of tlie railway, pro- vided by his order for the payment of all obligations incurred for injuries to per- sons within the six preceding months. He states tliat failure by the trustee to take possession works an implied assent that the earnings of the road should bo applied to compensate those damaged in its operation, and asserts that the rulings of tlie supreme court furnish ample au- thority for such order. A careful reading of all decisions of the supreme tribunal upon that subject convinces me that Judge Caldwell has either misconceived the underlying principle of these decisions, or seeks to extend it unduly. " The Supreme Court, as I read the opinions, has been most careful to limit the doctrine to claims representing that which has inured to the benefit of the mortgaged property, such as labor and supply claims, amounts due to connect- ing roads for material, repairs, ticket and freiglit balances, and the like, allowing priority to such claims, because their non- payment would cause cessation of work, supplies, and running arrangements, and result in stoppage in the operation of the road, which, in tlie interest, as well of the bondholder as of the public, is not to be tolerated. The doctrine is analogous to that of the adnnralty allowing certain supplies to a vessel precedence over a mortgage upon the vessel, and rests upon the same principle. The vessel must not be allowed to rot at the wharf. The railway must not be permitted to rust, and its franchise to be forfeited, through failure to operate. Such things, there- fore, that are done to avoid such result, working destruction to the mortgage, should be compensated in priority to the mortgage. The protection accorded is for tliat done for the benefit of the res, not that sufl^ered in the doing, not to the individual right under the contract ; for that done in performance of the contract, not that suffered by breach of contract ; for labor and supplies furnished, not wrong sustained. A death claim does not come within the principle. The loss of life occurred in the operation of the road, but arose from failure of duty. It happened in the performance of the con- tract, but not because of performance. 410 EECEIVEPtS. [chap. XVII. adjuining property caused before the appointment of the receiver, have been denied a preference.*^ Where the parties to a fore- closure suit waived a sale, and. entered an order by consent leasing the property to another railroad and appointing a re- ceiver of the rent, the court directed that all floating unsecured creditors should be paid out of the rent before its application in discharge of the claims of the bondholders. ^"^ That a creditor for supplies has taken notes of the railroad company extending its time of payment for one month will not prejudice his claim Its promoting cause was the default of by tlie holJers after default in payment the comj)any, not the labor performed. The resulting death was a detriment, not an aid, to the road. It was in no possible sense of advantage to the mortgage inter- est. The rc-s was not benefited, and that I take it, is the test. If failure to take posse.ssion works an implied assent that of interest. Meantime, unprincipled di- rectors, anxious to retain possession of the road, could contract indebtedness — given priority by such ruling — working ruin to the mortgage interest. The bond- holder would be ' improved out of his estate,' and his vested rights placed at tlie earnings should be applied in com- the mercy of hostile directors. I am un- pensation of casualties in priority to the mortgage, why not as to all floating in- debtedness, to all improvements upon the road, and irrespective of time "* Wliy not say that, through failure to take pos- session, the bondholders assent that earn- ings sliould be devoted to the jjayment of all debts incurred after default in the pay- ment of interest, and in priority thereto'? Why limit such priority to the ])eriod of six months prior to the receivership ? If l)riority is to lie predicated upon implied assent, instead of upon benefit to the res, willing to assent to such doctrine. I do not understand it to be law. The rule is tliat current income should be first de- voted to the current expenses of operation. Liability for death is not an expense of operation in any just sense of the term. It is an unsecured debt, and, as such, cannot take precedence in payment over prior and express liens. St. Louis, &c. R. Co. V. Cleveland, &c. Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 658, 673, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep 1011. "The application was presented only upon the theory of priority. The record it should be allowed to all claims arising presents no disclosure touching income. during failure to take possession from which assent is implied. The priority siiould be co-extensive in point of time with the implied assent. That logically results from the principle bottomed uj)on im])lied assent. Such doctrine is, to my tiiinking, a broad departure from the equitable doctrine declared by the Su- preme Court, and would be ruinous in its consequences. If conceded, the entire floating debt of a railway company, oc- curring after default in payment of inter- est, and during failure to take possession, would necessarily and logically be given priority. Vested rights of projierty would be subjected to great detriment under such holding. The bonds of American railways are scattered throughout Europe, and are held in many hands. It requires much time to institute concerted action There is no suggestion of its diversion. There has been no sale of the road. It may happen that the income will more than suffice to discharge the operating expenses and the unjiaid and accruing interest. There may arise equities sanc- tioning payment of the claim not possi- ble now to forecast. The petitioner may tlierefore take order for an issue to de- termine the question of liability of the company and its amount, subject, with respect to i)a3-ment, to the ruling herein declared." '>^ hi re Dexterville Manuf. & Boom Co. V. Case, 4 Fed. R. 873 ; Ililes r. Case, 4 Fed. R. 141 ; s. c. 9 Biss. 549. Contra, Dow V. Memphis & L. R. R. Co., 20 Fed. R. 200, 266, 2(i7. s" Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. ?-. Mo. I. & N. Ry. Co., 21 Fed. R. 204. § 243.] PREFERENCES IN FORECLOSURE SUITS. 411 to a prcfcrence.^^ Neither will his acceptance of a renewal of these notes after the receiver's appointment.'^^ An assignee of a preferred claim has all the rights of his assignor.^ Where a claim to a preference is made because money was loaned the mortgagor at the request of the bondholders, a request made by all the bondholders must be shown or the preference will be denied.^* In a recent important suit to foreclose a railroad mortgage the following order was made : " That all outstanding debts of the said railway com[)any for labor, materials, and sup- plies used in the equipment or permanent improvement of the said railroad, and all outstanding debts for necessary operating and managing expenses thereof in the ordinary course of its business, incurred after the first day of September, 1888, shall be allowed by the master as equitable liens, prior in right to the lien of the mortgage sued on, irrespective of statutory liens therefor. And it is further ordered that all such claims accru- ing on open running accounts between said railroad and its cred- itors shall be considered as embraced within this order, if any part of the work was done, materials furnished, or expenses incurred after the first day of September, 1883, on subsisting contracts necessary for the continued operation of the road by said receiver ; otherwise tlie demand will be limited to what accrued subsequent to September first," at which date the de- fault in payment of interest upon the mortgage occurred."^ This order was, subsequently, thus expounded : " The various rulings of the court with respect to betterments and wages, not within the respective times stated, — to wit, six months or other- wise, — have rested upon this distinct proposition: That supplies furnished or services performed under a subsistin[/ contract, to which and to the continuance of which the parties were respec- tively bound, and the termination of said contract did not happen except within the time limited ; or when such a continu- ing contract was still in force at the appointment of a receiver, 51 Burnham i;. Bo wen, 11 1 U. S. 776. & C. R. R. & S. S. Co. v. Texas Central See also Central Trust Co. v. Texas & Ry. Co. 137 U. S. 171. St. L. Ry. Co., In re Waters Fierce Oil ^^ Treat, J., in Central Trust Co. v. Co., Intervenor, 23 Fed. R. 703. Texas & St. L. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R. 703; ^■■^ Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776. cited and followed by Brewer, J., in Clair 53 Union Trust Co. v. Walker, 107 U. S. v. St. Louis, 11. & K. Ry. Co., In re Merri- 596; Burnham y. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776. wether and others, Intervenors, 23 Fed. ^* In re Kelly v. Green Bay & Minn. R. 704, 705. R. Co., 5 Fed. li. 846. See Morgan's L. 412 RECEIVERS, [chap. XVII. the items of such conthiuing and subsisthig contracts would fall within the prescribed rules. No other demands, independent in their nature, incurred before the prescribed time, are to be treated other than as credits at large. If this ruling is enforced there need be no difiiculty with respect to what are called ' open and current ' accounts. Such accounts must be under subsisting contracts, not to be terminated until within the period of time named ; otherwise all items previous to that time must be re- jected. This ruling may be subject to an exception where the local statute gives a lien under a different limitation. In tlie latter cases dithculties may arise if local decisions are followed, each one of which must depend upon its special facts." ^^ It has been held that pending a receivership in a Federal court, where parties are entitled to a lien, and can secure it by pixiceedings under a State statute, they are not required to go to the expense of such proceedings, but the Federal court will treat it as though all needful steps had been taken to establish the lien ; ^" and that " where like demands are presented from other States in which no statutory lien therefor exists, they shall be entitled to the same status, so that statutory and equitable liens may rest on a like basis." *^ An entry upon the books of the mortgagor show- ing the claim to be good is, in the absence of suspicious circum- stances, jyrma/aci'g proof. ^^ The attorneys of both the receiver and the complainant should have notice of the hearing of such a claim before a master.*^'^ An order directing a receiver to carry out his corporation's contracts does not necessarily give those who claim damages for a breach of those contracts a preference over licn-holdcrs.^^ In a recent case, the following conditions were inserted in the order ai)i)ointing a receiver: "(1) That the debts, if any, due from the railroad company for ticket and freight balances; and for work and labor performed l)y its employes and laborers ; and for supplies and materials furnished for equipping, ^^ Treat, J., ns quoted by Brewer, J., in ^^ Treat, J., in Blair r. St. Louis, H. & Central Trust Co. v. Texas & St. L. Ry. K. R. Co., 19 Fed. R. 861, 8(52. Co., Camden LuTnber Co. and others. In- "^ Blair v. St. Louis, II. & K. R. Co., 19 tervenors, 2:5 Fed. R. 073 Fed. R. 8G1, 802, Treat, J. ; s. c. 22 Fed. 5^ Brewer J., in Central Trust Co. v. R. 471, 472, Brewer, J. Te.\as & St. L. Ry. Co., Camden Lumber «» Blair r. St. Louis, H. & K. R. Co., 19 Co. and others, Intervenors, 23 Fed. R. Fed. R. 861, 8G2. (573, 074. 675; Treat. J., in Blair y. St. «i Olyphant ;;. St. St. Louis Ore & Steel Louis, II. & K. R. Co., I'.t Fed. R. 801. Co., 28 Fed. R. 729. But see Hassall v. Wilco.x, 13U U. S. 493. § 243.] PREFERENCES IN FORECLOSURE SUITS. 413 operating, repairing, or improving the road ; and all obligations incurred in the transportation of j)assengers and freight, or for in- juries to person or property, which have accrued within six months last past, — shall be paid by the receiver out of the earnings of the road. (2) That persons having demands or claims of any char- acter against the receiver, may, without applying to this court for leave to do so, bring suit thereon against the receiver in any court in this State having jurisdiction, or may file their petition and have their claim adjudicated in this court at their election. This clause shall not be construed as authorizing the levy of any writ or process on the property in the hands of the receiver, or taking the same from his custody or possession. (3) That the debts and liabilities of the railroad company which the receiver is ordered to pay, together witli all debts and liabilities which said receiver may incur in ojicrating said road, shall be paramount and superior to the lien of the mortgages set out in the plaintiff's bill, and said lien shall continue until said debts and liabilities are satisfied ; and the discharge of said property from the cus- tody of the receiver shall not affect such lien, or deprive claimants of the opportunity of proving their demands, but said receiver or a successor shall be continued in office for the ad- justment of such demands, and may be sued therefor ; and if said demands are not paid by the person or corporation in possession of said mortgaged property, the court may repossess or may decree a sale of tlie property, as shall seem most expedient. (4) The said plaintiff shall prosecute this suit to final decree as speedily as the same can be done under the rules of equity practice, and failing so to do, the court of its own motion will discharge said property from the custody of the receiver." ^^ Another recent order was as follows : " On this day comes the plaintiff, by Phillips and Stewart, its attorneys, and the defend- ant, by J. M. & J. G. Taylor, its attorneys, and the receivers, by S. H. "West, their attorney, and S. W. Fordyce, one of the receivers, in proper person, and the proper order to be made by the court on the subject of the payment of debts and liabilities of the defend- ant company by the receivers came up for consideration ; and, the court being now well and sufficiently advised in the premises, it is ordered that the following debts and demands against the com- pany which have accrued since the execution of the mortgages «- Caldwell, J., in Dow i-. Memphis & L. R. Ky. Co., 20 Fed. R. 260, 2GG, 267. 414 RECEIVERS. [chap. XVII. in suit; viz., tlic debts due from the railroad company for ticl^ets and freiglit balances, and for work, labor, materials, machinery, fixtures, and supplies of every kind and character, done, performed, or fui'uishcd in the construction, extension, repair, equipment, or operation of said road and its branches in this State, and all liabili- ties incurred by said company in the transportation of freight and passengers, including damages to person and property, and for breaches of contracts for the transportation of persons and prop- erty, and all claims and demands upon which suit has been here- tofore brought or judgment recovered in the United States or State court in this State, together with all debts and liabilities which the receivers may incur in operating said road in this State, including claims for injuries to persons and property, — shall con- stitute a lien on said railroad, and all property appurtenant thereto, superior and paramount to the lien of the mortgages set out in the bill, as provided by the statute of this State, and said road shall not be released or discharged from said lien until said debts and liabilities are paid. The receivers arc authorized and directed to pay all such debts and liabilities out of the earnings of the road, or out of any fund in their hands applicable to that jiurpose ; and, if not sooner discharged, then the same shall be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the road." ^^ Whether this doctrine applies to the foreclosure of any except mortgages by railway, telegraph, or other companies to which are delegated the right of eminent domain, is very doubtful.*^'* § 244. Property over "which Receivers may be Appointed. — A reccivci^ may be appointed to ])reserve and take possession of every kind of property, whether the same be what is termed cor- poreal or incorporeal, which can be seized by execution at law or which constitutes equitable assets.^ Thus receivers have been appointed to collect and hold the profits of a rectory ,2 of a col- es Central Trust Co. v. St. Louis, A. & § 244. 1 Davis v. Gray, 10 Wall. 203, T. Ry. Co., 41 Fell. II. 551, 553-554, jxr 217; Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, 2 Caldwell, .J. Swanst. 108, 127 ; Blanchard v. Caw- 64 Wood y. Guarantee Trust & Safe De- thorne, 4 Simons, 566. See Palmer^ r. posit Co., 128 U. S. 416 ; Raht v. Attrill, Vauyhan, 3 Swanst. 178; Meriwether*'-. lOG N. Y. 423; Reyburn v. Consumers' Garrett, 102 U. S. 472, 501. Gas, Fuel & Lijrht Co., 29 Fed. R. 5G1 ; '- Silvery. Bishop of Norwich, 3 Swanst. Fidelity Ins. & Safe Deposit Co. v. 112 ; White y. Bishop of Peterborough, 3 Shenandoah Iron Co., 42 Fed. R. 372; Swanst. 109. Seventh Nat. Bank of Philn. r. Shenan- doah Iron Co., 35 Fed. R. 430 § 244.] PEOPERTY OVER WHICH RECEIVERS MAY BE APPOINTED. 415 lege fellowship,^ and of the offices of a master forester in a royal forest,* and of a county clerk of peace,° tlie tolls of a turnpike ;'' to manage and collect the profits of mines,'' plantations,*^ a the- atre,^ a newspaper, ^^ and a railroad ; ^^ to exercise the right to sell a conditional right of membership in an exchange ; ^^ and to take possession of the estate of an intestate with power to apply for letters of administration. ^^ After the repeal of the charter of tlic city of Memphis, a receiver was appointed to take possession of all its property which could be subjected to the payment of its dcbts.i* In the last-mentioned case the Supreme Court laid down the following propositions: "1. Property held for public uses, such as public buildings, streets, squares, parks, promeuades, wharves, landing-places, fire-engines, hose and hose-carriages, engine-houses, engineering instruments, and generally everything held for governmental purposes, cannot be subjected to the pay- ment of the debts of the city. Its public character forbids such an appropriation. Upon the repeal of the charter of the city, such property passed under the immediate control of the State, the power once delegated to the city in that behalf having been withdrawn. 2. The private property of individuals within the limits of the teri-itory of the city cannot be subjected to the pay- ment of the debts of the city, except through taxation. The doc- trine of some of the States, that such property can be reached directly on execution against the municipality, has not been gen- erally accepted. 3. The power of taxation is legislative, and cannot be exercised otherwise than under the authority of the legislature. 4. Taxes levied according to law before the repeal of the cluirter, other than such as were levied in obedience to the special requirement of contracts entered into under the authority of law, and such as were levied under judicial direction for the payment of judgments recovered against the city, cannot be col- 3 Feistel I'. King's College, 10 Bcav. ii Stevens v. Davison, 18 Grat. (Va.) 491. 819; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203; Bar- ^ Blanchard v. Cawthorne, 4 Simons, ton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126. 566. i-i Powell V. Waldron, 89 N. Y. 328; 5 Palmer ('. Vaughan, 3 Swanst. 173. In re Ketolium, 1 Ferl. R. 840; I» re 6 Knapp r. Williams, 4 Ves. 4;)0, note; Werrler, 15 Fed. R. 789; Hydei-. Woods, Dumvdle V. Ashbrooke, 3 Rnss. 98, note. 94 U. S. 523 ; Piatt v. Jones, 96 N. Y. 24. " Jcfferys v. Smith, 1 J. & W. 208. '-^ Re flayer, L. R. 3 P. & M. 39. 8 Morris v. Elme, 1 Ves. Jr. 139. i* Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. S. 472, 9 Const V. Harris, T. & R. 496, 528. 484. "• Chaplin V. Young, 6 L. T. (x. s.) 97 ; Kelley f. Ilutton, 17 W. R. 425. 416 RECEIVEKS. [CHAr. XYII. lectcd through the instrumentality of a court of chancery at the instance of creditors of tlie city. Sucli taxes can only be collected under authority from the legislature. If no such authority exists, the remedy is by appeal to the legislature, which alone can grant relief. "Wlietlier taxes levied in obedience to contract obligations, or under judicial direction, can be collected through a receiver appointed by a court of chancery, if there be no public officer charged with authority from the legislature to perform that duty, is not decided, as the case does not require it." ^^ In a subse- quent case, the Supreme Court held that taxes already levied could in no case be collected through a receiver. ^*^ Until tlie pas- sage of a statute allowing it to be done, the English courts held that a receiver could not be appointed to manage a railroad; ^7 but such an appointment is authorized and is very frequent in this country ,^s and even in England a receiver might always be appointed to receive the tolls of a railroad. ^^ A lugubrious pic- ture of the result of such appointments has been drawn by Mr. Justice Miller : " The rapid absorption of the business of the country of every character by corporations, while productive of much good to the public, is beginning also to develop many evils, not the least of which arises from their failure to pay debts and perform the duties which by the terms of their organization they assumed. One of tlie most efficient remedies for the failure to pay, when it arises from inability, is to place the corporation in the hands of a receiver, that its affairs may be wound up, its debts discharged, and the remaining assets, if any there be, dis- tributed among its stockliolders. Of the beneficial results of this remedy there can be little doubt. When it is applied with de- spatch, and the effects of the insolvent corporation are faithfully used to meet its liabilities, and its dead body is buried out of sight as soon as possible, no objection can be made to the pro- cedure, and all courts and good citizens should contribute, as far as they may, to this desirable object. In regard, however, to a ^^ Chief Justice Waite in Meriwether y. ^"^ Gardner v. Lnn'lon, Cliatham & Garrett, 102 U.S. 472. 501. Upon the first Dover Ry. Co., L. K. 2 Ch. App. 201; tlirec propositions the court was unani- Jones on Railroad Securities, § 456. mous. The fourth was decided by a ma- ^^ Stevens v. Davison, 18 Grat. (Va.) jority only. See a criticism of this case 819; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203 ; -Bar- by judge Bnxier in Garrett v. City of ton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 12G, 137, 138. Memphis, 5 Fed. H. 860. ^^ Hopkins v. Worcester & Birmingham •'' Thompson v. Allen County, 115 Canal Co., L. R. 6 Eq. 437; Jones on U. b. 550, 558. • Railroad Securities, § 456, § 24"«.] POWERS OF RECEIVERS IN GENERAL. 417 certain class of corporations, — a class whose operations are as important to the interests of tlie communit}^ and as intimately connected with its business and social habits as any other, — the appointment of receivers, as well as the power conferred on them, and the duration of their oftice, has made a progress which, since it is wholly the work of courts of chancery and not of legislatures, may well suggest a pause for consideration. It will not be neces- sary to any observing mind to say that I allude to railroad corpo- rations. Of the fifty or more who own or have owned the many thousand miles of railway in my judicial circuit, I think I speak within limits in saying that hardly half a dozen have escaped the hands of the receiver. If these receivers had been appointed to sell the roads, collect the means of the companies, and pay their debts, it might have been well enough ; but this was hardly ever done. It is never done now. It is not the purpose for which a receiver is appointed. He generally takes the property out of the hands of its owner, operates the road in his own way, with an occasional suggestion from the court, which he recognizes as a sort of partner in the business, sometimes, though very rarely, pays some money on the debts of the corporation, but quite as often adds to them, and injures prior creditors by creating a new and superior lien on the property pledged to them."^'^ In a recent case, the court refused to appoint a receiver of a disused and independent railroad track in a case where there was a scramble for its possession ; saying, in reference to the power to appoint a receiver : " If we should carry this to the extent to which you claim, we should be having this court pushing the doctrine of receivership to the extent of making us justices of the peace, and issuing peace warrants." ^i § 245. Powers of Receivers in general. — The powers of a re- ceiver, in the aljsence of any special authority given ui the order for his appointment, are very limited. He can take possession of the property which he is appointed to receive.^ If any of it is land under lease, he can accept attornment and payment of rent and arrears of rent from the tenants.^ He can give notice to quit to tenants from year to year ; ^ and in States where the remedy by 20 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126, § 245 i Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 137, 138, in the dissentincr opinion. 1987, 1988. -1 Brewer and Treat, .IJ , in St Louis, ^ Codrington y.Jolinstone, 1 Beav 520; K. C. & C. R. R. Co. V. Dewees, 23 Fed. R. McDonnell v. White, 11 H. L. C. 570. 510. a Doe v. Reed, 12 East, 57, 59. VOL. I. — 27 418 RECEIVERS. [chap. XVII. distress still exists, he may distrain for rents not more than one year in arrear.* He may also pay out small sums of money in customary repairs of the property which he holds in trust,^ and in some cases insure it against fire.^ Beyond this, he can do noth- ing without the express authority of the court.' He cannot sue to recover debts or other property belonging to the estate,^ nor even, it seems, defend suits or actions brought against him,^ nor spend any money whatever which belongs to the estate, except such very small sums as are above referred to,^*^ without an order authorizing him to do so. If, however, he does any of these things without leave, and the court determines that the money tlius expended has been beneficial to the estate, his expenditures for that purpose may be allowed him ; ^^ otherwise, he must make good all loss thereby occasioned. ^^ It seems that an unauthorized contract made by him with a stranger may be ratified by an order of the court made before tlie stranger has given notice of his intention to abandon it.^^ A fire insurance company which has received a premium from a receiver cannot in an action on the policy disi)utc his authority to insure the property he holds.^^ It seems that an order giving a receiver authority to sell carries with it authority to execute and deliver to the purchaser a deed ; ^^ but if not, a subsequent confirmation by the court of a sale irreg- ularly made validates from that time a deed previously executed by the receiver.^^ It has been said that " a purchaser under a deed from a receiver is not bound to examine all the proceedings in the case in which the receiver is appointed. It is sufficient for him to see that there is a suit in equity, or was one, in which the court appointed a receiver of property ; that such receiver was au- * Vhtv. Snowden. 3 Atk. 750; Bran- ii Tempest r. Orel, 2 Meriv. 55; Blunt don V. Brandon, 5 Madd. 473; Davis v. v. Clitherovv, G Ves. 799; Thompson v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 218. Phoenix Ins. Co., 136 U. S. 287, 294. ^ Attorney-General v. Vigor, 11 Ves. i- Attorney-General v. Vigor, 11 Ves. 503, Dantelf's Ch. Pr. (2d Ani.ed.) 1090. 66.3. '' Thompson v. Phnnnix Ins. Co, 136 i^ Koontz u. Northern Bank, 16 Wall. U. S. 287, 293-294 ; Brown v. Hazlehurst, 196 ; Smith v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 54 Maryland, 20, 28. 25,29. ' Davi.s V. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 218; » Thompson r. Phoenix Ins. Co., 136 Smith V. McCullough, 104 U. S. 25, 29, U. S. 287, 294-295. 8 Wynne ». Lord Newborough, 1 Ves. i'' Koontz v. Northern Bank, 16 Wall- Jr. 164 , s. c. 3 Brown Ch. C. 88: Green 196, 201. V. .Winter, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 60. >'' Koontz v. Northern Bank, 16 Wall. 9 Svvaby v. Dickon. 5 Simons, 629. 196. '^ Attorney-General v. Vigor, 11 Ves. 563. § 245.] rowEEs of eeceiveks in general. 419 tliorized by the court to sell the property; that a sale was made under such authority ; that the sale was confirmed by the court ; and that the deed accurately recites the property or interest thus sold. If the title of the property was vested in the receiver by an order of the court, it would in that case pass to the purchaser. He is not bound to inquire whether any errors intervened in the action of the court, or irregularities were committed by the re- ceiver in the sale, any more than a purchaser under execution upon a judgment is bound to look into the errors and irregu- larities of a court on the trial of the case, or of the officer in enforcing its ])rocess." ^' An order authorizing a receiver to bor- row money to expend in building an unfinished ])ortion of a rail- road does not authorize him to contract for municipal aid in such construction.!^ An order authorizing a receiver to make a con- tract is construed strictly in favor of the estate.^^ After the exe- cution of a contract has been authorized by the court, the order will not ordinarily be revoked except in case of fraud.^*^ A re- ceiver cannot accomplish by estoppel or waiver what he has no power to do directly .-^ Without authority from the court a re- ceiver cannot by receipt of rent or otherwise bind the parties or a subsequent purchaser to recognize a lease.^^ The court may, however, either in the original order of appointment or subse- quently, give a receiver very extensive powers. It is usual in the order appointing a receiver to give him power to bring and defend suits or actions affecting the estate, and to set and let such of it {IS consists of land. Other and much more extensive authority, such as to borrow money needed for the proper admin- istration of his trust, and issue as security therefor certificates giving their owner a first lien upon the estate;-'^ to contract for the construction of a bridge ; -^ to pay an employee his wages during the time that he is kept from work by the result of an ^"^ Mr. Justice Field in Koontz i-. Central Trust Co. v. Ohio Central R. R. Northern Bank, 16 Wall. 100, 202. Co., 23 Fed. R. 300 ; Armstrong v. Arm- is Smith y. McCulIough, 101 U. S. 25, stronf/, L. R. 12 Eq. 014; Koontz t-. 29. Nortliern Bank, 16 Wall. 196 ; Stanton v. 13 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Logans- Ala. & C. R. Co., .31 Fed. R. 585. port, C. &S. W. Ry. Co., 4 Fed. R. 184. -i^ Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chicago & •^' Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Cen- A. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 653, 059. tral Trust Co., 22 Fed. R. 269. But see -3 Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146. Weeks v. Weeks, 106 N. Y. 026. See § 247. •^1 Van Dyckr. McQuade,85N. Y.G16; -^ LaCrosse Railroad Bridge, 2 Dill. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chicago & A. 465. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 653, 659. But see 420 KECEITEES. [CH.4.P. XYII. injury received while at \York for the receirer, without contrib- utory negligence, but for which the receiver is not responsible;^^ and in Ireland, to spend money in relieving and giving employ- ment to poor tenants, for the reason that they may be enabled in the future to pay their rent more regularly,-^ have been given to receivera. The order appointing a receiver of land usually con- tains a clause empowering him to set and let the same.^' Even with this, it seems, that without special authority he cannot let any part thereof so as to bind the estate for a longer period of time than is authorized by the Statute of Frauds,^^ but that a lease made for a longer time would bind a tenant who had ac- cepted \tP It is doubtful whether a receiver has the right to use a patent under a license given the person over whose estate he was appointed.^ A receiver of a dissolved corporation may sus- tain a bill to comjiel the assignment to him of a patent by the legal owner when the corporation had the equitable title to the same.^^ § 246. Powers of Receivers of Railroads. — Yery extensive powers are often granted to the receivers of railroads.^ The Supreme Court has said of them : " In the progress and growth of equity jurisdiction it has become usual to clothe such officers with much larger powers than were formerly conferred. In some of the States they are by statutes charged with the duty of set- tling the affairs of certain corporations when insolvent, and are authorized expressly to sue in their own names. It is not un- usual for courts of equity to put them in charge of the railroads of companies which have fallen into financial embarrassment, and to require them to operate such roads, until the difficulties are removed, or such arrangements are made that the roads can be sold with the least sacrifice of the interests of those concerned. In all such cases the receiver is the right arm of the jurisdiction invoked. As regards the statutes, we see no reason why a court of equity, in the exercise of its undoubted authority, may not 25 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas & P. so Compare Montross v. Mabie, 30 Fed. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. R. 701 ; s. c. Blaener R. 234; with Curran v. Craig, 22 Fed. R. Intervenor, 41 Fed. R. 319. 101. -'' Jackson v. Jackson, 2 Hogan, 2-38. 3' McCulloh v. Association Ilorlgerie 27 DanicU's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1989. Suisse, 45 Fed. R. 479. •-5 Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.),210, § 24G. i Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 211. 219, 220; Cowdrey v. Railroad Co, 1 -•* Dancer r. Hastings, 4 Bingliain, 2 ; Woods, 331, 336. Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 211. § 246.] POWERS OF RECEIVERS OF RAILROADS. 421 accomplish all the best results intended to be secured by such legislation, without its aid."^ xVnd in a carefully considered opin- ion, Mr. Justice Bradley said : '* It may be laid down as a general proposition, that all outlays made by the receiver in good faith, in the ordinary course, with a view to advance and promote the busi- ness of the road, and to render it prolitable and successful, are fairly within the line of discretion which is necessarily allowed to a receiver entrusted with the management and operation of a railroad in his hands. His duties, and the discretion with which he is invested are very different from those of a passive receiver, appointed merely to collect and hold moneys due on prior trans- actions, or rents accruing from houses and lands. And to such outlays in ordinary course may properly be referred, not only the keeping of the road, buildings, and rolling stock in repair, but also the providing of such additional accommodations, stock, and instrumentalities as the necessities of the business may require, always referring to the court, or to the master appointed in that behalf, for advice and authority in any matter of importance, which may require a considcrble outlay of money in lump ; and except in extraordinary cases, the submission by the receiver of bis accounts to the master at frequent intervals, whereby the latter may ascertain from time to time the character of the ex- penditures made, and disallow whatever may not meet with his approval, will be regarded as a sufficient reference to the court for its ratification of the receiver's proceedings. In extraor- dinary cases, involving a large outlay of money, the receiver should always apply to the court in advance and obtain his au- thority for the purchase or improvement proposed."^ This lan- guage has been thus construed in a case in a State court : " This rule, it will be observed, simply prescribes what expenditures, out of the fund in his hands as receiver, the court will recognize as legitimate and proper when the receiver comes to account for the administration of his trust, but nothing here said gives the slightest support to the notion that the receiver may, in virtue of the power of his office, make a contract, without the authority of the court, which will bind the trust, or which the court will be bound to recognize without regard to its necessity or propriety. A receiver may, undoubtedly, appropriate moneys in his hands - Mr. Justice Swayne in Davis y. Gray, ^ Cowdrey r. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 10 Wall 203, 219, 220. ' 331, 336. 422 KECEIVERS. [chap. XVII. belonging to the trust, to such purposes, connected with the trust, as he may think proper, always taking the risk that the court will finally approve his action, but he has no authority to bind the trust by contract without the authority of the court. Until his contracts are approved or ratified by the court, the court is at liberty to deal with them as to it shall appear to be just, and may either modify them or disregard them entirely. This, in my judgment, is the only safe rule which can be adopted."^ A loan to a receiver whom the court has not authorized to borrow money will be denied priority.^ A receiver cannot make a permanent traffic agreement without the authority of the court.^ It has been held that the court has power to authorize the receiver of a rail- road company under proceedings for a foreclosure, to ratify a contract previously made by the corporation giving a telegraph company certain privileges upon its road, and that the contract thus ratified will be binding upon juirchascrs of the railroad at a foreclosure sale.^ A receiver may be authorized to complete the construction of a line of railroad, and to borrow money for that purpose.^ A receiver of a railroad may be authorized to pur- chase a lien upon part of its property, and to assume a lease of a connecting railway.^ The rules which should regulate a receiver- ship of a consolidated railroad holding leased lines with sepa- rate mortgages upon the different branches, as well as a general mortgage upon the whole system, have been recently stated and aj)plied in an opinion of Judge Brewer, delivered when denying an application by a receiver of such a system of railroads for leave to reject such leased roads as were unprofitable : " This Wabash road is composed of many subdivisions. While it is a single corporation to-day, yet into it have ])asscd many corpo- rations and many separate railroad proi)erties. In administering such a consolidated property, the court must look at, not merely 4 VanFleet.V.C .Chancellor Kunyon, Dill. 448. See also Smith r. McCullough, concurrinfr, Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co. 104 U.S. 2-5; AUoii v. The Dallas & r. Central R. R. of N. J., 85 N. .T. Eq. 426, Wichita R. R. Co , 3 Woods, 316. 42'.). To a similar effect is Union Trust " Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. r. Bur- Co. V. Til. Midland Ry. Co.. 117 U. S.4S4. lington & S. AV. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. R. 805. 5 Union Trust Co. v. 111. Midland Ry. See also Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, Co., 117 U. S. 434, 477. St. L. & P. Ry. Co., Oilman Invervenor, « Investment Co. of Phila. r. Oliio & 31 Fed. R. 259; Central Trust Co. v. N. W. Ry. Co., 4 Fed. R. 378. Wahash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R. ■ W. U. Tel. Co. r. Atlantic & Pacific 868 ; Easton v. Huston & T. C. Ry. Co., Tel. Co., 7 P>iss. 3tw. 38 Fed. K. 784. 8 Kennedy c. St. I'aul & P. Ry. Co., 2 § 246.] POWERS OF RECEIVERS OF RAILROADS. 423 the intci'est of the mortgagee in this general mortgage, or of the mortgagor as a single entity or corporation, but also the separate and sometimes conflicting interests of the various subdivisions and their respective incumbrances, and, back of all that, the duty which every railroad corporation owes to the public. For under- lying the rule which the Supreme Court has laid down in respect to the payment, by receivers when they take possession of the railroad property, of prior unsecured debts recently accrued, runs the thouglit, as expressed by the Supreme Court, that a railroad corporation owes a duty to the public, which has given it its fran- chise and enabled it to construct its road, — the duty of operating that road for the benefit of the public. While that may not be what you call an absolute duty, enforceable under all circum- stances, it is still a duty to be regarded and enforced by the courts when they take possession of railroads through their offi- cers. And that duty is not limited to the operation of merely that particular fragment of a road which is pecuniarily profitable in its operations, but it extends to the road as an entirety, and to all its branches, — all its parts ; differing in that particular from the duty which would rest upon the court if it had simply taken possession of property used for private purposes, manufacturing or otherwise, where the single question might well be said to be one of pecuniary profit. This Wabash road, as a system, was in operation, a going concern, from one end to the other ; as such, discharging its duties as best it could to its various creditors. This court, at the instance of the corporation, and to preserve the integrity of the system, took possession of it by its receivers. It took possession of it as a going concern, and, so far as is rea- sonable and practicable, it should continue it as a going con- cern, until it surrenders it to whoever may be the purchasers or future holders of it. With that preface, and calling these sep- arate branches which have passed into this consolidated road, subdivisions, since some have passed in by way of lease and others by way of consolidation, subject to separate mortgages, we pass orders substantially as follows : The first is one which lias already been entered, and we simply emphasize it by repeat- ing it, that subdivisional accounts must be kept separately. That was an order passed by Brother Treat at the very outset of this receivership, in order that the particular equities of each one of these divisions, as between themselves, might be ascertained. 424 RECEIVEES. [chap. XVII. 2. Where any subdivision earns a surplus over expenses, the rental or subdivisional interest will be paid to the extent of the surplus, and only to the extent of the surplus. Any part diversion of such surplus for general operating expenses will be made good at once, and, if need be, by the issue of receiver's certificates. ... 3. Where a subdivision earns no surplus, — simply pays operating expenses, — no rental or subdivisional in- terest will be paid. If the lessor or the subdivisional mortgagee desires possession or foreclosure, he may })roceed at once to as- sert his rights. W^hile the court will continue to operate such sub- division until some application be made, yet the right of a lessor or mortgagee whose rent or interest is unpaid to insist upon pos- session or foreclosure will be promptly recognized. That, it is true, may work a disruption of the system, as evidenced by the movement just made in respect to this Cairo division ; but the proceeding for disruption will come from tlie subdivisions. The court is not sloughing off branches, tearing the system in two ; but the disruption, if it comes, will come from those who seek separation, and have a legal right so to do. 4. Where a sub- division not only earns no surplus, but fails to pay operating expenses, as in the St. Joseph & St. Louis branch, the operation of the subdivision will be continued, but the extent of that oper- ation will be reduced with an unsparing though a discriminating hand ; that is, if a subdivision does not earn operating expenses, and the receivers are running two trains a day, then lop one of them off. If they are running one train a day, and still it does not pay, then run one train in two days. Wliile the court will endeavor to keep that subdivision in operation, it will make the burden of it to the consolidated corporation, and to all the other interests put into that consolidated corporation, a minimum." ^^ In the same case, Judge Woods subsequently rejected a claim to a preference over the mortgage for rents accrued pending a receivership, in a suit in wliich the mortgagee had been denied the extension of the receivership for his benefit. ^^ The court may, without notice to the mortgagee, authorize a receiver to acquire by lease another railroad. ^^ 1'^ Brewer, J., Treat, J., concurring; in !• Central Trust Co. v. Wabasli, St. L. Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. & P. Ry. Co., Swayne Intervenor, 40 Fed. Ry. Co., 2:; Fed. R. 8G3, 805-857. But R. 26. see s. c. Swayne Intervenor, 40 Fed. R. ^- Mercantile Trust Co. r. Missouri, Iv. 26. & T. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. R. 8, II, 12. § 247.] receivers' certificates. 425 § 247. Receivers' Certificates. — Where it is absolutely neces- sary to raise money for the presers'ation of the property in his hands, a receiver may be empowered by the court to issue certi- ficates which give tlieir owners a lien upon the property prior to that held by any persons except those wliose claims are para- mount to the rights of the parties to the suit.^ Such certificates are usually issued only in suits for tlie foreclosure of railroad or telegraph mortgages, in order to raise money for repairs, or to defray operating expenses,^ or to discharge claims having an equitable preference to tliat of the party at whose instance the receiver was appointed,^ or to restore to the rightful owners so much of the income as the receiver has improperly applied to the foregoing purposes.^ In a few cases, receivers have been author- ized thus to borrow money in order to complete the construction of railroads, and save from forfeiture land grants and municipal subscriptions.'^ Certificates have been issued to pay interest upon a divisional mortgage prior to that to foreclose which the suit was brought.*^ Where the net earnings of a railroad are sufficient to defray current expenses, the court will not authorize the issue of receivers' certificates merely for the sake of paying interest upon the mortgage under foreclosure." It has been said to be doubtful whether the court has the power to authorize a receiver to issue car-trust certificates secured by a lien upon the cars which arc thus bought, and payable in ten annual instalments.*^ An order authorizing the issue of receivers' certificates to pay '• wages and freights due and to become due," does not authorize § 247. 1 Meyer v. Johnston, 53 Ala. ingB.. R. Co., 7 Fed. R. 377; SkidJy r. 237 ; Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 7U ; Atlantic, M. & O. R. R. Co., 8 Hughes, Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146 ; :Milten- 320. berger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 U. S. * Central Trust Co. r. Wabash, St. L. 286; Stanton v. Ala. & Chattanooga Ry. & P. Ry. Co., 2o Fed. R. 803. Co., 2 Woods. .500; s. c. 31 Fed. R. 585 ; s Kennedy r. St. Paul & P. R. R. Co., Kennedy u- St. Paul & P. R. R. Co., 2 2 Dill. 448 ; Miltenberger v. Logansport Dill. 448 ; Hoover v. Montclair & Green- Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 286, 294, 205. See also wooil Lake R. R. Co , 29 N. J. Eq. 4 ; Smith v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 25, 29. Coe V. jSf. J. Midland Ry. Co., 27 N J. But see Investment Co. v. Ohio & N. W. Eq. 37 ; Union Trust Co. v. Illinois Mid- R. Co., .30 Fed. R. 48. land Ry. Co., 117 U. S. 434. c Skiddy i: Atlantic, Miss. & O. R. R. 2 Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734; Co., Hughes, 320, 341. Wallace i: Loomis, 97 U. S. 140 ; Miiten- ^ Taylor r. Phila. & Reading R. R. Co., berger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 9 Fed. R. 1. 286. 8 Taylor v. Phila. & Reading R. R. Co., ^ Miltenberger v. Logansport Rj'. Co., 9 Fed. R. 1. 106 U. S. 280 ; Taylor ?•'. Pliila. & Head- 426 EECEIVERS. [chap. XVII. the issue of a certificate to pay money advanced to pay wages by honoring " store orders." ^ The power of courts of equity to issue receivers' certificates is of modei-n origin,^*^ has been severely criti- cised,^^ and should be exercised with great reluctance. ^^ A judge who had never authorized the issue of a receiver's certificate, said : " AVhen the road cannot be kept running without its exer- cise, except to a limited extent, the safe and sound practice is to discharge the receiver, or stop running the road and speed the fureclosure." ^^ Without leave from the court, a receiver has no power to pledge the trust estate, nor to make a contract for a loan of money which will bind the estate ^* or even the proposed lender.^^ An order for the issue of receivers' certificates is usually granted only upon notice to all parties in interest.^*^ Those who have not received notice may move to set aside the order and to can- cel the certificates, if they act as soon as they learn what was done.i" A very short delay after knowledge that such an order lias been granted will estop a party from objecting to the validity of certificates issued in pursuance of it.^^ Receivers' certificates are assignal)le, Init not negotiable. ^^ It has been said that the power to issue them is a personal one which the receiver cannot delegate.^*^ Where a receiver issued a certificate to a person named therein as payee, for negotiation and sale, and the latter never paid over any money on account of it ; a purchaser of the 9 Fi.U'lity Ins. & Safe Deposit Co. v. is Smith v. McCullough, 104 U. S. 25, Slienaml(>:!h Iron Co., 42 Fed. R. 372, 377. 29. 1' Meyer r. Jolinson, 53 Ala. 237; Coe i« Ex parte Mitchell, 12 S. C. 83. But r. N. J. Midland My. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 37 ; see Miltenbcrgcr v. Logansport Ey. Co., Hoover v. Montclair & Greenwood Lake 106 U. S. 286, 2!.)7, 29S. Ey. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 4; Jerome v. Mc- ^^ Hervey v. 111. Midland Ry. Co., 28 Carter, 94 U. S. 734 ; Wallace v. Loomis, Fed. R. IG'.K 97 U. S. 146. 1^ Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 11 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 120, 100 U. S. 286; Union Trust Co. v. 111. 138; Credit Co. of London i'. Arkansas Midland Ry. Co., 117 U. S. 434. Cent. H. R. Co., 15 Fed. R. 40. i" Union Trust Co. of N. Y. v. Chicago 1-2 Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 140, & Lake Huron R. R. Co., 7 Fed. R. 513; 103; Shaw r. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. Stanton ;>. Ala. & C. R. R. Co., 31 Fed. R. 005, 012; Taylor v. Pliiia. & Reading 585 ; Turner r. Peoria & Springfield R. R. R. R. Co., 9 Fed. R. 1; Credit Co. of Co., 95 III. 131 ; Stanton r. Ala. &C. R. R. London r. Arkansas Cent. R. U. Co., 15 Co., 2 Woods, 506 ; s. c. 31 Fed. R. 585: Fed. R. 40. Central Nat. Bank v. Hazard, 30 Fed. R. -5 Caldwell, J., in Credit Co. of London 484. r. Arkansas Cent. K. \l. Co., 15 Fed. R. -^ Union Trust Co. of N. Y. r. Chicago 4G, 49. & Lake Huron R. R. Co., 7 Fed. R. 513. n Union Trust Co. v. 111. Midland Ry. Co., 117 U. S. 434. § 248.] ADVICE TO RECEIVEES. 427 certificate at much less thau par, who was unable to prove that the person from whom he bought it had paid anything therefor to the person named as payee, was not allowed to receive anything from the receiver on account of the same.'^^ The purchaser at a judicial sale made subject to the payment of receivers' certificates cannot contest their validity .^^ A receiver is personally respon- sible for a fraudulent statement in a certificate which he issues.-^ In at least one case, the court ordered the receiver to execute a mortgage to secure the receivers' certificates.^^ But, ordinarily, the order for the issue of the certificates provides that they shall constitute a lien upon the property superior to all prior incum- brances, which is sufficient.-^ In one case the order simply stated that the certificates should be payable out of the income of the property, and " be provided for by this court in its final order in said cause, unless paid by the receiver out of the income of said road as aforesaid." ^^ A receiver appointed in a suit for the fore- closure of a second railroad mortgage may be authorized to issue certificates constituting a prior lien to that of the first mortgage, ])rovided the mortgagor is in default as to that, and the first mort- gagee is a party to the suit.-' An order authorizing the issue of receivers' certificates is appealable to the Supreme Court of the United Statcs.^s § 248. Advice to Receivers. — Receivers may apply to the court for instructions and advice, both generally and in partic- ular cases. 1 " The value of such advice depends : If there are parties in interest, and they have their day in court, the advice may be decisive. But if the matter is ex parte the value of the advice depends largely upon the information and ability of the judge, and is probably binding only on the receivei-s, for the judge may change his mind on hearing full argument." ^ It has been -1 Union Trust Co. of N. Y. v. Clncago 26 Miltenberfjer v. Logansport Tiy. Co., & Lake Huron R. R. Co., 7 Fed. R. 513. lOG U. S. 286, 298. See Stanton v. Ala. & C. R. R. Co., 31 -'^ Miltenberger i'. Logan.<;port, Ry. Co., Fed. R 08.3 ; s. c. 2 Woods, 506. 106 U. S. 286. "-- Central Nat. Bank i». Hazard, .30 Fed. '-*< Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. Peti- R. 484 ; Central Trust Co. v. Slieffiold & tioner, 120 U. S. 206. B C. & I Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 526. § 248. 1 Frank r. Denver & R. G. Ry. -3 Bank of Montreal v. Tliayer, 7 Fed. Co., 2o Fed. R. 757 ; Ex parte Koelder, li. 622. 23 Fed. R. .529 : Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. -■' Jerome v. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734. i'. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 31 Fed. R. 2j poj. .J good form of an order and a 862. certifi(;:ite, see Kennedy c. St. Paul & P. 2 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas & P. R. R. Co., 2 Dill. 448. Ry. Co., 31 Fed. R. 862. 428 RECEIVERS. [chap. XVII. said, that from the nature of things the court cannot determine how many trains a receiver shall run,^ or select his employees,* although it may regulate his treatment of them.^ The court has, however, at a receiver's request, instructed him what rates to charge ; *" and has directed him not to ohey so much of a State statute as forbade a less cliarge for transport over that part of a railroad which competed with transportation by water, than over other })arts of the same length, the trafhc upon which was not affected by such competition, in a case where it was held that the charter of the corporation gave it a contract right to charge a reasonable rate, and that the statute was unconstitutional ; where the petition for instructions was filed a month before the- act went into operation.' When a railroad was in the hands of a receiver appointed in a suit to foreclose a mortgage, the court refused to entertain a petition by the mortgagor asking instructions as to the propriety of postponing a meeting of its stockholders, and permission to postpone tlie meeting.^ § 249. Litigatioxi by Receivers. — The Causes of action which a receiver can enforce are of two kinds, — those which belonged to the estate of which he has charge before it was entrusted to him, and those which have accrued since his appointment. As has been said before, he cannot sue upon either without the leave of the court which appointed him.^ A suit upon a cause of action which belonged to the estate before his appointment is brought in the name of the legal owner of the estate;^ unless, as is not uncommon, the order authorizes the receiver to sue in his own name.-'^ In the former case, the person whose name is used is indemnified out of the fund for all costs to which he is thereby made liable.^ Receivers of corporations are usually authorized to sue in the name of the corporation.^ Costs recov- 3 Brewer, J., Treat, J. conciirrinor, in Cases, 88 ; Green v. Winter, 1 J. Cii. Central Trust Co. i-. Wabash, St. L. & P. (N. Y.) 60. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R. 803, 867. - Dick v. Struthers, 25 Fed. R. 103 ; * Brewer, ,J., in Frank v. Denver & R. Dick v. Oil- Well Supply Co., 25 Fed. R. G. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. R 757, 704. 105; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1977, * Frank r. Denver & R. G. Ry. Co., 23 1991. Fed. R. 757, 704. « Davis v. Gray, 10 Wall. 203. See e Ex parte Koehler, 23 Fed. R. 520. Frankle v. Jackson, 30 Fed. R. 398. * Ex parte Koeliler, 23 Fed. R. 529. * Daniell's Cii. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1991. 8 Taylor v. Phila. & Reading R. R. Co., & Frankle v. Jackson, 30 Fed. R. 398 ; 7 Fed. \\. 381. Davis v. Gray, l(i Wall. 203 ; Ilarland v. §249. 1 Wynne c. Lfird Xi'whoroufrli, Bankers' and Mercliants' Tel. Co., 33 Fed. 1 Yes. Jr. 1G4; s. c. 3 Brown Chancery R. 199. § 249.] LITIGATIOX BY KECEIVERS. 429 ered against a receiver in an action brouglit Ity him m his official capacity, are entitled upon the distribution of the fund to a priority over claims that existed against it before the receiver's appointment,^ In the conduct of litigation, as in every other pro- ceeding by him, a receiver is under the constant supervision of the court." He is not bound by a stipulation which is not ad- vantageous to the estate, made by himself or his counsel without the sanction of the court.^ He cannot waive a defense, whether technical or substantial.^ He cannot allow a set-off not au- thorized by law.^*^ He may be allowed to discontinue without costs an action honestly but erroneously begun by him.^i The rights of a receiver are in general no greater than those of the person whose estate he holds.^^ Thus, a receiver of an insolvent corporation appointed in a creditor's suit cannot " enforce a collateral obligation given to a creditor or to a body of credi- tors by a third person for the payment of the debts of the insol- vent;"^^ for example, a statutory liability of stockholders to creditors.^* It has, however, been said : " It is the settled doc- trine that the receiver of an insolvent corporation represents not only the corpoi-ation but also creditors and stockholders, and that in his character as trustee for the latter, he may disaffirm and maintain an action as receiver to set aside illegal or fraudulent transfers of the property of the corporation made by its agents or officers, or to recover its funds or securities invested or mis- applied." ^^ The defendant to an action by the receiver of an insolvent's estate cannot set off claims against the insolvent which have been assigned to him since the application for the •J Camp V. Receivers of the Niagara 548; Arnoux v. Steinbrenner, 1 Paige Bank, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 283; Columbian (N.Y.), 82 Ins. Co. V. Stevens, .37 N. Y. 536 ; Locke 12 Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. R. 454, 457. V. Covert, 42 Ilun (49 N. Y. S. C. R ), But see Hart v. Barney & S. Manuf. Co., 484. 7 Fed. R. 543. 7 Van Dyck v. McQuade, 85 N. Y. 616 ; 13 Wallace, J., in Jacobson v. Allen, 12 McEvers v. Lawrence, Hoff. Ch. (N. Y.) Fed. R. 454. 175. " Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. R. 454. ^ Van Dyck v. McQuade, 85 N. Y. 610. ^^ Andrews, J., in Attorney-General v. 9 McEvers v Lawrence, Hoffman Ch. Guardian Mutual Life Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. (N. Y.) 172 ; Keiley v. Dusenbury, 10 J. 272, 275. See also Gillet v. Moody, 3 N. Y. & S. (N. Y. Superior Ct.) 288; 8. c. 77 479, 488; Talmage v. Pell, 7 N. Y, 328; N. Y. 597 ; "Van Dyck I'. McQuade, 85 N. Whittlesey v. Delaney, 73 N. Y. 671; Y. 616. National Trust Co. v. Miller, 83 N. J. Eq. I'' Van Dyck v. McQuade, 85 N.Y. 610. 155, 158 ; Jacobson v. Allen, 12 Fed. R. '1 St. Jolm V. Denison, 9 How. Pr. 454, 456. {N. Y.) 343 ; Reeder v. Seeiy, 4 Cowen, 430 RECEIVERS. [chap. XVIL receiver's appointment.^^ A receiver has no absolute right to sue in the courts of a sovereignty foreign to tliat from which he holds his authority.i^ He may sue in a foreign court upon a judg- ment which he has recovered in the court which appointed hini.^^ By comity he is usually allowed to sue in a foreign court,^^ unless by so doing he would intej^fere with a preference given to domestic creditors by the laws or pu])lic policy of the State wherein he brings the action.-'^ In this respect, it seems, that a court of the State within which a Federal court is held is considered as foreign to the latter, at least when sitting in bankruptcy .21 A substituted trustee can, however, sue in a foreign jurisdiction, even though, when the court apj^ointed him, it I'equired him to give a bond and to account to itself in the same manner as a receiver.-^ It has been said, that " where property, in the possession of a third person, is claimed by the receiver, the com})lainant must make such person a party by amending the bill, or the receiver must proceed against him by suit in the ordinary way." -^ Otherwise, a receiver is especi- ally favored in the enforcement of causes of action arising after his appointment. He can, upon motion or petition in the suit wherein he is appointed, obtain injunctions to prevent disobedi- ence to conti-acts made with him,^* or prevent interference with property in his possession,--^ whether the person enjoined is a party to the suit or not. In nearly every case interference with a receiver in the discharge of his duties is a contempt of court, even when no injunction expressly forbidding it has been issued.^^ 16 7,u-fi Van Allen, 37 Barb. (N.y.) 225. ham v. Luddington, 12 Blatchf. 237; 231 ; Van Dyck v Qnade, 85 N. Y. GIO. Olney v. Tanner, 10 Fed. R. 101. " Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322 ; Brig- -i Olney v. Tanner, 10 Fed. K. 101. But ham I'. Luddington, 12 Blatchf. 237 ; see Clianibers v. M'Dougal, 42 Fed. R. Olney v. Tanner^ 10 Fed. R. 101 ; Hazard 604, 696. r. Durant, 19 Fed. R. 471, 476 ; Holmes r. -Glenn v. Soule, 22 Fed. R. 417; Sherwood, 16 Fed. R. 725 ; s. c. 3 Mc- Holmes v. Sherwood, 16 Fed. R. 725 ; s. c. Crary, 405. 3 McCrary, 405. 18 Wilkinson ?j. Culver, 25 Fed. R. 030. -^ Mr. Justice Swayne in Davis v. 19 Ex parte Norwood, 3 Biss. 504 ; Hunt Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 218 ; citing Parker v. V. Jackson, 5 Blatclif. 340 ; Cuykendall v. Browning, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 388 ; Noe v. Miles, 10 Fed. R. 342; Chambers r. M'- Gibson, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 513. Dougal, 42 Fed. R. 694, 696 ; Hurd v. -* Walton v. Johnson, 15 Simons. 352. Elizabeth, 41 N J. Law (12 Vroom), 1 ; ^5 Angel i'. Smith, 9 Ves. 335; Kerr on Bank v. McLeod, 38 Ohio St. 174. But Receivers, (2d American edition), 177- see Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322 ; Holmes 181. V. Sherwood, 10 Fed. R. 725. -'s Thompson v. Scott, 4 Dill. 508.- •■^1 Booth V. Clark, 17 How. 322 ; Brig- Davis i-. Gray, 16 Wall 203, 218. § 250.] DUTIES OF RECEIVERS. 431 For example, striking laborers have been adjudged guilty of contempt for attempting to prevent employ(^s of a receiver of a railroad from working for him.^' In one of these cases it was said : " If the testimony- makes it clear that when these parties went in such numbers, and conducted themselves in such a way, that while they simply said, ' Please get off this engine,' or ' We want you to get off this engine,' they intended to overawe, — intended, by the demonstrations which they made, to impress upon the minds of the engineers and train-men that personal prudence compelled them to leave, — why, then the government has made out its case. As my brother Treat said in a similar case,^^ that we had before us in St. Louis, a request, under these circumstances, is a threat. Every sensible man knows what it means, and courts are bound to look at things just as they are, to pass upon facts just as they are developed, to treat the conduct of men just as it is, and to impute to them that intention which their acts and their conduct disclose was their intention." -^ And in another case the same judge said : " Now, if a party engaged in a lawful undertaking unintentionally interferes with some of the officers of this court, and obstructs them in the discharge of their duties, this court is not tenacious of any mere prerogative, and would let such action pass almost without notice ; but where parties are engaged in that which is of itself unlawful, in doing that which they have no right to do, and in so doing obstruct the officers of the court although intending no contempt, that is a very different thing." ^^ It lias been held tliat in an action by the receiver of a national banking association against stockholders or debtors of the bank, the defendants cannot contest the validity of the appointment of the receiver. 31 § 250. Duties of Receivers. — A receiver holds the property of which he is given the care in trust for all persons interested therein, whether parties to the suit or not,i provided that they do not claim it by a title paramount to his own.^ His duties, 27 Secor V. Toledo, P. & W. R. R. Co., so Brewer, J., In re Doolittle, 23 Fed. R. 7 Biss. 613 i King v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co., 7 544, 547. Hiss. 529 ; In re Doolittle, 28 Fed. R. 544 ; 8i Young v. Wempe, 46 Fed. R. 3-54. United States v. Kane, 23 Fed. R. 748 ; § 250. i Davis v. Grav, 16 Wall. 208, In re Higgins, 27 F. R. 443. 217, 218; Central Trust Co. i-. Wabasli, ^s In re Doolittle, 23 Fed. R. 544, 548. St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 28 Fed. R. 863. -•' Rrewer, J , in United States c. Kane, - Davis v. The Duke of Marlborough, 23 Fed. R 748,751. 2 Swanst. 108. 118, i:;7, 138; Georgia 432 KECEIVERS. [chap, XVII. therefore, are substantially those of a trustee, although his pow- ers are usually more limited ; and the decisions concerning the duties and liabilities of trustees, executors, administrators, and assignees in bankruptcy and insolvency- are often of sei'vice in determining those of a receiver.^ A receiver's first duty after his appointment is to take possession of the property entrusted him by the order, using all the powers therein given him.* If any of it is under lease he should notify the tenants of his ap- pointment and demand that they attorn to him.° It seems that as soon as he has obtained possession of all the estate tliat con- sists of personal property he should make an inventory thereof.^ " Under some circumstances a receiver would be derelict in duty, if he did not cause property in his hands to be insured against fire." " xVll moneys that he receives he should either pay into court or deposit in a bank to the credit of himself as receiver, in a separate account from that for his private deposits.^ In remit- ting money from one place to another, he may do so by using the ordinary means, provided that he uses due care.^ He will be personally liable for all loss to the estate caused by his making any other disposition of the funds collected by him.^^ It is ad- visable for a receiver to take a receipt for all sums of money exceeding twenty dollars paid out by him. By so doing, and by using such receipts as vouchers, he will have less dilticulty in passing liis accounts.^^ A receiver should so keep the estate in his hands that it can be easily traced, delivered up, or ac- counted for.^'-^ He should, at least as often as once a year, account and pay into court all the money which he has received, together with the profits thereof, less all necessary or author- V. Atlantic & Gulf R. R. Co., 3 Woods, 377 ; Hinckley v. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. 434. 153, 157. '^ See, for example, Commonwealth v. ^ Knight ?;, Lord Plimoutli, 3 Atk. 480; Franklin Ins. Co., 115 Mass. 278; People s. c. 1 Dickens, 120. V. National Trust Co., 82 N. Y. 283. ^ Salway v. Salway, 4 Russ. 60; s. c. * Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1987. 2 R. & M. 215; Rowth v. Howell, 3 Ves- 5 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1987. 565. 'S Lewin on Trusts (6th ed., London, " Remsen v. Remsen, 2 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 1875), 184; England v. Downs, 6 Beav. 495, 501. 260. See also Williamson v. Wilson, 1 ^'^ Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland (Md.), Bland (Md.), 418, 430. 18; Hinckley v. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. ^ Thompson y. Phccnix Insurance Co., 153, 157; Attorney-General v. North 136 U. S. 287, 293, prr Mr. Justice Harlan. American Life Ins. Co., 89 N. Y. 94, 107, « Salway r. Salway, 4 Huss. 60; 8. C. 108. 2 R. & M. 215; Wren v. Kirton, 11 Ves. § 250.] DUTIES OF RECEIVERS. 433 ized expenditures, and such compensation as the court allows him.^^ If he receives a considerable sum of money during tlie in- terval between the regular times for his accounting, it seems that he should apply to the court for directions concerning its invest- ment;^* and in general, he should apply for instructions when- ever any unexpected event occurs of which advantage may be taken for the benefit of the estate, or which necessitates active measures to preserve the estate from loss.^^ Any profit which he may make from the estate belongs to the finally successful party, or to him to whom the surplus, after the payment of prior demands, is finally directed to be paid.^^ And if he uses the property over which he has been appointed in his private busi- ness, he must pay to the estate for its use.^' It is usually con- sidered improper for a receiver to retain as his counsel one who has previously acted in the suit for one of the parties.^^ But it is proper for a receiver ap])ointcd in a suit brought by a creditor for the satisfaction of his own dei)t alone, to retain the attorney of the complainant. -9 In one case, the court refused to allow the receiver to retain a relative who had previously |)ractised else- where, and had come into the circuit apparently for the purpose of acting as counsel for the receiver.^'' A receiver of a railroad is a common carrier,^^ and is guilty of impropriety, for which he may be removed, when he discriminates between different persons who use the railway.-- A receiver of a railway may be obliged to repay such sums of money as he has exacted from shippers of freight by unlawful discriminations against them.^^ A receiver cannot resign without the permission of the court which appointed him.-* A recent statute provides " that whenever in any cause 13 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1992 ; 20 B|,,ir v, St. Louis, H. &K. R. R. Co., Sliaw V. Rhodes, 2 Russ. 539. See § 256. 20 Fed. R. 348. 1* Shaw V. Rliodes, 2 Rnss. 539 ; Hicks ^^ Beers r. Wahasli, St. L & P. Ry. r. Hicks, 3 Atk. 274 ; Earl of Londsale Co., 34 Fed. R. 244. V. Church, 3 Brown Ch. C. 41. -- Handy v. Cleveland & M. R. R. Co., 15 Shaw V. Rhodes, 2 Russ 539; Hicks 31 Fed. R. 689. See Missouri Pac. Ry. r. Hicks, 3 Atk. 274 ; Earl of Lonsdale Co. r. Texas & P. My. Co , 30 Fed. R. 2; V Cliureh, 3 Brown Ch. C. 41. Cutting v. Florida Ry. & Nav. Co. (,Mal- 1^ Gibbs V. David, L. R. 20 Eq. 373. lory et ol., Intervenors), 43 Fed. R. 747. But see Whitesides v. Lafferty, 3 Humph. -•' Cutting v. Florida Ry. & Nav. Co. (Tenn.) 150. (Mallory et al. Intervenors), 43 Fed. R. 1" Battaile v. Fisher, 36 Miss. 321. 747. 18 Ryckman r. Parkins, 5 Paige (N. Y.), -* Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed) 2002. 543; Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. R. R. Co., See In tlie Matter of Jones, 4 Sandford's 20Fed. R. 348. Ch. (N. Y.) G15. i« Shainwald v. Lewis, 8 Fed. R. 878. VOL. I. — 28 434 EECEIVEKS. [chap. XVII. pending in any court of the United States, there shall be a re- ceiver or manager in possession of any property, such receiver or manager shall manage and operate such property according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State in which such property shall be situated, in the same manner that the owner or possessor thereof would be bound to do if in possession thereof. Any receiver or manager who shall wilfully violate the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall on conviction thereof be punished by a fine not exceeding three thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court." -^ § 251. Liability of a Receiver. — The liabilities of a receiver are, in many respects, analogous to those of a trustee. He is liable to all persons interested in the estate in his hands for any dam- age resulting to them from any breach of duty by him, whether intentionally ^ or through negligence.^ He is, however, free from liability to the parties to the suit on account of any act per- formed in obedience to an order of the court within its juris- diction, and not obtained by fraud, until the same has been vacated upon appeal or otherwise.^ A receiver's liability to strangers is much more limited than that of a trustee.* He is not liable personally upon a covenant entered into in his official capacity with the sanction of tlie court.^ A few cases seem, however, to imply that by retaining the possession for the use of the estate of property held under a lease, he would become per- sonally liable for the rent, where he had made no agreement to retain possession of the premises under the authority of the court.*^ A receiver, even when acting as a common carrier, is not liable personally for injuries caused by the negligence of his 25 25 St. at L. ch. 866, § 2, p. 4oG ; 24 « Commonwealth v. Franklin Ins Co., St. at L. cl). .37:3, § 2, p. 554. 115 Mass. 278 ; People v. National Trust §251. 1 Knitrli't r. Lord Plimoiith, 3 Co., 82 N. Y. 283; People ;•. Universal Atk. 480, 481 ; Kaiser v. Kellar, 21 Iowa, Life Ins. Co., .30 Hun (37 N. Y. S. C. K.), 95, 07 ; Koontz v. Nortliern Bank, 16 142. But see Central Trust Co. r. Wa- Wall. 100, 202, 203. basli, St. L. & P. lly. Co., 34 Fed. K. 259, 2 Skerrctt's Minors, 2 Hog. 192. 269; .s. c.46 Fed. R. 26; Brown i\ Toledo, 8 Holcombe v. Jolinson, 27 Minn. 3-53. P. & W. R. Co., 35 Fed. R. 444; Easton 4 See Taylor v. Davis, 110 U. S. 330, v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co , 38 Fed. R. 335. 784 ; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Chicago 6 Livingston v. Pettigrew, 7 Lansing & A. Ry. Co., 42 Fed. R. 6; s. c. 44 Fed. (N. Y.), 405; Newman v. Davenport, 9 R. 053; Kneeland i-. American Loan & Baxter (Tenn.), 538; Taylor c. Davis, 110 Trust Co., 136 U. S. 89; supra, § 243, U. S. 330, 335, Central Tru.st Co. r. Wa- p. 457, note 37. bash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 34 Fed. R. 259. § 251.] LIABILITY OF A RECEIVER. 435 employees, when lie exercised rcasoiialjle care in their selection^ The only remedy of the person thus aggrieved is by an action against the receiver in his oflicial capacity, seeking satisfaction out of the estate.® When the receiver has been discharged and the estate sold, or returned to its owner, he has no remedy ex- cept against the employee, unless one has been preserved for him by the court ;'-^ for the owner of the property is not liable for the negligence of the receiver's employees.^^ For this reason it is customary to insert in the order for the sale in bulk of prop- erty in the possession of a receiver, that the purchaser shall take it subject to all claims for injuries caused while it was managed by the recciver.^^ Such a provision, although not mentioned in the order for the sale, may be inserted as a condition in the order confirming the sale, and the purchaser, after taking posses- sion under the latter order, is estoj)ped from disputing the valid- ity of the condition.^- Such claims are usually enforced in the suit in which the receiver was appointed.^^ By the former prac- tice, following the old chancery rule, a receiver could not be sued without the permission of the court that appointed him.^^ Such an order was revocable, and might have been conditional. ^^ '-The leave to bring suit in any form reserves the right to the receiver to set up any defense he may have, which can be done by plea, answer, or demurrer." ^'^ The court might direct that service of process be made upon the resident agent of a non-resident rc- ceiver.i'^ A recent statute changes the practice as follows : " Every receiver or manager of any property appointed by any court of the United States may be sued in respect of any act or transac- 7 Kennedy i-. I. C. & L. R. Co., 3 Fed. " Farmers's L & Tr. Co. v. Central R. 97; Union Trust Co. v. Chicago & L. R. R. of Iowa, 2 McCrary, 181; .s. c. 7 H. Ry. Co., 7 Fed. R. 513, 516 ; Davis v. Fed. R. 5.S7 ; s. c. subsequently considered, Duncan, 19 Fed. R. 477; Farmers' L & 17 Fed. R. 758. Tr. Co. V. Central Railroad of Iowa, i- Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. r. Central 2 McCrary, 181; s. c. 7 Fed. R. 5.37. R. R. of Iowa, 17 Fed. R. 758. See, however, Kain i-. Smith, 80 N. Y. '3 Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Central 458. R. R. of Iowa, 17 Fed. R. 758. s Kennedy r. I. C. & L. R. Co., 3 Fed. '< Barton i: Barbour, 104 U. S. FJC. R. 97; Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. ?;. Central i5 Central Trust Co. r. Wabash, St. L. R. R. of Iowa, 2 McCrary, 181 ; s. c. 7 & P. Ry. Co., 20 Fed. R. 74. Fed. R. 537; Union Trust Co. ;•. C. cS: L. i« Davis v. Duncan, 19 Fed. R. 477, H. Ry. Co., 7 Fed. R. 518, 510. 48.!. See also Jordan v. Wells, 3 Woods, ^ Davis V. Duncan, 10 Fed. R. 477 ; 527. White V. Keokuk & 1). M. Uy. Co., 52 i" Central Trust Co. v. St. Louis A. & Iowa, 97. T. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. R. 420. ^^ Davis V. Duncan, 19 Fed. R. 477. 436 KECEivEES. [chap. xvn. tion of IjIs in carrying oit tlie business connected with such prop- erty, without the previous leave of the court in which such receiver or manager was appointed; but such suit shall be subject to the general equity jurisdiction of the court in which such receiver or manager was appointed, so far as the same shall be necessary to the ends of justice." ^^ In a recent case, Judge Caldwell thus construed this statute : " This court will not entertain the sugges- tion that its receiver will not obtain justice in the .State courts. The act of Congress gives the right to sue the receiver in the State court. Trust Co. v. Railway Co., 40 Fed. R. 426. The State court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, and its judgment against the receiver of this court is as final and conclusive as it is against any other suitor. The right to sue the receiver in the State court would be of little utility, if its judgment could be annulled or modified at the discretion of this court. It is open to the receiver to correct the errors of the inferior courts of the State by an appeal to the Supreme Court. But this court is not invested with appellate or su])ervisory juris- diction ovei' the State courts, and cannot annul, vacate, or modify their judgments. Randall v. Howard, 2 Black, 585 ; Nougue v. Clajjp, 101 U. S. 551. It is true the act of Congress provides that, when the receiver is sued, the ' suit shall be subject to the general equity jurisdiction of the court in whicli such receiver or manager was appointed, so far as the same shall be necessaiy to the ends of justice.' This clause of the act establishes no new rule, but is merely declaratory of the previously existing law. The receiver holds the property for the benefit of all persons hav- ing any interest in or lien upon it. The road is a unit. Broken into parts, or deprived of its rolling stock, its value would be greatly impaired. Suits, therefore, which seek to deprive the receiver of tlie possession of the property, and all process the execution of which would have that effect, are subject to the con- trol of the court appointing the receiver, so far as may be neces- sary to the ends of justice. The marshalling of the assets, and the orderly distribution of the fund or property according to the rights and equities of the several parties in interest, is not to be inter- fered with by the judgment or process of the State court. The 18 25 St. at L. ch. 866, § 3, p. 436; 24 tin, 480; ATissnuri Pac. ■Ry. Co. r. Texas St. at L. ch. 373, § 3, p. 554. See Croy V-.n-. My. Co (Sullivan intervenor), 41 r. Marshall, 21 Ohio Weekly Law BuUe- Fed. K. 310, 314. § 25 L] LIABILITY OF A RECEIVER. 437 judgment of tlie State court is conclusive as to the amount of the debt, but the time and mode of its payment must be controlled by the court appointing the receiver. The receiver should have the right to appeal from the judgments of the State courts. Ap- peals should not be taken for delav, but that justice may be done. When the receiver, in good faith, takes an appeal, he should not be required by this court to execute a siqyersedeas bond. The receiver is an officer of the court. His possession of tlie property is the {possession of the court. The property of the railroad stands as security for all the obligations of the court incurred in its operation. The receiver, no more than the judge of the court, should be required to become personally bound as a condition of his appealing, in good faith, from the judgment of a State court rendered against him in his official capacity. The coui-t will not part with the possession of the property until the obligations incurred by the receiver are paid, or proper provision is made to secure their payment. I>ow v. Railroad Co.^ 20 Fed. R. 265, 269. The objection of plaintiff's counsel to the clause of the order, as originally drawn, which required the receiver to execute siqyersedeas bonds in cases which he appealed, is sustained, and that clause will be stricken out." ^^ In another recent case Judge Hammond said, when charging a jury : '• This is what we call an * issue out of chancery,' and comes to us from the equity side of this court, in pursuance of a practice that submits to a jury in a court of law questions of fact that ordinarily, and but for the fact that the equity court is proceeding to exercise its jurisdiction in the premises, would be cognizable in a court of law. It has always been my judgment that a jury should pass upon such ques- tions as these, and, while it must be conceded that the court of equity has the power, without a violation of the constitutional right of trial by jury, to try tlicm in its own way, by the chancel- lor, or through a reference to a master, yet it is the practice of those courts to submit, upon api)lication of the parties, those questions of fact peculiarly cognizable in a court of law to that court for trial ; and this out of deference to the sensibilities of our race of people against the impnirment of their cherished institu- tion of ti'ial by jury, which in these States we sought to preserve by constitutional provisions, none of which are so sedulous to preserve it as the Federal constitution itself. Courts of equity J^ Central Trust Co. v. St. Louis, A & T. Ky. Co., 41 Fed. R. 5-51, 555-5.JG. 438 RECEIVEKS. [chap. XTII. accomplish their purpose of yielding to the parties this preference for a trial by jury, either by permitting them, in proper cases, to proceed against their receivers by a regular suit at law, or by the method adopted in this case, of sending to the court of law issues of fact to be tried by the jury ; and, it having seemed to this court, sitting in equity in this case, that recent legislation by Congress is a manifestation of its legislative will that this prefer- ence for trial by jury shall be acknowledged and favored by the courts of equity, if not a rebuke to them for the practice of deny- ing it in the exercise of their power to refer them to a master in equity, these issues have been certified to us for trial." ^^ In a later case, Judge Pardee said : " The third section of the act of 1887, quoted above, in terms provides that the suit so instituted in another court shall be subject to the general equity jurisdiction of the court in which the receiver is appointed, so far as the same shall be necessary to the ends of justice. The better opinion of the effect of said section is that it merely dispenses with leave of the court a|)pointing the receiver, as a ])rerequisite to instituting a suit against him in another court, and tliat a suit brought there- under has the same status, and a judgment rendered therein has the same effect, as if permission to sue had been regularly granted by the court a])pointing the receiver. However this may be, it is clear tliat when a judgment is so obtained, and is brought to the court of original jurisdiction to be i-anked as a lien upon the trust funds, such judgment is sul)ject to the general equity jurisdiction, and the duty of determining the rightfulness of the judgment, including whether the amount is just, is still imposed upon this court, as it would be if it had ordered an issue tried at law ; for this com"t must still, in the language of the statute, exercise a 'general equity jurisdiction, so far as the same shall be necessary to the ends of justice.' In the present case, the proceedings ])e- fore the master show tliat intervcnor offered evidence, in addi- tion to that contained in the recoi-d from the State court, tending to show the fact of injury, and the extent of damages, thereby waiving any right intervener may have had to claim that his judgment was conclusive upon the question of negligence and damages. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that in the present intervention the court may inquire as to whether or not the intervener has a lien, and, if so, the rank and amount thereof, s'' Alkiii V. Wabash Uy. Company, 41 Fed. R. 193, 194. § 251.] LIABILITY OF A EECEIVER. 439 and that in such inquiry the court is not concluded in any way by the verdict and judg-nient ])roduced from the district court of IJarrison County, Tex." -^ The latest decision on this statute was bv the Supreme Court of the United States, as follows : " It was not intended by the word 'his' to limit the right to sue to cases where the cause of action arose from the conduct of the receiver himself or his agents, but that with respect to the question of liability, he stands in place of the corporation. His position is somewhat analogous to that of a corporation sole, with respect to which it is held by the authorities that actions will lie, by and against the actual incumbents of such corporations, for causes of action accruing under their predecessors in office." ^^ Accord- ingly, it was held that the act applied to suits against a receiver for liabilities incurred l)y his predecessor in office.^^ A judgment in a suit thus i)rnsccuted can only be collected out of the property in the hands of the receiver in his official capacity. ^^ A receiver is personally liable to strangers for trespass,^'* .fraud,^° or other wilful act, although ])erformed under color of his office. So, if he by mistake, though honestly, takes j)OSsession of the property of another, he is personally liable.^*" The fact that he does so under authority of an order of the court will not justify him as against a person who was not a party to the suit or proceeding in which the order was granted.^' In all of such cases it seems that he can, independently of the statute, be sued without leave of the court which appointed him.^^ But when a receiver of a State court was sued in a Federal court for an infringement of a pat- ent, in obedience to an order of the State court the Federal court stayed its proceedings, to allow time for an application to the State court to modify its order.-^ A person who, without having been lawfully appointed, assumes to act as a receiver, has all the 21 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. i: Texas Pac. '^'^ Bank of Montreal v. Tliayer, 7 Fed. Ry. Co., Sullivan intervener, 41 Fed. R. R. 622. 311, ;n4, per Pardee, J. 20 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126, " McNulta V. Locliridge, 12 S. C. Rep. 134 ; Curran v. Craig, 22 Fed. R. 101. 11 ; 142 U. S. 1, per Mr. Justice Brown. 2" Curran r. Craisr, 22 Fe.l. R. 101. 23 Farmers'L.&Tr. Co. r. Central R.R. 28 Barton v. Barl.our, 104 U. S. 126, of Iowa, 2 McCrary, 181; s. c. 7 Fed. R. 134; In re Young, 7 Fed. R. 8.55; Bank 637 ; Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126 ; of Montreal v. Thayer, 7 Fed. R. 622 ; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas Pac. Ry. Curran v. Craig, 22 Fed. R. 101. But see Co. (Sullivan intervenor), 41 Fed. R. 310. Aston v. Heron, 2 Myl. & K. 390 ; Chalie 21 /;* re Young, 7 Fed. R. 855 ; Olney v. Pickering, 1 Keen, 749. V. Tanner, 10 Fed. R. 101 ; Barton v. 29 Curran v. Craig, 22 Fed. R. 101. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126, 134. 440 KECEIVEKS. [chap. XVII. liabilities of one duly appointed.^^ Where a statute imposed a penalty for a failure to alter a railroad bridge after notice by the Secretary of War, and such notice had been served upon a rail- way company over which a receiver was subsequently appointed, but no notice was served upon the receiver, it was held that neither the railway company nor the receiver was liable to the penalty, — the proper remedy having been for the Secretary of War to bring to the attention of the court the facts, and request the court to order an alteration of the bridge out of the funds in the receiver's hands.^^ It has been held that an action will not lie against a receiver for a personal injury sustained before his appointment.^^ The discharge of a receiver until revoked relieves him from all liability to those who had an opportunity to be heard upon the motion for his discharge.^^ § 252. Manner of applying for the Appointment of a Receiver. — It has been said that a court has no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver, unless a cause is pending ; ^ and that, therefore, one will never be appointed upon petition ^ when no suit has been begun, except in the case of lunatics.^ The grounds of the exception and the reasons why it docs not extend to infants * are not very clear. After a suit has been begun, however, a receiver may be appointed at any stage of it when a necessity is shown, — before appearance,'^ between appearance and answer,*^ between answer and decree,' at the decree,^ or afterwards, if the cause is still open.^ But a case of pressing necessity must exist to justify the appoint- ment of a receiver before answer.^*' An objection to the bill on account of multifariousness or a misjoinder of parties will not prevent the a[)pointmcnt of a receiver; nor will the pendency of 3^ Wood V. Wood, 4 Riiss. 558. * Ex parte Wliitfiold, 2 Atk. 315. 31 United States r. St. Louis. A. & T. ^ Tanfield r. Irvine, 2 Uiiss. 149. R. Co., 4o Fed. R. 414. <^ Vann r. Barnett, 2 Brown Cli. C. 158; "■2 Finance Co. of Pa. r. Cliarieston C. Metcalfe v. Pulvertoft, 1 V, & B. 180. & C. R. Co., 46 Fed. R. 508. '^ Kershaw v. Matliews, 1 Russ. 361. 35 Lehman v. McQuown, .'U Fed. R. ^ Osborne v. Harvey, 1 Y & C. N. R. 138 ; Davis v. Duncan, 19 Fed. R. 477. 116. § 252. 1 Anon., 1 Atk. 578. See § 200. ^ Cooke v. Gwjn, 3 Atk. 689 ; Attor- 2 Anon., 1 Atk. 578; E.r parte Whit- ney-General v. Mayor of (iaiway, 1 Moi- field, 2 Atl<. ;;i5, Mercliants' & M. Na- loy, 95 ; Bowman v. Bell, 14 Simons, 392. tional Bank r. Kent Circuit Judge, 43 i' Latham v. Chafee, 7 Fed. H. 525. Mich. 292. See Union Mut. Life Ins, Co. ;•. Union 3 Ex parte Raddiffe, 1 J. & W. 039; Mills Blaster Co., 37 Fed. R. 287. Anon., 1 Atk. 578 ; Ex parte Warren, 10 Ves. Gii2. § 252.] APPLYING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A EECEIVER. 441 a motion for leave to amend the bill,^^ unless indeed the proposed amendment would change materially the allegations showing the necessity for a receiver. The bill should lay the foundation for the appointment by stating the facts which show its necessity and propriety ,^^ and should contain a prayer for a receiver.^^ jf^ however, a state of facts subsequently arise making the appoint- ment necessary, it may probably be made without an amendment of the original or the filing of a supplemental bill.^'^ The appli- cation for a receiver should be supported by evidence showing that the appointment is necessary .^^ If the application is made before decree, the affidavits should be founded upon the allega- tions in the bill.'^ If statements not founded on allegations in the bill and alleging facts which existed and were known before the bill was filed, are introduced into the affidavits, it seems that the court will not consider them ; ^' and even if, where the case made by the bill fails, sufficient ground for a receiver is confessed in the answer, it seems that a receiver would be denied the plain- tiff, at least until he had amended his bill.^^ After an application for a receiver has been once denied, a second application supported by the same papers will rarely be granted. ^^ The former rule was that, after answer, a plaintiff when moving for a receiver could only rely upon the admissions in the answer ;''^'^ but now a sworn answer is given upon such a motion little more effect than an ordinary affidavit, and may be contradicted by affidavits in sup- port of the bill.^^ The appointment is usually only made upon notice, and is very rarely granted ex parted Less than one day's notice has been held to be insufficient.-^ A receiver may, " Barnard v. Darlin<,', 1 Barb. Cli. ^^ Cremen v. Ilawkes, 2 Jones & LaT. (X. Y.) 70. (J74 ; Kerr on Keceivers (2d Am. ed.), 12 Tonilinson i: Ward, 2 Conn. ?,9Q; 154. Verplanck r. Mercantile Ins. Co., 2 Paige ^^ Fenton ?-•. Lumberman's Bank, Clarke (N. Y.), 4:38. But see Hottenstein v. Ch. (N. Y.) 3fiO. Conra.l, U Kan. 4:]5. -'» Daniell's Cli. Pr.(2.] Am. ed.) 1D7G. 1-^ Kule2L Bat see Osborne f. Harvey, See Goodman r. Whitcomb, 1 J. & W. 1 Y. & C. N. R. 116. 589; Kershaw v. Matliews, 1 Uiiss. 301. " Malcolm v. Montgomery, 2 Molloy, -i Allen v. Tlie Dallas & Wichita R. R. 500; Hottenstein r. Conrad, 9 Kan. 4;)."). Co., :] Woods, 316, 332. 15 Middleton r. Dodsvvell, 13 Ves. 200 ; ^- Blondheim i: Moore, 11 Md. .305; Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 154. People v. Norton, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 17 ; 16 Dawson r. Yates, 1 Beav. 301, 306 ; Sandford o. Sinclair, 8 Paige (X. Y.), 373; Cremen v. Ilawkes, 2 .Tones & LaT 674; Miltonberger i\ Logansport Ry. Co., 106 Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 154. U. S. 280. " Dawson v. Yates, 1 Beav. 301, 300 ; -■' St. Louis, K. C. & C. Ry. Co., v. Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 154. Dewees, 23 Fed. R. G91. 442 EECEIVEKS. [chap. XVII. however, be appointed ex parte, if that is the only way to pre- serve the property from destruction or serious injury, or removal beyond the jurisdiction of the court.-^ It has been said that a receiver of tlie assets of a railroad company will rarely be ap- pointed in a suit to wliicli no stockholders or bondholders are actually parties.^^ Where the officer of a corporation who had been served with notice of a motion for the appointment of a receiver fraudulently concealed that fact from his associates, and did not oppose the motion, although no collusion with the plaintiff was shown, a motion to vacate the appointment was entertained.^^ A delay of one month after knowledge of the appointment of a receiver, who had expended in the improvement of the property money furnished him by otliers, was held such acquiescence as to estop a party from moving to vacate the order of appointment for irregularity because granted withotit notice to him.^' Except in an extraordinary case, a receiver will not be appointed over property in the possession of a stranger to the suit.-^ § 253. Who may apply for the Appointment of a Receiver. — A receiver is usually apjiointed uj)on tlie ajtplication of the ])lain- tiff. Before a decree it seems that one defendant cannot move for a receiver,^ unless he has filed a cross-bill praying for one.''^ After a decree, however, he may, in a proper case, obtain a re- ceiver of the property of a co-defendant upon petition,^ but not usually over the property of tlie plaintiff without a cross-bill.* § 254. Manner of the Appointment of a Receiver. — By the Eng- lish practice, which was followed in New York before the passage of statutes altering it, wlien an application for the appointment of a receiver was granted, the selection of the receiver was re- '^ Gibson v. Martin, 8 Paige (N. Y.), §253. i Kobinson r. Iladley, 11 Beav. 481 ; Johns t). Johns, '2.?> Ga. 31 ; Triebcrt 614 ; Leddel's E.x'r v. Starr, 19 N. J. Eq. V. Burgess, 11 Md. 452; Gibbons v. Main- (4 C. E. Green) 150. But see Sargant c waring, 9 Simons, 77 ; Miltenberger v. Keail, L. R. 1 Ch. D. GOO ; Henshaw v. Logansport liy. Co., 106 U. S. 286. Wells, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) -568. 25 Overton v. Memphis & L. R. R. Co., - Grote v. Bury, 1 W. R 92 ; Robinson 10 Fed. R. 860. But see Central Trust Co. v. Hadley, 11 Beav. 614 ; Kerr on Receiv- V. Texas & St. L. Ry. Co., 24 Fed. R. 15:1 ers (2d Am. ed.), 153, 154. 2« Allen V. Tiie Dallas & Wichita R. R. ^ Barlow v. Gains, 8 Bcav. 329 ; Ililes Co., 3 Woods, 316. '•• Moore, 15 Beav. 175; Kerr on Receiv- 2- Allen V. The Dallas & Wichita R. R. ers (2d Am. ed.), 154. Co., 3 Woods, 316. •• Grote v. Bury, 1 W. R. 92 ; Robin- 2« Scarles v. The Jacksonville, Rensa- son r. Hadley, 11 Beav. 614 ; Kerr on Re- ooln, & Mobile R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 621. ceivers (2d Am. ed.), 153, 154. See also Davis v. Gray, 10 Wall. 203, 218. § 255.] WHO SHOULD BE APPOINTED RECEIVER. 443 ferred to a master in cliaucciy, whose action was subject to the confirmation of the court. ^ The same master usually exercised supervision over contracts made by the receiver and the adjust- ment of his compensation.^ In the Federal courts, however, it is the customary practice for the judge to appoint and often to supervise a receiver himself, without the aid of a master, except when the accounts are passed.'^ § 255. Who should be appointed Receiver. — As a general rule no one should be appointed receiver of property who has any interest therein,^ or is in any way connected with the litigation in the course of which the appointment is made,^ or is nearly related to,^ or is in the employ of any of the parties thereto,* or wlio, if he should receive the appointment, would occupy two inconsistent jiositions;^ nor a person who is not familiar with the management of similar property,^ and able to give sufficient attention to the management of his trust." Thus a stockholder,^ officer, or director^ of a corporation will very rarely be appointed a receiver of its assets ; nor a party ,^'^ or solicitor,^^ or the son or brother of a party ^^ to a cause, over property which is the sub- ject of the litigation. Nor should the next friend of an infant, whose duty it is to protect his interest, be appointed receiver § 254. ^ Creuze )'. Bisliop of London, Dickens, 687 ; Tliomus v. DMwkin, 1 Ves. Jr. 4o2 ; In re Eiigle Iron Works, 8 Paiije (N. Y.), 385; High on Receivers, § 90; Diiniell's Cli. Pr. (2(1 Am. e(L) 1976. - Tliornliill r. Tliornhill, 14 Simons, 600 3 Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 286 ; Buck v. Piedmont & Ar- lington Life Ins. Co., 4 Fed R. 849; Frank v. Denver & R. G. Ry. Co., 28 Fed. R. 757. But see Taylor v. Pliila. & Head- ing R. R. Co., 7 Fed. R. 379 ; s. c. 9 Fed. R. 1 ; Cowdrey i'. Railroad Co., 1 Woods, 331, 341. § 255. 1 Wiswell v. Starr. 48 Me. 401. 2 Bakery. Backus, 32 111. 79; Garland V. Garland, 2 Ves. Jr. 137. 3 Williamson v. Wilson, 1 Bland (Md.), 418. * Baker v. Backus, 32 111. 79 ; Attor- ney-General r. Bank of Columbia, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 511 ; Buck r. Piedmont & Arling- ton Life Ins. Co., 4 Fed. R. 849. ' Stone r. Wisliart, 2 Madd. 61; Ex parte Fletcher, 6 Ves. 427. •^ Lupton V. Stephenson, 11 Ir. Eq. 484. " Wynne v. Lord Nevvborough, 15 Ves. 283 ; G'ibbs v. David, L. R. 20 Eq. 373. 6 Wiswell y. Starr, 48 Me. 401 ; Atkins V. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R. 161. y Attorney-Goneral v. Bank of Colum- bia, 1 Paige "(N. Y.), 511 ; Buck v. Pied- mont & Arlington Life Ins. Co., 4 Fed. R. 849 ; Atkins v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. R. 161 ; Baker v. Backus, 32 111. 79 ; Finance Co. of Pa. v. Charleston C. & S. C. R. Co., 45 Fed. R. 436. ^^ Wilson V. Greenwood, 1 Swanst. 471 ; Finance Co. of Pa. >: Charleston C. & S. C. R. Co. 45 Fed. 436. 11 Baker v. Backus.. 32 111. 70; Garland V. Garland, 2 Ves. Jr. 137 ; Finance Co. of Pa. V. Charleston C. & S. C. R. Co., 45 Fed. R. 4-36. 1-^ Williamsons. Wilson. 1 BInnd (Md.), 418 : Taylor r. Oldham. Jac. 527. But see Shainwald v. Lewis, 8 Fed. R. 878. 444 RECEIVERS. [chap. XVII. over his estate ;^^ nor an active trustee over the trust estate,^^ although a mere dry trustee may be thus appoiuted.^^ Nor should a master in chancery, whose duty it is to pass receivers' accounts, be appointed a receiver ; ^^ nor should a solicitor who docs not understand the management of machinery be appointed receiver over a manufacturing establishment.^^ Nor should a person be appointed receiver who lives at a great distance from the es- tate over which a receiver is desired, and is actively engaged in another employment.^*^ It has also been said in England, " that the receiver-general of taxes for a county cannot be ap})ointed a receiver ; for having given, as such, security to the crown, if he were to become indebted to the crown and to tlie estate, the crown might, by its prerogative process, sweep away all his property." ^^ And Lord Eldon held that a peer could not be a receiver, because, '' in many instances, a receiver may be com- mitted." ^ The court may, however, under very special circum- stances appoint as receiver a trustee,^^ or a person interested in the subject of the suit,^- or even a i)arty to the suit,--^ or his near relation.2^ This, however, will rarely be done unless by consent, or possibly when it clearly appears to be for the interest of all concerned ; ~'^ and in such a case the receiver is usually oljliged to act without compensation if he accepts the trust.-*^ When a party to the cause is appointed receiver in it, he does not thereby lose his privilege of acting as party .2' It has been held in Ten- nessee, that no one, not even a clerk of the court, can be made 13 Stone V. Wisliart, 2 Madd. (54. Kerr on Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 136- 1' Sutton V. Jones, 15 Ves. 581 ; v. 10'.». Jolland, 8 Ves. 72. -- Hoffman v. Dmiean, 18 Jur. 6!); ^^ Sutton V. Jones, 15 Ves. 581. Powys v. Blagrave, 18 Jur. 4U2 ; Kerr on 1^ Ex jxirtc Fletcher, 6 Ves. 427. Receivers (2d Am. ed.), 136. 1^ Lupton V. Stephenson, 11 Jr. Eq 484. -■^ Wilson y. Greenwood, 1 Swanst. 471 ; 18 Wynne r. Lord Newborough, 15 Ves. Blakeney v. Dufaur, 15 Beav. 40 ; Robin- 283. son L\ Taylor, 42 Fed. R. 803, 812. 19 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1973. -< Shainwald v. Lewis. 8 Fed. R. 878. See Attorney General v. Day, 2 JLadd -■' Atkins r. Wabasli. St. L. & R Ry. 246, 254. " Co., 29 Fed. R. 161 : Kerr on Receivers •■^^ Attorney-General v. Gee, 2 V. & B. (2d Am. ed.), 136-139. 208. -'' Wilson v. Greenwood, 1 Swanst. 471, ■2' Sykes v. Hastings, 11 Ves. 363; Sut- 483 ; Blakeney r. Dufaur, 15 Beav. 40; ton V. Jones, 15 Ves. 584; Gardner v. Hoffmann r. l)un: Shaftoe, 7 Ves. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2(1 Am. ed.) 1934, 1935. 171 ; Street v. Street, 1 T. & R. 822 ; Dan- § 262. i Daniell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) iell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 192G, 1927. 1933; Beames on Ne E.xeat, 1-20. 1" Graham v. Stucken, 4 Blatchf. 50; - Flnck v Holm, 1 J. & W. 405; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1931. Daniell's Cii. Pr. (2d Am. cd.) 1933, 11 Graham v. Stucken, 4 Blatchf. 50. 1934. 1- Graliam r. Stucken, 4 Blatchf. 50. ^ DeCarriere ;•. DeCalonne, 4 Ves. 577 ; 13 Wiiitehoiise v. Partrid^re, 3 Swanst. Mitchell r. Bunch, 2 PaitiO, (N. Y.), OOG. 365, 377; Seymour v. Hazard, 1 J. Ch. * Moore v. Hudson, Mad. & Geld. 218; (N. Y.) 1. Moore v. Mcynell, 1 Dickens, 30 , Daniell's » Anon , 1 Atk. .521. Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 101. i'' Wiiitehousc v. Partridfre, 3 Swanst. ^ Raynes r. Wyse, 2 Meriv. 472 ; Dan- S.,i5, 377; Seymour v. Hazard, 1 J. Ch. iell's Cli. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1930, 1931. ^N. Y.) 1. '^ Constitution, Article I, § G. § 263.] PRACTICE IN OBTAINING THE WRIT OF NE EXEAT. 457 any domestic or domestic servant of any such minister, is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are distrained, seized, or attached, sucli writ or process shall be deemed void." When- ever any writ or process is sued out in violation of this statute, eveiy person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as party or as attorney or solicitor, and every officer concerned in executing it, is deemed a violator of the laws of na- tions and a disturber of the public repose, and is liable to impris- onment for not more than three years, and a tine at the d^^ [^ liay been said by Lord Eldon, that where the plaintiff has sworn positively to the debt and to the defendant's 16 Beanies on Ne Exeat, 2.3, 24. Wootl, T. & R. 3-12, 340; Daniell's Ch. Pr. 1" Beames on Ne Exeat, 9.'3. (2d Am. cd.) 1943. 18 Pannell v. Tayler, T. & R. 06, 100. ^3 Daniell's Oh. Pr. (2d Am ed.) 1945 ; 19 Pannell i: Tayler, T. & R. 90, 100. Impey on Sheriffs (2d ed.), 5.']2. 2'5 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1943. -* Gcrnon v. Bopcaline, 2 Wash. 1.30; '^i Beames on Ne Exeat, 9.5. Grant v. Grant, 3 liuss. 598, GU2. 22 Beames on Ne Exeat, 90 ; Boehm v. 460 THE WRIT OF NE EXEAT REPUBLICA. [CHAP. XVIII. declarations of his intention to go abroad, the defendant's unsup- ported affidavit will be insufficient to contradict tliis.^^ If the writ is discharged, another writ may issue upon a new affidavit.'^^ Upon payment into court of enough to satisfy the plaintiff's claim, the writ will always be discharged.^^ The writ may be discharged if the defendant gives sufficient security to satisfy the court/2^ The security usually required is conditioned that the defendant abide by the process and decree of the court ; ^^ but security that the defendant abide by and perform the process and decree of the court may be required.^*^ The discharging order usually enjoins the defendant from bringing an action of false imprisonment ; ^^ and the prosecution of such an action may be restrained by a subsequent order.^s If the court considers the writ improperly issued, it may direct a reference to a master to ascertain the damages sustained by the defendant, and direct the payment to him of the amount found due by the sureties upon the plaintiff's undertaking.'^'^ An amendment of the bill which does not materially alter the case does not discharge the writ.^^ 25 Amsinck v. Barklay, 8 Vcsey, 594, 29 Qriswold v. Hazard, 141 U. S. 260, 597; Jones i-. Aleplisin, 16 Vesey, 470, 281. 471. ao Griswold v. Hazard, 141 U. S. 260, ^6 Gernon v Boecaline, 2 Wash. 130. 281. 2" Evans v. Evans, 1 Ves. Jr 96. 3^ Darley v. Nlcliolson, 2 Dr. & War. 86. 28 Roddam v. Hetlierington, 5 Ves. 91, ^2 Darley v. Nicholson, 2 Dr. & War. 86. 95 ; Boon v. Collingwood, I Dickens, 115; ^^ Sichel v Raphael, 4 L. T. n. s. 114. Beanies on Ne Exeat, 98, 99. 3* Grant i'. Grant, 5 Russ. 189. § 265.] ADMISSIONS. 461 CHAPTER XIX. EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. § 264. Evidence in General. — The Revised Statutes provide that " the mode of proof in the trial of actions at common law shall be by oral testimony and examination of witnesses in open court, except as hereinafter provided ; " ^ and " the mode of proof in causes of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction shall be according to rules now or hereafter prescribed by tlie Supreme Court, except as herein specially provided for." ^ Evidence con- sists of admissions upon the record, documents, and the testi- mony of witnesses. No objection can be taken, on an appeal to the Supreme Court, to the admissibility in evidence of any depo- sition, deed, grant, or other exhibit found in the record, unless the record shows that objection was taken thereto in the court below.3 The Federal courts take judicial notice of all public statutes, whether State or Federal,* of public statutes of a former government exercising jurisdiction over the same territory,^ and of executive regulations authorized by acts of Congress which have the force of statutes.^ They will not take judicial notice of the filing by a railway company of the map of its route with the Secretary of the Interior." § 265. Admissions. — Admissions upon the record are either actual or constructive. Actual admissions are made either in the pleadings or by agreement. Every statement of a fact ma- terial to the issues made in the pleadings or other documents used in support of the claim of any party to a suit, who is of full age, whether sworn to or not,^ may be used as evidence against him upon the hearing. The filing of the general replication does §■264. 1 U. S. R. S. § 861. See Benrrls- « United States i-.Willuims, 6 Mont 379. ley f. Littell, 14 Blatchf. 102; Ex parte "^ McKeoin r. Northern Pac. R. Co., 45 Fisk, 113 U. S. 713. Fed. R. 464, 467. •^ U. S. R. S. § 862. See Blease v. § 265. i Smith v. Potter, 3 Wis. 432. Garlington, 5)2 U. S. 1. An admission in an unverified pleading 8 Supreme Court Rule 13. in another suit which was signed only by * Owings V. Hull, 9 Pet. 607 ; Gorm- an attorney, cannot be admitted in evi- ley V. Bunyan, 138 U. S. 623, 635. dence. Delaware County Com'rs r. Die- 5 U. S. V. Perot, 98 U. S. 438. bold S. & L. Co., 133 U. S. 399. 462 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. not waive the right to rely on admissions in an answer or plea.^ The statement by a defendant that he believes, or is informed and believes, that a certain fact occurred, is treated as an ad- mission, unless coupled with some clause to prevent its being so considered.^ For it is a rule in equity that what the defendant believes, the court will believe.'^ This rule, however, does not apply to the statement of a defendant that he believes that a will was executed as charged in the bill.^ Admissions in an answer made on behalf of an infant cannot be used against him,^ unless he adopts the answer after he has reached his majority.'^ An admission of one defendant, whether in his answer or other- wise, is not evidence against any of his co-defendants,^ who is not his partner 9 or who docs not derive his title from him.^*^ The parties to a suit may, by an agreement signed by themselves or their solicitors or made in open court by their counsel, admit any fact as proven, or allow testimony to be taken in any man- ner, unless they thus commit an act repugnant to public policy. ^^ Xo agreement between counsel will be enforced unless reduced to writing or made in open court.^^ § 266. Constructive Admissions. — Constructive admissions are those which are implied by law from a party's act. A construc- tive admission is made by the plaintiff when he files no general replication, but sets the cause down for a hearing upon bill and answer only ; or when, in his bill, he does not expressly waive an answer under oath. In the former case, he admits for the purposes of the suit that all the allegations in the answer are 2 Cavender !'. Cavender, 8 Fed R. G41. " Field v. Holland, 6 Cranch, 8; Os- « Potter y. Potter, I Ves. Sen. 274 ; Hill born v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. V. Binney, 6 Ves. 738. 738. 4 Potter V. Potter, 1 Ves. Sen. 274 ; Hill ^^ Barker v. Dixie, Reports temp. Hard- V. Binney, 6 Ves. 738. wicke, 252; Owen v. Thomas, 3 M. & K. 5 Potter V. Potter, 1 Ves. Sen. 274; 353,357; Nixon f. Albion Marine Ins. Co., Davies v. Davies, 3 DeG. & Sm. 698. L. R. 2 Ex. 338. For a case where the •> Leigh V. Ward, 2 Ventris, 72 ; Ec- court refused to relieve a party from cleston V. Petty, Carthew, 79 ; Savage v. a stipulation, see McNeill v. Town of Carroll, 1 Ball & Beatty, 548, 553; Wrot- Andes, 40 Fed. R. 45. As to the power of tesley f. Bendish, 3 P. Wms. 235. See the next friend of an infant to stipulate, Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650,080. see Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650, ' Hinde's Ch. Pr. 422. 080. As to the power of a receiver to 8 Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Wheat, bind the estate by a stipulation, see su- 380; Clark's Executors v. Van Riemsdyk, pra, § 249. 9 Crancii, 163. ^' Evans v. State National Bank, 19 9 Crosse v. Bedingfield, 12 Simons, 35 ; Fed. R. 676 ; Lee v. Simpson, 42 Fed. R. Clark's Executors v. Van Riemsdyk, 9 434. Cranch, 153, lot). § 267.] DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN GENERAL. 463 true ; ^ in the latter, that all arc true which he cannot contradict by the testimony of two witnesses, or of a single witness with corroborating circumstances.^ This rule does not apply, however, unless tlie allegations in the answer are made positively.-^ Thus, a denial according to the defendant's recollection and belief is insufficient for this purpose.* So is an allegation upon infor- mation and belief.'^ By setting down a plea for argument the plaintiff admits the truth of the allegations of fact therein con- tained,*^ Constructive admissions are also made by a demurrer, a plea, or a default in pleading. A demurrer admits the truth of the allegations in the bill,' but not of conclusions of law tlicrein set fortli.^ A plea admits the truth of so much of the bill as it does not deny%^ A default by the defendant's failing to file a demurrer, plea, or answer to the bill within the time allowed for that purpose entitles the plaintiff to enter an order taking the bill as confessed by him ; whereupon the defendant is deemed to admit the truth of the allegations in the bill.^^ Formerly in England no extra-judicial admissions of a defendant could be given in evidence unless they had been charged in the bill ; but that rule probably would not now be followed here.^^ Other testimony also, which was of a kind likely to take a party by surprise, was formerly often excluded unless the pleadings called attention to it.^^ § 267. Documentary Evidence in General. — Documentary evi- dence consists of all those matters not contained in depositions or affidavits, which are submitted to the court in the shape of written documents. The rules regulating its admission are sub- stantially the same in equity as at common law} In equity, § 2m. 1 United States v. Scott, 3 Illinois M. & T. R. R. Co., 133 U. S. Woods, 334 ; Kennedy v. Baylor, 1 Wash. 200. (Va.) 1(!2. '' Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Mis- 2 Clark's Executors r. Van Rienisdyk, sonri Pacific Ry. Co., Ill U. S. 505, 522. 9 Crancli, 153, 160; Union Bank' of See § 106. Georgetown v. Geary, 5 Pet. 99, 110; ^^ Dillon i-. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430. See Seitz V. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580, 582 ; Vigel § 106. V. Hopp, 104 U. S. 441. 3 Farley r. Kittson, 120 U. S. 303. 8 Carpenter !'. Providence Washington ^'> Rules 18, 10. See §§ 103-104, ch. vii. Ins. Co, 4 How. 185; Taylor v. Lutiier, ii See § 50, and Smith v. Burnham, 2 2 Sumner, 228; Berry y. Sawyer, 19 Fed. Sumner, 612.; Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 R. 280. Story, 181 ; Story's Eq. PI. §§ 265 a. 4 Taylor v. Luther, 2 Sumner, 228. 12 See § 69, and Lang.lell's Eq. PI. § 60. 6 Berry i\ Sawyer, 19 Fed. R. 286. § 267. 1 Lake v. Philips, 1 Ch. Rep. 6 Burrell v. Hackley, .35 Fed. R. 833; 110; Stevens r. Cooper, 1 J. Cli. (N. Y.) Burrell v. Pratt, 35 Fed. R. 834 ; Beals v. 425, 429, and cases cited. 464 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [cHAP. XIX. however, such documents as merely require proof of their execu- tion or of the handwriting contained in them may be admitted in evidence at the hearing of the cause if accompanied by an affidavit of these facts, provided that an order, which is granted as of course, has been obtained and served upon the opposite side at least two days before.'-^ In some cases, the courts have permitted the proof of such documents by word of mouth under oath at the hearing, when their existence and execution was not denied by the answer.^ According to the old English practice, the adverse party had no right, in tbe absence of special circum- stances, to compel before the hearing the production of any exhibit, however it had been proved, — except, perhaps, when the deposition proving it had set it out verbatim ; nor even to inspect it, it being considered that a party should not before the hearing see the strength of the cause, or any deed, to |)ick holes in it.^ The practice in the Federal courts seems to be otherwise. It has been held there that, in equity and at common law, either party may upon motion supported by affidavit, which affidavit may be controverted, compel the other party to produce for his inspection on the trial or hearing any books or other documents material to the issues, which are in his opponent's possession or under his opponent's control.^ It has been held that such an order will not be granted when the production of the papers can be compelled by a subpoena duces tecum which has been served.^ When a party inspects a document which he has compelled his adversary to produce under a subpoena duces tecum, and then fails to offer it in evidence, his adversary may put it in evidenceJ The production of applications for patents which do not interfere with caveats may thus be compelled.^ When a party had filed an exhibit drawn in pencil, a motion requiring him to refile it drawn in ink was denied.^ A party is not entitled to a general in- spection of books and papers in his adversary's possession. In 2 Clare v. Wood, 1 Hare, 314. ^ Edi.son Electric Lifrlit Co. v. U. S. 3 Wood I'. Mann, 2 Sumner, 310 ; Nes- Electric Lifjlitinsj Co., 44 Fed. R 294, 300. mith V. Calvert, 1 W. & M. .34 ; Attorney- " Edison Electric Li<.Hit Co. ;•. U. S. General c. Pearson, 7 Simons, 290, .303 Electric Lifjlitin^' Co., 45 Fed. R. 55. ^ Pavers v. Davers, 2 P. Wms. 410. 8 Edison Electric Lisrlit Co. v. U. S. 6 Coit V. North Carolina Gold Amalga- Electric Lifjlitins Co., 44 Fed. R. 204 ; s. C. mating Co., 9 Fed. R. 577. Cf. U S. R. 45 Fed. R 55. But see Rule 15 of Patent S. § 724. ; and mfra, § 372. But see Office; U. S, R. S. §4902. Guyot V. Hilton, 32 Fed. R. 743 ; Colgate 9 Tubman v. Wason Manuf. Co., 44 & Comjjagnie Francaise, 23 Fed. R. 82. Fed. R. 429. § 268.] DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 465 the case of an inspection of books, the usual practice is to have all except the pages containing the material matter sealed up, and to have the inspection take place under the supervision of a master or commissioner. ^'^ In an action to recover a penalty, whether brought by a private individual or by the United States, and in a proceeding to enforce a forfeiture of property, the defend- ant or owner of the property seized cannot be compelled to pro- duce his books or papers or other articles of personal property for the inspection of the opposite party, and should such an inspec- tion be compelled, the judgment may be reversed upon that ground alone. ^^ It has been held that under a subpcKna duces tecum, a witness cannot be compelled to produce patterus of the casting of a stove, or anything except books and papers. '^ A de- fendant may be compelled to state, when called as a witness by the plaintiff, whether he has in his possession a machine claimed to be an infringement of the plaintiff's patent, although the plain- tiff has not previously made out a pt'ima facie case of infriuge- ment.^3 j^ ^ suit against the heir-at-law to establish the validity of a will, all the witnesses to the will who are alive, sane, and within the jurisdiction of the court, must be examined ; ^* aud the testator's sanity must be proved affirmatively.^^ This rule does not, however, apply to suits to establish the trusts of a will, or to appoint a new trustee, or in any other case when the validity of the will is not directly in issue. ^^ § 268. Federal Statutes regulating Admission of Documentary Evidence. — The Revised Statutes of the United States provide as follows concerning the admission of documentary evidence : " Copies of any books, records, papers, or documents in any of the executive departments, authenticated under the seals of such departments, respectively, shall be admitted in evidence equally witli the originals thereof." ^ The mode of authentication pre- i» Bobbins v. Denis, 1 Blatchf 2-38, 243. i^ Bootie c. Blundell, 19 Ves. 494 b, ^1 Johnson v. Donalds^on, 18 Blatchf. 505; Concannon r. Cruise, 2 Molloy, 332. 287; Boyd i- United States, 116 U. S. §268. i U. S. R. S § 8^2. See 13arney 616. See United States v. Denicke, 35 r. Sclmieider, 9 Wall. 248; Chadwick v. Fed. R. 407, 410. United States, 3 Fed. R. 750; Block v. 12 In re Sheppard, 3 Fed. R. 12. United States, 7 Ct. CI. 40(5 ; United States 13 Delamater r. Rcinhardt, 43 Fed. R. i-. Liddle, 2 Wash. 205, United States v. 76; per Lacombe, J. Contra, Celluloid Benner, Baldwin, 234; White r. St. Co. V. Crowe Co., U. S. C. C. 3d Circuit. Guirons, Minor (Ala.), 331 ; Cartlett v. " Bootler. Blundell, 19 Ves. 494 b, 505. Pacific Ins. Co.. 1 Paine, 594; Bleecker 15 Harris v. Ingledew, 3 P Wms. 91 ; v. Bond, 3 Wash. 529 ; Thompson v. Smith, Wallis I'. Hodgeson, 2 Atk. 56. 2 Bond, 320 ; Wetmore v. United States, VOL. 1,-30 466 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CIIAP. XIX. scribed by the statute must be strictly followed.^ The words, " papers or documents," mean only such as are made by an officer and an agent of the government in the discharge of his official duty ; and copies of such are not competent evidence unless it was the duty of the officer to file the^ originals.^ In the case of documents filed in the Treasury Department, an authentication under the seal of that department and the signature of the Secre- tary and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, will be suffi- cient.'^ If the officer having charge of tlie paper certifies that the copy is correct and the head of a department certifies to the officer's character, the paper is sufficiently authenticated, provided that the seal from the department is attached thereto.^ The original cancelled register of a lost vessel has been held to come within the statute.^ Accounts and papers filed in the office of the Quartermaster-General, may thus be proved.' In cases described in § 886 of tlie Revised Statutes, proof must be given in accordance with the provisions of that section.'^ The original papers may also be put in evidence.'' In cases where the govern- ment is a party, duly authenticated copies should be procured and the fees therefor paid, and a mere notice to produce the original is not sufficient.^*^ Papers which were a part of the archives of the late so-called "Confederate Government" must be proved by proper testimony .^^ The certificate of the Secretary of the Span- ish Governor of Florida is prima facie evidence of the existence of a grant of land.^^ "The volume of public documents, printed by authority of the Senate of the United States, coii^taining let- 10 Pet. 647; Wickliffe v. Hill, 3 Litt. ^ Thompson v. Smith, 2 Bond, 320. (Ky.) 3:30. See Crowell »•. Hopkinson, 45 N. H. 9. 2 Smiths. Uniteil States, 5 Pet. 291, 8 United State? v. Humasnn, 8 Fed. R. 300; Elock ;;. United States, 7 Ct. CI., 71. 406; Bleecker v. Boml, 3 Wash. 531, " Bruce r. Manchester & K. R. R.Co., United States v. HarriU, Mc, All. 243; 19 Fed. R. 342. Wickliffe v. Hill, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 330. 'f» Barney r. Sclineider, 9 Wall. 248 ; 3 Block I'. United States, 7 Ct. CI. 406. Chadwick r. United States, 3 Fed. R. 750 ; * Chadwicke y. United States, 3 Fed. United States v. Scott, 25 Fed. R. 470 ; R. 750; White i'. St. Guirons, Minor United States v. Beniier, Baldwin, 234; (Ala.), 3:;i. United States f. Perclmian, 7 Pet. 51; '^ Tiiompson v. Smith, 2 Bond, 320; Winn v. Patterson, 9 Pet. 663 ; James v. Stevens v. Westwood, 25 (Ala.) 716; Gordon, 1 Wash. 333. Crowell V. Hopkinton, 45 N. H. 9; Wet- " Chorbin v. United States, 6 Ct. CI. more v. United States, 10 Pet. 647. See 430. Wickliffe r. Hill, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 330. 12 United States v. Wiggins, 14 Pet. *' Cattlett I'. Specific Ins. Co., 1 Paine, 334 ; United States v. Acosta, 1 How. 612 ; See Bleecker v. Bond. 3 Wash. 29. 24. § 268.] PUBLIC RECORDS. 467 ters to and from various officers of state, communicated l)y the President of the United States to tlie Senate, is as competent evi- dence as the original documents themselves." ^^ " The design and meaning of this rule is not to convert in- competent and irrelevant evidence into competent and relevant evidence simply because it is contained in an official communi- cation. Had the officer been testifying under oath, such an as- sertion would have been excluded as inadmissible, upon the ground that the statement itself implied the existence of pri- mary and more original and explicit sources of information. The courts hold this rule which has been invoked to be limited to only such a statement in official documents as the officers are bound to make in the regular course of official duty. The statement of extraneous or indejiendent circumstances, however naturally they may be deemed to have a })lace in tlie narrative, is no proof of such circumstances, and is, therefore, rejected."^* " Copies of any documents, records, books, or papers in the office of the solicitor of the treasury, certified by him under the seal of his office, or, when his office is vacant, by the officer acting as solicitor for the time, shall be evidence equally with tlie origi- nals." i''^ "Every certificate, assignment, and conveyance executed by the Comptroller of the Currency, in pursuance of law, and sealed with his seal of oflfice, sliall bo received in evidence in all places and courts ; and all copies of papers in his office certi- fied by him and authenticated by the said seal, shall in all cases be evidence equally with the originals. An impression of such seal directly on the j)aper shall be as valid as if made on wax or wafer." '^ " Copies of the organization certificate of any national banking association, duly certified by the Comptroller of the Currency, and authenticated by his seal of ollicc, shall be evidence in all (iourts , and j)laces within the jurisdiction of the United States of tlie existence of the association, and of every matter which could be proved by the production of the original certificate." ^" A certificate is sufficient in the absence of any evidence that 13 Whiton r. Albany Ins. Co., 109 Mass. i" U. S. R. S. § 885; First National 30. Bank v. Kidd, 20 Minn. 234; Wasliington » United States v. Corwin, 129 U. S. County Nat. Bank v. Lee, 112 Mass. 521 ; 381, 386. Mercliants' Nat. Bank v. Glendon Co., 120 IS U. S. R. R. § 883. Mass. 97. i« U. S. R. S. § 884. 468 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. there is any other national bank of the same name at the same place.^^ " When suit is brought in any case of delinquency of a revenue officer, or other person accountable for public money, a transcript from the books and proceedings of the Treasury Department cer- tified by the Register and authenticated under the seal of the De- partment, or, when the suit involves the accounts of the "War or Navy Departments, certified by the Auditors respectively charged with the examination of those accounts, and authenticated imder the seal of the Treasury Department, shall be admitted as evi- dence, and the court trying the cause shall be authorized to grant judgment and award execution accordingly. And all copies of bonds, contracts, or other papers relating to, or connected with, the settlement of any account between the United States and an individual, when certified by the Register, or by such Auditor, as the case may be, to be true copies of the originals on file, and authenticated under the seal of the Department, may be an- nexed to such transcripts, and shall have equal validity, and be entitled to the same degree of credit which would be due to the original papers if produced and authenticated in court : pro- vided, that Avhere suit is brought upon a bond or other sealed in- strument, and the defendant pleads ^non est factum^ or makes his motion to the court, verifying such plea or motion by his oath, the court may take the same into consideration, and, if it appears to be necessary for the attainment of justice, may require the production of the original bond, contract, or other paper specified in such affidavit." ^^ This section applies to sureties as well as to principals.2^ It applies only to suits against persons accountable for public moneys as such.^^ " There are two kinds of transcripts which the statute authorizes the proper officer to certify. First, a transcript from the 'books and proceedings of the treasury'; and second, ' copies of bonds, contracts, and other papers, &c., which remain on file, and relate to the settlement.' Under the first head are included charges of moneys advanced or paid by the department to the agent, and an entry of items suspended, re- jected, or placed to his credit. Tlicsc all appear upon the books '" Wasliirifrton Co. Nat. Bank v. Lee, '■^"' United States v. Ganner, 19 Wall. 112 Mass. 621. 198. 1^ U S. R. S. § 880; Bechtel v. United 21 United States v. "Radowitz. 8 Rep. States, 101 U. S 597; U.S. r. Bell. Ill 2G3. See United States r. Griffith, 2 U. S. 477 ; U. S. v. Stone, 100 U. S. 525. Crancli, C. C. GG6. § 268.] OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS- 469 of the department. The decision made on the vouchers exhib- ited, and the statement of the amount, constitute, in part, the proceedings of the treasury. Under the second head, copies of papers, whicli remain on file, and which have a relation to the settlement, may be certified. In this case it is essential that the officer certify that the transcripts ' are true co{)ies of the originals which remain on file.' " -^ " An account stated at the Treasury Department which does not arise in the ordinary mode of doing business in that department, can derive no additional validity from being certified under the Act of Congress. Such a state- ment can only be regarded as establishing items for moneys dis- bursed through the ordinary channels of the department, where the transactions are shown by its books. In these cases, the officers may well certify, for they must have otBcial knowledge of the facts stated. But where moneys come into the hands of an individual, as in the case under consideration, the books of the treasury do not exhibit the facts, nor can they be officially known to the officers of the department. In this case, there- fore, the claim must be established not by the treasury state- ment, but by the evidence on which that statement was made." ^^ A copy of a bond certified by the Secretary of the Treasury with- out the certificate of the register and auditor is insuificient.^* The certificate should show that the transcript exhibits the final adjustment of the debits, as shown not by mere copies of origi- nal papers on the files, but upon the books and records of the department.'-^ It seems that the balances struck by the treasury and charged as such are not evidence, but that the items should be stated.'^** A transcript from the books may be evidence of charges for moneys advanced or paid by the department to the agent, and claims, suspended, rejected, or placed to his credit ; but not of 22 Smith V. United States, 5 Pet. 201, States, 10 How. 109; Bruce v. United .300, .301 ; per Mr. Justice M'Lean. States, 17 How. 437. 23 United States v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12, ->' United States r. Edwards, 1 McLean, 20; ppr Mr. .Justice M'Lcan. 347 ; United States r. Jones, 8 Pet. 375; 2< United States v. Huniason, 8 Fed. R. Gratiot v. United States, 15 Pet. 336 ; 71. Hoyt V. United States 10 How. 109; 25 United States v. Pinson, 102 U. S. United States v. Martin, 2 Paine, 68; .'i48;Tiernan ;;. Jackson. 5 Pet. 592; United States y. Gaussen, 19 Wall. 1^8; United States c. Buford, 3 Pet. 12 . Cox United States i'. Smitli, .35 Fed. R. 490; IK United States, 6 Pet. 172 ; United United States >: Van Zamlt, 2 Cranch 0. States r. Jones, 8 Pet. 375 ; Gratton r. C. 338 , United States v. Kulin, 4 Cranch United States, 15 Pet. 3.30 ; Iloyt v. United C C. 401. 470 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. moneys received by him for the benefit of the United States from other sources than tlie department.-' A transcript showing the money expended by the officers in supplying the default of the contractor to carry out his contract is competent evidence.-^ The government need not show that the party had notice of the adjust- ment or of the balance against him in the transcript.^ " The statute says that a transcript from the books, shall be admitted as evidence. A transcript or a transcribing is substan- tially a copy. A copy from the books, and not of the books, shall be admissible in evidence. An extract from the books, a por- tion of the books, wdien authenticated to be^a copy, may be given in evidence. While a garbled statement is not evidence, or a mutilated statement, wherein the debits shall be presented and the credits suppressed, or perhaps a statement of results only, it still seems to be clear that it is not necessary that every account with an individual, and all of every account shall be transcribed as a condition of the admissibility of any one account. The state- ment presented should be complete in itself, perfect for what it purports to represent, and give both sides of the account as the same stands upon the books." '^^ Treasury statements are only prima facie evidence of the correctness of the balance. The accounting ofhcer may correct mistakes and restate balances.^^ The errors made in striking the balance may be proved by the defendant by the procuring of the original vouchers, or other- wise.^^ The defendant by accepting the credits given him does not waive the objection to the items on the debit side.^^ " U[)on the trial of any indictment against any person for em- bezzling public moneys, it shall be sufficient evidence, for the purpose of showing a balance against such person, to produce a transcript from the books and proceedings of the Treasury Department, as provided by the preceding section." ^ "A copy of any return of a contract returned and filed in the returns- ■-' United States v. Bufonl, .3 Pet. 12; 201; United States v. Hunt, 105 U. S- Uiiited States v. Jones, 8 Pet o75. 18.3, 187. But see United States v. Col- 2^ United States v. Griffith, 2 Cranch lier, .3 Blatclif. 325 ; Ex parte Randolph, C. C. G66. 2 Brock. 44. 2'-' Watkinsr. United States, 9 Wall. 759. -i-^ Soule r. United States, 100 U. S. 8 ; 2'^ United States v. (iaussen, li) Wall. Bruce v. United States, 17 How. 437 ; 212, 214 ; pel- Mr. Justice Hunt. United States v. Stone, 106 U. S. 525. ='1 Soule V. United States, 100 U. S. 8, 3;) United States v. Jones, 8 Pet. 375. 11 : United States v. Ecksford, 1 Mow. 250, 3t u. S. R. S. § 887. See United States 263 ; United States v. Eggle.son, 4 Saw. v. Gaussen, 19 Wall. 198. § 268.] OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS. 471 office of the Department of the Interior, as provided by law, when certified by the clerk of the said office to be full and com- plete, and when authenticated by the seal of the Department, shall be evidence in any prosecution against any officer for falsely and corruptly swearing to the affidavit required by law to be made by such officer in making his return of any contract as required by law, to said returns-office." '-^ " Copies of the quarterly returns of postmasters and of any papers pertaining to tlie accounts in the office of the sixth auditor, and transcripts from the money-order account-books of the post- office department, when certified by the sixth auditor under the seal of his office, shall be admitted as evidence in the courts of the United States, in civil suits and criminal prosecutions ; and in any civil suit, in case of delinquency of any postmaster or con- tractor, a statement of the account, certified as aforesaid, shall be admitted in evidence, and the court shall be authorized thereupon to give judgment and award execution, subject to the provisions of law as to proceedings in such civil suits." ^^ " In all suits for the recovery of balances due from postmasters, a copy, duly certified under the seal of the sixth auditor, of the statement of any postmaster, special agent, or other person, em- ployed by the Postmaster-General, or the auditor for that pur- pose, that he has mailed a letter to such delinquent postmaster, at the post-office where the indebtedness accrued, or at his last usual place of abode ; that a sufficient time has elapsed for said letter to have reached its destination in the ordinary course of the mail, and the payment of such balance has not been received, within the time designated in his instructions, shall be received as sufficient evidence in the courts of the United States or other courts, that a demand has been made upon the delinquent post- master ; but when the account of a late postmaster has been once adjusted and settled, and a demand has been made for the balance appearing to be duo, and afterward allowances are made or credits entered, it shall not be necessary to make a further demand for the new balance found to l)e due."'^' 35 U. S. R. S. § 888. See U. S. R. S. United States v. Wikinson, 12 How. 246 ; § 8744. Postmaster-General v. Rice, Gilp. 554 ; 3'J United States Revised Statutes §889; Lawrence v. United States, 2 McLean, United States v. Harrill, McAllister, 24?, ; 581 ; United States v. Snyder, 14 Fed. R. United States r. IIod>ie, 13 How. 478; 554. United States v. Uilliard, 3 McLean, 324 ; 87 u. S. R. S. § 890. 472 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. " Copies of any records, books, or papers in the general land office, authenticated by the seal and certified by the commissioner thereof, or, when his office is vacant, by the principal clerk, shall be evidence equally with the originals thereof. And literal ex- emplifications of any such records shall be held, when so intro- duced in evidence, to be of the same validity as if the names of the officers signing and countersigning the same had been fully inserted in such record." ^^ This section only applies to official documents.'^^ The words, " evidence equally with the originals," do not mean that in all cases the copy shall have the ^ame proba- tive force as the original, and that on a question as to some par- ticular word or figure, the copy shall be as convincing as the original ; it merely requires the copy to be regarded as of the same class in the grades of evidence, as to written and parol, and primary and secondary.'^^ A party is not deprived of his title because of a defective record, if he has a perfect patent. A per- fect record of a perfect patent proves the grant ; but a perfect record of an imperfect patent, or an imperfect record of a perfect patent, has no such effect. In such a case, if a perfect patent has in fact issued, it must be proved in some other way than by the record.^i The defective record in the general land office, does not deprive a party of his rights, and the contents of the original may be shown if the record or transcript is not a true copy.'^^ " The names need not be fully inserted in the record, but it must appear in some form that the names were actually signed to the patent when it issued." "^^ A perfect record of a perfect patent is presumptive evidence of its delivery to and acceptance by the grantee.** An entry in the books of the land-office, that the balance of the purchase-money was paid by the person " to whom the patent had issued," is some evidence that a patent issued, although no ])atent is produced.'*^ A certificate by a receiver that a party has made full payment is evidence that such party has taken the steps necessary for a pre-emption.^^ A copy of a plat 38 U. S. R. S. § 891. 316, 823 ; Campbell ;;. Laclede Gas Co., 39 Block V. United States, 7 Ct. CI 406. 119 U. S. 445. 4^ Campbell u. Laclede Gas Co., 119 U. « McGurrahan v. Mining Co., 96 U. S. S. 445, 449. See Gait v. Galloway, 4 Pet. 316, 323. 331. <' McGarralian v. Mining Co., 96 U. S. ■»' McGarralian v. Mining Co., 90 U. S. 316, 323. 316, 323 ; Campbell v. Laclede Gas Co , *!> Willis v. Bucher, 3 Wash. C. C. 369. 119 U. S. 445, 449. <« McDonald v. Edmonds, 44 Cal. 328. « McGarralian v. Mining Co., 90 U. S. § 268.] PUBLIC RECORDS. 473 and description duly authenticated is admissible.*^ A connected plat of sundry tracts of land made and put together by an officer of the land office, which is not the copy of any record in such office, is not competent evidencc^^ Under this statute a certified copy of the records of the land office at Washington, concerning the location of a land warrant containing a description of the various acts of the register and receiver at the land office at Chicago, and of the locator in regard to the location, showing that the land was subject to location at the time, and that the land warrant was properly delivered np and deposited with the commissioner of the land office, is admissible in evidence.*^ " Written or printed copies of any records, books, papers, or drawings belonging to the patent office, and of letters-patent authenticated by the seal and certified by the commissioner or acting commissioner thereof, shall be evidence in all cases where- in the originals could be evidence ; and any person making appli- cation therefor, and paying the fee required by law, shall have certified copies thereof." ^^ A transcript of certain documents on file is competent, although not a transcript of the whole proceed- ings.'^^ Proof that there is no record must be made by deposition or attendance in court of the proper officer ; and a mere certificate that diligent search has been made is not sufficient.^"^ It seems that the court will presume that a person who signs as " Acting Commissioner " holds such office in the absence of evidence to the contrary .^3 Letters written by an applicant for a patent, when properly certified as papers remaining in the department, are admissible in evidence.^ The documents which make up the original papers belong to the public archives, and a duly certi- fied copy thereof is competent evidence, although some of these documents may contain private stipulations between the parties concerncd.^^ A certified copy of a patent surrendered and cancelled is ad- missible to show that an improvement subsequently patented is not original, although the certificate does not show when it was « Harris iJ. Barnett, 4 Blatchf. .069. Depot Co. v Shclilon, 17 Blatcli. 210, 48 Griffith v.Tnickliomer, Pet. C. C. IGC). Stone r. Palmer, 28 Mo. 530. 49 Culver V. Utlie, 133 U. S. 655. sii Woodwortli v. Hall, 1 Wood. & M. 60 U. S. R. S. S 892. 248. " Toohey v. Hardintr, 1 Fed. R. 174. S4 Pettibone u. Derringer, 4 Wash. C. C 62 Stoner v. Ellis, 6 Ind. 152 ; Bullock 215, 219. i;. Wallingford, 55 N. H. 619 ; American "^ Ilanrick l: Barton, 16 Wall. 166. 474 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. cancelled, or how, or for what defect.^^ A certified copy of an assignment is prima facie evidence of the genuineness of the original and of the correctness of the copy of the record.^" A certified copy of a transfer not required by law to be recorded is not proof of the transfer.^^ He who desires a copy of papers filed in the patent office must make demand therefor in a proper manner, without insulting or abusing the officers ; but if a sec- ond demand is properly made, the commissioner cannot refuse to comply because of the applicant's previous improper conduct.°^ " Copies of the specifications and drawings of foreign letters- patent, certified as provided in the preceding section, shall be prima facie evidence of the fact of the granting of such letters- patent, and of the date and contents thereof." ^^ Courts of the United States take judicial notice of foreign nations and their seals of state, but not of their inferior officers or departments and the seals of such inferior officers or departments. *^i A copy of a French patent certified l)y the director of the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers of France, under the seal of that de- partment, verified by the minister of agriculture and commerce, and the minister of foreign affairs, under their seals, but not by the great seal of France, may be admitted in evidence.*^^ " The printed copies of specifications and drawings of patents, which the Commissioner of Patents is authorized to print for gratu- itous distribution, and to deposit in the capitols of the States and Territories, and in the clerk's offices of the district courts, shall, when certified by him and autbenticated by the seal of his office, be received in all courts as evidence of all matters tlierein contained." '^•^ " Extracts from the journals of the senate, or of the house of representatives, and of the executive journal of the senate when the injunction of secrecy is removed, certified by the secretary of the senate or by the clerk of tlie house of representatives, shall be admitted as evidence in the courts of tlie United States, and 5« Delano v. Scott, Oilp. 480. si Schoerken ?•. Swift & C. & B. Co., 7 5' Lee V. BliU! Sumner, 115; Brown v. Tlie Indepen- 239. dence, Crabbe, 54; Church v. IIiil)bart, '^ Catlett r. Pacific Ins. Co., 1 Paine, 2 Cranch, 186; Lamb v. Briard, Abbott's 594. Adm. 367 ; The Atlantic, Abbott's A(hn. "- Church v. Ilnbbart, 2 Cranch, 187. 451 ; United States v. Mitchell, 2 Wash. '■' United States r. Mitciiell, 2 Wash. 478; Johnson i-. The Cariolanus, Crabbe, 478; The Alice, 12 Fed. R. 923; Stein v. 239. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209; Levy v. Burley, 2 "G Brown i'. The Independence, Crabbe, Sumn. 355. 54. 'i The Alice, 12 Fed. H. 923. •'" United States v. Mitchell, 2 Wash. "^ The Atlantic, Abb. Adm. 451. 478. 476 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. cuit Courts in the said districts, when certified by the clerks re- spectively, making the same to be full and true copies from the original books, shall have the same force and effect as records as the originals. And the certificates of the clerks of said Cir- cuit Courts, respectively, of transcripts of any of the books or papers so transferred to them, shall be received in evidence with the like effect as if made by the clerk of the court in which the proceedings were had." ''^ " The transcripts into new books made by the clerks of the Circuit and District Courts for the western district of North Carolina, in pursuance of the act of Jane four, eighteen hundred and seventy -two, chapter two hun- dred and eighty-two, when certified by the clerks respectively, making the same to be full and true copies from the original books, shall have the same force and effect as records as the originals. And the certificates of the clerks of said Circuit and District Courts respectively, of transcripts of any of the said transcribed records, shall also be received in evidence with the like effect as if made by the proper clerk from the originals from which such records were transcribed.'" '" " When the record of any judgment, decree, or other proceeding of any court of the United States is lost or destroyed, any party or person interested therein may, on application to such court, and on showing to its satisfaction tliat the same was lost or destroyed without his fault, obtain from it an order autliorizing such defect to be sui)plied by a duly certified copy of the original record, where the same can be obtained ; and such certified copy shall thereafter have, in all respects, the same effect as the original record would have had." ''^ " When any such record is lost or destroyed, and the defect can- not be supplied as provided in the preceding section, any party or person interested therein may make a written application to the court to which the record belonged, verified by affidavit, showing such loss or destruction ; that the same occurred without his fault or neglect ; that certified copies of such record cannot be obtained by him ; and showing also the substance of the record so lost or destroyed, and that the loss or destruction thereof, unless sup- plied, will or may result in damage to him. The court shall cause said application to be entered of record, and a copy of it shall be served personally upon every person interested therein, ■6 U. S R. S § 897. 78 u S R. S. § 899; Cornett i'. Wil- T! U. S. R. S. § 898. liaras, 20 Wall. 220. § 268.] PROOF OF RECORDS. 477 together with a written notice that on a day therein stated, Avhicli sliall not be less than sixty days after such service, said api)lica- tion will be heard ; and if, upon such hearing, the court is satis- fied that the statements contained in the application are true, it shall make and cause to be entered of record an order reciting the substance and effect of said lost or destroyed record. Said order shall have the same effect, so far as concerns the party or person making such application and the persons served as above provided, but subject to intervening rights, which the original record would have had, if the same had not been lost or de- stroyed." '^ " When any cause has been removed to the supreme court, and the original record thereof is afterward lost, a duly certified copy of the record remaining in said court may be filed in the court from which the cause was removed, on motion of any party or person claiming to be interested therein ; and the copy so filed shall have the same effect as the original record would have had if the same had not been lost or destroyed." ^^ " In any proceedings in conformity with law to restore the records of any court of the United States which have been or may be hereafter lost or destroyed, the notice required may be served on any non- resident of the district in which such court is held anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States, or in any foreign country ; tlie proof of service of such notice, if made in a foreign country, to be certified by a minister or consul of the United States in sucli country, under his ofificial seal." ^^ " A certified copy of the official return, or any other official paper of the United States attorney, marshal, or clerk, or other certifying or recording officer of any court of the United States, made in pursuance of law, and on file in any department of the government, relating to any cause or matter to which the United States was a party in any such court, the record of which has been or may be lost or destroyed, may be filed in the court to which it appertains, and shall have the same force and effect as if it were an original re- port, return paper, or other document made to or filed in such court ; and in any case in which the names of the parties and the date and amount of judgment or decree shall appear from such return paper, or document, it shall be lawful for the court in '9 U. S. R. S § 000. of Jan 31, 1879, ch. xxxix, § 1 (20 St. at 81 US R. S § 901 L. 277). 81 U. S R. S § 902, as amended by Act 478 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [cHAP. XIX. which the}' are filed to issue the proper process to enforce such decree or judgment, in the same manner as if the original record remained in said court. And in all cases where any of the files, papers, or records of any court of the United States have heen or shall 'be lost or destroyed, the files, records, and papers which, pursuant to law, may have been or may be restored or supplied in place of such records, files, and papers, shall have the same force and effect to all intents and purposes, as the originals thereof would have been entitled to." ^^ " Whenever any of the records or files in which the United States are interested of any court of the United States have been or may be lost or destroyed, it shall be the duty of the attorney of the United States for the district or court to which such files and records belong, so far as the judges of such courts respectively shall deem it essential to the interests of the United States that such records and files be restored or supplied, to take such steps, under the direction of said judges, as may be necessary to effect such restoration or substitution, in- cluding such dockets, indices, and other books and papers as said judges shall think proper. Said judges may direct the perform- ance, by clerks of said courts respectively and by the United States attorneys, of any duties incident thereto ; a)id said clerks and attorneys shall be allowed such compensation, for services in the matter and for lawful disbursements, as may be approved by the attorney-general of the United States, upon a certificate by the judges of said courts stating that such claim for services and disbursements is just arid reasonable ; and the sum so allowed shall be paid out of the judiciary fund." ^^ " The acts of the legislature of any State or Territory, or of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be authenticated by having the seals of such State, Territory, or country affixed thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any State or Territory, or of any such country, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief- justice, or presiding magistrate, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, so autlienti- B'! U. S. R. S. § 903, as amcntled by Act s" u. S. R. S. § 904, as amended by Act of Jan. ol, 1879, ch. xx.\ix, § 2 (20 St. at of Jan. 31, 1879, ch. xxxix, § o (20 St. at L. 277). L. 278). § 268.] PROOF OF RECORDS. 479 cated, shall have such faitli and credit given to them in every court within the United States as tliey have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken." ^* This stat- ute applies to the Federal courts as well as to the State courts. ^^ The courts of the United States take judicial notice of the public acts of the legislatures of the different States.^^ It will be pre- sumed that the seal of a State was annexed to a paper by the proper officer under due authority.^" The certificate must show that the person who signed it as judge was, when he signed it, the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate of the court in wliich the judgment is of record.^^ If the laws of a State show that the court in which the judgment was rendered consisted of but a single judge, it is not material in a Federal court that the certificate to tlie attestation of the clerk did not show that the certifying officer was the sole judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate.^^ The certificate of the judge that he is " one of the judges" of the court, is insufficient.^'^ The judge should certify that the attestation is in due form according to the laws of the State.^i If a clerk of a court certifies at the foot of a paper which purports to be a record, that the foregoing is truly taken from the record of proceedings of his court, and if the judge, chief jus- tice, or presiding magistrate certifies that such attestation of the clerk is in due form of law, it is to be presumed that the paper so certified is in due form, and is a full copy of the proceedings in the case, and is admissible in evidence ; but if it proves to be a mere transcript of minutes taken from the docket of the court, it is not admissible.^^ If a judgment has been recovered against a corporation by a wrong name, there may be a recovery in a suit on such judgment in another State brought against it by the proper name.^^ " All records and exemplifications of books, which may be kept 8> U. S. R. S. § 905. The cases con- s. c. 1 Wash. C. C. 363; United States y. struinp; tliis section of tlie Revised Stat- Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392. utes are very numerous, and nia}' be ^° Stewart i". Gray, Hemps. 94 ; United found collected in Greenieaf on Evidence, States v. Biebuscli, 1 McCrary, 42; 1 Fed. §§504-500; Bump's Federal Procedure, R. 213. 505-617. 89 Bennett v. Bennett, Deady, 299. «5 Gormley f. Bunyan, 138 U. S. 023, ^o Stewart i'. Gray, Hemps. 94; Gard- 6.35; Mills i-. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 481; nerr. Lindo, 1 Cranch C. C. 78. Galpin r. Sage, 3 Saw. 93. '•! Craig v. Brown, Pet. C. C. 352. ^•' Owings f. Hull, 9 Pet. 607. »- Ferguson r. Harwood, 7 Cranch, 408. 8" United States f. Johns, 4 Dall. 412 ; "^ l^ Fayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404. 480 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND TN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. in any public office of any State or Territory, or of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State or Territory, or in any such country, by the attestation of the keeper of the said records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the court of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the gov- ernor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State or Territory, or country, that the said attesta- tion is in due form, and by the proper officers. If the said cer- tificate is given by the presiding justice of a court, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and quali- fied ; or, if given by such governor, secretary, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State, Territory, or country aforesaid in which it is made. And the said records and exemplifications, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court and office within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the State, Territory, or country, as aforesaid, from which they are taken." ^* This section does not impart to the authenticated State record anything more than " faith and credit," and does not extend the effect of a decision against a State to the United States, nor make an award or judgment which might be final against a State cither obligatory in law or conclusive against the United States.^^ Where a deed of land in Texas had been exe- cuted in accordance with the civil laws in Louisiana, and a copy furnished to the grantee as a second original, this copy was ad- mitted in evidence, upon proof by the witness that he had exam- ined the original on file in tlie notary's book ; that the copy was a true one ; that the notary before whom the conveyance was exe- cuted was dead ; that the witness knew the handwriting, which was genuine ; that the witness knew the handwriting of one of 9^ U. S. R. S. § 90G. See also Snyder son, 28 Mo 316 ; Grant v. Henry Clay V. Wise, lOPa.St. 157 ; Lawrence v. Gault- Coal Co , 80 Pa. St. 208; and authorities ney, Cheves Law (S C), 7; King v. Dale, cited in Bump's Federal Procedure, 617- 2 111. 513 ; Hentliorn i-. Doe, 1 Blackford 019. (Ind.), 157; Russell >: Kearney, 27 Ga. 90; o^ ^Vi^iams v. United States, 137 U. S. Paca V. Dutton, 4 Mo. 371 ; Karr i-. Jack- 113, 180. § 268.] PROOF OF RECORDS. 481 the subscribing witnesses ; that such witness was dead ; and that the signature of such subscribing Avitncss was genuine.^ A par- don certified under the great seal of the State was admitted in evidence.^'^ A copy of a survey certified by the register, by the judge, and by the secretary of state under the great seal, was ad' mitted in evidencc.^^'' The clerk's certificate should show that the judge is the presiding judge, or that he is the presiding judge for the district.^^ This statute does not apply to court records.^'^'' " It shall be lawful for any keeper or person having the cus- tody of laws, judgments, orders, decrees, journals, correspond- ence, or other public documents of any foreign government or its agents, relating to the title to lands claimed by or under the United States, on the application of the head of one of the Depart- ments, the Solicitor of the Treasury, or the Commissioner of the General Land Office, to authenticate copies thereof under his hand and seal, and to certify them to be correct and true copies of such laws, judgments, orders, decrees, journals, correspondence, or other public documents, respectively ; and when such copies are certified by an American minister or consul, under his hand and seal of office, to be true copies of the originals, they shall be sealed up by him and returned to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who shall file them in his office, and cause them to be recorded in a book kept for that purpose. A copy of any such law, judgment, order, decree, journal, correspondence, or other public document, so filed, or of the same so recorded in said book, may be read in evidence in any court, where the title to land claimed under or by the United States may come into question, equally with the originals." ^^^ " The edition of the laws and treaties of the United States, published by Little & Brown, shall be competent evidence of the several public and private acts of Congress, and of the several treaties therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof." '^'^ 96 White ('. Bromley, 20 How. 235, 250. v. Wise, 10 Pa. 157; Law v. Gaultney, 9^ United States ik Wilson, Baldwin, 78. Cheves (S. C.) Law, 7. 98 Smith V. Redden, 5 Harr (Del.) 321. wi U. S. R. S §907; Ten Cases v. 99 Paca r. DuUon, 4 Mo. .370. United States, 34 Fed. R. 101 ; Chadwick v. i"0 Tarlton v. Briscoe, 1 A. K. Marsh. United States, 3 Fed. R. 753. (Ky.) 67; U. S. R. S., § 905; Snyder i"^ U. S. R. S § 908. See also act of VOL. I. — ol 482 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAF. XIX. " In suits or informations brought, where any seizure is made pursuant to an act providing for or regulating the collection of duties on imports or tonnage, if the property is claimed by any person, the burden of proof shall lie upon such claimant: pro- vided that probable cause is shown for such prosecution, to be judged of by the court." ^^^ § 269. Definition and Use of an Affidavit. — An affidavit is a declaration upon oath or affirmation before some persons having competent and lawful power and authority to administer the same. Affidavits are used in a suit in equity in three ways. In certain cases they must be annexed to a bill before it can be properly filed ; ^ certain documents may be proved by them at the hearing ; ^ and they are used in support of interlocutory ap- plications.^ The manner of their use has been already described. It is unsettled whether the court has power to compel any one to have liis affidavit taken,'^ or to cross-examine an affiant,^ ex- cept, possibly, by means of a feigned issue. § 270. Manner of Verifying an Affidavit. — An affidavit must be sworn to ; unless the affiant is conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, when he may, in lieu thereof, make solemn affir- mation of the truth of the facts stated by him.^ If the deponent be blind or unable to read, the affidavit must be read over to him by the officer before whom he swears to its truth.^ An affidavit, if made within the United States, must be verified before a judge of the court in which it is to be used, or a United States commissioner, or a notary public.^ If made without the United States, it may be verified before any secretary of legation, or con- sular officer within the limits of his legation, consulate, or com- June 20, 1874, ch. 333, § 8 (18 St. at L. * See Hammerschlag Manufacturing 114); Act of June 7, 1880, Res. 44 (21 Co. v. Judd, 26 Fed. R. 292; Bacon v. St. at L. 308). Magee, 7 Cowen (N. Y.), 515; Day v. i'J3 U.S. R. S. §909. See also Locke y. Boston Belting Co., 6 Law Rep. (n. s.) United States, 7 Crancli, 339, The Lu- 329. minary, 8 Wheat. 407; Wood v. United ^ See Day r. Boston Belting Co., 6 Law States, 16 Pet. 342; The John Griffin, 15 Rep. (n. s.) 329; Hammerschlag Manuf. Wall. 29 ; Clifton v. United States, 4 Co. v. Judd, 26 Fed. R. 292. How. 242; Taylor v. United States, 3 §270. i Rule 91 ; U. S. R. S. §§ 1,5013. How. 197; Buckley v. United States, 4 ^ Matter of Christie, 5 Paige (N. Y.), How. 251 ; Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 242. 114. 8 u. S. R. S. §§ 725, 945 ; L. 1876. Hi. § 269. 1 See § 87. 304 ; U. S. R. S. 1st Supp. 251 (19 U. S. 2 See § 269. St. at L. 206) ; Haight v. Morris Aque- 8 See Chapter XV. duct, 4 Wash. C. C. 601. § 272.] FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT. 483 mercial agency ; * or, perhaps, before any person who, by the laws of the country in which the affidavit is made, is authorized to administer an oath or affirmation.^ §271. Title of au Affidavit. — An affidavit should be corrcctly entitled in the cause or matter in which it is made.^ For, other- wise, it is said that the affiant cannot be convicted of perjury if his statements are false.- But, it seems that, if there are sev- eral parties on either side, or both sides, it will be sufficient to entitle it in the name of a single )»laintiff and defendant, and after each to insert the word " others " or " another," according to the circumstances of the case.'^ The omission of a party's christian name will not be a fatal defect."* If the affidavit is correctly entitled when made, it can still be used after the title of the cause has been subsequently changed.^ If an affidavit of service be attached to papers which are themselves correctly entitled, it needs no separate title.^ An affidavit made or entitled in one cause cannot, it has been held, be used in another;" un- less, perhaps, when the affiant is dead, insane, imbecile, or beyond the jurisdiction of the court. § 272. Form of an Affidavit. — Every affidavit should begin with the venire, — that is, the name of the county ; ^ and if sworn to elsewhere than in that where the court is held, with the name of the State where it is taken ; which is usually followed by the ab- breviation Ss. for scilicet, or the English words to wit. Otherwise, it has been held, though not by a Federal court, that it may be disregarded as a nullity, even though the residence of an officer before whom it is sworn appear in the jurat.^ The English rule was that in all affidavits the true place of residence, description, and addition of every person swearing to the same, must be in- 4 U. S. R. S. § 1750. " Liiinbrozo v. Wliite, 1 Dickens, 150; 5 Pinkerton v. The Barnsley Canal Daniell's Cli. Pr. 1774 ; Milliken r Selye, Co., 3 Y. & J. 277 n. 3 Denio (N. Y ), 54 ; Stacy v. Farnham, § 271. 1 Hawley r. Donnelly, 8 Paige 2 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 26. But see Barnard (N. Y.),415, Stafford v. Brown, 4 Paige v. Heydrick, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 62, 72; (N.Y.), 3G0. But see Bowman f. Slieldon, s. c. 2 Abbott's Pr. n. s. (N. Y.) 47; 6 Sand. (N. Y.) 657. Langston v. Wetherell, 14 Mees. & W. 2 Hawley v. Donnelly, 8 Paige (N.Y.), 104. 415. g 272. 1 Belden v. Devoe, 12 Wendell 3 White V. Hess, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 544. (N. Y), 223. * Maury v. Van Arnum, 1 Hill (N. Y.), ^ Cook v. Staats, 18 Barb. (N.Y.) 407 ; 370. Lane v. Morse, 6 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 894. * Hawes v. Bamford, 9 Simons, G53. But see Moslier v. Heydrick, 45 Barb. 6 Anon., 4 Hill (N. Y.), 597. (N.Y.) 549 ; s. c 30 How. Pr. (N.Y.) 161. 484- EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. gerted ; unless the affidavits were made by parties in the cause, wlio might describe themselves, in the affidavit, as the above-named plaintiff, or defendant, without specifying any residence, or ad- dition, or other description.-^ This rule, however, is not always adhered to or insisted upon by practitioners in the courts of the United States. The English rule was that the stating part of the affidavit must be preceded by the statement that the deponent was duly sworn.* The affidavit should state " sufficient to sus- tain the case made by the motion or petition of which it is the ground work." ^ Its statements must be made with sufficient cer- tainty, and with all necessary circumstances of time, place, manner, and other material incidents.^ When, however, the affiant de- poses to words spoken, the addition "or to that effect" is not improper^ Special fulness is required of affidavits of service.^ An affidavit should state facts and not conclusions of law ; ^ and must be pertinent, material, and not scandalous.^'^ The court may, upon examination of the paper, order such matter expunged with costs, to be paid by the party or solicitor seeking to use the same ; ^^ or a reference may be ordered to determine whether the statements in it are proper.^^ A reference can only be de- manded upon exceptions in writing similar to those to a plead- ing ; 13 and the filing or reading of affidavits in opposition to such parts of his opponent's affidavits as are excepted to may be construed as a waiver of the exceptions.^* Pending a refer- ence concerning it, an affidavit cannot be used except by leave of the court, which is usually granted only upon terms. ^^ § 273. Execution of an Affidavit. — It is usual, though it seems not indispensable, for the affiant to subscribe his christian name and surname at the foot of the affidavit.^ In England the signature 8 DanicII's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1775. i"" Powell v. Kane, 5 Paisje (N. Y), 265. See also Hinde's Pr. 451; Crockett v. " Powell c. Kane, 5 Paige (N. Y.),2G5; Bisiiton, 2 Madd. 446. Ex parte Smith, I Atk. 139. ^ Phillips V. Prentice, 2 Hare, 542; 12 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1777. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1776. See § 68. 5 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 177G ; i^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 1777. Ilinde's Pr. 451 ; Van Wyck v. Reid, 10 See § 68. How. Pr. (N. Y.), 366. " Bickford v. Skewes, 8 Simons, 206; •^ Sea Insurance Co. v. Stebbins, 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. 1777. Paige (N. Y.), 565; Mcach v. Chappell, is Pearse i'. Brook, 3 Beav. 337; Dan- 8 Paige (N. Y.), 135. iell's Ch. Pr. 1777. 7 Ayliffe v. Murray, 2 Atk. 58, 60. § 273. 1 Haff v. Spicer, 3 Caines 8 Hinde's Pr. 453. (X. Y.), 190 ; Jackson rx don. Kenyon v. 9 Powell V. Kane, 6 Paige (N. Y.), 265. Virgil, 3 J.R. (N. Y.) 640 ; Soule ij. Chase, § 274.] OOMPETEKCY OF WITNESSES. 485 had to be on the left side of tlie page ; ^ but in this country it is usually at the right. In one case where a marksman had signed with his name at length, his hand having been guided for that purpose, the affidavit was ordered taken off the file.^ The jurat, which is indispensable, is placed upon the opposite side from the signature. It is usually in substantially the following form : " Sworn to beforo me this day of , 18 ." If the affiant be blind or a marksman, the jurat should be in substance thus : " Sworn, «• Lacombe, 3 u. S. R. S. §§ 911, 912. J. Contra, Celluloid Co. v. Crane Co., 3d * Erwin v. United States, 37 Fed. R. Circuit. 470, 490. 80 Supra, § 267. ^ U. S. R. S. § 829. Erwin i-. United States, 37 Fed. R. 470, 490. 490 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. the witness can be served within the jurisdiction of the court where the suit is pending, or within a Imndred miles of the place of holding that court, the subpoena may be issued from its clerk's office.^ If he cannot, and it is desired to take his testimony de bene esse under the acts of Congress,'^ application for the issue of the subpoena must be made to the court of the district in which the examination is to be made.^ It has been held that Congress has no power to authorize or compel the courts of the United States to issue subpoenas or punish for contempt witnesses before a Congressional Commission,^ or an executive officer.^*^ " Witnesses who are required to attend any term of a circuit or district court on the part of the United States, shall be sub- poenaed to attend to testify generally on their behalf, and not to depart the court without leave thereof, or of the district attorney ; and under such process they shall appear before the grand or petit jury, or both, as they may be required by the court or district attorney." ^^ It has been held that a witness cannot be compelled by subpoena to produce the patterns of the castings of a stove, which are in his possession.^^ § 276. Service of a Subpoena ad testificandum. — A subpoena to appear and testify may be served by the marshal of the court, or by any other person acting as the agent of the party calling the witness.^ The Revised Statutes provide that " subpoenas for wit- nesses who are required to attend a court of the United States, in any district, may run into any other district ; ^;rov/(f?c?, that in civil causes the witnesses living out of the district in which the court is held do not live at a greater distance than one hundred miles from the place of holding the same." ^ A witness' attend- ance at a court more than one hundred miles from the place where he lives cannot be compelled by the service of a subpoena upon him within the district, when he has been enticed there by e U. S. K. S. § 876. » U. S. R. S. § 877. " See Infra, §§ 286-287 12 /„ re Shephard, 3 Fed. R. 12. 8 U. S R S. § 863 , United States v. § 276. 1 Schwabacker v. Reilly, 2 Dill. Tililen, 25 Internal Rev. R. 352 ; Ex parte 127 ; Cumniings v. The Akron Cement & Ilumplirey, 2 Blatchf. 228; Henry 0. Plaster Co., G Blatchf. 509; Millers. Ricketts, 1 Crunch C. C. 580 ; Er jnrte Scott, 6 Phila. (Pa.) 484; Power v. Elisha Peck, 3 Blatchf. 113. See /«/m, Senimes, 1 Cranch C. C. 247. § 276. " --J U. S. R. S. § 876 ; Ex parte Beehees, 9 In re Pacific Railway Comm'n, 32 2 Wall. Jr. 127; Henry v. Ricketts, 1 Fed. R. 241. But see In re Counselman, Cranch C. C. 580; United States v. Wil- 44 Fed. R. 2(58. Hams, 4 Cranch C. C. 372. 1" In re McLean, 37 Fed. R. 048. § 276.] SERVICE OF A SLBPCENA AD TESTIFICANDUM. -iQl false pretences ; ^ or while there to attend either as a party, a witness, an attorney, or a counsel during a suit or other judicial proceeding in a State * or Federal court ; ^ or, while travelling upon his way to or from Congress, if he be a nienihcr thereof;^ or if there in the course of the performance of any public duty." " AVhen a commission has been issued by any court of the United States for taking the testimony of a witness named therein at any place within any district or Territory, the clerk of any court of the United States for such district or Territoiy shall, on the application of either party to the suit, or of his agent, issue a subpoena for such witness, commanding him to appear and tes- tify before the commissioner named in the commission, at any time and place stated in the subpoena ; and if any witness, after being duly served with such subpoena, refuses or neglects to ap- pear, or, after appearing, refuses to testify, not being privileged from giving testimony, and such refusal or neglect is proven to the satisfaction of any judge of the court whose clerk issues such subpoena, such judge may proceed to enforce obedience to the process, or punish the disobedience, as any coui't of the United States may j)rocced in case of disobedience to process of subpoena to testify issued by such court." ^ "When either party in such suit applies to any judge of a United States court in such district or Territory for a subpoena commanding the witness, therein to be named, to appear and testify before said commissioner, at the time and place to be stated in the subpoena, and to bring with him and produce to such commissioner any paper or writing or wi-ittcn instrument or book or other document supposed to be in the possession or power of such witness, and to be described in the subpoena, such judge, on being satisfied, by the affidavit of the person apply- ing, or otherwise, that there is reason to believe that such paper, writing, written instrument, book, or other document is in the possession or power of the witness, and that the same, if pro- duced, would be competent and material evidence for the party 8 Union Sugar Refinery Co. v. Mathics- Matthews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y. 568. Contra, son, 2 Cliff. 304 ; Steiger v. Bonn, 4 Fed. Bliglit v. Fislier, Peters' Circuit Court U. 17. Reports, 41. 4 Juneau Bank v. M'Speda, 5 Biss. *' Constitution Art. I. § 6 ; Miner v. 64, Mattliews v. Tufts, 87 N. Y 568. But Markham, 28 Fed. R. 387. see Blight v. Fisher, Pet. C. C. 41. ' See § 98. 6 Parker c. Hotchkiss, 1 Wall. Jr. 209 ; » u. S. R. S. § 868. 492 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. applying therefor, may order the clerk of said court to issue such subpoena accordingly. And if the witness, after being served with such subpoena, fails to produce to the commissioner, at the time and place stated in the subpoena, any such paper, writing, written instrument, book, or other document, being in his pos- session or power, and described in the subpoena, and such fail- ure is proved to the satisfaction of said judge, he may proceed to enforce obedience to said process of subpoena, or punish the disobedience, in like manner as any court of the United States may proceed in case of disobedience to like process issued by such court. When any such paper, writing, written instrument, book, or other document is produced to such commissioner, he shall, at the cost of the party requiring the same, cause to be made a correct copy thereof, or of so much thereof as shall be required by either of the parties." ^ " No witness shall be required, under the provisions of either of the two preceding sections, to attend at any place out of the county where he resides, nor more than forty miles from the place of his residence, to give his deposition ; nor shall any wit- ness be deemed guilty of contempt for disobeying any subpoena directed to him by virtue of either of the said sections, unless his fee for going to, returning from, and one day's attendance at the place of examination are paid or tendered to him at the time of the service of the subpoena." ^^ § 276 a. Depositions in the District of Columbia for use in Suits pending elsewhere. Tlie Revised Statutes provide that, " When a commission to take the testimony of any witness found within the District of Columbia, to be used in a suit depending in any State or Territorial or foreign court, is issued from such court, or a notice to the same effect is given according to its rules of practice, and such commission or notice is produced to a justice of the Supreme Court of said District, and due proof is made to him that the testimony of such witness is material to the party desiring the same, the said justice shall issue a summons to the witness, requiring him to appear before the commissioners named in the commission or notice, to testify in such suit, at a time and at a place within said District therein specified." ^ " When it satisfactorily appears by affidavit to any justice of 9 U. S. R. S § 809. § 276 a. i U. S. R. S. § 871. i> U. S R. S. § 870. I 277.] COMPELLING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY. 493 the Supreme Court of the District of CoUirabia, or to any com- missioner for taking depositions appointed by said court : first, that any person within said District is a material witness for either party in a suit pending in any State or Territorial or for- eign court ; second, that no commission nor notice to take the testimony of such witness has been issued or given ; and, third, that, according to the practice of the court in which the suit is pending, the deposition of a witness taken without the pres- ence and consent of both parties will be received on the trial or hearing thereof, — such officer shall issue his summons, requiring the witness to appear before him at a place within the Dis- trict, at some reasonable time, to be stated therein, to testify in such suit." 2 " Testimony obtained under the two preceding sections shall be taken down in writing by the officer before whom the wit- ness appears, and shall be certified and transmitted by him to the court in which the suit is pending, in such manner as the practice of that court may require. If any person refuses or neglects to appear at the time and place mentioned in the sum- mons, or, on his appearance, refuses to testify, he shall be liable to the same penalties as would be incurred for a like offense on the trial of a suit." ^ " Every witness appearing and testifying under the said pro- visions relating to the District of Columbia shall be entitled to receive for each day's attendance, from the party at whose in- stance he is summoned, the fees now provided by law for each day he shall give attendance." ^ The courts of the United States have no power to compel the attendance of persons to an examination in a foreign country. Such testimony, therefore, can only be taken against the will of a witness by the aid of, and by means of, the remedies adminis- tered by a foreign court.^ § 277. Compelling a Witness to testify. — When a witness, who lias been properly served with a subpoena, refuses to attend, or when upon his examination he refuses to answer a relevant and proper question, against answering which he is not protected by his privilege, by the old rules he was liable " to be proceeded against in three ways : first, by attachment for a contempt of ■^ U. S. R. S. § 872. ■» U. S. R. S. § 874. 8 U. S. R. S. § 873. 6 § 290. 494 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. the process of the court ; secondly, by a special action on the case for damages at common law ; and thirdly, by action on the statute 5 Eliz. c. 9, § 12, for the further recompense given by that statute, if it has been previously assessed by the court out of which the process issued." ^ In the Federal courts, a witness, if contumacious, may be punished for coutempt,^ and is also prob- ably liable to an action for the damages sustained by his refusal. Upon an application to punish a witness for refusing to answer a question, the power of the officer before whom he is exam- ined and the materiality of the question may both be consid- ered.^ Such an application must be made to the court which issued the subpoena.'* When an application to punish a witness for contempt for failure to produce a paper in obedience to a subpoena duces tecum, it has been said that the materiality of the paper required will not be determined unless it is produced ;5 and if there is color for the claim that the paper is material, its production will be compelled, and the decision as to the ad- mission of the paper in evidence postponed to the final hearing.^ The rules concerning the privileges of witnesses and the mate- riality and relevancy of evidence are substantially the same in equity as at law." Care will be taken not to compel a witness to needlessly disclose his business secrets ^ and private papers.^ § 278. Testimony taken in Equity which may be used in other Courts. — Testimony may be taken in a court of equity for use in other courts, as well as for its own use, by bills to perpetuate testimony * and bills to take testimony de bene esse ; ^ and for- merly, at least, testimony could be taken in a court of equity for use in another court by a bill of discovery .^ § 279. Bills to perpetuate Testimony. — " In any case where it is necessary in order to prevent a failure or delay of justice, any of the courts of the United States may grant a dedimus liotestateyn to take depositions according to common usage ; and any circuit court, upon application to it as a court of equity, may, according § 277. 1 Titld's Pr. 738. "^ Stevens v. Cooper, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) i U. S. R. S. § 725. 425. 8 Ex parte Peck, 3 Blatehf. 113 ; Ex ^ Robinson v. Phila., &c. R. R. Co , 28 parte Judson, 3 Blatehf. 80. Fed. R. 340, 342. 4 In re Allis, 44 Fed. R. 216. ' Henry v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 35 Fed. 5 Edison El. L. Co. v. United States R. 15. El. L. Co., 44 Fed. R. 294. § 278. i § 279. G Edison El. L. Co. v. United States - § 280. El. L. Co., 46 Fed. R. 55, 59. » § 281. § 279.] BILLS TO PEEPETUATE TESTIMONY. 495 to the usages of chancery, direct depositions to be taken in pei-- petuam rei memoriam, if they relate to any matters that may be cognizable in any court of the United States." ^ In order to obtain such a direction, the party wishing the testimony taken should file a bill to perpetuate testimony .2 A bill to perpetuate testimony must contain all the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction. It must state with reasonable certainty the subject-matter touch- ing which the plaintiff is desirous of taking testimony, ^ and show that it is a matter which may be cognizable in a court of the United States.'* It should also show that the plaintiff has some interest in the subject-matter, which may be endangered if the testimony in support of it is lost. A mere expectancy, however strong and well-founded, is not sufficient. It has been said, "Put the case as high as possible ; that the party seeking to perpetuate the testimony is the next of kin of a lunatic ; that the lunatic is intestate ; that he is in the most helpless state, a moral and physi- cal impossibility (though the law would not so regard it) that he should ever recover ; even if he were in articido mortis, and the bill was filed at that instant; still, the plaintiff could not qualify himself to maintain it, as having any interest in the subject of the suit." ^ If, however, the interest be such a one as may be immediately barred by the party against whom the bill is brought, it has been said that the court will withhold its assistance, for it would be a fruitless exercise of power.^ Such a bill must also show that the defendant has, or claims to have, a title or interest in opposition to that of the plaintiff in the subject-matter of the proposed testimony,'^ as, for example, that the defendant claims an exclusive right to the use of a process which the plaintiff is using, and rests his claim upon letters-patent which the proposed testimony will show to be invalid ; ^ and some ground of necessity for perpetuating the evidence, as that the facts to which the testi- § 279. 1 U S. R. S. § 8G6. Testimony timore Coffee Polishing Co. v. New York may tluis be taken before a Circuit Court Coffee Polisliing Co., 9 Feil. K. 578. But "while a case is pending in the Supreme see Morris v. Morris, 2 Phill. 205, 208. Court or Circuit Court of Appeals on ap- ^ Dursley v. Fitzhardinge, 6 Ves. 260. peni from a decree sustainintr a demurrer. ^ Dursley v. Fitzhardinge, G Ves. 261- Richter v. Union Trust Co., 116 U. S. 55. 263. 2 New York & Baltimore Coffee Pol- '^ Story's Eq. PI. § 302. ishing Co. v. New York CofTee Polishing ^ New York & Baltimore Coffee Pol- Co., Fed. R. 678. ishing Co. v. New York Coffee Polishing 3 Story's Eq. PI. §§ 300, 305. Co. 9 Fed. R. 678. « U. s". R. S. § 868 ; New York & Bal- 49 G EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. mony of the witnesses proposed to be examined relate, cannot be immediately investigated in a court of law or equity, — or, if they can be immediately investigated, that the right to commence such a suit or action belongs exclusively to the defendant ; or that the defendant has interposed some impediment, such as an injunction, to an immediate trial of the matter in a court of law ; or that, before the investigation can take place, the evidence of a material witness is likely to be lost by his threatened death, illness, or departure from the jurisdiction of the court : ^ but the fact that, in the case recently cited, the attorney-general might institute a proceeding to annul a patent, will not prevent the granting of the prayer of the bill.^*^ The prayer should be for leave to examine the witnesses touching the matter stated, to the end that their testimony may be preserved and perpetuated, and for the proper process of subpcena.^i i^ seems that if it adds thereto a prayer for other, or for general relief, it will be demurrable for that reason,^^ although the court may allow an amendment omitting that part of the prayer.^^ An affidavit of the circumstances by which the evidence intended to be perpetuated is in danger of being lost, must be filed with the bill.^* Otherwise, the bill should conform substantially to the requirements of original bills praying relief. Such a bill, it has been held, cannot by amendment be converted into a bill of discovery.^^ y^ jg gf jfggif a bill of discovery only to the extent of enabling the plaintiff to obtain the relief prayed for in it, and he can, therefore, only require an answer from the defendant as to the facts alleged in the bill as entitling him to examine the witnesses. ^^ An omission of any of the foregoing statements in, or requirements of, the bill will make it demurrable ; and if any of the necessary allegations are false, or there is another objection not apparent upon the face of the bill, that may be taken by plea or answer.^" If the 9 Angell t'. Angell, 1 Sim. & S. 83; Eq. PI. § 306; Dalton v. Thomson, 1 New York & Baltimore Coffee Polishing Dickens, 07. But see Rule 21. Co. V. New York Coffee Polishing Co., 9 i^ Vaughan v. Fitzgerald, 1 S. & L. 316. Fed. R. 578 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 303 ; Dan- » Earl of Suffolk v. Green, 1 Atk. 450 ; iell's Ch. Pr. 1572, 157:1 Philips >: Carew, 1 P. Wms. 117 ; Shirley w New York & Baltimore Coffee Pol- v. Earl Ferrers, 3 P. Wms. 77. ishing Co. v. New York Coffee Polishing i^ Enjce ,'. Roupell, 32 Beav. 299 ; s. c. Co., 9 Fed. R. 578. 9 Jur. n. 8. 530. 11 Story's Eq. PI. § 306. i^ EUice v. Roupell, 32 Beav. 308 ; 8. 0. 12 Rose V. Gannel, 3 Atk. 439 ; Vaughan 9 Jur. n. s. 533. V. Fitzgerald, 1 Sch. & Lef.'316; Story's i' Story's Eq. PI. § 306 a. § 280.] BILLS TO TAKE TESTIMONY DE BENE ESSE. 497 defendant answer denying the plaintiffs case, witnesses may be examined as to the point in issue by cither party. ^^ Otherwise, sucli a bill should not be brought to a hearing, and if the plain- tiff do so it will be dismissed with costs, but without prejudice to the use of the testimony taken in pui-suance of its prayer.^ It is said that " If the plaintiff neglects to proceed with the suit, the defendant cannot move to dismiss for want of prosecution ; but may move that the plaintiff" be ordered to take the next stej>, within a limited time, or to pay him the costs of the suit. If the defendant neglects to take the steps proper to be taken by him within the prescribed time, the court will, it seems, order the examination of the witnesses to proceed." ^'^ If no valid objection is made, the court will order the testimony to be taken. Both parties may examine witnesses under the order,^* and either party must be allowed to cross-examine those whom his opponent ex- amines in chief.'-^^ After the witnesses have been examined, the cause is at an cnd,^ and if the defendant have examined no wit- nesses in chief he will be entitled to his costs ; but by receiving costs he waives any objection he might otherwise be entitled to make on the ground that he has had no sufficient opportunity of cross-examination.^* The testimony thus taken is filed in the clerk's office, and can be used in a subsequent case at law or in equity in the same court, under an order, which must be obtained by motion upon notice, and supported by proof of the witness's death, or that he cannot be then compelled to attend and testify.-^ § 280. Bills to take Testimony de bene esse. — Bills to take tes- timony de bene esse were formerly filed after a suit or action had been begun, in order to take the testimony of such witnesses as, on account of their age, infirmity, or intention to depart from the jurisdiction of the court, it was feared could not be taken in its 18 Briiistocke '•. Rocli, 7 Jar. n. s. 03. Karl of Abergavenny r. Powell, 1 Meriv. 19 Hail r. Hoddesdon, 2 T'. Wins 162; 4.34, Skrinc r. Powell, 15 Simons, 81 ; Anon., Ambler, 237 ; s. c. 2 Ves. Sen. 497 ; s. c. 9 Jar 1054. Vaugliaa r Fitzgerald, 1 Sch. & Lef. 316 ; '^^ Daniell's Cli. Pr. (5tli Am. ed.) 1573, Morrison L'. Arnold, 19 Ves. 670; Ellice 1674. V. Roupell, 32 Beav. 308. "■" Morrison v. Arnold, 19 Ves. 670 ; ■-» Daniell's Cli. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1573 ; Vaughan v. Fitzgerald, 1 Scli. & Lef. 316. "Wright c. Tatliam, 2 Simons, 459; Bea- '^* Watkins i'. Atchison, 10 Hare, Ap. van V. Carpenter, 11 Simons, 22 ; Coveny xlvi. V. Athill, 1 Dickens, 355 ; Lancaster v. 25 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (6th Am. ed.) 1574, Lancaster, 6 Simons, 439. 1675. 21 Sheward r. Sheward, 2 V. & B. 116 ; VOL. I, — 32 498 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. regular method of proceeding.^ Such bills must substantially comply with the rules regulating bills to perpetuate testimony, with which, indeed, they have been often confounded.^ Now that the same relief can be afforded under the statutes both of most of the individual States and of the United States,^ it is rarely, if ever, that an occasion for their use arises. § 281. Bills of Discovery. — Every bill may seek discovery, but the kind of bill called a bill of discovery is a bill filed for the sole purpose of obtaining a discovery of facts resting in the de- fendant's knowledge, or of deeds, writings, or other things in his custody or power ; and seeking no relief in consequence of the discovery, except possibly a stay of proceedings till the dis- covery is made.^ A bill of discovery is usually, if not always, used in aid of the jurisdiction of another court.^ It will not be allowed, if it seek a discovery of matters concerning which a party, if called as a witness, would be excused from testifying ; ^ nor, it has been said, if the discovery is sought in aid of an action for a mere personal tort.* A bill of discovery can only be filed in aid of a judicial proceeding already commenced or immediately contemplated.^ If filed in aid of proceedings already begun, no person may be made a party to it who is not a party to such pro- ceedings,^ except possibly the officer of a corporation." A bill of discovery must state the matter touching which discovery is sought, show that both the plaintiff and the defendant have or claim an interest therein, state the facts and circumstances upon which the plaintiff's right to compel discovery from the defendant is founded, and pray that the defendant may make a full dis- covery of the matters therein stated.^ A bill of discovery may also pray any equitable assistance of the court which is merely consequential upon the prayer for discovery ; ^ but if it should pray any other or general relief, it will thereby become a bill for § 280. 1 Story's Eq. PI. § 307. * Mayor of London v. Levy, 8 Vos. 2 Story's Eq. PI. § 307. 398 ; United N. J. IJailroad & C.Conipany 8 U. S. H. S. §§ 803-865, and Rule 70. v. Hoppock, 1 Stewart's Eq. (N. J.) 261 ; § 281. ' Daniell's Cli. Pr. (5th Am. Daniell's Ch. Pr. 1558. ed.) 1650. e Queen of Portugal v. Glyn, 7 CI. & 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed ) 1556. F. 466; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 8 Glynn v. Houston, 1 Keen, 329; 1568. Langdell's Eq. PI. § fiO; Wigram on ^ See § 43. Discovery, §§ 130-138 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. » Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 1557. (2d Am. ed.y 563-509. ^ Mitford's Eq. PI. ch. i. § 3 ; Loker v. * Glynn r. Houston, 1 Keen, 329. Roll, 3 Ves. 4. § 281.] BILLS OF DISCOVERY. 499 relief.'*' It seems that a bill of discovery need not allege that the facts of Avliich a discovery is sought are within the exclusive knowledge of the defendant ; '^ but they must be matters essen- tial to a plaintiff's cause of action, or if he be defendant in another suit or action, to his afltirmative defense, and the bill must not seek discovery of the evidence of a part of what belongs solely to the defendant's case.'^ The defendant may oppose a bill of discovery by a demurrer, or plea, or in his answer, in the same manner as he might oppose a bill for relief. The English rule, as finally established, was that, if a demurrer were inter- posed to a bill praying both discovery and relief, and the bill were held not to show a proper case for relief, it could not be maintained for discovery merely. ^^ The rule in the Federal courts is uncertain. ^^ A defense founded upon the statute of limitations or laches may be interposed to a bill of discovery by plea,'^ or, if it appear upon the face of the bill, by demurrer.^^ A material amendment of a bill of discovery will very rarely be allowed.^'' A bill of discovery is never brought to a hearing ; but, after the defendant has put in a full answer thereto, he is enti- tled to costs of the suit,'^ less any costs allowed the plaintiff upon exceptions to a previous answer as insufficient.^^ It has been held in tlie district of Wisconsin that a bill of discovery cannot be maintained in a Circuit Court of the United States held within a State under whose statutes a party can be compelled to testify.^^ 1'' Angell V. Westcombe, 6 Simons, 80. i^ Attorney-General v. Burcli, 4 !Madc1. " Metier i-. Metier, 4 C. E. Green (19 178. N. J. Eq.), 4.57. I'' Hughes v. Clerk, 6 Hare, 195. See 1- Wigram on Discover}-, § .'>72 ; Lang- also Bryant i'. Leland, 6 Fed. R. 125 U. dell's Eq. PI. § 172; Ingilby v. Sliafto, S. C. C, D. Mass.; Easton v. Hodges, 7 33 Beav. .31. Bissell .324; U. S. C. C, D. Illinois; 15 Fry V. Penn, 2 Bro. C. C. 280 ; Loker Paton v. M.ijors, 46 Fed. H. 210, U. S. C. V. Rolle, 3 Ves. 4; Langdell's Eq. PI. C , E. D. La", Billings J. ; Washburn & M. § 152. Manuf. Co. r. Freeman Wire Co., 41 ■ 1* Compare Livingston r. Story, 9 Pet. Fed. R. 410; U. S. C. C, E. D. Mo, 6.32; Wright i-. Dame, 1 Met. (Mass.) 2:]7; Thayer, J.; Washburn & M. Manuf. Hinginbotliam v. Burnet, 5 .1. Ch. (N.Y. ) Co. i". Cincinnati Barb Wire Fence 184; Story's Eq. PI § 412, with Markoy Co., 42 Fed. R. 675, U. S. C. C, S. D. V. MutualBenefit Life Ins.Co., 6 Ins. L J. Ohio. 5.37. •-" Rindskopf r. Piatto, 29 Fed. R. 130. 15 Beames on Pleas, 275; Gait v. Os- Soe also Heath r. Erie R.R. Co., 9 Blatchf. baldeston, 1 Russ. 1.58. 316 ; Brown r. Swann, 10 Pet 497 ; Man- 16 Wooster c. Sidenhergh, U. S. C. C, Chester Fire Assur. Co. v Stockton, C. H. S. D. N. Y. Nov. 6, 1889. ' & A. Works, 38 Fed. R. 378. 1" Marquis Cholmondeley i". Lord Clin- ton, 2 Meriv. 71. 500 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. In the Southern District of New York a contrary ruling sustain^ ing such a bill was made.^^ § 282. Testimony taken before a Cause is at Issue. ■ — Testimony for use in a court of law or equity of the United States may be taken either before or after it is at issue. Testimony taken before a cause is at issue may be taken either before or after it has been begun. "Any court of the United States may, in its discretion, admit in evidence in any cause before it any deposi- tion taken in perpefuam ret memoriam, which would be so ad- missible in a court of the State wherein such cause is pending, according to the laws thereof." ^ Evidence taken by means of a bill to perpetuate testimony may also be admitted in a subse- quent suit in equity .2 " After any bill filed and before the de- fendant hath answered the same, upon affidavit made, that any of the plaintiff's witnesses are aged and infirm, or going out of the country, or that any one of them is a single witness to a material fact, the clerk of the court shall, as of course, upon the application of the plaintiff, issue a commission to such com- missioner or commissioners as a judge of the court may direct, to take the examination of such witness or witnesses de bene esse, upon giving due notice to the adverse party of the time and place of taking his testimony." ^ Such testimony is then taken in the same manner as testimony taken after issue has been joined. § 283. Testimony taken after a Cause is at Issue -v^ithin the Juris- diction of the Court. — Testimony taken after a cause is at issue is taken differently when taken within than when taken without the jurisdiction of the court. Originally, the only manner of examining witnesses within the jurisdiction of a court of chan- cery was by means of written interrogatories and cross-interroga- tories, which were prepared by the solicitors and counsel of the respective parties, or by the court, and then submitted to an examiner or one or more commissioners appointed by the court, who examined the witnesses privately by means of them. The testimony thus obtained was kept secret until all the testimony in the cause had Ijcen taken. The time when it would first be inspected was called the time of publication.^ In the courts of 21 Colgate V. Compagnie Franoaise, 23 ing Co. v. New York Coffee Polisliing Co., Fed. II. 82. See also Paine v. Warren, 9 Fed. R. 578. 33 Fed. R. 357. ^ Rule 70. See Eslava v. Mazange, § 282. 1 U. R. R. S. § 80)7. 1 Woods, 023. 2 New York & Baltimore Coffee Polish- § 28-3. i LangdtU's Equity Pleading, § 283.] TESTIMONY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION AND AFTER ISSUE. 501 the United States it seems that originally the only method of examination in equity was by commissioners. It was regulated by the following rules : — " After the cause is at issue, commissions to take testimony may be taken out in vacation as well as in term, jointly by both parties, or severally by either party, upon interrogatories filed by the party taking out the same in the clerk's office, ten days' notice thereof being given to the adverse party to file cross-in- terrogatories before the issuing of the commission; and if no cross-interrogatories are filed at the expiration of the time, the commission may issue ex j^cirte. In all cases, the commissioner or commissioners shall be named by the court, or by a judge thereof. If the parties shall so agree, the testimony may be taken upon Oral interrogatories by the parties or their agents, without filing any written interrogatories." ^ In 1854 it was " ordered, that the sixty-seventh rule governing equity practice be so amended as to allow the presiding judge of any court exercising jurisdiction, either in term time or in vacation, to vest in the clerk of said court general power to name commissioners to take testimony in like manner that the court or judge thereof can now do by the said sixty-seventh rule." ^ " Three months, and no more, shall be allowed for the taking of testimony after the cause is at issue, unless the court, or a judge thereof, shall, upon special cause shown by either party, enlarge the time ; and no testimony taken after such period shall be allowed to be read in evidence at the hearing. Immediately upon the return of the commissions and depositions containing the testimony into the clerk's office, pub- lication thereof may be ordered in the clerk's office, by any judge of the court, upon due notice to the parties, or it may be enlarged as he may deem reasonable under the circumstances ; but, by consent of the parties, publication of the testimony may at any time pass into the clerk's office, such consent being in writing, and a copy thereof entered in the order-books, or endorsed upon, the deposition or testimony." * Where there is a dispute as to the relevancy of an interrogatory or cross-interrogatory, the usual practice is to allow it to be answered in a doubtful case, and §§ 56-58. See Eillert r. Craps, 44 Fed. R. ^ Amendment of 1854 to Rule 67. 702; Wood r. Mann, 2 Sumner, 316. * Rule 69; Eillert v. Craps, 44 Fed. R. 2 Rule (17. In 1861 the last paragraph 792. of tills rule was repealed. 502 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. to determine the objections to it at the hearing or by a motion to suppress the deposition.^ The court may refer the interrog- atories to a master to inquire into their relevancy.^ It has been said, that, as a general rule, after the publication of testimony, no more can be taken unless the judge himself, upon or after the hearing, entertains a doubt, or the proof of some additional fact is indispensable to enable him to make a satisfactory decree ; but that exhibits in a cause may be proved after publication, and even viva voce at the hearing, when they have not been proved in due season ; and that a witness may be examined after publica- tion as to the credit of other witnesses ; and that the time may be enlarged after publication is passed, but not in fact made accord- ing to rules of court, upon good cause, as surprise, accident, or some other circumstances repelling imputations of laches, proved by affidavit, which, unless the other party has practised fraud, is indispensable." This method of taking testimony was, like many other parts of equity practice, borrowed from the canon law ; with this difference, however, that whereas by the canon law each party before the examination of witnesses was obliged to furnish his adversary and the co'urt with articles containing a specific statement of the facts which he expected to prove by them ; in equity, on the other hand, except in a few rare instances, facts, not evidence, are required to be pleaded. So, originally, each party was before i)ublication very much in the dark as to the facts which his antagonist intended to attempt to establish. " It is not surprising, therefore, that the mode of taking testimony in equity fell into disrepute, and finally bi'oke down." ^ § 284. Present Method of taking Testimony within the Jurisdic- tion. — Testimony in equity is now, therefore, almost universally allowed to be taken orally in the presence of counsel. The rules regulating the practice of the courts of the United States upon the subject are as follows : " Either party may give notice to the other that he desires the evidence to be adduced in the cause to be taken orally, and thereupon all the witnesses to be examined shall be examined before one of the examiners of the court, or 5 Ziiiikcl V. Litclifield, 21 Fed. R. 196, e Zunkel v Litchfield, 21 Fed. R. 196. 197; Giles v. Paxson, 36 Fed. R. 882; " Wood ?•. Mann, 2 Sumner, 316. Appleton V. Ecaubert, 45 Fed. R. 281 ; « Langdell's Eq PI. § 56. See also Edison El L. Co. v U. S El. L. Co. 44 Fed. Langdell's Eq. PI. §§ 14-19. R 294; s. c. 45Fed. R. 55, Blease ?• Gar lington, 92 U. S 1 , infra, § 284, note 17. § 284] TESTIMONY TAKEN ORALLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION. 503 before an examiner to be specially appointed by tbc court, the examiner to be furnished with a copy of the bill and answer, if liny ; and such examination shall take place in the presence of the parties or their agents, by their counsel or solicitors, and the witnesses shall be subject to cross-examination and re-examina- tion, and which shall be conducted as near as may be in the mode now used in the common-law courts. The depositions taken upon such oral examinations shall be taken down iii M'rit- ing by the examiner in the form of a narrative, unless he deter- mines the examination shall be by question and answer in special instances ; in which instances it shall be taken down by a steno- grapher and be put into typewriting or other writing, and, when completed, shall be read over to the witness and signed by him in the presence of the parties or counsel, or such of them as may attend ; provided, if the witness shall refuse to sign the said deposition, then the examiner shall sign the same ; and the exam- iner may, upon all examinations, state any special matter to tlie court as he shall see fit ; and any question or questions which may be objected to shall be noted by the examiner upon the deposition, but he shall not have power to decide on the compe- tency, materiality, or relevancy of the questions ; and the court shall have power to deal with the costs of incompetent, imma- terial, or irrelevant depositions, or parts of them, as may be just." ^ " The expense of the taking down of depositions by a stenographer and of putting them into typewriting or other writing, shall be paid in the first instance by the party who makes the examination or the cross-examination, as the case may be, and shall be im- posed by tlie court, as part of the costs, upon such party as the court shall adjudge shall ultimately bear them." ^ " In case of refusal of witnesses to attend, to be sworn, or to answer any question put by the examiner, or by counsel or solicitor, the same practice shall be adopted as is now practised with respect to Avitnesses to be produced on examination before an examiner of said court on written interrogatories. Notice shall be given b}' the respective counsel or solicitors, to the opposite counsel or solici- tors, or parties, of the time and place of the examination, for § 284. ^ Amendments of 1801 and Fed. R. 86. Interrogatories may be re- 1891 to Rule 67. For an instructive case fcrred to a master for an inquiry into as to tlic regularity of proceedings before their relevancy. Zunkel v. Litchfield, 21 an examiner, see Fisher v. Hayes, 6 Fed. K. 190. 504 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. such reasonable time as the examiner may fix by order in each cause. When the examination of witnesses before the examiner is conchided, the original deposition, authenticated by the signa- ture of the examiner, shall be transmitted by him to the clerk of the court, to be there filed of record, in the same mode as prescribed in the thirtieth section of Act of Congress, September 24, 1789.2 Testimony may be taken on commission in the usual way, by written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories, on mo- tion to the court in term time, or to a judge in vacation, for special reasons satisfactory to the court or judge." ^ " Where the evidence to be adduced in a cause is to be taken orally, as provided in the order passed at the December term, 1861, amend- ing the 67th General Rule, the court may, on motion of either party, assign a time within which the complainant shall take his evidence in support of the bill, and a time thereafter within which the defendant shall take his evidence in defense, and a time thereafter within which the complainant shall take his evi- dence in reply ; and no further evidence shall be taken in the cause, unless by agreement of the parties, or by leave of the court first obtained, on motion, for cause shown." ^ "Three months, and no more, shall be allowed for the taking of testi- mony after the cause is at issue, unless the court, or a judge thereof, shall, upon special cause shown by either party, enlarge the time ; and no testimony taken after such period shall be allowed to be read in evidence upon the hearing." ^ Except in a very flagrant case, the appellate court will not, upon appeal, review the action of the lower court in giving or refusing fur- ther time in which to take testimony.^ In the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, the following rules regulate the subject : " If a general commission is not issued, pursuant to the 25th Rule of the Supreme Court, within ten days after rei)lication filed, either party may give notice of the examination of witiicsscs be- fore the standing examiner of this court; and three months from the time of the replication shall be allowed the parties for taking 2 U. S. R. S. § 8G5. See »iAr», §§ 280, 548; Wooster r. Clark, Fed R. 851. 287. After the time lias expired, the court may 8 Amendment of 1861 to Rule 67. permit the testimony to he taken yiunc pro ■» Amendment of 1809 to Rule 67. tunc. Coon v. Abbott, 37 Fed. R. U8. 5 Rule 09. See Coon v. Abbott, 37 ^ jngle v. Jones, 9 Wall. 480 ; Grant v. I'ed.R. 98 ; Streat v. Steinam, 38 Fed. R. Phoeni-x Mut. Life Ins. Co. 121 U. S. 105. § 284] TESTIMONY TAKEN ORALLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION. 505 their depositions before the examiner."' " In taking testimony, all Masters, Examiners, Referees, and Commissioners shall, where testimony is written down by question and answer, number the questions put to each witness continuously, from the commence- ment of his direct examination to the final close of his examina- tion, direct and cross." ^ " Whenever it is intended to offer oral proof in open court, the party proposing it shall give due notice to the opposite party of the names of the witnesses, the matters to which they are to be examined, and of the reasons upon which he will move for an examination."^ "A master or examiner, in taking proofs, or in matters of reference, shall not, without the written consent of all parties, or the authorization of one of the judges, adjourn proceedings pending before him, for a longer time than ten days." '^^ " No rule or order need be entered for the publication of testimony ; but so soon as the commissioner or examiner shall have completed the testimony offered, the party taking it shall cause the deposition to be filed in the clerk's office, and forthwith give notice thereof to the adverse party. Either party may thereupon enter a rule of course, that the clerk open the commission, or deposition, and file the same." ^^ "Within four days after the clerk shall have prepared copies of the depo- sitions (provided the same were applied for in two days after the notice of the filing thereof), the adverse party may give notice of exception, before a judge at chambers, to the proofs or any part of them, on account of any irregularity in taking the depo- sitions, or executing the commissions ; and, if no such notice of exception is given, all objections to the form or manner in which the proofs were taken, shall be deemed waived." ^^ Testimony cannot thus be taken outside the district where the suit is pcnd- ing,i3 except possibly when a special examiner is appointed for that purpose.^* " Whenever it is intended to offer oral proof in open court, the party pro|)osing it shall give due notice to the opposite party of the names of the witnesses, the matters to which they are to be examined, and of the reasons upon which he will move for an 7 U. S. C. C. S. D. N. Y. Rule 108. i- U. S. C. C, S. D N. Y. Rule 11.3. 8 U. S. r. C, S. D. N. Y. Rule of i'^ Celluloid Mnnuf. Co. v. Russell, 35 Nov. 10, 1868. Fed. R. 17. 9 U. S. C. C, S. I). N. Y. Rule 110. n Railroad Co. ?-. Drew, .3 Woods, G97. 10 U. R. C. C, S. D. N. Y. Rule 115. Contra, Arnold v. Clieseborough, 35 Fed. " U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y. Rule 112. R. 16. 506 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. exainlnation." ^^ The examiner must note all objections and exceptions to questions and answers, and take the testimony sul)jcct to them, but cannot decide on their validity.!^ It has been held that the court will not interfere to prevent irrelevant questions.^' Wliether the judge can in his discretion permit 15 U. S. C. C, S.D.N. Y. Rule no. 16 Appleton V. Ecaubert, 45 Fed. 11. 281. 1" Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, 4-8; ]icr Waite, C. J. : — " The Juiliciary Act of 1789 (I Stat, at L. 88, sect. 30) provided that tlie mode of proof by oral testimony and e.xamination of witnesses in open court should be tiie same in all the courts of the United States, as well in the trial of causes in equity as of actions at common law. By sect. 19 of the same act, it was made the duty of the Circuit Court, in equity cases, to cause the facts on wiiich tbey founded their decree fully to appear upon the record, either from the pleadings and decree, or a statement of the case agreed upon by the parties or their counsel, or, if they disagreed, by a stating of the case by the court. Subsequently, in 1802 (2 Stat, at L. 1G6, sect. 25), it was enacted that in all suits in equity the court miglit in its discretion, upon the request of either party, order the testimony of witnesses therein to be taken by depositions In 1803 (2 Stat, at L. 244, sect. 2) an appeal was given to this court in equity cases, and it was provided, that, upon the appeal, a transcript of the bill, answer, depositions, and all other pioceeilings in the cause, should be transmitted here. The case was to be beard in this court upon the proofs submitted below. In Coini. *•. Penn.. 5 Wheat. 424, decided in 1820, this court held that a decree founded in ])art upon parol testimony must be re- versed, because that portion of the testi- mony which was oral had not been sent up For this reason, among others, the cause was sent back for further proi'ced- ings according to equity Chief-Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the court, said (]). 420) — " ' Previous to this act (tliat of 1803), tlie facts were brought before this court by the statement of the judge. The deposi- tions are substituted for that statement ; and it would seem, since this court must judge of the fact as well as the law, that all the testimony which was before the Circuit Court ought to be laid before this court. Yet the section (of the act of 1789) wiiich directs that witnesses shall be e.x- amined in open court is not, in terms, re- pealed. Tlie court has felt considerable doubt on this subject, but thinks it the safe course to require that all the testi- mony on which the judge founds his opinion should, in cases within the juris- diction of this court, appear in the rec- ord.' Under the authority of the act of May 8, 1792 (1 Stat, at L. 27G, sect. 2), this court at its February Term, 1822, adopted certain rules of practice for the courts of equity of the United States. 7 Wheat. Rules 25, 26, and 28 related to the tak- ing of testimon_v by depositions, ami the examination of witnesses before a master or examiner; but by Rule 28 it was e.x- pressl}' provided that nothing therein con- tained should ' prevent the examination of witnesses viva voce when produced in open court.' These rules cimtinued in force until the January Term, 1842, when they were superseded by others then pro- mulgated, of which 67, 68, 69, and 78 re- lated to the mode of taking testimony, but made no reference to the examina- tion of witnesses in open court, further than to provide, at the end of Rule 78, that nothing therein contained should 'prevent the examination of witnesses viva voce when produced in open court, if tlie court shall, in its discretion, deem it advisable.' "Afterwards (in August, 1842) Con- gress authorized this court to prescribe and regulate the mode of taking ami ob- taining evidence in equity cases. 5 Stat at L 518, §G. While these rules remained in force substantially as originally adopted, and before any direct action of the court under the special authority of this act of Congress, the case of Sickles v. Glouces- ter Co., 3 Wall. Jr. 186, came before Mr. § 234] TESTIMONY TAKEN OKALLY WITHIN THE JUKISDICTION. 507 oral testimony to be taken before him at the hearing of a suit in equity, has not yet been deeided by the Supreme Court. ^^ Justice Grier oi) tlie circuit ; ami lie tlicie may upon all examinations state any spe- held tliat, notwitiistanding tlie rules, wit- cial matters to tlie court as lie shall tiiink iiesses migjit still be examined in ojjen fit ; and any question or questions which court. It was his opinion that the act may be objected to shall be noted by the of 17tS!) guaranteed to suitors the right examiner upon the deposition, but he to have their witnesses so examined if shall not iiave power to decide on the they desired it, that Rule 07 did not af- competency, materiality, or relevancy of feet or annul the act of Congress or the the questions, and the court shall have policy established by it, and that a party power to deal with the costs of iiicompe- liad therefore the right to demand an ex- tent, imniaterial, or irrelevant depositions, amination of witnesses within the juris- or parts of them, as may be just.' diction of the court oce tentts, according to " The act of 1789, in relation to the oral the principles of the common law, either examination of witnesses in open court, by having them produced in court or by was not expressly repealed until the having leave to cross-examine tliem face adoption of the Revised Statutes, § b62 to face before the examiner. of whicii is as follows • — "This case was decided in 1856; and "' Tiie mode of proof in causes ofequity at the December term, 1861, of this court, and of admiralty and maritime jurisdic- Kule 67 was amended so as to provide for tion shall be according to the rules the oral examination of witnesses before now or hereafter prescribed by the Su- an examiner. The part of the rule as preme Court, except as lierein specially amended pertinent to tlie present inquiry provided.' is as follows — " Since the amendment of Rule 67, in "'Either party may give notice to the 1861, there could never have been any other that he desires the evidence to be difficulty in bringing a case here upon ap- adduced in the cause to be taken orally ; peal, so as to save all excei)tions as to the and thereupon all tiie witnesses to he ex- form or substance of the testimony, and amined shall be examined before one of still leave us in a condition to proceed to the examiners of the court, or before an a final determination of the cause, what- examiner to be specially api)()inted by the ever might be our rulings upon tiie ex- court, the examiner to be furnished with ceptions. The examiner before whom a copy of the bill, and answer, if any, and the witnesses are orally examined is such examination shall take place in the required to note exceptions; but he presence of the parties or their agents by cannot decide upon their validity. He their counsel or solicitors ; and the wit- must take down all the examination in nesses shall be subject to cross-examina- writing, and send it to the court with the tion and re-examination, and which shall be objections noted. So, too, when dejiosi- conducted as near as may be in the mode tiuns are taken according to the acts of now used in common-law courts. The Congress, or otherwise under the rules, depositions taken tipon such oral exam- exceptions to the testimony may be noted inations shall be taken down in writing by the officer taking the dei)osition, but by the examiner in the form of narrative, he is not permitted to decide upon them ; unless he determines the examination and when the testimony as reduced to shall be by question and answer in special writing by the examiner, or the deposi- instances, and when completed shall be tion, is filed in court, further exceptions read over to the witness and signed by may be there taken. Thus both the ex- liim in the presence of the parties or cei)tioi)s and the testimony objected to counsel, or such of them as may attend ; are all before the court below, and come provided, if the witnesses shall refuse to here upon the apj)eal as part of the record sign the said deposition, then the exam- and proceedings there. If we reverse the iner shall sign the same; and the examiner ruling of that court upon the exceptions, 18 Blease r Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, 7 .08 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. If it is desired to review upon appeal a judge's refusal so to do, the testimony thus rejected by him, or at least its sub- ue may still proceed to tlie liearin*, be- cause we have in our possession and can consider tiie rejected testimony. But an- gler the practice adopted in tliis case, if the exceptions sustained below are over- ruled here, we must remand the cause in order that tlie proof may be taken. That was dotie in Conn i: Pcnn. shjh-u, which was decided before the promulgation of the rules. One of the objects of the rule, ill its present foriw, was to prevent the necessity for any such practice. " While, tlierefore, we do not say that, even since the Revised Statutes, the cir- cuit courts may not in their discretion, under the o[ieratioii of tlie rules, permit the examination of witnesses orally in open court upon tlie hearing of cases iu equity, we do say that now they are not by law required to do so ; and that, if such practice is adopted in any case, the testimony presented in that form must be taken down or its substance stated in writLKg, and made part of the record, or it will be entirely disregarded here on an appeal. So, too, if testimony is objected to and ruled out, it must still be sent here with the record, subject to the objection, if)r tlie ruling will not be considered by us. A case will not be sent back to have the rejected testimony taken, even tliough we might on examination lie of the opinion that the objection to it ought not to have been sustained. Ample provision having been made by the rules for taking the testimony and saving exceptions, parties, jf they prefer to adopt senn, 203. i^ Harris v. Wall, 7 How. 693; Thorpe li Shutte ('. Thompson, 15 Wall. 152. v. Simmons, 2 Cranch C. C 195. 12 Garey r. Union Bank, 3 Cranch C. -' Patapsco Ins. Co r. Southgate, 6 Pet. C. 91. 604; Merrill (• Dawson, Hempst 563; s.c. 13 Freeman ?• Holmead, 5 Cranch C. C. sub non}. Fowler i-. Merrill, 11 How. 375; 162. Tooker i- Thompson, 3 McLean, 92. 1* Ex parte William Judson, 3 Blatchf. 512 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. more than one hundred miles from the place of trial, the party who has taken his deposition must prove that his disability to attend still continues, and that due diligence was used in seek- ing to procure his attendance, before the deposition can be read in evidence.^^ The previous issue of a subpcEna is not essential if proof of the inability of the witness is otherwise given.^^ If it appears that at the time when the deposition was taken tlie wit- ness lived more than one hundred miles from the place of trial, the opposite party, upon whom the burden then rests, may prove that at the time of trial he lives within one hundred miles.^^ Whether a witness resides more than one hundred miles from the place of trial is to be determined by the actual distance by usual routes. 2* It has been held that parol evidence is inadmissible to show a sufficient reason, where the magistrate's certificate gives an in- sufficient reason.25 It is the proper practice for the magistrate to state in his certificate that he was not of counsel for either party nor interested in the event of the cause.^^ It has been held that the magistrate's certificate need not state the witness was " sworn to testify the whole truth," if it states that the witness was sworn ; ^' nor, perhaps, that the witness is not a resident of the district where the case is pending.^s The fact that a witness is a seaman on a gunboat stationed in a harbor, but liable to be ordered to some other place, is, it seems, not sufficient to author- ize the taking of his testimony de bene esse in this manner.^^ No order or rule of the court is necessary in order to take deposi- 21 Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 5 tapsco Insurance Co. v. Soutligate, 5 Pet. Pet. 604, 612. The Samuel, 1 Wheat. 9 ; 604. Weed V Kellogg, 6 McLean, 44 ; Jones v. ^* Ex parte Beebees, 2 Wall. Jr. 127. Greenolds, 1 Cranch C. C. oo9 ; Penn v. -5 Wheaton v. Love, 1 Cranch C. C. Ingraham, 2 Wash. C. C. 487 ; Bannert 451. But see Dunkle v. Worcester, 6 r. Day, 3 Wash. C. C. 343; Pettibone v. Biss. 102. Derringer, 4 Wash. C. C 215; Read v. 2fi Qartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 20 Bertrand, 4 Wash. C. C. 558; Brown y. Fed. R. 187; Donohue v. Roberts, 19 Galloway, Pet. C. C. 291. Fed. R. 863. But see Miller v. Yoting, 2 2i Park V. Willis, 1 Cranch C. C, 357 ; Cranch C. C. 53 ; Peyton v. Veitch, 2 Leatherberry v. Radcliffe, 5 Crancii C. C. Cranch C. C. 128 ; Stewart v. Townsend, 650. 41 Fed. R. 121. 21 Penn v. Ingraham, 2 Wash. C C. -" Bussard v. Catalino, 2 Cranch C. C. 487 ; Brown v. Galloway, Pet. C. C. 201 ; 421. But see Rainer r. Haynes, Hempst. Pettibone i'. Derringer, 4 Wash. 215; 689; Garrett i-. Woodward, 2 Cranch, Russell V. Ashley, Hempst. 640, 549; C. C. 190. Weed r. Kellogg, 6 McLean, 44; Whitford -8 Sage v. Tauszky. 6 Cent. L. J. 7. V. Clark Co , 119 United States, 622 ; Pa- 29 The Samuel, 1 Wheat. 9. § 286.] DErosiTioNS de bene esse. 513 tioiis ill this manner.^ Although one deposition has been already taken, yet a second deposition of the same witness may be taken without an order of the court.^^ It is customary to file the no- tice or a copy thereof" in the clerk's office before the issue of the subpoenas. Any one, even a party to the suit, may serve the notice.^^ If the United States be a party, it seems that service should be made upon the nearest district attorney .^'^ It has been held that if an attorney has been employed in a case and is still employed therein, notice should ha given to him, although he has never formally appeared on the record.^* The service must be personal, unless otherwise expressly authorized as provided for in the statute.^ The notice must be served a reasonable time before the taking of the deposition.^^ An hour's notice has been held to be reason- able.^*^ Where the parties and their attorneys lived in the place where the deposition was taken, a notice tliat the deposition would be taken " before William G. Peckham, Esq., Notary Public, or some other officer authorized by law to take depositions," &c., was held sufficient when the deposition was taken before another no- tar}'.^"^ It seems that it is not proper to serve a notice for the taking of a deposition during a term at which the cause could be tried ; ^ or so short a time before as not to allow an attorney, if he attend, to reach the court before the commencement of that term.*'' The notice must show on its face that the contingency has happened which confers jurisdiction on the magistrate, and gives the party serving it a right to have the deposition taken; so that the party upon whom it is served may be able to judge whether it is necessary for him to attend.*^ If the witnesses' 3'' Pettibone v. Derringer, 4 Wash. 215 ; 5G6; Renner v. Ilowland, 2 Crancli C. C. Biickinf^jbam r. Burgess, 3 McLean, 368. 441 ; Barreli /•. Simonton, 3 Crancli C. C. But see Walker v. Parker, 5 Crancli C. C. 681. (•,3'J. 37 Leiper v. Bickley, 1 Crancli C. C. ^' Nash, tenant of Coniiett v. Williams, 20 ; Bowie c Talbot, 1 Crancli C. C.247 ; •20 Wall. 220. Atkinson v. Glenn, 4 Cranch C. C. 134. '- Young V. Davidson, 5 Cranch C. C. But see Renner r. Howland, 2 Cranch C. 515. C. 441 ; Irving v. Sutton, 1 Cranch C. C. 33 The Argo. 2 Gall. 314. 567. 3< Allen V. Blunt, 2 W. & M. 121. ^s Qormley v. Bunyan, 138 U. S. 623, 35 Carrington v. Stimson, 1 Curtis, 437. 632. Contra, Merrill v. Dawson, Hempst. 563. 3!) Allen r. Blunt, 2 W. & M. 121 ; Bell s. c. sub nom. Fowler v- Merrill, 11 How. r. Nimnion, 4 McLean, 53'J. 375. ■»! Bell r. Niinmon, 4 McLean, 539. 35 Jamieson v. Willis, 1 Cranch C. C. "'^ Harris v. Wall, 7 How. G!)3. Contra, VOL. I. — 33 514 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CIIAP. XIX. Christian names are unknown, the inclusion of their surnames in the notice will be sufficient.'*'-^ If the notice state that the tak- ing of depositions will be adjourned from day to day, it seems that depositions taken upon an adjourned day will be received.*^ It seems insufficient to swear the witness to tell the whole truth concerning such interrogatories as may be put to him. He should be sworn or should affirm to tell tlie whole truth as far as he knows concerning the matter in controversy between the parties,*'* A notice that a party will on the same day take depositions of witnesses in difterent cities is unreasonable, and such depositions will be suppressed ; even, it has been held, if the opposite party appeared at each by counsel and cross-examined, provided that before the direct examination the objection was specifically stated, and although such party had served similar notices of the taking of depositions at other times and {daces on his own behalf.*^ It seems tliat if the witness is properly sworn, it is not neces- sary that he be also cautioned to testify the whole truth ;'**^ and tliat tlie oath may be administered after the deposition has been reduced to vrriting, as well as before.*" If the witness has con- scientious scruples about taking an oath, he may affirm.*^ Tlie certificate of the magistrate that the witness has such conscien- tious scruples is sufficient evidence thereof.*^ It has been held that a witness may be compelled to attend for the purpose of hav- ing his deposition taken de bene esse, either by a subpoena, a sub- pcena duces tecum, or the writ of haheas corpus ad testificandum, but that a commissioner cannot issue a writ of haheas corpus to take a person from jail for the purpose of giving his deposition bjfore such a commissioner.-^'^ A party cannot be compelled by a subpoena to produce papers, books, etc., which would not be material or competent as evidence, merely for the purpose of re- Debutts r. MeCiillocli, 1 Cranch C. C. 286 ; son S. M. A. r. Jnckson, 1 HuErhes, 205 ; Sa-ie r. Taiiszky, 6 Cent. L. J. 7. United States r. Smith, 4 Day, 121. ■i- Claxton V. Adams, 1 MacArtlmr ^'^ Uiile v. Biirnhain, 44 Fed. R. 729 ; (D. C ), 490. See Carrington r. Stinison, U. S. C. C, S. D N. Y., Lacombe, J. 1 Curt. 437. ■*" Doe d. Moore, v. Nelson, 3 McLean, *5 Knode v. Williamson, 17 Wall. 580 ; 383; Brown v. Piatt, 2 Cranch C. C. 253. Sage »'. Tauszky, Cent. ly. J. 7. But see Contra, Luther v. The Mcrritt Hunt, 1 Kirkpatrick v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Newb. Adm. 4. Co., 24 Pittsb. L. J. 51. *' Tooker v. Thompson, 3 McLean. 92. *^ Shutte r. Thompson, 15 Wall. 152; ^8 u. S R. S. § 1. Pendleton v. Forl)es, I Cran(-ii C. C. 507 ; ^^ Elliot r. Hayman, 2 Cranch C. C. 078. Garrett i. Woodward, 2 Cranch C. C. ^ /sx /wWr Peck, 3 Blatchf. 113; United 190 ; Raincr r. Haynes, Hempst. 089 ; Wil- States v. Tiiden, 10 Bon. 56G ; infra, § 300. § 287.] FORM OF DEPOSITION UNDER ACTS OF CONGRESS. 515 freshing his memory .^^ It has been held that after a party has examined a witness in chief under the statutory provisions and demanded an adjournment, he has no right to withdraw the pro- ceedings, and that any party in interest may compel such witness to appear and submit to cross-examination. ^^ Either party may obtain an order compelling the return of a deposition thus taken.^ After the de])osition is complete, the court may allow a further cross-examination on newly discovered facts.^'^ The court has the power to conip<'l the opening of such a deposition before the trial upon the motion of either party against the objection of the other.''^ It is the safer practice to have the witness sign his depo- sition.^*" No notice of filing a deposition need be given to a party who knows it has been.taken.^' § 287. Form of Deposition under Acts of Congress. — The depo- sition should state, either in its body or in its caption, the name of the court where the cause is pending,'^ the title of the cause,^ and the place where the deposition is taken.^ A slight error in the caption, such as a mistake in spelling the name of a party,* or the omission from the title of the cause of the name of one of several plaintiffs or defendants is not a ground of suppressing the deposition.^ The heading of the notice : " United States of America, State of Illinois, County of Cook, ss. In the Circuit Court of the United States," was held not sufficiently irregular to avoid the deposition.^ The omission of the name of the county from the caption is not a fatal defect," The certificate should 5' /I'.r/ia;^ Peck, •". RIatclif. 113; United Waskern r. Dinninnd, Heinpst. 701; Al- Stiites r. Tilden, 10 Ren. .570. len r. Blunt, 2 W. & M. 121. But see ■'• F.:r jxirU' Bnrno.«, 1 Sprad. R. 3^ Blackburn r. Crawford, 3 Wall 175 ; 794 ; United States v. Wilder, 14 Fed. R. Winans v. New Y.jrk & E. R. R. Co., 21 393. How. 88. 3 Peters r. Prevost, 1 Paine, G4. 'f' Cla.xton r. Adam.s 1 MacArthur < Bi.schoffheim c Baltzer. 10 Fed. R. 1. (1). C.),490; Bank of Danville c Trav- ^ United States v. Parrott, 1 iMcAU. ers, 4 Biss. 507 ; Brooks v. Jenkins, 3 447. §288] COMMISSIONS ISSUED UNDER A DEDIMUS POTESTATEM. 519 a case of doubtful authority, the condition that a safe conduct be furnished to the pkiintiff was inserted in an order for a com- mission to examine witnesses on the part of the defendant in a foreign country,*^ but a commission to prove documents was allowed without such a condition J Depositions may be taken under this section of the Revised Statutes, even though the wit- ness live within one hundred miles of the court where the cause is pending;^ or in a country with which the United States are at war.9 Such a commission is not gi-anted as of course, but only u[)un good cause shown. ^'^ The application must be made in open court, and not to a judge at chambers ; ^^ and must be accompanied by an affidavit showing that the testimony which the party desires to take is material. ^^ It seems that the commis- tiou need not specify the exact place where the depositions are to be taken ; but if it do, the commissioners should conform to it in that respect. ^'^ Whetlier a party will or will not be required before the commission is issued to name the witnesses to be examined under it, depends upon the discretion of the court, to be exercised under the circumstances of each case.^* Before the issue of the commission, the i)roi)Osed interrogatories should be filed ^^ and served upon the oi)posite party or his attorney ; ^^ and the latter given a reasonable time, usually fixed by the court, within which to object to them and to file cross-interrogatories.^'' If he omit to do so, the commission may be issued without further notice. ^^ The interrogatories are drawn up substantially as those for the examination of witnesses within the jurisdiction of the court. ^^ Objections to interrogatories or cross-interrogatories should be in the form of exceptions to them, and must be filed before the com- mission issues ; or otherwise will be held waived.^^ If the parties 6 Hollander i\ Eaiz, 40 Fed. K. 059. i« Rhoades v. Selin, 4 Wasli. 715 ; Mer- " Ilollatidcr y Baiz, 43 Fed. R. 35. rill v. Dawson, Hempst. 5(3 o ; s. c. sub 8 Wellford V. Miller, 1 Crancli C. C iiom. Fowler c. Merrill, 11 How. 375. 485 ; Russell r. M'Lellan, 3 W. & M. 157. '' Frevall v. Baclie, 5 Cranch C. C. ^ Peters ('. Prevost, 1 Paine, G4. 403; Tlie Norway, 1 Ren. 493. Leave to 1" United States r. Parrott, 1 McAU. cross-examine orally will rarely be given. 447. Coates v. Merrick Thread Co., 41 Fed. R. ^^ Peters r. Prevost, 1 Paine, 04. 73. 1- Stitton r. Mandeville, 1 Oranch C. C. i*^ Cocker v. F. H. & B. Co , 1 Story, n-".; United States i-. Parrott, 1 McAll. 169. 447. ^'•> Rhoades v. Selin, 4 Wash. 715. 13 Rhoades >\ Selin, 4 Wash. 715. '-" Cocker r. Franklin II. & B. Co., 1 1^ Parker r. Nixon, Baldw. 291. Story, 169. ^^ Cunningham v. Otis, I Gall. 106. 520 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. cannot agree as to their form or substance, a reference may be ordered to a master, whose report will be reviewed by the court.^^ If there be any doubt as to the relevancy or propriety of an in- terrogatory, tlie idtiraate decision thereon will be reserved until the hearing, and it will be allowed to stand and be answered. If there be no doubt as to its irrelevancy or impropriety, it will be stricken out before the commission issues.^'-^ A commission must always name or designate the commissioner or commission- ers.2'^ A woman may be a commissioner, even though she be the wife of the witness to be examined .^-^ The court may grant an order that exhibits annexed to a deposition ali-eady taken may be removed from the file and attached to a commission, provided that copies of them are left in their place.^^ § 289. Proceedings under a Dedimus Potestatem. — If the ap- plication does not state when and where the commission is to be executed, the party at whose instance, or the commissioner to whom it is issued, should notify the adverse party or his solicitor before the depositions are taken. ^ The notice should name the year as well as the day.^ When, however, a party, after notice of an opportunity to do so, has neglected to file cross-interroga- tories, no further notice to him is necessary.'^ The notice shoul4 be served personally, or else left at the liouse of the person upon wliom it is made with a member of his family of sufhcient in- telligence.* The person upon whom it is left, hov.-ever, need not be informed of its purport.^ Service by mail, unless actually received in time, is insufficient.'^ An hour's notice of the time of taking a deposition in the place where the attorney to whom it is given dwells, has been held sufficient.' Tlie regulation of the proceedings under a commission is a matter in the discretion of the court issuing it.^ A commissioner is appointed by and repre- 21 Cocker v. F H & B. Co., 1 Story, 2 Knorle v. Williamson, 17 Wall. 586. 169; BouJereau c. Montgomery, 4 Wash. 3 Merrill v. Dawson, Heinpst. 563; 18G. s. c. sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 How. 22 Cooker v. V. IL & B. Co., 1 Story, 169. 375. 23 Vanstopliorst v. Maryland, 2 Dall. ^ ^Merrill ?•. Dawson, Ilempst. 563; 401. s. c. sub nom. Fowler r. Merrill, 11 How. 21 The Norway, 2 Ben. 121. 375. 25 Daly V. Matruire, 6 Blatchf. 137. ^ M'Call v. Towers, 1 Craneh C C.41. § 289^ ' Uhoailesr. Selin,4 Wash.715; ^ Walker v. Parker, 5 Craneli C. C Knoile /•. Williamson, 17 Wall. 586 ; Mer- 639. rill r. Dawson, Ilempst. 563; s. c. sub " Nicholls ?>. White. 1 Cranch C. C. 59 nom. Fowler /-'. Aferrill, 11 How .■')75; ^ Cunningham v. Otis, 1 Gall. 166. Dunlop 0. Munroe, 1 Cranch C. C. 53ij. § 289.] PROCEEDINGS UNDER A DEDIMUS POTESTATEM. 521 sents the court ; and is no more than is an arbitrator the repre- sentative of the party nominating him.^ The authority given to a commissioner is special, and must be strictly construed. ^'^ A commission issued to more than one commissioner must be exe- cuted and returned by all of them,^^ milcss it is otherwise so pro- vided in it ; ^'^ and if any one else, except a judge in a foreign country whose laws do not ])crmit a private individual to take testimony alone,^^ join in its execution on return, the testimony taken under it will also be suppressed.^'* A commission must be executed at the time and place named in it, or in the notice.^^ It has been held that the witnesses under such a commission should be examined alone ; and the parties are not allowed to be present either in person or by attorney, unless the court other- wise dirccts.^'^ The interrogatories may be shown the witness before he is called upon to give his testimony.^'' He must be examined as to each interrogatory and cross-interrogatory ; and if he imin-oj)erly omits to answer any one of them, or if any one of them, an answer to which would be legal evidence, is not put to him, his whole deposition may be suppressed at the instance of the party who might be thereby injured.^'* If, however, the deposition have been issued ex parte, the adverse party having omitted to file cross interrogatories after an opportunity to do so has been given him, it has been said that as many, or as few, of these interrogatories as the ])arty who filed them thinks proper may be put, provided that the general interrogatory is not omitted. 1^ If the cross-interrogatories are put, it makes no 3 Jones r. Oreiion Central IJ. U. Co., 3 '6 Cunniiii;1iam v. Otis, 1 Gall. 106. Sawyer, 623; Gilpins v. Consequa, Pet. But see Knode v. Williamson, 17 Wall. C. C. 85; Giippy c. Brown, 4 Dal! 410. 580; Merrill r. Dawson, Henipst. 503; 1' Guppy r. Brown, 4 Dall. 410; Arm- s. c. sub nom. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 llow. strong !\ Brown, 1 Wasli. 43 , Bouilereau 375. V. Montgomery, 4 Wash. 186. '" North Carolina R. R. v Drew, 3 11 Guppy r. Brown, 4 Dall. 410; Arm- Woods, 691. strong I'. Brown, 1 Wasii. 43; Munns v. is Ketland v. Bissett, 1 Wash. 144; Dupont, 3 Wash. C. C 31. Nelson v. United States, Pet. C. C. 235; 1- The Griffin, 4 Biatehf. 203- Lons- Winthrop ?'. Union Ins, Co., 2 Wash. 7, dale V. Brown, 3 Wash. 40-1. Bell v. Davidson, 3 V/ash. C. C. 328 , Bix;li- 1^ Wintlirop V. Union Insurance Co , 2 ardson v. Golden, 3 Wash. C. C. 109 ; Wash. 7. Dodge v Israel, 4 Wash. 323; Gilpins v. " Willings V Conscqua, Pet. C. C. .301. Consequa, Pet. C. C. 85; s. c 3 Wash 184. Barnet c. Day, 3 Wasli. 243. But see Gass ik Stmson, 3 Sumner, 08. 1^ llhoades (•. Selin,4Wasli 715; Bou- i'^ Merrill r. Dawson, Hempst. -503 , s. c. dereau v. Montgomery, 4 Wasli. 186; s»i ?(07?<. Fowler r. Merrill, 11 How. 375. Knodc r Williamson, 17 Wall. 586; Bud- c'icum '■ Kirk, 3 Crancii, 2'J3. 522 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. difference how soon after the direct interrogatories have been answered the witness is called upon to answer them.^*^ No addi- tional interrogatories, however, can be filed with or put by or be- fore the commissioner.^^ Under extraordinary circumstances the examination of a witness not named in the commission might be permitted.^^ The deposition may be taken down in writing either by the magistrate or by the deponent in the })rescncc of the magistrate;-^ but not by the counsel for either of tl»e par- ties.-"^ If exhibits are referred to by the witness, they should be annexed to the deposition or identified by marks or refer- ence.2^ A paper referred to by a witness, but which is neither in his own power nor in that of the party making the objection, need not, however, be included in the deposition or thus identi- fied.^*^ It has been held that the deposition need not be signed by the witncss.^'^ A deposition prepared and signed some time before the oath is administered is improper and will l^e sup- pressed.^^ The depositions should be attached to the commission, and, with them, a certificate by all the commissioners that they have complied with tlie requirements above described. The commission should then be sent or delivered to the clerk's office of the court unopened, and must there remain so till publication is allowed by order or consent.^^ The return, or certificate, of the commissioners should state that they were sworn, unless that ceremony has been waived, or they are officers qualified to ad- minister an oath.2° The return should also state the time and place of taking the depositions ; ^' tliat each witness was sworn or affirmed, but not that he was cautioned ; nor need it state the form of the oath.^^ The return need not state in whose "0 Gilpins V. Consequa, Pet. C. C. 85; 27 Ketland r. Bissett, 1 Wasli. 144. s. c 3 Wasli. 184. 28 i^oflge v. Israel, 4 Wash. 323 ; North 21 Cumiiiiitliam v. Otis, 1 Gall. 166; Carolina K. R. Co. r. Drew, 3 Woods, Merrill v Dawson, Hempst. 563; s, c 601. .s7//) noiii. Fowler i\ Merrill, 11 How. 375. '-■' Roudereau i'. Montgomer_y, 4 Wash. ■-- The Infanta, Abbott's Ad. 263. 18(); Frevall v. Bache,"5 Cranch C. C. 2t Stockwell r. United States, 3 Cliff. 463; United States v. Price, 2 Wash. 284 ; Keene v. Meade, 3 Pet. 1 ; s. c. sub 356. nom. Meade v. Keane, 3 Craneh C. C. 51. so Prevail v. Baehe, 5 Cranch C. C. 24 United States !'. Pings, 4 Fed. R. 714. 463; Hoyt v. Hanimekin, 14 How. 346. But see NichoUs v. White, 1 Cranch C. C. But see Gilpins r. Consequa, Pet. C. C 85; 50; Atkinson r. Glenn, 4 Cranch C. C. s, c 3 Wash. 184. 134. ^1 Rhodes v Selin, 4 Wash. 715; Bou- 2' DiMli^e >:. Israel, 4 Wash. 323. dereaii /•. Montjroniery, 4 Wash. 186. 2'' Winans r. New York & Erie R. R. ^'- Jones v. Oregon Central H. R. Co., Co , 21 How. 88. 3 Sawyer, 523 ; Keene r. Meade, 3 Pet. 1 ; § 290.] LETTERS EOGATOKY. 523 handwriting the depositions were taken down ;33 ^or, if the wit- ness was an alien, whether or not he was examined by means of an interpreter.^^ This certificate will be presumptive evidence of the facts therein stated in relation to the execution of the commission.^^ Otherwise, proceedings under these commissions should conform substantially to those under commissions to ex- amine witnesses within the jurisdiction of the court.'^'^ Any ob- jecti(m to the form or manner of the proceedings can only be raised l)y a motion to suppress the deposition,-"^" jirovided that suf- ficient time within which to make such a motion remains between the return of the commission and the hearing.'^* Should a foreign plaintiff refuse to testify before a commission when required so to do, the court may deny him relief in the suit.-^'-^ § 290. Letters Rogatory. — When the witnesses whose testi- mony is desired are in a country whose laws do not permit of the execution of a commission issued from a foreign court, their testimony can only be taken by means of letters roga- tory. " This method of obtaining testimony from witnesses in a foreign country has always been familiar in the Courts of Ad- miralty ; but it is also deemed to be within the inherent powers of all courts of justice. For, by the law of Nations, courts of Justice, of different countries, are bound mutually to aid and assist each other, for the furtherance of justice; and hence, when the testimony of a foreign witness is necessary, the Court before which the action is pending, ma}- send to the Court within whose jurisdiction the witness resides, a writ, either patent or close, usually called a letter rogatory, or a commission sitb mutuae vicis- situdlnis obtentu, ac in juris subsidiu)n,hom those words contained in it. By this instrument the court abroad is informed of the s. c. sub noin. Meaile v. Keane, 3 Cranch 3 Sawyer, 523; Uniteil States v. Parrott, C. C. 51. 1 McAll. 447. See § 284. ^ Keene v. >rea(le, 3 Pet. 1; s. c. sub '^' Blaekburn c. Crawt'ords, o Wall. 175; nom. Menile v. Keane, 3 Cranch C. C. 51 ; . Winans v. New York & Erie 11. R. Co., Jones r. Oregon Central R. R. Co., 3 Saw- 21 How. 88 ; Doane r. Glenn, 21 Wall, yer, 523. " 33; York Co. v. Central R. R., 3 Wall. 34 Gilpins V. Consequa, Pet. C. C. 85; 107; Walker v. Parker, 5 Cranch C. C. s. c. 3 Wash. 184. 639. 35 Mt-rrill v. Dawson, Ilempst. 563; 3s Sergeant v. Biddle, 4 Wi)eat. 508; s,, c. sub »07«. Fowler I'. Merrill, n How. Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 290; 375 ; Bondereau v. Montgomery, 4 Wash. Buddicum r. Kirk, 3 Cranch, 293 ; Alsop 180 ; Winter v. Simonton, 3 Cranch C. C. i'. Commercial Ins. Co., 1 Sunmor, 451. 104. 39 Heath v. Erie R. R. Co., 9 Blatciif 3« Jones V. Oregon Central R. R. Co., 31G. Cf. infra, § 290, note 2. 52-4 EVIDE.XCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. pendency of the cause, and the names of the foreign , witnesses, and is requested to cause the depositions to be talven, in due course of law, for the furtherance of justice ; with an offer, on the part of the tribunal making the request, to do tlie like for the other in a similar case. The writ or commission is usually accompanied by interrogatories, filed by the parties, on each side, to whiidi tlie answers of the witnesses are desired. Tiie commis- sion is executed by the judge who receives it, either by calling tiie witness before himself, or by the intervention of a commis- sioner for that purpose ; and the original answers, duly signed and sworn to by the deponent, and jjroperly authenticated," or duly authenticated copies of the same '• are returned with the com- mission to the Court from which it issued. The Court of Chan- cery has always freely exercised this power, by a commission, either directed to foreign magistrates, by their official designa- tion, or more usually, to individuals by name ; which latter course, the peculiar nature of its jurisdiction and proceedings enables it to induce the parties to adopt by consent, where any doubt exists as to its inherent authority." ^ A special application for an order for letters rogatory may be made to the court, and will be granted in the first instance without issuing a commission, upon satisfactory proof that the authorities abroad will not allow the testimony to be taken in any other manner.- " When any § 290. 1 Greenleafs Evidence, § 320. the German government has labored un- See for a good form. Nelson v. Uniied der a serious misappreliension in tlie State.s, 1 Pet. C. C. 236, note a. See also matter. Tiie minister of foreign affairs Ciinningiiam v. Otis, 1 Gall. 166; Hall's objects to the taking of the desired testi- Adin. Pr. Part 2, tit. 19, Vol. I. cum adil , niony by the consuls, under tlie commis- aiid tit. 27, cum add., pp. 37, 38, 55-GO ; sion in question, on the ground that it is Clarke's Praxis, tit. 27 ; 1 Roll. Abr. 530, an exercise of functions by consular offi- pl. 15; Ougliton's Urdo Judiciorum, cers in tlie German Empire not warranted Vol. I. pp. 150-152, tit. '.'5, 90 ; Wliar- by Article IX. of the German-American ton's International Law Digest, Vol. III. cr)nvention of December 11, 1871. Under § 413. our system of jurisprudence, where tlie - 1 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. 482 ; Daniell's testimony of persons beyond the limits Ch. Pr. (3d Am. ed by Judge Perkins), of the United States is desired b}- eitlier Vol. IL p. 053; Gason ;?. Wordswortli, 2 party to an action pending in the courts, Ves. Sen. 33t) ; Lincoln c. Battelle, 6 the same is taken on commission. For Wend. (N. Y.) 475. tiiis purpose application is made to the Secretary Fish wrote as follows con- court in whicii the action is pending, and cerning tlie refusal of the German gov- when granted a person is agreed on by ernment to allow American consuls to tiie parties, or named by the court, to examine witnesses in Germany under take the evidence, and an order is en- commissions from the courts of the tered in the court to that effect. Ques- United States; — tioiis are prepared by each part}', which "It ajipears to this department tliat are propounded to the witnesses by the 290.] LETTEKS ROGATORY. 525 commission or letter rogatory, issued to take the testimony of any witness in a foreign country, in any suit in which the United States are parties or have any interest, is executed by the court person so named, or an oral examination is sometimes jjrovided for, at wliiuli botii l)arties are represented b3' counsel. Tiie answers to the questions are taken, and the evidence tiius taken is certified liy tiie commission named, and returned to tiie court to be read at tlie trial. No claim is made that a consul of the United States, as sucli, has, by treaty or by con- vention, the rigiit to take such testimony. It is no part of his official duty, nor docs he act as consul in so doing. He acts in tlie matter as a private nidividual, at the request of the parties or the a[)poiiitmcnt of tiie court. The government in no case takes any part in these appoint- ments ; they are made by the courts in tlie independent discharge of their func- tions as a matter of practice, and with tlie sole view of the administration of justice and the ascertainment of the facts of the case at issue between the parties litigant. The person named may be a subject of the German empire, an iVmeri- can citizen, or may belong to any other nationality. He is selected in each par- ticular case as an individual, who, from character, residence, or other qualifica- tion, will fairlN^ propound the questions and certify the answers. His services are purely ministerial, and entirely vol- untary. He has no power to compel the attendance of witnesses or to punish them for contempt. No authority is given e.x- cept to put questions and certify an- swers, and no other is claimed for him. The same proceedings are taken and the same rule applies in every (;ase, whoever the parties to the action may be. The fict that the government is a party or Iris an interest in the action in no respect alters the rule. It is a proceeding in the interest of justice to arrive at the truth 1 etween disputed facts in an action pend- ing in the court. The testimony in any pr.rticular case may be necessary to save a private person, whether German or American, from penalties to which he would otherwise l)e liable. On the other hand, it may be required in tlie interest of good government here or elsewhere to punish attempted frauds upon the public revenue. These are objects of common interest to all commercial powers, which the government of Germany from its well-known character will be the first to appreciate and to vindicate. Upon an examination of the particular order in question, it will be seen that it provides for the taking of testimony for the benefit of either party ; and from this fact and from the letter of the district attorney it will be found to be an order made for the benefit of both par- ties, and obtained by consent or upon their joint application. So far as any objection (nay be made to the execution of this jiarticular commission, therefore, by the brancli house of the defendants in Germany, it appears that tlie order was made on the solicitation or consent of the house in New York. Any obstacle tlirown in the way of the taking of this testimony by the German government amounts to a refusal to permit two parties to ascer- tain the truth to be used for tiieir mutual benefit in a legal proceeding. It is confi- dently believed tliat an explanation of the matter will be entirely satisfactory to the German government. The United States has no desire to obtain for its consuls in Germany any authority or functions ex- cept such as rightly belong to tliem ; and at the same time this government will be extremely reluctant to admit tiiat a per- son becoming a consul of the United States is thereby excludeil from privileges which are allowed to unofficial persons, or becomes disqualified for the discharge of duties to his fellow-citizens whii'h may be performed by any other reputable person, of whatever nationality, but which are likely to be asked of him by reason of his official position, making him more likely than others to be known to those needing siuh services. You will fully explain this matter to the minister of foreign afl^airs, and it is confidently hoped and expected that on this full explanation all olijection to the action of the consuls in question will be withdrawn, and that the German government will view it as an act of 526 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CIIAT. or the commissioner to whom it is directed, it shall be returned by such court or commissioner to the minister or consul of the United States nearest the place where it is executed. On re- comity, and in aid of the proper ailiniiiis- tratiuii of government and justice, to facilitate tiie ascertainment of tlie facts in the case now at issue between this government and the Messrs. Woltf. A continued objection or obstruction to sucli ascertainment wouhl be the cause of very serious reyret to tliis government. •' You may, in your discretion, read and give a copy of tliis despatcli, to this point, to the minister of foreign affairs, for the purpose of explanation. " Under tiie circumstances set out in your No. 9, your action in intimating to tlie several consuls the difficulties whicii might arise from action on their part un- til the matter should be adjusted, was a wise precaution, and is approved. •' Should the German government witlidraw the olijections now raised, you will so inform the several consuls, and in- form this Department by telegrapli. You will also instruct the consuls, in executing any such commission, to assume no au- thority as consuls, and to be careful in their actiou to give as little offence to tiie German government and to its subjects as possible." (Mr. Fisli, Sec. of State, to Jlr. N. Fisli, Aug. 18, 1874, MSS. Inst. Germ., For. Hel., 1874.) "Your No. 3o, under date of the 20th of October last, narrating your interview with Mr. voii Bulow at the foreign office in relation to the objection interposed by tlie German government to allowing con- suls of the United States to serve as com- missioners to take testimony to be used in judicial proceedings pending in this country, has been received. Your repre- sentations to the minister are approved. Although Mr. von Bulow st.ited to you that instructions on the subject had been sent to Mr von Schlozera fortnight prior to your interview and conversation, notli- ing has been heard from that gentleman in this connection. The objection interposed by the (jerman government to tiie obtain- ing of testimony in German}^ to be used in the courts of this country is much to be regretted, and, as appears from the ad- mission made to you by Mr. von Bulow, the Germans wliose interests led tliem to resist the taking of tlie testimony, and wlio invoked the interposition of their government to prevent it, are now known to liave been in tlie wrong. It would have been quite as satisfactory to this government had the reply of the German government on a subject presented to their consideration, through tiie repre- sentative of tins government at Berlin, been communicated also through him, and, as is shown, some delay wliicli has occurred might iiave been avoided. As Mr. von Sclilozer has not communicated tiie answer of his government, it will not be amiss tiiat you inform Mr. von Bulow that we are still without any reply. You will call his attention to the fact that the suit in wliicii the testimony is sougiit is one in wliich the government of the United States is itself a party. " I inclose herewitii copies of existing statutes (winch are embodied in Sections 4071, 4072, 4073, and 4074 of the Kevised Statutes of the United States) enacted by this government to insure to other powers tiie opportunity of obtaining tes- timony in this country in any suit for the recovery of money or property de- pending in any court in any foreign coun- try with wiiicii tlie United States are at peace, and in whicli tiie government of sucii foreign country shall be a party or sliall have an interest. In tiiese enact- ments, which have long been in force in this country, this government has mani- fested its friendsiiip to other powers, as well as its desire to aid in the administra- tion of justice in all foreign countries witli which it may be at peace. It is hoped that the answer of the German government may soon be communicated, and tiiat it will be such as sliall evince a williimness to reciprocate the very liberal and efficient provisions made in this coun- try to enable Germany in case of need to obtain the evidence of witnesses m this country in any suit in whicli that govern- ment may be mterested, and that the facilities whicli Mr. von Bulow snys that Germany will afford in this direction may § 290.] LETTERS ROGATORY. 527 cciving the same, the said minister or consul shall indorse there- on a certificate, stating when and where the same was received, and that the said deposition is in the same condition as when he prove ample and efficacious." (Mr. Fisli, Sec. of State, to Mr. Davis, Nov 11, 1874. MSS. Inst. Germ., For. Hel , 1874. See fiirtiier, Mr. Fish to Mr. Davis, April 7, 1875) "On tlic IGtli of November last I had the honor to receive your note of the 13th of tliat montli, communicating an instruc- tion which the imperial f(n-eign office had directed to you, in reference to tiie objec- tions which had been interposed by the German government to the obtaining of tiie testimony of certain parties resident in Germany, to be used in a suit pending in this country in beiialf of the govern- ment of the United States against tiie German house of S. N. Wolff & Co. Al- though the instruction amounts to a courteous but practical denial to the cus- tomary practice under the legal system of the United States of the facilities whereby their courts are accustomed to seek the evidence on which they are to determine the contested rights submitted to them in the administration of justice, still I am bound to recognize tiie rigiit of a sov- ereign State to deny such facilities, within its limits, to the courts of another State. At the same time it is hoped that, on a review of the question, it will be perceived that no invasion of tlie sovereign rights of a government, no harm to its dignity, and no inconvenience to its citizens or to its officers or its tribunals can result from an e.xtension of comity that will allow to the judicial system prevailing in this (!ountry and in KnQ;land the exercise of that mode of seekinsr the facts involved in a litigation pending in their courts which the experience of a long series of years has shown to be the more conveni- ent, the less expensive, and wholly free from interference with the supreme rights of a State. Tlie instruction, substantially but not perfectly, presents the system prevailing in this country, derived mniiily from t'e 'common-law' system of Eng- land, for the attainment of the facts and the trutli of any case to be judicially de- cided Tiie government with us lends its aid, so far as it can do it practically, to the eliciting of the facts of every case with respect to whicii its courts are called upon to determine and administer justice ; and believing that a full knowledge of the truth, as contested between litigants, is essential to the administration of justice, it grants as an act of courtesy, as well as of justice, the power to compel the at- tendance of witnesses, and requires them to testify under oath in any suit lor the recovery of money or property depending in any court in any foreign country with whicli the United States are at peace, and in which the government of such foreign country shall be a party or shall have an interest. It allows the testimony to be taken either under a commission or letters rogatory, as the judicial procedure of such foreign country, or its policy, may dictate and prescribe, in its own forms of tlie administration or pursuit of justice, and in either case it affords to such friendly government the means wluieliy to obtain the evidence which is sought from witnesses within its limits. Its own citizens equally with resident aliens are made amenable to its process, in aid of sucii friendly power seeking to recover what it may consider to be due to it, in money or property, by the evidence which those citizens or aliens may be supposed able to furnish. I subjoin hereto an ab- stract from tlie statutes of the United States on this point. These facilities have been voluntary extended by the United States to the governments with whicli it is in amity, in full knowledge and because of the fact so correctly and forcibly presented in the despatch of Mr. von Rulow, that they cannot be enjoyed except under such limitations and restric- tions as may be provided by treaty stipu- lations, or (as in the case with the United States) are prescribed by the legal system in force in each country. They are a voluntary contribution on the part of the United States to the comity of nations and to the administration of lustui, ami toward the attainment of the rights of every other power with which they n'-e at peace. The faciUt'es thus given to fiie"d- 528 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CIIAP. XIX received it ; and he shall thereupon transmit the said letter or commission so executed and certified by mail, to the clerk of the court from which the same issued, in the manner in which liis ly powers, in suits in wliicli such powers are parties or are interested, are, by the jiiJicial praciice of tliese several States, generally or largely accorded also in suits in wliicli individuals, citizens, or subjects of such States are parties, and have been and are constantly availed of by Germans as well as inchviduals of other nationalities. With regard to the proceedings in the case in which the United States were endeavoring to ob- tain testinionj' in a suit wherein it was seeking to recover a large amount sup- pjsed to have been fraudulently withheld l)y a German house, the commission was addressed to consuls, not in their official capacity as consuls, but because of their being known, and of the assurance of a probability of their presence at or near the points where the witnesses were re- siding. They had no authority to attempt the compulsory atten(lan(;e of any witness. The commission was issued with the ex- pressed assent of the counsel representing tlie defendants in the suit ; there was no attempt to extend what are termed ' tlie excejjtiona! privileges granted to consuls of the United States by the consular treaty between Germany and America,' nor ' to limit the operation of the laws ' of tlie country in whicli the commission was to be executed ; and the assent of the attorneys of tlie defendants to tlie issuing of the commission, and the provision for taking testimony on behalf of the defend- ants, and for the presence of the counsel of the parties if desired, anticipated the objection stated by Mr. von Bulow, that German law allows the parties to be re}> resented at the examination. I observe that Mr. von Bulow remarks that they ' objected not so much to the taking of sworn testimony by American consuls in their official capacity, as on general prin- ciples to the actual enuinnatlon of iritncss by American commissioners within the limits of the German empire.' I have stated tiiat there was no desire or attempt to take testimony 'by American consuls in their official capacity.' Mr. von Bulow states lliat, in the prcscni case, 'now penn it, while much expense and delay is generally avoided. It is hoped that the German government may see fit to relax (what is recognized as within the abstract right of every gov- ernment) the rigid rule of confining the courts of the United States, in search of testimony needed from witnesses in Ger- many, to its own tribunals as the only channel through vvJiich it is to lie ob- tained. Should it, however, be desired to adhere to the course indicated by Mr. von IJulow, the courts in the United States should be apprised of the rigidness of the rule, which will (as in the case which has given rise to tiiis correspon- dence) be apt to arrest the course of jus- tice, owing to the unadvised adoption of tiie svstem of consniissions which obtain so generally, and which lias hitherto been supposed to bo free from the objections of any government." (.Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Sclilozer, Dec. 0, 1874, MSS. Notes, Germany, For. Ilel., 1875.) " While under our practice, both in the Federal and State courts, it is certainly true tiiat a commission is the usual, per- haps the imiversal, means in general use of obtaining the testimony of a witness in a tbreign country, it is probably too broad a statement to say tliat none of our courts can make use of letters rogatory. Such question ma^' in many cases be regulated by statute in tlie States, but it is true that letters rogatory are both executed by and issued from the Federal courts from time to time, and probably also from the State courts. Letters roga- tory have, I think, been actn.ally issued from the district courts in New York m the case of Wolff, which gave rise to this question, and since the question arose. Sections 875, 4071, 4072, 407o, 4074, of the Revised Statutes, contnin provisions on the question." (.Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Davis, June 8, 1875, MSS. Inst., Gtrui.) 530 EVIDENCE AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XIX. objection as to the method of returning the same." ^ Tlie stat- utes further provide for the taking of testimony under a com- mission or in pursuance of letters rogatory issued from a court in a foreign country, with which the United States are at peace, to take the testimony of a witness residing within tlie United States, in any suit for the recovery of money or property depending in such foreign court in which the government of sucli foreign coun- try is a party or has an interest, as follows : — "The testimony of any witness residing within the United States, to he used in any suit for the recovery of money or prop- erty depending in any court in any foreign country with which the United States are at peace, and in which the government of such foreign country shall be a party or shall have an interest, may be obtained, to be used in such suit. If a commission or letters rogatory to take such testimony, together with specific written interrogatories, accomi)anying the same and addressed to such witness, shall have been issued from the court in which such suit is pending, on producing the same before the district judge of any district where the witness it'sides or shall be found, and on due i)roof Ijcing made to such judge that the testimony of any witness is material to the party desiring the same, such judge shall issue a summons to such Avitness requiring him to appear before the officer or commissioner named in such commis- sion or letters rogatory, to testify in such suit. And no witness shall be compelled to appear or to testify under this section ex- ce]>t for the purpose of answering such interrogatories so issued and accompanying such commission or letters : Provided ., That when counsel for all the parties attend the examination, they may consent that questions in addition to those accompanying the commission or letters rogatory may be \mt to the witness, unless the commission or letter rogatory exclude such additional interrogatories. The summons shall specify the time and place at which the witness is required to attend, whicli place shall be As to letters ro^atorj' from a Unifpfl Morton, Dec. 19, 1884 (MSS. Inst, States Court to a Rrazilian court, see Mr. France). Cadwalader, Assistant Secretary of State, As to letters ropatorj' from abroad to to Mr. Partridire, Aug. 3, 1875 (MSS. take the testimony of persons in prison in Inst., Brazil) See furtlier, Mr. Freling- the United States, see Mr. Frelinghuysen, huysen, Secretary of State, to Mr. von Secretary of State, to I^Ir. Sargent, June Schaeffer, March" 20, 1883 (MSS. Notes, 27, 1883 (MSS. Inst., Germ.). Austria) , Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. » U. S. R. S. § 875. § 290.] LETTERS ROGATORY. 531 within one hundred miles of the place where the witness resides or shall be served with such summons." ^ It has been held that criminal proceedings,^ and " proceedings relating to the investi- gation as to the smuggling of some cases of cotton,"*^ do not come within this statute. " No witness shall be required, on such examination or any other under letters rogatory, to make any disclosure or discovery which shall tend to criminate him either under the laws of the State or Territory within which such examination is had, or any other, or any foreign state." '' " If any person shall refuse or neglect to appear at the time and place mentioned in the summons issued in accordance with section forty hundred and seventy-one, or, if upon his appearance he shall refuse to testify, he shall be liable to the same penalties as would be incurred for a like offence on the trial of a suit in the district court of the United States."^ " Every witness who shall so appear and testify shall be allowed, and shall receive from the party at whose instance he shall have been summoned, the same fees and mileage as are allowed to witnesses in suits depending in the district courts of the United States." 9 " When letters rogatory are addressed from any court of a foreign countr\^ to any circuit court of the United States, a com- missioner of such circuit court designated by said court to make the examination of the witnesses mentioned in said letters, shall have power to compel the witnesses to appear and depose in the same manner as witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify in courts." ^^ * U. S. R. S. § 4071. '' U. S. R. S. § 4072. 5 Matter of the Spanish Consul, 1 Ben- ^ U. S. R. S. § 4073. erlict, 225. 9 U. S. R. S. § 4074. 6 In re Letters Rogatory, 36 Fed. R. w u. S. R. S. § 875, as amended by 19 306. St. at L. 241 (U. S. R. S. 1 Supp. 2GG). 532 DISMISSING BILLS OTHEKWISE THAN AT A HEARING. [CHAP. XX. CHAPTER XX. DISMISSING BILLS OTHERWISE THAN AT A HEARING. §291. Dismissal of Bills by the Plaintiff. — The plaintiff may dismiss his bill without costs at any time before the defendant's appearance.^ He may obtain the order for the dismissal as of course upon motion or petition, usually by the latter ; ^ but if the dismissal is a violation of an agreement between him and the defendant, the order granting it may be subsequently vacated.^ After appearance and before a decree or decretal order, a plaintiff can usually obtain a dismissal upon ])ayment of the costs of such of the defendants as have ap))eared;^ but not, if they or any of them would be injured thereby.^ Leave to dismiss may be re- fused where tlie defendant claims affirmative relief Ijy cross-bill, or by answer in a case where he is entitled to affirmative relief on an answer.'' For example, where the l)ill was filed to enforce a false claim to property or an instrument, which the evidence showed had been obtained by fraud, in which case the defendant Avithout filing a cross-bill would be entitled if successful to a decree declaring the plaintiff's claim unfounded, and enjoining him from again setting it up;" or where the Ijill was filed to set aside a patent on the ground of interference, when the defendant may oljtain affirmative relief l)y answer.^ Leave may be granted upon terms, as for example, that the complainant stipulate to allow defendant's evidence to be used in any subsequent suit.^ An executor or other person, who has filed a bill in a representative § 291. 1 Tliompson v. Thompson, 7 ^ Electrical Accumulator Co. r. Briisl: Beav. ouO. Electric Co., 44 Fed. K. G02 ; C. & A. K. 2 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (oth Am. cd.) 7'.)0, R. Co. r. Rolling IMill Co., 109 U. S. 702; 791. Stevens r. The Railroads, 4 Fed. R.97; 3 Betts r. Barton, .J flur. (x. 9.) 154. Hat Sweat Manuf. Co. v. Waring, 46 * C. & A. R. R. Co. V. Union Rolling Fed. R. 87. .Mill Co., 109 U. S. 702 ; Conn. & P. R. R. " Stevens r. The Railroads, 4 Fed. R. Co. r. Ilendee, 27 Fed. R. 678. 97 ; Hat Sweat Manuf. Co. v. Waring, "^ Cooper V. Lewis, 2 Phil. 178 ; Ainslie 40 Fed. R. 87 ; siijmi, § 171. i\ Sims, 17 Beav. 174; Booth v. Leyces- ^ Electrical Accumulator Co. r. Brush ter, 1 Keen, 247 ; Bank of South Carolina Electric Co., 44 Fed. R. 002 , sujim, § 171. r. Rose. 1 Rich. Eq (S. C.) 292; Stevens ^ American Zylonite Co. r. Celluloid V. The Railroads, 4 Fed. R. 97. Manuf. Co., 32 Fed. H. 809. § 291.] DISMISSAL OF BILLS BY THE PLAI^'TIFF. 533 capacity in good faith with reasonable grounds for so doing, may be excused payment of costs. ^"^ Tlie motion for such an order should be upon notice.^^ These rules apply when a plaintiff sues in behalf of himself and others, provided that no one has previously joined with liim as co-plaintiff,^^ unless, perhaps, others have con- tributed to the expenses of the suit and wish it continued.^^ After other members of the class have joined as co-plaintiffs in the suit, the plaintiff cannot dismiss the bill without their consent.^* The majority of the stockholders in a corporation cannot always have a suit discontinued against the wishes of its directors. ^^ After a decree or decretal order, the plaintiff may not discontinue without the consent of all parties who have acquired rights by the decree. ^"^ The usual course pursued by one, in whose name without his consent a bill has been filed, is to move to have it taken off the file.^'' Upon this being done, he may recover from the solicitor who filed the bill,i^ his costs, as well as any costs he may have been compelled to pay a defendant. A plaintiff cannot, it seems, dismiss a part only of his bill. The proper course is for him to amend by omitting it.^^ When there is more than one plaintiff, one of them may by special leave of the court have the bill dismissed with costs so far as concerns himself, provided that no injury will thereby result to any other party.-*' If there are several defendants, a plaintiff may obtain an order dismissing his bill as to some of them, provided that no injury will be thereby done the rest.'-^^ A dismissal at the plain- tiff's request before a hearing is usually without prejudice,^ unless evidence has been taken and the cause set down for a hearing, when it may be only granted by a decree dismissing the bill upon the merits.^'^ The entry of an order of discontinuance ^^ Arnoux v. Steinbrenner, 1 Paige ^~ Palmer y. Walesbv, L. R. 3 Cli. App. (N. Y.), 82. 732. 11 American Zylonite Co. v. Celliiloitl i** Palmer r. Walesby, L. R. 3 Cli. App, Manuf. Co., 82 Fed. R. 809. 732; Wright v. Castle, 3 Meriv. 12. 1- Handford r. Stoi ie, 2 Sim. & S. 196 ; i^ Camden & Amboy R. R. Co. v. Armstrong v. Storer, 9 Beav. 277. Stewart, 4 C. E. Green (N. J.), 69. li Ex parte Railroad Co., 95 U. S. 221 ; -> Holkirk v. Holkirk, 4 Madd. 50 ; Mdler v. Liggett & M. Tobacco Co., 7 Wintlirop v. Murraj', 7 Hare, 150. Fed R. 91. -'1 Baily r. Lambert, 5 Hare, 178. " Belmont Nail Co. v. Columbia Iron '-- Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 793. & Steel Co.,4G Fed. R. 336. But see Stevens r. The Railroads, 4 Fed. 15 Railway Company v. Ailing, 99 U. S. R. 97 ; and § 300. 463. " •-■' Rumbly v. Stainton, 24 Ala. 712; 16 Guilbert r Hawles, 1 Ch. Cas. 40; Rocliester r. Lee, 1 Macn. & G. 467. See Carrington c. Holly, 1 Dickens, 280. Stevens v. The Railroads, 4 Fed. R. 97. 634 DISMISSING BILLS OTHERWISE THAN AT A HEARING. [CHAP. XX. upon consent of both parties amounts in effect to a dismissal of the bill.-^ The dismissal of a bill or of part of a bill does not authorize the removal of tlie paper from the clerk's office unless the order so directs ; and such a direction will rarely be given.^ Otherwise, the paper remains a part of the record, and may be used as evidence of any admission therein contained.-*' § 292. Dismissal of Bills for want of Prosecution. — A defendant is entitled to an order dismissing the plaintiff's bill : if the plain- tiff does not reply to any plea, or set down any plea or demurrer for argument on the rule-day when the same is filed, or on the next succeeding rule-day, unless the time within which to do either of those things has been enlarged by a judge of the court ; ^ if the plaintiff does not reply to that defendant's answer on or before the next succeeding rule-day after its filing, provided that no exceptions have been taken to the answer, or that any excep- tions filed are still undecided, or that the cause is not set down for a hearing on bill and answer i^ and possibly if no testimony is taken by tlie plaintiff within three months after the cause is at issue,^ or within any shorter time that may be assigned by the court ; ^ although it might be held that in such a case the defendant must first set the cause down for a hearing. The plaintiff's time for doing any of tliese things may, however, be enlarged, either before or after it has expired, by the court or by consent at any time;° and the taking of any subsequent step by the defendant in the cause, before attempting to take advantage of the default, will usually be deemed a waiver of it.*^ § 293. Dismissal for want of Jurisdiction. — The Judiciary Act of 1875 provides that " if, in any suit commenced in a circuit court or removed from a State court to a circuit court of the United States, it shall appear to the satisfaction of said circuit court, at any time after such suit has been brought or removed thereto, that such suit does not really and suljstantially involve a dispute 24 Pictet Artificial Ice Co. v. N. Y. Ice Gaz. 264. For the practice in tlie South- Machine Co., 12 Fed. K. 816. ern District of New York, see infni, § 296. 25 Lyster v. Stickney, 12 Fed. R. 609, For a case where the delay was held e.x- 610. cusahle, see Beirne r. Wadsworth, oG Fed. 2'i Lyster v. Stickney, 12 Fed. R. GOD, R. G14. 610. ' •* Amendment of 1869 to Rule 67. § 292. 1 Rule 38. ^ Rules 38, 66, 69; Ex parte Poullney 2 Rule 66. Reynolds v. First National v. City of Lafayette, 12 Pet. 472. Bank, 1 12 U. S. 405. « Allen v. Mayor, 7 Fed. R. 483 ; Jack- 3 Rule 69; Adams v. Howard, 21 Off. son v. Ivimey, L. R. 1 Eq. 693. § 293.] DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 535 or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said circuit court, or that the parties to said suit have been improperly or collusivcly made or joined, either as plaintiffs or defendants, for the purpose of creating a case cognizable or removable under this Act, the said circuit court shall proceed no fui'ther therein, but shall dismiss the suit or remand it to the coui't from which it was removed, as justice may require, and shall make such order as to costs as shall be just." ^ The court should do this of its own motion, as soon as it discovers its want of jurisdiction or the im- proper or collusive joinder.^ The Supreme Court has said that this provision of the Act of 1875 is salutary, and that it is the duty of the Circuit Courts to exercise their power under it in all proper cases.'^ Neither party has the right, however, without pleading it within the time allowed for that purpose, to introduce evidence to contradict averments of the jurisdictional facts.* If, however, from any source the court is led to sus])ect that its jurisdiction has been imposed upon by the collusion of the parties or in any other way, it may of its own motion cause the necessary inquiry to be made, either by having the proper issue joined and tried, or by some other appropriate form of proceeding, and act as justice may require for its own protection against fraud or imposition.^ In such a case the party that sought the jurisdic- tion of the Federal court should have an opportunitv to be heard on the motion, and to meet it by appropriate evidence.^ A judge cannot thus dismiss or i-emand a case upon his personal conviction, although it amounts to a moral certainty ; the collu- sion or lack of jurisdiction must be legally proved.'' If there is no collusion and an original defect in the jurisdiction has been cured before the objection is raised, it seems that tlie suit will be retained.^ Before the Act of 1875, it was held that a defend- ant, between whom and the complainant the requisite difference of citizenship existed, could not raise an objection on account of the citizenship of another defendant.'^ It has been said, that a § 29.3. 1 Actof March.3, 1875,cli. l.ST, & Hartog ?•. Memory, IIG U S. 688, § 5 (18 St. at L. 472). See supra, § 18, .590-592. and //(/;■«,§ :]!)3. " Ilartog v. Memory, 110 U. S. 588, 2 Williams r. Nottawa, 104 U. S. 209. 590-592. 3 Williams v. Nottawa, 104 U. S. 209, " Barry v. Edmunds, IIG U. S. 550, 212. 559. * riartng v. Memory, 116 U. S. 588, ** Pacific Railroad v. Kctchum, 101 U. 590-592 ; Deputron v. Young, 134 U. S. S. 289, 299. 241. ^ Harrison i'. Urann, 1 Story, 04; Pond 03G DlaMI^SING BILLS OTHEKWISE THAN AT A HEARING. [CHAF. XX. defect ill the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, because the cause of action arose in the Northern District of that State, may be tal^en by answer as well as by plea, but unless raised somewhere in the pleadings will be waived.'^ If the record does not show ailirmatively that tlie court has jurisdiction, the case may be dismissed at any time after as well as before judgment ; and the objection may be taken for the first time in the appellate court. ^^ No party can offer evidence to controvert an allegation of a jurisdictional fact in a pleading or petition for removal, unless he has, by plea or answer, preferably by plea, denied such allegatioii-^"'^ Consent cannot confer jurisdiction ; ^^ but it has been held that consent may bind the jjarties and waive a previous lack of jurisdiction, if, when the attention of the court is called to the defect, jurisdic- tion has been obtained.^* The court may of its own motion, at any time, irrespective of the pleadings, direct an inquiry as to whether the jurisdictional facts exist.^'^ Upon such an inquiry the plaintiff or a defendant who has removed the case is entitled to appear by counsel, and offer evidence in support of the juris- diction.^'' No judge has the right to dismiss a suit under this statute upon Ins personal conviction, however strong, unless the facts on which his conviction is based appear upon the record, and create a legal certainty of the conclusion derived from them.^" Where a plaintiff had acquired the causes of action which he sought to enforce, solely for the purjjose of collection in the Federal courts under an agreement to pay back a certain proportion of the net proceeds to his assignors, who could not have sued therein, it was held that the suits should be dis- missed.''^ When after all the pleadings are filed in a suit which V. Vermont Valley R. li. Co., 12 Blatchf. i^ narto,: Halsey, 117 U. S. 13 Peoj)le's Bank r. Caliioun, 102 U. S. 336; Little r. (Jiles, 118 U. S. 596; Nor- 2-56. ton t'. European & N. Am. Ry. Co., 32 '< Pacific Railroad r. Ketclium, 101 U. Fed. It. 805. S. 289, 298. § 294.] DISMISSAL FOIi FAILURE TO PERFECT OR REVIVE A SUIT. 537 was brought in or removed to a Federal court, on the claim that it is a case arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, it appears that the averments upon which tlic jurisdiction is claimed arc immaterial, it is the duty of the court to dismiss or remand the cause. ^^ To justify a dismissal under this statute, the court must be satisfied that the object Avas to create a case cognizable in the Federal courts.^o Where a collusive transfer of the cause of action was evidently made for another purpose, it was held that the jurisdiction should be rctained.^i Admis- sions by the defendant after a suit is brought cannot by reducing the matter in dispute divest the court of jurisdiction.^'-^ A dis- missal upon this ground should be without prejudice.^ A motion to dismiss for want of equity can only be made at a hearing.-* A motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction of tlic Federal court may be made at any time.-^ " Such an objection ought to be raised at the first opportunity, and delay in its presentation should be considered in examining into the grounds upon which it is alleged to rest."^^ § 294. Dismissal for Failure to perfect or revive a Suit. — A\ hen a suit has abated or become otherwise defective before a decree, the party or parties against whom it can be continued may, upon notice served upon the person or persons entitled to revive or supply the defect in the same, move for and obtain an order, directing that these revive or supjtly the defect, within a certain limited time to be fixed by the court, or that else the bill be dis- missed.^ If the suit abate by the death of one of several co- plaintiffs, the order may be obtained against the survivors ; and it seems that tlie objection that there is no personal representa- tive of the deceased plaintiff will not ])revent the court from granting such an order.^ It is irregular in such cases to move to dismiss a hill for want of prosecution ; and an order to that 1^ Robinson r. Anderson, 121 U. S. 522. -^ La Vega v. Lapsley, 1 Woods, 428; See in/rn, § :;0;]. Betts v. Lewis, 19 How. 72 ; Fuller i-. Met- -» Lanier v. Nasli, 121 U. S. 404, 410; ropolitan Life Lis. Co , 31 Fed. R. 696. Manliattan Life Ins. Co. i-. Broughton, -'' La Vega v. Lapsley, 1 Woods, 428. 109 U. S. 121. But see Fuller v. Metropolitan Life Ins. 21 Lanier v. Nash, 121 U. S. 404. Co., 31 Fed. R. 606 22 Fuller V. Met. Life Ins. Co., 37 Fed. -'' Deputron v. Young, 134 U. S. 241, R. 163. 251. 2'' Thompson v. Railroad Companies, 6 § 204. i Adanison i\ Hall, 1 Turner & Wall. 134; Kendig r. Dean, 97 U. S.423; Riiss. 258; Bolton v. Bolton, 2 Sim.& S. Van Norden v. Morton, 99 U. S. 378 ; 371. Williams v. Nottawa, 104 U. S. 209. - Ilindo i: Morton, 2 II. oi M 368. 538 DISMISSING BILLS OTHERWISE THAN AT A HEARING. [CHAP. XX. effect, if obtained, will be discharged for irregularity .-^ A bill may be dismissed at a defendant's motion for the plaintiff's fail- m'e to serve with process another defendant named in the bill who is a necessary party to the suit."^ § 295. Election. — When the plaintiff is suing both at law and in equity, at the same time, for the same matter, the defendant is entitled to an order that the plaintiff elect whether he will proceed in equity or at law.^ The case of a mortgagee is an ex- ception to this rule ; for, in the absence of any statutory restric- tion, he can proceed at the same time to foreclose his mortgage in equity and sue on the bond at law.^ This exception, however, it has been held in England, does not extend to the case of a vendor seeking to enforce his lien and sue at law for his debt.^ In a special case, the plaintiff may be allowed to proceed par- tially at equity and partially at law, and compelled to make a special election.'^ The principle of election has been extended to a case where the plaintiff sued at once in both a foreign and a domestic court.^ The defendant cannot move for the order until after he has answered, and the time for exceptions has expired without one being taken, or the answer has been adjudged suffi- cient.^ A joint plea and answer is not, it seems, sufficient to enable a defendant to obtain such an order.' The order should allow the plaintiff a reasonable time within which to make his election.^ The plaintiff may move to discharge the order for irregularity in obtaining it, or upon the merits confessed in the answer or proved in an affidavit.'^ If, upon such a motion, any doubt arises as to whether the suit in equity and the action at law are for the same matter, it is customary to direct an inquiry into that fact;^*^ during the progress of which, all proceedings in 3 Robinson v. Norton, 10 Beav. 484; Anon., 1 Vern. 104; Franklin v. Herscli, Boddy I'. Kent, 1 Meriv. 361 ; Sellers r. Tonn. Ch. 467. Dawson, 2 Dickens, 738. ^ Pieters v. Thompson, G. Cooper, 294. ■« Jessup c' Illinois Cent. R. Co., 36 e Mitford's PI. (Tyler's ed.) 340; Lei- Fed. R. 735 ; Picquet r. Swan, 5 Mason, ccstor v. Leicester, 10 Simons, 87. iJUl. '' Fisher r. Mee, 3 Meriv. 45 ; Sonle f. § 295. 1 Mitford's PI. (Tyler 'sed.) 340; Corning, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 412. Carlisle r. Cooper, '■'> C. E. Green (N. .1 ), ^ Bracken v. Martin, 3 Yerg. (Tenn ) 241 ; Livingston v. Kane, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 55; Rogers r. Vosburgh, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 224. 84. 2 Booth V. Booth, 2Atk. .343; Dunkley » Daniell's Ch. Pr. (2d Am. ed.) 817. V. Van Rurcn, 3J. Ch. (N. Y.) .330. ''' Mouseley v. Basnett, 1 Ves. & B. 3 Barker v. Smark, 3 Beav. 64. 382 n. 4 Barker v. Dumaresque, 2 Atk. 119; § 295.] ELECTION. 539 both courts are usually stayed,'^ unless the plaintiff can show that justice will be better done by permitting proceedings to some extent, when he may by special leave continue in one or both, at the court's discretion. '^ If the plaintiff require further time within which to make his election, he should apply for it to the court by motion upon notice. ^^ At the exijiratioii of the time allowed him he must make his election, which is usually done by liling- a written statement of it signed by him or his solicitor in the clerk's office ; ^^ or else his bill will be dismissed.^^ If he elect to proceed in equity, his proceedings at law are stayed by the order,^*^ and either the defendant will be allowed to recover the costs of the action, or the plaintiff will be directed by the court of equity to pay them.i" If the plaintiff elect to proceed at law, his bill in equity will be dismissed with costs. ^^ Such a dismissal will, however, be no bar to a subsequent suit.''^ " Mills V. Fry, 3 Ves. & B. 9; Anon., 2 i« Daniell's Cli. Pr. (5tli Am. ed.) 816- Madd. 39-5; Daniell's Cii. Pr. 817. i' Simjjson v. Sadd, IG C. B. 26; Car- 1- Aniory r. Brodrick, Jacob, -530; vvick v. Young, 2 Swanst. 239. Carwick r. Young, 2 Swanst. 239. '8 Jones v. Earl of Strafford, 3 P. Wms. 13 Daniell's Cli. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 817. 70, 90, n. B. " Daniell's Cli. Pr. (.5th Am. ed.) 817. la Countess of Plymoutli r. Bladon, 2 15 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (utii Am. ed.) 816; Vern 32; Livingston v. Kane, 3 J. Ch. Boyd v. Heinzelman, 1 Vescy & Beanies, (N. Y.) 224 ; Rogers v. Vosburgh, 4 J. Ch. 381. (N. Y.) 84. 540 THE HEAKING. [CHAP. XXI. CHAPTER XXI. THE HEARING. § 296. Bringing a Suit to a Hearing. — The old practice of bring- ing a suit to a hearing was by the plaintiff's procuring an order to set it down for hearing within four weeli;s after the closing of the evidence ; upon his failure to do which a defendant might either set it down himself, or move to dismiss the bill for want of prosecution. The party setting it down was obliged to sue out a subpoena to hear judgment, and have the same served upon the solicitors of the other parties.^ If a plaintiff wished to set a cause down for a hearing upon bill and answer, he was obliged to do so within the time allowed iiim for liling the replication.^ The practice upon this subject in tlie United States courts is, however, very loose, — some circuits following the analogy of the English practice ; some regulating the matter by rule ; and some adopting by custom a practice very similar to that of the courts of the State wliere the circuit is hcld.^ Calendar practice in the several circuits is usually modelled on the State practice in that respect. Tn the Southern District of New York, the rules pro- vide that, '• Issues, whether of law or fact, and appeals, in this court, may be noticed for trial or hearing, and placed upon the calendar, by either party ; and either party noticing the same may, when the cause shall be called, move the trial or hearing, and take verdict or judgment, or order to dismiss the suit for not going to trial, as the court shall direct." * " When no proceed- ings are taken by either party within thirty days after replication, for the examination of witnesses out of court, either party may set the cause down for hearing upon the pleadings." ^ If an ori- ginal and a cross cause have been set down for hearing at differ- § 296. 1 DanieU's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. of a State is enjoineil. U. S. R. S § 049 ; ed.) 963-971 ; 3 Bl. Com 450. Ward v. Tlie State, 12 Wall. 1G3 ; Hoge ■i Daiiiell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 964, v. K. & D. R. R. Co., 93 U. 8 1 ; Daven- 9B5 port City v. Dows, 15 Wall. 390; Miller ^ By statute, a prefemu'e is fiiven in v. The vState, 12 Wall. 159. all circuits and in the Supreme Court to * U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y., Rule of Jan. actions in which a State is a piirty or in 14, 1871. which the execution of the revenue laws ^ jj. g c. C, S. D. N. Y., Rule 109. § 297.] MANNER OF HEAKINGA CAUSE. 541 eiit times, and other causes intervene, the phxintiff in whichever of them is below the other will usually upon motion obtain leave to bring it forward, so that both causes may be heard together.^ Where one defendant has demurred and another filed a plea, it is the usual practice to postpone the hearing upon the plea until the demurrer has been determined.'^ A hearing will not be given upon an agreed statement of facts without pleadings,^ even if a State statute authorizes such a practice.^ § 297. Manner of hearing a Cause. — The formal mode of hear- ing a cause where all parties appear upon its being called on, has been thus described. " The leading counsel for the plaintiff opens the plaintiff's case, and in so doing states, first the l>ill, and then tlie answers, if any : pointing out the matters in issue, and the (lucstions in equity arising therefrom; after which the plaintiff's evidence is read, cither by his leading or his junior counsel, and their arguments in support of the case are adduced. The counsel for the defendant are then heard, in support of the defendant's case, and his evidence is read by them ; and the plaintiff's senior counsel is then heard in reply. When all are heard, the court pronounces the decree, either immediately or at a subsequent day." 1 It is usual here, however, to waive the reading, and for counsel to state merely the substance of the pleadings and testi- mony, which are submitted to the judge at, or shortly after, the conclusion of the oral arguments, with written arguments upon the law and the facts, called briefs or points. The course is much the same where the cause is set down for a hearing upon Ijill and answer. The pleadings only are then read, and the answer is admitted to be true in all its allegations of fact,^ even when not stated positively, and the defendant only avers that he believes and hopes to be able to prove such facts.'^ But the plaintiff does not thereby admit conclusions of law, nor allegations as to matters concerning which the court takes judicial notice.* No other evidence is permitted except matters of record to which the Hinde's Pr. 415 ; 3 Blackstone's Com- § 297. ^ Daniell's Cli. Pr. (5th Am. ed. ) iDcntaries, 451. 1988. ' Campbell v. Mayor of New York, 33 '- 3 Bl. Com. 1448 ; Tainter v. Clark, IVd. R. 795. 5 Allen (Mass.), 66; Parker i-. Town of 8 Nickerson v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Concord, 39 Fed. R. 718. R. Co., 30 Fed. R. 85; s.c. 1 McCrary, » Brinckerhoff ;,•. Brown, 7 J. Ch. 333. " (N Y.)217; Dale f. McEvers, 2 Cowen 9 Nickerson r. Atchison, T. & S. F. (N. Y.), 118. R. Co., 30 Fed. R. 85; 3. c. McCrary, ■* Taylor v. Barclay, 2 Simons, 213. 383 ; supra, § 6. See supra, § lOG. 542 THE HEARING. [CHAP. XXI. answer refers.^ It has been said that a judge may hear a cause in which he was retained before he received his judicial appoint- ment;'^ but the ahnost universal practice is for a judge to refuse to sit in such a case. § 298. Rules of Decision upon a Hearing. — All decisions made in a former stage of the cause are open for review upon the final hearing.^ But if the evidence is unchanged, a judge will rarely refuse to follow a ruling made by one of his colleagues in the same ^ or a similar ^ case. Greater i-espect is paid to a ruling by the Circuit Justice tlian to one by the Circuit Judge ;* and a ruling by the Circuit Judge has more weight than one by a District Judge. In matters of substantive as distinguished from adjective law, that is, of the law creating rights but not of that merely regulating practice, the Federal courts are — certainly so far as property in land is affected thereby, and probably alto- gether — bound by and will follow the statutes of the State within whose jurisdiction is the property that is the subject of the suit.^ A State statute, however, which is merely declaratory of the law cannot affect the rules applying to causes of action which arose before its enactment.^ Whether a State statute has been properly passed so as to take effect, is a question of law, in determining which the courts of the United States will follow the decisions in the State wherein it is claimed to be in force." So, too, in construing a statute or the Constitution of a State, the Federal courts will in general follow the construction put upon it by the State courts, " when that construction has been settled by the decisions of -its highest tribunal." ^ Even if, be- 5 Anon , 1 Barb Cli. (N. Y.) 73. ^ Watts i'. Waddle, 6 Pet. 389; Mc- 6 Thelusson v. Kendlesliam, 7 H. L. C. Goon o. Scales, 9 Wail. 23; Gaines v. 429; Tlie Hic.liniond, 9 Fed. R. SGo ; and Fiientes, 92 U. S. 10; Brine v. Insurance citations. Co , 96 U. S. 027 ; Pulliam v. Pnlliam, 10 § 298. 1 Fourniquet v. Perkins, 16 How. Fed. R. 53, 77. See infra, § 375. 82; Pulliam v. Pulliam, 10 Fed. R. 53. But ^ Town of Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 see Coupe r. Weatherhcad, 37 Fed. R. 16. U. S. G68. 2 Cole Silver Mining Co. r. Virginia & ^ Town of South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 Gold Hill Water Co., 1 Saw. 085 ; Wake- U. S. 260 ; Post r. Supervisors, 105 U. S. lee t: Davis, 44 Fed. R. 532. 667 ; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462. 8 Worswick Manuf. Co v. City of 8 Polk's Lessee v. Wendal, 7 Crancli, Philadelpliia, 30 Fed R. 6.'5. But see 87; Nesniith v. Sheldon, 7 IIow. 812; Northern P. R. Co. v. Sanders, 47 Fed. Walker v. State Harbor Commissioners, R. 504. 17 Wall. 648; Township of Elmwood v. i Preston r. Walsh, 10 Fed. R. 815. Marcy, 92 U. S 289; Township of East But see United States i'. Huggell, 40 Fed. Oakland v Skinner, 94 U. S. 255; Louis- R 636, 044. ville, N. 0. & T. Ry. Co. c. Mississippi, 133 § 298.] RULES OF DECISION UPOX A HEARING. 543 fore the State courts liave construed it, a State statute is given one construction by a Federal court, and subsequently the highest court of the State construes it differently; or if the Federal court have first construed it in ignorance of its con- struction by the highest tribunal of the State, — the Federal courts will, in subsequent cases, disregard their former ruling and follow that of the State court.^ It has been even held that the Federal courts will not investigate the claim that the decision of the State court was obtained by collusion between the parties to the case in which it was obtained.^^ The courts of the United States are not bound by a decision of a State court construing a statute which is claimed to be a contract by the State ; since otherwise the clause in the national Constitution forbidding a State to pass a law im{)airing the obligations of contracts miglit be violated with impunity. ^^ And, for a similar reason, if differ- ent constructions have been given to the same statute or consti- tutional provision by tlie courts of a State at different times, the Federal courts are not " bound to follow the later decisions, if thereby contract rights which have accrued under earlier rulings will be injuriously affected." ^^ Otherwise, said Chief Justice Taney, " the provision of the Constitution of the United States, which secures to the citizens of another State the right to sue in the courts of the United States, might become utterly useless and nugatory." ^^ It seems that the Federal courts will give to a right created by a well-recognized local custom established and acquiesced in within a State, the same force as if it had been created by a State statute.^* In deciding questions of general commercial law, however, upon which the statutes of a State are silent, the Federal courts are not bound by the decisions of the State courts, but decide according to their own views of what the law is and should be.^^ In one case, where the rule of the U. S. 587; Peters v. Bain, loo U. S. 670 ; also Kowan v. Runnels, 5 How. 134; Oliio Case V. Kelly, 138 U. S. 21. Life Ins. & Tr. Co. r. Debolt, 16 How. 9 Fairfield f. County of Gallatin, 100 416; Gelpcke y. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175, U. S 47. But see Burgess v. Seligman, Thompson v. Perriiie, 103 U. S. 806. 107 U S. 20; and infra, § 375. i-^ Rowan r. Runnels, 6 How. 134. " Townsliip of East Oakland v. Skin- '* Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 18 ; Gainos ner, 94 U. S. '255. v. Fuentes, 92 US 10 ; Railroad Co. v. 11 Jefferson Branch Bank r. Skelly, 1 National Bank, 102 United States, 14, 29. Black, 480. See Railroad Co. c Falconer, See supra, § 7. 103 U. S. 821, 822. i* Swift v Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 ; Carpenter 1- Chief Justice Waite in Douglass v. v. The Providence Washington Ins. Co , County of Pike, 101 U. S. 677, 686. See 16 Pet. 495 , Gates c National Bank, 100 544 THE HEARING. [CHAP. XXI. Federal was different from that of the State courts, Judge McCrary foHowed the hitter, since otherwise there was a probability that a party to the suit would be subjected to a double payment.^'^ § 299. Objections •which cannot be made at the Hearing. — As the provisions of the equity rules and the other regulations of practice are chiefly designed to facilitate the speedy and orderly progress of a cause to a hearing, after a cause has been brought to a hearing it is a general rule that no objections as to form or the delay in taking a previous proceeding will be allowed to be taken then for the first time.^ Thus, the rules provide that " if a defendant shall, at the hearing of a cause, object that a suit is defective for want of parties, not having by plea or answer taken the objection, and tlierein specified by name or descri|)tion the parties to wliom tlie objection applies, the court (if it shall think fit) shall be at liberty to make a decree saving the rights of the absent ])arties." ^ " Wliere the defendant shall, by his answer, suggest that the bill is defective for want of parties, the plaintiff shall I}e at liberty, within fourteen days after answer filed, to set down the cause for argument upon that objection only ; and the purpose for which the same is so set down shall be notified by an entry, to be made in the clerk's order-book in the form or to the effect following, (that is to say) ; 'Set down upon the de- fendant's ol)jection for want of parties.' And where the plain- tiff shall not so set down his cause, but shall proceed therewith to a hearing, notwithstanding an objection for want of parties taken by the answer, he shall not, at tlie hearing of tlie cause, if the defendant's objection shall then be allowed, be entitled as of course to an order for liberty to amend liis bill by adding parties. But the court, if it thinks fit, shall be at liljerty to dismiss the bill.'" 3 An amended bill filed without leave upon the day of the hearing may be disregarded by the court.'* It seems that a plea stating a mere conclusion of law or a plea unaccompanied by the proper certificate of counsel and affidavit of the defendant, may also be disregarded.^ Advantage may, however, be taken of U S 230 ; Uailroad Company '-. National ^ T{ule 53. Bank, 102 U. S. U; Butler y.'Douplass, 3 3 Rule 52. Fed. R. G12. See Burgess v. Seligman, * Terry t-. McLure, 103 United States, 107 U S 20. Sec nifra, § 375. 442. 1" Sonstiby r Kecley, 7 Fed R. 447. ^ National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 § 299. i" Allen v. Mayor, &c. of N. Y., U. S. 54. 18 Blatuhf. 239. § 300.] ACTION OF TUE COURT UPOX A HEAEING. 545 the laches of the plaintiff by a defendant who has not pleaded it.® The olijcction that the allegations in the bill show no gronnd for the interference of a court of equity may be taken at any time/ The objection that the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law is waived by the defendant unless raised in a demurrer, plea, or answer ; but may be taken by the court at any tiaic.^ § 300. Action of the Court upon a Hearing. — The COUrt may upon the hearing of a cause either decide ail the questions raised therein and make a final decree, or merely dispose of some of them and give directions to facilitate the decision of those which remain. If the court inclines in favor of the defendant, it will usually render a final decree dismissing the bill. The dismissal may be absolute or without prejudice. An absolute decree of dismissal is an absolute bar to any subsetiuent suit brought for the same causc.^ A dismissal without prejudice is no bar to another suit brought for the same cause of action, provided that the defects on account of which the bill was dismissed are rem- edicd.2 A dismissal without prejudice is usually ordered when a bill is dismissed for want of parties,^ or for want of jurisdiction in a Federal court,* or for multifariousness,^ or for " a slip or mis- take in the pleadings or in the proof." ^ The Supreme Court will reverse a decree which dismissed a bill absolutely when the dis- missal should have been without prejudice.' If on the other hand the court inclines in favor of the plaintiff, unless the bill pray merely for a perpetual injunction, it rarely renders a final decree at the first hearing of the cause. It often directs a reference to a master to take accounts or assess damages ; ^ and it not infre- quently gives leave to either party to api)ly for further orders or 6 Baker v BuVWe, Rnldwin, 394. ^ Williams r. Jackson, 107 U. S 478, "i Raker i-. Riddle, Baldwin, 3!)4 ; Quir- 484. olo V. Ardito, 1 Fed. R. GIO. 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr. ('id Am. ed.) 904, 8 Reynes v. Diimont, 130 U. S. 352; 99',, M'Neill f. Cahill, 2 Bligli, 228, Kilburn v. Sunderland, 130 U. S. 505. Woollam r. Hearn, 7 Yes. 211, 222 ; Rosse See supra, § 110. o Rust, 4 J ('!i. (N. Y.) 300. For exam- § 300 1 Case I'. Beauregard, 101 U S. pie, when the bill showed a good ground 688 ; Durant v. Essex Company, 7 Wall, of equitable relief as to one plaintiff, but 107. failed to show what interest the otlier had - Walden r. Bodley, 14 Pet. 15G, IGl ; in the subject-matter of the litigation. Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th" Am. ed.) 994, 995 ; House v Mullen, 22 Wall. 42. But see Rosse r. Rust, 4 J. Ch. (N. Y ) 300. Ogsbury v. LaFarge, 2 N. Y. 113; and 3 Kendig v. Dean, 97 U. S. 423. § 291. * Kartell v. Tilgham, 99 U. S. 547 . ^ House v. Mullen. 22 Wall. 42. Gaylords v. Kelshaw, 1 Wall. 81. 8 gee Chapter XXIII. VOL. I. — 35 546 THE HEARING. [CHAP. XXI. directions " at the foot of the decree " which it orders entered.^ Under such a clause the court will usually listen to no further applications, except as to matters concerning which directions were contained in the decree first entered. Thus, it has been held that it will not under such a clause entertain an application to set aside a sale made under a decree.^^ If the court is in doubt concerning the facts, it may direct a feigned issue, or an action at law, or a reference to a master, to aid it in determining the same. In one case, when a bill had been filed by a bond- holder praying for the appointment of a receiver of a canal company, the court at the hearing denied the application for a receiver, but retained the bill so far as to compel the corporation to file an annual account.^^ 9 Legrand v. Whitehead, 1 Russ. 309 ; lo Wetmore v. St. Paul & P. R. R. Co., Wetmore v. St. Paul & P. R. R. Co., 3 3 Fed. R. 177. Fed. R. 177. But see Hughes v. Jones, 3 " Stewart v. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal De G. F. & J. 307. Co., 5 Fed. R. 149. § 301.] POWER OF COURTS TO DIRECT ISSUES AT LAW. 547 CHAPTER XXII. ISSUES AT LAW. § 301. Power of Courts to direct Issues at Law. — When the chancellor was in doubt concerning any (juestion of fact arising in the cause, the evidence in regard to which was conflicting or insufficient,^ it was his custom to compel its trial before a jury upon a feigned issue ; and, if their vci'dict was satisfactory to him, to assume the truth of the facts established by the same as the basis of his decree.^ This power of the chancellor is also vested, independently of any special statute, in all the courts of the United States which have equitable jurisdiction ;'^ but in cases arising under the patent laws it has been increased by a recent statutory enactment, providing that the Circuit Courts of the United States, " when sitting in equity for the trial of patent causes, may impanel a jury of not less than five and not more than twelve persons, subject to such general rules in the prem- ises as may from time to time be made by the Supreme Court,* and submit to them such questions of fact arising in such cause as such circuit court shall deem expedient; and the verdict of such jury shall be treated and proceeded upon in tlie same man- ner and with the same effect as in the case of issues sent from chancery to a court of law and returned with such findings."^ The court may at any time decide a cause without a trial of an issue which it has ordered, and even without revoking its previous order directing one.^ The order of a judge directing an issue at law is discretionary, and it is doubtful whether or not it may be reviewed upon appeal.'' It was formerly an almost invariable custom to direct an issue when the question to be determined was § 301. 1 Moons r. Do Bernales, 1 Riiss. 5 18 vSt. at L. cb. 77. p. ol5 ; 1st Rupp. .301 ; Burkett v. Randall, 8 Mer. 4GG. U S. R. S. 130 ; Watt r Starke, 101 U. S. 2 P> Bl. Com. 452. 247. 3 Harding i: Handy, 11 Wheat. 103; « Field v. Holland, 6 Cranch, 8; Cook Goodyear v. Providence Rubber Co., 2 v. Bay, 4 How. (Miss.) 485. Cliff. 351 ; Johnson v. Harmon, 94 U. S. ^ See Black v. Lamb, 1 Beasley (N. J.), 371,878. 108; Ward r Hill, 4 Gray (Mass.). 503; * No rules upon this subject have Crittenden v. Field, 8 Gray (Mass ), 021. hitherto been made. 548 ISSUES AT LAW. [CHAP. XXII. the validity of a will as against an heir, or the true heir-at-law of a decedent, or the right of a rector to tithes.^ It was very common, moreover, when an allegation in a sworn answer, the .plaintiff not having \\raived answer under oath, was only controverted by the testimony of a single witness supported by corroborating circum- stances ; ^ or when, by determining in the way he inclined, the judge would find a person guilty of forgery.^*' It seems to be the opinion of Judge Hammond that it is the duty of a Federal court of equity to direct an issue at law of a common-law claim against a reeeiver.^i An issue may be directed notwithstanding a report of auditors upon tlic facts. ^^ The court sometimes directs only a single issue, and sometimes several, according to the number of substantial points upon which it deems it necessary to take the opinion of a jury ; and it will, when the question to be decided embraces several disputed circumstances, direct an issue upon each of them.^^ If the parties cannot agree upon the form of an issue, it will be settled either by the judge or by a master, as the court deems most expedient.!^ By going to trial upon an issue neither party is precluded from any right he may have to after- Avards appeal from the order directing it.^'^ § 302. Matters concerning ■which an Issue is directed. — No party will be permitted to take an issue in a different form from that whicli he has stated in his pleadings;^ but the court may upon its own motion direct an issue to try a matter not in issue arising upon the hearing, and which it thinks should be determined before a final decree is rendered.^ An issue also may be directed upon claims brought in under a decree by persons not upon the record.^ An issue will not, however, be directed to establish a point whicli a party set up in his pleading but omitted in his proof.^ 8 3 Bl. Com. 452; Lord Fingal r. Bailey r Scwell, 1 Russ. 239; Earl of New- Blake, 1 MoUoy, 113 ; Vaigneur v. Kirk, burgh v. Countess, 5 Madtl. 3G4. 2 Desaus. (S. C.) G40 ; Williams r. Price, '^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. eh. xxvi. § 1. 4 Price, 1.5(5, IGO. i^ White v. Lisle, 3 Svvanst. 342; Le- 9 Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. § 1. gare >: Daly, 1 Ves. Sen. 192; De Tastet 1'^ Bishop of Winchester r. Fournier, 2 v. Bordcnave, Jacob, 510. Ves. Sen. 445, 446; Apthorp r. Comstock, § 302. i St. Paul's v. Kettle, 2 V. & 2 Paige (N. Y.), 482. But see Peake v. B. 1 ; Bennett v. Neale, Wightw. 324 ; Highfield, 1 Russ. 559. Savage v. Carroll, 1 Ball & B. 548. 11 Atkyns v. Wabash Ry. Co. (Ward, '^ Balch r. Tucker, 2 Ch. Cas. 40. Intervenor), 41 Fed. R. 193; quoted, ^ Price c. Price, cited in 2 Smith's Ch. supra, § 251. Pr. 76. 1- Field V. Holland, Crancli, 8. ^ Savage v. Carroll, 1 Ball & B. 548 ; ^^ Bryan v. Parker, 1 Younge & C. 170; Price v. Berrington, 3 Macn. & G. 4bG. § 304.] MANNER OF TRYING AN ISSUE. 549 § 303. Time •when an Issue is directed. — According to the old practice an issue was rarely directed before the original hearing of a cause. 1 Instances have occurred, however, wlien this has been done before that time upon motion,^ and even to deter- mine the facts upon a motion for an injunction or a receiver, when the affidavits for or against the motion were conflicting. -"^ An issue has been often granted after the original hearing at a hearing for farther directions;^ and even afterwards.^ It has been said that, in the Federiil courts, an order for an issue should not be made until all the proofs have been taken and publica- tion has passed.** Under the statute providing for the direction of issues in patent causes, it would seem that one can now be directed by an interlocutory order more frequently than formerly.' § 304. Manner of trying an Issue. — The manner of trying a feigned issue is thus described by Blackstone. " But, as no juiy can be summoned to attend this court, the fact is usually directed to be tried at the bar of the court of King's bench, or at the assizes upon a feigned issue. For (in order to bring it there, and have the point in dispute, and that only, put in issue) an action is brought, wherein the plaintiff, by' a fiction, declares that he laid a wager of 5/. with the defendant that A was heir at- law to B ; and then avers that lie is so ; and therefore demands the bl. The defendant admits the feigned wager, but avers that A is not the heir to B, and thereupon that issue is joined, which is directed out of chancery to be tried ; and thus the verdict of the juror at law determines the fact in the court of equity. These feigned issues seem borrowed from the sponsio judicialis of the Romans : and are also frequently used in the courts of law, by consent of the parties, to determine some disputed right without the formality of pleading, and thereby to save much time and expense in the decision of a cause." ' The legal fiction is, however, now practically out of use ; and issues are tried upon § 303. 1 FuUagary. Clark, 18 Ves. 481. 5 Prjce v. Price, cited in 2 Smith's Ch. 2 Middleton v. Sherburne, 4 Y. & C. Pr. 76. 358; Kent v. Burgess, 11 Simons, -361 ; ^ Goodyear r-. Providence Rubber Co., Townley v. Deare, 3 Beav. 213; Lan- 2 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 409. cashire v. Lancashire, 9 Beav. 2.3U. ^ 18 St. at L. ch. 77, p. 315; 1st Supp. 3 Gardiner v. Rowe, 4 .Madd. 2.30 ; De- U. S. K. S. ].3(i. Tastet V. Bordenave, Jacob, 516 § 304. ' 3 Bl. Com. 452. 4 New Orleans, G. L. & B. Co. v. Dudley, 8 Paige (N Y.), 452. 550 ISSUES AT LAW. [cHaP. XXII. the common-law side of a Circuit or District Court frequently by the same judge that directed them.^ Tlie course of proceed- ing upon the trial of an issue is substantially the same as that in ordinary trials at common law, unless the judge who directed it has given special directions upon the subject.^ When, however, a will was sought to be proved against an heir-at-law, at the suit of a devisee, it was necessary by the former practice to prove the execution of the will by examining all the witnesses who were alive and capable of giving testimony.^ If the order for an issue direct that a number of witnesses be examined, but the plaintiff declines to call some, the judge himself will call and examine the rest.^ It seems, too, that the jury should be sworn in the words of the order of issue.'^ The order of issue, however, usually contains directions as to admissions to be made and doc- uments to be produced by tlie parties." No admission of any fact not clearly admitted b}' the pleadings will, however, be required.'^ If such directions are omitted in the order for the issue, they may be obtained afterwards upon motion.^ The party upon whom the bnrden of proof rests, whether he be plaintiff or defendant in the original suit, is directed by the order to act as plaintiff in the issue.^*^ It is the del'endant's duty to name an attorne}^ to appear for him at the trial of the issue. If he fail to do so, it has been held that an order may be obtained directing tliat he name an attorney in four daj's, or else that the issue be taken as tried and a verdict given for the plaintiff. ^^ The decree or order for the issue should specify a time when it is to be tried. ^^ If the plaintiff make default in having the case ready for trial at the appointed time,^^ or either party fail then to appear, the court will order the issue taken pro eonfesso against him, unless he can show a reasonable ground for a postponement.^* It seems, •2 See Wilson v. Riddle, 12-3 U. S. 608. (N. Y.), 482 ; Cart v. Hodgkin, 3 Svvanst. ^ See Kerr v. South Park Commission- 101. ers, 117 U. S. 379 ; Wilson v. Riddle, 123 » Duke of Beaufort v. Morris, 2 Phil. U. S. 608. G83. * Townsend v. Ives, 1 Wilson, 21G : » Marsh v. S.bbald, 2 V. & B. 375. Offle r. Cook, 1 Ves. Sen. 177 ; Bullen v. i» Parker v. Morrell, 2 Phil. 453. Mifhel, 2 Price, 399 ; Bootle v. BlundcU, " Wilson v. Ginger, 2 Dick. 521 ; Hart- 19 Ves. 494. land r. Danc'ocks, 5 De G. & Sni. 561. 5 Groom v. Chambers, 2 Mont. & Avr. i- Daniell's Cli. Pr. ch. xxvi. § 1. 742 '■' Bearblock v. Tyler. 1 J. & W. 225 ; « Wilson r. Barnum, 1 Wall.Jr. 342. Casborne r. Barsham, 5 M. & C. 113. 7 Duke of Beaufort v. Morris. 2 Phil. " Casborne r. Barsham, 5 M. & (\ ll:j; 683 ; Apthorp v. Comstock, 2 Paige Ilargrave v. llargrave, b Beav. 2b'J. I 305.] EFFECT OF THE FINDING OF A JUKY UPON AN ISSUE. 551 that an application for a postponement,^^ or for a special jury, if one be desired,^^ should be made to the judge who directed the issue. A person interested in the result of an issue, but who refuses to be a party to it, may be allowed to attend the trial by counsel, in which case he may be compelled to produce docu- ments material to the case and in his possession. i'' After the trial, the trial judge certifies how the verdict was found, but judgment should not be entered upon it.^^ If any special cir- cumstances have occuried at the trial which he thinks it right to report to the court, he indorses the postea.^^ He may also furnish to the court of equity a description of the trial.^'^ An irregu- larity or omission in this respect may, however, be corrected or disregarded.-^ § 305. Effect of the Finding of a Jury upon an Issue. — " The verdict of a jury upon an issue out of chancery is only advisory and never conclusive upon the court. It is intended to inform the conscience of the Chancellor. It may be disregarded, and a decree rendered contrary to it." ^ If, therefore, either party be dissatisfied, he must move for a new trial on the equity and not on the common-law side of the court ;^ "and for that purpose the party applying for a new trial must procure notes of the proceedings and of the evidence given at the trial for the use of the Chancellor. This is done either by moving the Chancel- lor to send to the judge who tried the issue, for his notes of trial ; or procuring a statement of the same in some other proper way. The Chancellor then has before Inm tlie evidence given to the jury, and the proceedings at the trial, and may be satisfied, by an examination thereof, that the verdict ought not to l)e dis- turbed. The evidence and proceedings then become a part of the record, and go up to the court of appeal if an appeal is taken." ^ Unless such a motion is made, no error committed in the course of the trial of the issue can be reviewed upon 15 Rebel v. Philpot, 9 Simons, 614. 21 Wilson v. Ridrllo, 12-3 U. S. 608. 1" Anon., 2 P. Wms. 68. As to depo- § ."05. 1 Mr. Justice Bradley in Watt sitions, see Calioon I'. King, 1 Clifford, 592. v. Starke, 101 U. S. 247, 252. See also 1' Pindar v. Smith, INIad & Geld. 48. Basey v. Gallagher, 20 Wall. 670 ; Allen 18 Kerr v. S. Park Comni., 117 U. S. 379. v. Blunt, 3 Story, 742, 746. i» White V. Lisle, 3 Swanst. 342 ; Tren- '^ Watt v. Starke, 101 U. S. 247, 250 ; ton Baking Co. v. Russell, 1 Green Ch. Jolinson v. Harmon, 94 U. S. 371. 378. (N. J.) 492. 3 Mr. Justice Bradley in AVatt v. 2" Bassett v. Johnson, 1 Green Ch. Starke, 101 U. S. 247, 250, 251. See also (N. J.) 154. Jolinsou t: Harmon, 94 U. S. 371. 552 ISSUES AT LAW. [CHAP. XXII. appeal.* Such an application should be made by motion or pe- tition before the cause comes on for liearing upon further direc- tions.^ The form of an issue cannot, however, be changed in this manner. A party desiring to alter it must do so by presenting a petition for a rehearing of the decree or order directing it.° The manner in which the verdict is reviewed in equity is thus described by Lord Eldon : " In considering whether, in such a case as this, the verdict ought to be disturbed by a new trial, allow me to say that this court, in granting or refusing new trials, proceeds upon very different principles from those of a court of law. Issues are directed to satisfy the judge, which judge is supposed, after he is in possession of all tl^at passed upon the trial, to know all that passed there ; and looking at the depositions in tlie cause, and the pro- ceedings both here and at law, he is to see whether, on the whole, they do or do not satisfy him. It has been ruled over and over again, that if, on the trial of an issue, a judge reject evidence which ought to have been received, or receive evidence which ought to have been refused, though in that case a court of law would grant a new trial, yet if this court is satisfied, that if the evidence improperly received had been rejected, or the evidence improp- erly rejected had been received, the verdict ought not to have been different, it will not grant a new trial merely upon such grounds."'' The usual grounds for directing a new trial of an issue are, "1st, the alleged improper summing up of the judge ; 2dly, because the weight of evidence is against the verdict ; and 3dly, because of an informality in the evidence." ^ Surprise and fraud are also reasons for granting a new trial.^ Wlicn the dispute concerns the title to land, in imitation of courts of law two trials of the issue have often been granted, when the first verdict was satisfactor}' upon the evidence ;^'^ and sometimes the court has directed a second trial for the solemn determination of the matter, without setting aside the first verdict, the effect 4 Brockett v. Brockett, 3 How. C91 ; 494 ; Tatham v. Wrislit, 2 Russ. & M. 1 ; Johnson v. Harmon, 94 U. S. 371 ; Watt Watt v. Starke, 101 U. S. 247, 252. V. Starke, 101 U. S. 247. » Smitli's Ch. Pr. (Pliila. ed.) vol. ii. 5 Attorney-General v. Montgomery, 2 p. 84. See also Tatham v. Wright, 2 Atk. 378 ; Van Alst v. Hunter, 5 J. Ch. Russ & M. 1 ; Watt v. Starke, 101 U. S. (N. Y.) 148, 152. 247, 253. c Daniell's Ch. Pr. (3d American eJ.) » Exton r. Turner, 2Cii. Cas. 80; Stan- 1114. den v. Edwards, 1 Ves. Jr. 133. 7 Lord Ehlon in Barker v. Ray, 2 Russ. '' Earl of Dariintjton v. Bowes, 1 Eden, 63. See also Bootle v. Blundell, 19 Ves. 271 ; Stace v. Mabbot, 2 Ves. Sen. 5"::. § 306.] PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE TRIAL OF AN ISSUE. 553 of which was that the first verdict was admitted in evidence upon the second trial, and had its weight with the jury.^^ In such case, the court usually made it a condition of granting a second trial, that the applicant should pay to the other party the costs of the first. ^2 § 306. Proceedings after the Trial of an Issue. — After tliC trial of an issue and the completion of the record by the addition of the posted^ the cause, unless a new trial is obtained, should be set down for hearing.^ This may be done in the usual manner; but it seems, not before the expiration of tlie first four days of the term following the trial, in order that the party against whom the verdict has been found may have an opj)ortunity of moving for a new trial.- The cause then comes on in the regular course, when such final or other deci-ee as is proper is pronounced. The costs of an issue do not follow the verdict as a matter of course, but are in the discretion of the court which directed the issue ;^ though they are usually given to the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered.* In one case the court ordered an advance out of a fund in its possession, in order to enable the parties to try an issue directed by it.^ 11 Baker v. Hart, 3 Atk. 542. s Decker v. Caskey, 2 Green Ch. (X. J.) 1- Baker v. Hart, 3 Atk. 542 ; Edwin v. 44G. Tliomas, 1 Vern. 489. * Corporation of Roeliester v. Lee, 2 § 306. 1 Allen v. Blunt, 8 Story, 742 ; De G. M. G. 427. Daniell's Ch. Pr. cli. xxvi. '•' Coombs c. Brooks, 3 UeG. & S. 45i 2 1 Newland's Ch. Pr. 357. 554 PROCEEDINGS IN A MASTER'S OFFICE. [CHAP. XXIII. CHAPTER XXIII. PROCEEDINGS IN A MASTER'S OFFICE. § 307. References to Masters in General. — The labors of a judge of a court of equity are often matei-ially lightened by referring the consideration of matters of fact to a master in chancery, who is directed by it to investigate the same and report his opinion thereon to the court. Certain ministerial acts which a court of equity undertakes are also performed by it through a master. Tlie matters which are ordinarily referred to masters in chaneeiT are inquiries, as to whether pleadings or other proceedings in a suit in equity contain impertinence or scandal ; as to who are the heirs, next of kin, creditors, or members of a particular class of legatees of a person whose estate is in the liands of the court for distribution ; as to whether the title to real estate is good ; as to the state of the law of a foreign country ; as to whether one of two books or other publications is })irated from the other; as to the amount of damage suffered by the granting or with- holding of an injunction; the taking of accounts; the coniim- tation of interest ; the settlement of conveyances, and other deeds ; the selling of property ; the appointment of trustees, receivers, and guardians ; and the superintendence of the per- formance of their duties by receivers. The extent of a master's authority is limited by the decree or order appointing him ; ^ and it has been said that it cannot be extended even by consent.^ The rules provide that ''every decree for an account of the personal estate of a testator or intestate shall contain a direction to the master to whom it is referred to take the same to inquire and state to the court wdiat parts, if any, of such personal estate are outstanding undisposed of, unless the court shall otherwise direct." ^ § 007. 1 Lonsdale Co. v. Moies, 2 Clifl. R. R. of Iowa, 2 Fed. R. G5G ; Gordon v. 538. Ilohart, 2 Story, 213. - Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Central ^ Rule 73. § 309.] BRINGING ON A EEFERENCE. 555 § 308. Who may be appointed Master. — - The Circuit Courts, "both the judges concurring in tlie appointment," have the power to appoint standing masters in chancery in their respective dis- tricts.^ A Circuit Court may also appoint a master pro hac vice in any particuhir case.^ A recent statute provides that "no clerk of the district or circuit courts of the United States, or their deputies, sliall be appointed a receiver or master in any case, except where a judge of said court shall determine tliat special reasons exist therefor, to be assigned in the order of appoint- ment."^ It has been held at circuit that this statutory prohibi- tion is for the benefit of the parties to the litigation, and may be waived by their consent to an order appointing such an officer master in a particular case ; and that after such an order or decree has thus been entered and the parties have proceeded before the master, it may be amended by the insertion of a clause stating that the court has determined "that such consent is a sufficient special reason for such appointment." * Another stat- ute provides that " no person related to any justice or judge of any court of the United States by afhnity or consanguinity, within the degree of first cousin, shall liereafter be appointed by such court or judge to be employed by such court or judge in any office or duty in any court of which such justice or judge may be a member." ^ §309. Bringing on a Reference. — The rules provide that, whenever a reference is made, the party at whose instance or for whose benefit it was directed must bring the same to a hearing on or before the rule-day next succeeding the date of the order for a reference.^ Otherwise, the adverse party ma}'- forthwith cause proceedings to be had before the master at the costs of the party who procured the reference.'-^ The master need not report evidence unless required by either party.^ It is the master's duty, as soon as he reasonably can after the matter referred to him is brought before him, to assign a time and place for pro- ceeding, and to give due notice thereof to each of the parties, or their solicitors.'^ Notice may be served by mail or otherwise.^ It § 308. 1 Rule 82. " Rule 82. ^ Union Supar Refinery v. Mathiessoii, 3 20 St. at L. eh. 183, p. 415. 3 Cliff 146, 140. See Kerosene Lamp * Fiseher v. Hayes, 22 Fed. H. 02. Heater Co. v. Fisher, 1 Fed. R. 91. 5 24 St. at L. p. 552, eh. ST.;, § 7. •» Rule 75. §300. 1 Rule 74. ■' Kerosene Lamp Heater Co i-. Fisher, ^ Rule 74. 1 Fed. li. 01. 556 PEOCEEDINGS IN A MASTER'S OFFICE. [CHAP. XXIII. need not be served by the marshal.^ By the old English practice parties interested in the subject-matter of a reference were brouglit before the court by the service of a warrant. This was a memo- randum, upon a slip of paper entitled in the cause, and signed by the master, appointing a day and hour for all parties concerned to attend him on the matter of the reference.' It was in substan- tially the following form : " By virtue of an order of reference, I do appoint to consider the matters thereby to me referred, on next, at of the clock, in tlie noon, at my Cham- bers in , at which time and place lAl parties concerned are to attend. [Signature.] Dated the day of , .'" ^ It is a better practice, however, for the warrant to contain a state- ment of the nature of the reference.^ This warrant is often called a "summons."^**' There was required to be at least one clear day between the day of issuing the warrant and the di\^' appointed by it for the attendance of the parties thereon.^^ The warrant was obtained from the master's clerk by the solicitor applying for it; and the latter underwi-ote a memorandum expressing its object, and saw that due service of it was made.^- Whenever a document of any kind was left at the master's office by the solicitor of either of the parties, he usually took out a warrant, which he underwrote, "on leaving the," &c.^^ This was termed a " warrant on leaving," and was served in the usual manner, but was considered a mere formal notice, to afford tlie opposite party an opportunity of obtaining a copy of the document left that he misfht either admit or contest the circumstances there stated, as he might be advised.^* § 310. Parties entitled to attend a Reference before a Master. — The general rule appears to be, that all parties beneficiall}' inter- ested, either in the estate or in the fund or matter in question, are entitled to attend before the master on all those proceedings which may affect their interests, or increase or diminisli their proportion in the fund.^ The only exception to this rule is said to be the case of a reference to a master of the title to an estate <' Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. I'. Fisher, ^M Ncwland's Chan. Pr. 324. See 1 Fed. R 91. Berniec. Vandever, 10 Ark. G16. " Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. i- Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. 8 Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. ^^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. ^ Manhattan Co. r. Evertson. 4 Pai;,'e, '* Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. See Ma n- (N. Y.) 270. hattanCo.r.Kvertson.4Paip:e(N.Y.),276. •' Manhattan Co. r. Evertson, 4 Paige, § :'1*^>. ' Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvL (N. V.J 27(>. See Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. 040. § oil.] PROCEEDINGS EEFOKE A MASTER IN GENERAL. 557 purchased under a decree, when the vendor's solicitor only has the riglit to appear before the master on the iiKpairw^ An exec- utor, as the legal representative of liis testat(jr, is entitled to attend on all proceedings relating to the charges of creditor.s seeking payment out of the personal estate; but after there has been a report of debts, if all the persons interested in the pci- sonal estate are before the court the executor is onlj'- entitled to attend on those proceedings in which he is personally interested as an accounting party.^ Trustees \\ere formerly not allou'ed (except in proceedings carried on by themselves) to attend before the master in cases where all the beneficiaries were before the court ; but if there were any pei-sons in esse, or who might "come into esse" who might become interested and whose in- terests were only represented by the trustees, and were not too remote, the trustees were entitled to attend the proceedings affecting those interests.^ The rule that all parties interested in the resnlt are entitled to attend before the master applies not only to those who are parties to the record, but to those who are " quasi parties," by having come in under the decree and estab- lished a claim.^ A party who has appeared, but allowed a decree to be taken against him by default for want of an answer, is, it seems, entitled to notice of the proceedings against him under the decree in the master's office ;^ but cannot appear upon such notice before the master without previously obtaining an order for that purpose, which is usually only granted upon termsJ The proper course to test a party's right to attend before a master is, after the latter's refusal, to apply to the court by petition for an order permitting the party to attend before him.^ § 311. Proceedings before a Master in. General. — The rules give the master authority to regulate all the proceedings upon a reference to him.^ In case of an abuse of his discretion by a master, any party aggrieved may apply to the court for an order, requiring the master to act properly ;2 but such applications are - DanicU's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. ^ Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. 3 Daniell's Cli. Pr. ch. xxvi. § 311. i Rule 77. * Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. - Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi ; Bate Re- & Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. friajerating Co. v. Gillette, 28 Fed. R. 673 ; G King V. Bryant. 3 M. &, C. 191 ; Dan- Rule 75. See Re Thomas, 35 Fed. R. iell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. 337, 340. ^ Ileyn v. Heyn, Jacob, 49 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. 358 PROCEEDIXGS IN A MASTER'S OFFICE. [CHAP. XXIII. not encouraged,^ and are only granted in extraordinary cases.* If any party fail to appear at the appointed time and place, the master may either proceed ex i^arte^ or, in his discretion, may adjourn the proceedings.^ In the latter case, he should give notice of the adjournment to the party who failed to ap[)ear, or to his solicitor.^ It is the master's duty to proceed iu the reference with all reasonable diligence and with the least practiciihle delay." Otherwise, either party may apply to the court or a judge thereof, for an order requiring the master to speed the proceed- ings and to make his report, and to certify to the court or judge the reasons for any delay .^ There is no necessity for the master's tak- ing any oath, unless the order of reference especially re(]^uires him to do so.^ All parties who are required to account before a master must bring in their accounts in the form of debtor and creditor.^'' Should a party fail to do so, the master may make an order requiring him to furnish such an account. ^^ Tlie order should not be granted till tlie first hearing of the reference.^^ The order must be served personally with a copy of this order and a notice of the day to which the hearing is adjourned.^^ Service may be made by any disinterested person.^* If the defendant then fails to appear and account, he is in contempt. ^^ If any of the other parties is dissatisfied with the accounts rendered, he may exam- ine the accounting party either orally or by interrogatories or by deposition, as the master directs. ^"^ By the English practice, the time for a single hearing before a master did not usually exceed one hour, unless the master continued the hearing longer, when an increased fee might, it seems, be charged. i" It was the duty of the master or his clerk to mark in the master's book the names of the solicitors who attended, and no other attendance than tliose so marked was allowed in taxing costs. ^^ In the 3 Lull V. Clark, 20 Fed. R. 454 ; ^Yoo8- ter r. Gumbirnner, 20 Fed. R. 167 ; Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillette, 28 Fed. R. 673. 4 Lull 1-. Clark, 20 Fed. R. 454; Wooster V. Gumbirnner, 20 Fed. R. 167 ; Bate Re- frigerating Co. V. Gillette, 28 Fed. R. 673. » Rule 75. « Rule 75. 7 Rule 75. 8 Rule 76. 9 Thompson v. Smith, 2 Bond, 320. ■0 Rule 79. " Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. Fisher, 1 Fed. R. 01. i-' Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. Fisher, 1 Fed. R. 91. 15 Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. Fisher, 1 Fed. R. 91. '■* Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. Fisher, 1 Fed. R. 91. 15 Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. Fisher, 1 Fed. R. 91. 16 Rule 79. 1" T^anicirs Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. IS l)aiiii.ir» Cli. I'r. cli. xxvi. § 312.] A STATE OF FACTS. 559 Southern District of New York, a master is forbidden to adjourn a reference for more than ten days without the written consent of all the parties or the authorization of one of the judges.^^ § 312. A State of Facts. — By the English practice a party w^io intended to examine witnesses before a master under a decree was obliged to carry in a state of facts detailing the cir- cumstances which he desired to prove. ^ This was also the general form by which the prosecution of every reference to a master was commenced.^ "A state of facts, as its name imports, is a statement in writing, made by a party who wislies to prosecute or resist any inquiry before a master, of the facts and circum- stances upon w^hich he relies, either in support of his own cause, or in contradiction or defeasance of that of his adversary. It is, in effect, the pleading of the party before the master, and is governed by nearly the same rules and principles as pleadings in the Court, although, not being signed, nor, in general, prepared by counsel, they are not always so strictly observed. A state of facts, however, must be pertinent to the matter, and must not, any more than any other proceeding in the cause, contain any scandal, and if it is either scandalous or imperiinent, the scandalous or impertinent matter may be expunged, in the man- ner which will be presently pointed out. A state of facts is intituled in the cause, and contains a detail of the facts and circumstances intended to be relied upon by the jjarty : when the party carrying in the state of facts, makes any claim upon the fund in Court, it is usual to conclude the statement with the par- ticulars of the claim, in the manner of a prayer for relief to the bill, as follows: — 'And the said A. B., therefore, claims, &c.,' in such case the proceeding is called ' a state of facts and claims.' When the object of the party is to charge another with the receipt of money, &c., the state of facts concludes with a charge in the following form : — ' and the said A. B., therefore, charges, &c.,' in such case the proceeding is called ' a state of facts and charge.' It may be remarked, that a charge is not always pre- ceded by a state of facts, but if the matter appears from any admissions in any account, or examination or proceeding in the master's office, and requires no other proof in sui)port of it, it is usual to make ' a charge ' only. When a state of facts is pre- 19 Rule 115 of United States C C, §312. ' D;uii Hatch r. Indianapolis & Springfield R. 673. R. R. Co., 9 Fed. R. 856. 1* Lull V. Clark, 20 Fed. R. 454 ; " Rule 82. Wooster r. Gumhirnner, 20 Fed. R. 167. « Rule 82; Erie Ry. Co. v. Heath, 10 § 314. 1 Rule 76. Blatchf. 214 ; Middleton i'. Bankers' & 2 Rule 76. See In re Thomas, 35 Fed. Merchants' Tel. Co., 32 Fed. R. 624. R. 337, 339. » Rule 82, 8 Fischer v. Hayes, 16 Fed. R. 469; Jennings r. Dolan, 29 Fed. R 861. VOL. I. — 36 562 PROCEEDINGS IN A MASTER'S OFFICE. [CIIAP. XXHI. the first instance upon tlic accounting party. ^'^ The order ad- justing a master's compensation should name the party who is required to pay it, and a time within wliich payment is to be made.i^ Failure to comply with the order is punishable by at- tachment for contempt of court. ^^ It seems, however, that pay- ment pending a suit can only be compelled on the application of the master or his representative, not at the request of a party .^^ As soon as the report is ready, the master should file the same in the clerk's office ; and the clerk should enter the day of the return in the order book,^"^ If no exceptions are filed within one month from the time of filing, the report is considered as confirmed on the next rule-day after the month has expired.^^ § 315. Exceptions to Masters' Reports. — Excej^tions to the re- port of a master must l)e filed within one month fi-om the day when it was filed. ^ No exception will lie to any matter which was not objected to before the master.^ In circuits, where it is not the practice for masters to serve drafts of their reports, an exception to the report, but not an exception to a ruling in evi- dence, can be filed without a preliminary objection.^ Such an exception has also been permitted after a draft of the report had been served, and no objection made thereto.* Objections in sup- port of exceptions may be allowed to be filed nunc pro tmic.^ Ex- ceptions should specifically point out the errors of which they complain, and if they rely on any part of the testimony, it is the safer practice to have them either state the same or refer thereto, so that the court can without difficulty find it.^ " All that is ne- 15 Urner v. Kayton, 17 Fed. R. 539; Springfield R. K. Co., 9 Fed. R. 856; s. c. 17 Fed. R. 845. Jennings c. Dolan, 20 Fed. R 861. 11 Rule 82. 3 Hatch v. Indianapolis & Springfielil 1- Rule 82. R. R. Co., 9 Fed. R. 850 ; Fidelity Ins. & 13 Mallory Manuf Co. v. Fox, 20 Fed. Safe Deposit Co. v. Siienandoah Iron Co., R. 400. 42 Fed. R 372. See Jennings v. Dolan, 1* Rule 83. 29 Fed. R. 861. IS Rule 83; Burns v. Rosenstein, 135 * Jennings v. Dolan, 29 Fed R. 861. U. S. 449, 455. 5 Fischer v. Hayes, 16 Fed R. 469 §315 1 Rule 83; Fidelity Ins. & Safe e Harding r. Handy, 11 Wheat. 103; Deposit Co. V. Shenandoah Iron Co., 42 Foster o. Goddard, 1 lilack, 506; Greene Fed. R. 372 But see Central Trust Co. v. Bishop, 1 Cliff. 186; Stanton v. Ala- I' Wabash, St. L & P. Ry. Co., Hamilton bania & C. R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 506 ; Cut- Intervenor, 27 Fed. R, 175. ting /■. Florida Ry. & Nav. Co., 43 Fed. R. 2 Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Corn- 743, 747. In Duden c. Maloy, 43 Fed. ing, 6 Blatchf. 328; Fischer r. Hayes, 16 R. 407, 410, the following e.xception was Fed. R. 460; Story r Livingston, 13 Pet. held to he insufficient according to the 359. But see Hatch v. Indianapolis & practice in tlie Second Circuit, and was § 315.] EXCEPTIONS TO MASTERS' REPORTS. 563 cessary is that the exception should distinctly point out the find- ing and the conclusion of the master which it seeks to reverse." " Exceptions to the report of a master upon a reference to compute damages for tlie infringement of a patent, which raised the points that the infringement was not wilful, that the reduction of plaintiff's jjrolits was not solely due to the infringement, and that the master should have reported nominal damages, were held suflicient to l)i-ing before the court the whole sul)ject of the com- putation of damages.'^ It has been held that the jioint that a statute is unconstitutional need not be specifically stated in the exception.^ Exceptions to the admission or exclusion of evidence, taken upon the liearing before the master, need not be restated in the exceptions filed to this report.^'' If the court is in ses- sion when exceptions are filed, they are argued at that session; ^^ otherwise, at the next session. ^^ Every presumption is in favor of the cori'ectness of the decision of a master.^^ If the testimony is conflicting, the court will rarely interfere with the master's decision on the facts, provided he made no erroi's in law which affected the result.^* Where after a master's report had been filed a judgment finding facts ojjposite to those found by the master had been entered in a ►State court, in a suit between the same parties, it was held that the judgment of the State court must be followed on the hearing of the exceptions to the report of the master. ^^ Trifling errors in a master's statement of an account will be disregarded.^*^ Exceptions to a master's report are only proper when he has made an erroneous decision ujion the matters referred to him.^" The remedy for an irregularity in his proceed- ing, or for his neglect to report upon all of the matters referred to him, is a motion to set aside the report, or to refer the same consequently disregarded; " For tliat tlie ^- Rule 83. master lias found contrary to the prelim- ^'^ Med>ker r. Hcinebrake, 108 \J. S. Hfi ; inary requisitions and ohjei'tions of de- Tilirlnnan r. Proctor, 125 U. S. l;](j , CaU fendant to his proposed draft report, and lafjhan ;;. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 006; which requisitions and objections he iiere Kiniherly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512, 524. repeats, and contends that fresh evidence ^* Welling );. La Han, .'jI Fed. R. 40; should he taken thereon." Mason v. Crosby. 3 W. & M 258, Gott- " Foster v. Goddard, 1 Black, 500, 500, fried v. Crescent Brewing Co., 22 Fed. R. /)c/ Mr. Justice Swayne. 4:W , Jaffrey v Brown, 20 Fed. R. 476; » Boesch f. Graff, VV^j U. S. 097. Central Trust Co. r. Te.xas & St. L Ry. 9 Fidelity Ins. & S. D. Co. r. Shenan- Co., .^2 Fed. R. 448. doah Iron Co., 42 Fed. R. .372, 374. ^^ Duden *;. .Maloy, 4-3 Fed. R. 408. 1' Marks /•. Fo.\, 18 Fed. R. 713. ^^ Taylor r. Robertson, 27 Fed. K. 537. " Rule 83. ^" Taylor c Robertson, 27 Fed. K. 537 564 PROCEEDINGS IX A MASTER'S OFFICE. [CHAP. XXIII. back to the mastcr.^^ A report of a master may be corrected Avithout a re-reference, from facts appearing in the case aside from the evidence taken before him.^^ It has been held in the Second Circuit that if the master errs by an improper rejection of evi- dence his error should be corrected by an immediate motion to compel him to receive the evidence, and is not the proper subject of an exception to his report.-'^ The party who files exceptions is obliged to pay costs for each exception overruled, and is entitled to costs for each exception allowed.-^ The amount of costs is fixed by the court in accordance with a standing rule in each circuit.^^ By leave of the court exceptions may be amended.-'^ The review of a master's report upon a receiver's account is described in a preceding section.^^ § 316. Sales by Masters. — In a proper case, a court of equity, having the possession by a receiver of the property of an insol- vent railway company, may make an interlocutory order for the sale of the property Ijcfore the rights of the parties under the several mortgages have been fidly ascertained and determined.^ In such a case an appeal may be taken at once from the order for the sale, provided the sale is to take place immediately ;^ but not if any subsequent proceedings and order must precede the sale.^ A court of equity will not make an interlocutory order for an immediate sale of mortgaged property u])on terms dis- charging the lien of a mortgage not yet due, unless it clearly appears that in the end there must be not only a sale of the prop- erty, but a sale upon those terms.^ When property is ordered to be sold by a master, it must be sold at puljlic auction, unless the court otherwise directs.^ Such a sale is conducted under the superintendence of the solicitor for the party at whose prayer the sale is made, and in all questions which subsequently arise be- tween the buver and the seller it is said that he is considered as 13 Tyler !>. Simmons, G Paige Ch.(N.Y.) §316. i Pennsylvania R. Co. iv Alle- 127. plieny Val. R. Co., 42 Fed. R. 82, 85, per 1" Witters v. Soule, 43 Fed. K. 4l>5 ; Aclieson, J.; First National Bank v. Kelsey v. Hobby, 16 Pet. 2GU ; Parks r. iScliedd, 121 U. S. 74. Booth, 102 U. S. 90. -i First National Bank ;•. Scliedd, 121 ^^ Celluloid Manuf. Co. v. Cellonite U. S. 74. Maniif. Co., 40 Fed. R. 476, 478. s Burlington C. R. & N. Ry. Co. v. •-' Uule 84. Simmons, 12.3 U. S. 52, 55. 2- Kule 84. ■» Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Allegheny 23 Jones V. Lamar, 39 Fed. R. 585. Val. R. Co', 42 Fed. R. 82, 86. 2* § 256. & Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. x.xvi. § 316.] SALES BY MASTERS. 565 the agent of all the parties to tlie suit.*' The particulars and con- ditions of the sale are prepared by him. They should be enti- tled in the cause, and should contain a general description of the nature and situation of the property ; and if land, should state in whose possession it is or has lately been." The conditions of the sale should be in general similar to those annexed to ordinary sales of similar property in the vicinity.^ A sale by a receiver is not invalidated by his announcement at the sale that the pur- chaser will have the option also to buy other i)ropcrty not cov- ered by the order of sale but acquired by him in the due course of his receivership.^ The sale should be advertised at least twice, and should give such a desci-iption of the property as clearly to indicate and identify it.^^ i'\^^ master has power to adjourn the sale, even after the auction has begun and bids have been made.^i The sale is conducted in substantially the following manner : The master, his clerk, or a person appointed by him, is present with a paper upon which the biddings for the different lots are to be marked. ^^ Tiic lots are successively put up at a price offered by any person present ; such person, according to the English prac- tice, signing his name to the sum which he offers on the paper. ^-^ If the property to be sold consists of a railroad and its appur- tenances, it is usually sold as a single thing.^^ It has been said that railroad ])roi)crty cannot be thus sold })iccemeal except bv the consent of all the parties expressed in open court or in writing. ^^ The court may make a condition of the sale that no bid shall be considered unless each bidder first dei)0sit a specified sum in cash, — in one instance, twenty-five thousand dollars,i^ — and that no bid be considered unless it exceed a specified amount.^' Every 6 Dalby 1-. Pullen, 1 K. & M. 206. But Fed. R. 315; Jones on Kailroad Securi- see Blossom r. liailroad Co., o Wall. I'M, ties, §g G25-G28. 207. 1" Bound ;,'. South Carolina Jly. Co., 46 " Daniell's Ch. Pr. eh. xxvi. Ped. R. 315, 316, ptr Sinionton, J. ^ Daniell's Ch. Fr. ch. xxvi. i*j Farmers' L. & 'iV. Co. r. Green Bay 8 Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Brown, & Minn. R. R. Co., 10 Biss. 203. Bonnell & Co., 44 Fed. R. 539. ^" Farmers' Loan &Tr. Co. v. Houston & 1' Kauffman r. Walker, 9 Md. 229; Texas Central R. R. Co., Pardee & Sabin, Merwin c. Smith, 1 Green Ch. (N. J) JJ., May, 1888; Hervey v. Illinois Mid- 182 ; Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. land Ry"Co.,U.S. C. C, S. D. Illinois, June 11 Blossom IK Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 10th, 1880; Roosevelt w. Columbus, C. & 196. I. C. Ry. Co., U. S. C. C, N. 1). Illinois, 1- Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. Drummond, J., Nov. 15th, 1882 ; Jesup r. 13 Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. AVabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co , IJ. S. C. C, " Bound c. South Carolina By. Co., 40 N. 1) 111., Gresham & Jackson, JJ., 1889. 566 PROCEEDINGS IN A MASTEH's OFFICE. [CHAP. XXIIL subsequent bidder must do like tlie first until no person will ad- vance on the last bidder^ when the latter is declared the pur- chaser ;^^ unless there has been a reserved bidding fixed, when if the last bidding does not reach the reserved one tke person con- ducting the sale declares that the lot has not been sold, but has been bought in by the persons interested in the estate. ^^ It seems that the court may direct that the sale be made for cash, in u suit under a railroad mortgage which provides that the purchase- money may be paid in bonds.^ A bid may be revoked any time before the hammer falls.-^ A party to the suit has the right to buy at the sale.-^ The sale does not take effect until confirmed by the court.'-^^ Before the confirmation of the sale, a party to the suit, or even a stranger, may intervene and have the sale set aside on })aying the purchaser's expenses and offering a sufficient advance in price.-^ The confirmation may be upon terms.^^ The purcl^aser may be required to assume responsibility for obligations of the receiver as a condition of tlie confirmation of the sale.-*^ Should the purchaser fail to pay the money promised, a resale will be ordered, provided the rights of third persons have not inter- vened ;'^' and he may be compelled by attachment issued upon a rule or order to show cause without a new suit, to pay the differ- ence between his bid and the amount realized from the second sale, even though the sale has not been confirmed.^^ Sucli a re- sale may be ordered by a summary ]>roceeding upon the return of an order to show cause served upon the purchaser,^ and upon the parties at wliose suit the sale was madc."''^ The purchaser at the sale and those who purchase from him take the property subject to the right of the court to modify the decree or the terms of the sale, on appeal, or at the same or the 18 Danicll's CIi. Pr. cli. xxvi. -* Blackburn r. Selma R. Co., 3 Fed. 19 Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi. R. 089. 2"^ Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. G. B. & M. -^ Farmers' L. & Tr. Co. v. Green Ba> R. R. Co., 10 Biss. 203 ; s. c 6 Fed. R. 100. & Minn. R. R. Co , 10 Diss. 203 ; s. c. G -1 Bh.ssoni r. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. I'.tC,. Fed. R. 100 ; F. L. & Tr. Co. v. Central See Mayhew >: West Virginia Oil & Oil R. R. of Iowa, 17 Fed. R. 758. Land Co., 24 Fed R. 205, 215. -'' F. L. & Tr. Co. v. Central R. R. ol -2 Smith /'. Blaek, 115 U. S. 308. Iowa, 17 Fed. R. 758. '-^3 Mayhew v. West Virj,Mnia Oil & Oil -'' Stuart v. Gay, 127 U. S. 518. Land Co, 24 Fed. R. 205, 215. For a -^ Stuart r. Gay, 127 U. S. 518; Camden case where the amount of the price was v. Mayhew, 129 U. S. 73. considered and held adequate, see Lake -" Stuart ;;. Gay, 127 U. S. 518. See Superior Iron Co. v. Brown, Bonnell & Jaffroy i\ Brown, 29 Fed. R. 476. Co., 44 Fed. R. 539. ^> ferbcll v. Lee, 40 Fed. R. 40. § 316.] SALES BY MASTERS. 567 succeeding terra of the court/'^^ A material change of the terms may be a ground of relieving them from the purchase,^^ ^ party bidding at a foreclosure sale makes himself thereby a party to the suit, and subject to the jurisdiction of the court for all orders necessary to compel the perfecting of his purchase.^ He has the right to be heard on all questions thereafter arising affecting his bid,^'* which are not foreclosed by the terms of the decree of sale, or expressly reserved to him by such decree.^ Where not con- cluded by the terms of the decree, any subsequent proceedings to determine in what securities, of diverse value, his bid shall be made good, are matters affecting his interests on which he has tlie right to be heard ; ^ and from the rulings thereupon, and on all matters whereby his interests are injuriously affected, he has the right to appeal after the final decree.^^ 31 Olcott V. Hendrick, 12 S. C. Rep. 81 ; 35 Kneelatid >: American L. & Tr. Co., 141 U. S. 54;J, 547 ; irifra, § 352. 130 U. S. 89, 95; Swann v. Wright's Ex- 3^ Olcolt V. Heiulrick, 12 S. C. Rep. 81 ; ecutors, 110 U. S. 590. 141 U. S. 543, 547. so Kneelaiul v. American L. & Tr. Co., 33 Kneelaixl v. American L. & Tr. Co., 13G U. S. 89, 95. 136 U. S. 89, 95; Stuart v. Gay, 127 U. S. 37 Kneeland v. American L. & Tr. Co., 518. 136 U. S. 89,95; Blossom v. Milwaukee 3* Kneeland v. American L. & Tr. Co., & C Rd. Co., 1 Wall. 655; Williams v. 136 U. S. 89, 95; Williams v. Morgan, Morgan, 111 U. S. 084. Ill U. S. 684. 568 DECREES. [CHAr. XXIV. CHAPTER XXIV. DECEEES. § 317. Definition and Classification of Decrees. — A decree is a sentence or order of a court of equity pronounced after a hearing of the points of issue, and corresponds to a judgment of a court of law. A decree should be distinguished from a decretal order. A decretal order is an order in the nature of a decree, made upon motion or petition, either before or after the hearing, or in an independent proceeding.^ According to the different standpoints from which they may be regarded, decrees are classified, as final or interlocutory ; as in personam or in rem ; as absolute, con- ditional, decrees nhi., or decrees in the nature of decrees nisi. § 318. Final and Interlocutory Decrees. — Decrees arc cither final or interlocutory. These terms are used with dift'erent meanings in the English practice and in that in the courts of the United States. A final decree in the English Chancery was a complete determination of every question arising in a cause.^ An inter- locutory decree was one which reserved the further consideration of any question arising in a cause till a future hearing.^ Jn strict- ness, moreover, every decree was said to be interlocutory until it was signed and enrolled.^ In England, an appeal lay from an interlocutory as well as from a final decree ;'* but, under the Judi- ciary Acts, before that of March 3, 1891, only final decrees of a Federal court could be brought to a court of apiieal for revision.'^ On account of the inconvenience which would have followed, had the old definition been applied to the term used in this statute, the Federal courts have refused to follow the English Chancery in this respect. As far as appeals are concerned, a decree is con- sidered final which decides the right to property, and orders that it be sold or delivered to a party ; or creates a lien upon property § .'517. 1 Barbour's Chancery Prac- ^ Forum Romanum, 183; Seton's De- tice, 337. crees (4th ed.), 2. § 318. 1 Seton's Decrees (4th ed.), 2. •* Forcay r. Cdnrnd, G How. 201, 205. 2 Seton's Decrees (4th ed.), 2. ^ u. S. K. S. §§ 031, 692. 318.] FINAL AND INTEKLOCUTORY DECREES. 569 by the issue of receiver's certificates or otherwise ; or directs a specific sum of money to be paid to a party either by another per- son or out of a fund in court, provided that the successful party is entitled to compel its immediate execution,^ even though tlie consideration of other matters arising upon the pleadings is re- served " for further consideration " in it." A decree is final Avliich settles all the rights of the parties involved in the plead- ings, though it gives leave to eitiier one of them to api)ly at the foot of the decree " in relation to any matter not finally deter- mined by it." ^ A decree dismissing a bill with costs to be subse- quently taxed was held to be a final decree, although a judgment for the costs was subsequently entered after their taxation.^ A decree dismissing a bill as to all matters except one severable from the rest was held to be a final decree as regards the mat- ters which it then determined. ^"^ All other decrees which reserve any question for the court's further decision, even though they direct money to be paid into court,^^ or property to be delivered to a [•eceiver,^2 or to a new trustee appointed by the conrt,'^ q^ ([[^_ solve an injunction,^* or punish a party for contempt,^^ or direct a sale, but do not sufticiently specifically determine the property to be sold to warrant an immediate sale,^'^ or direct a sale, but do not appoint the time of salc,^' are, it seems, interlocutory decrees from wliich no appeal can under the Judiciary Acts be taken ; •i Chief Justice Taney in Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 204; Miclioud v. GiroJ, 4 How. 503 ; Ray v. Law, 3 Crancli, 179; Whiting r. Bank of tiie United States, 18 Pet. 6 ; Wabash & E. Canal Co. V. Beers, 1 Black, 54 ; Bronson v. Railroad Co., 2 Black, 524 ; Milwaukie & .\L U. 11. Co. V. Soutter, 2 Wail. 440 ; Tiiomson v. Dean, 7 Wall. 342 ; Railroad Co. V. Bradleys, 7 Wall. 575 ; Stovall v. Banks, 10 Wall. 583; French v. Slioe- niaker, 12 Wall. 80; Ahirin r. Lalley, 17 Wall. 14; Trustees v. Greenougli, 105 U. S. 527; Fanners' L. & Tr. Co., Peti- tioner, 129 U S. 206 ; Lewisburg Bank r. Sheffey, 140 U. S. 445. ' St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. R. Co. i: Southern Express Co , 108 U. S. 24 ; Mo. K. & T. R. R. Co. V. Dinsmore. 108 U. S. 30; Lewisburg Bank v. Sheffev, 140 U. S. 445. 8 Frencli i-. Shoemaker, 12 Wall. 86. 9 Fowler v. Haniiil, 130 U. S. 549. 1^ HilU-. Chicago & E. R. R. Co. 140 U. S. 52. But see Keystcjne Iron Co. c. Martin, 132 U. S. 01. 1^ Forgay ?•. Conrad, How. 201 ; Beebe r. Russell, 19 How. 283 ; Louisiana Bank r. Whitney, 121 U. S. 284. But see Wabash & Erie Canal v. Beers, 1 Black, 54. 1- Forgay v. Conrad. 6 How. 201 ; Beebe v. liussell, 10 How. 283; Hentig v. Page, 102 U. S. 219. But see Wabash & Erie Canal v. Beers, 1 Black, 54. 13 Pulliani V. Christian, 6 How. 209. 1^ Young V. Grundy, C> Cranc;h, 51 ; Moses V. Mayor, 15 Wall. 387 ; Verden v. Coleman, 18 How. 86 ; Kno.v County i'. Harshman, 132 U. S. 14. 15 Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U. S. 121. 1' Railroad Co. v Swasey, 23 Wall. 405. 1" Par,«ons v. Robinson, 122 U. S. 112 ; Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co. v. Sim- mons, 123 U. S. 52. 570 DECREES. [chap. XXIV. although, if the decision of the court in making them was erro- neous, the final decree may be reversed on that account upon an appeal b\' a party who was thereby injured. ^^ § 319. Decrees in personam. — Decrees are either in personam cr in rem. Decrees in persoriam are those which contain a com- mand to one of the parties to a suit in equity. Decrees in rem are such as without containing command to either of the parties transfer the title to property. Decrees in personam may direct the performance of, or the abstention from an act or acts. The or- dinary decree of a court of equity is a decree in personam. Such a decree may be made even though it directs the performance of or abstention from an act, or directs a transfer, or otherwise affects the title to property beyond the jurisdiction of the court. ^ By statute when a Federal court of equity awards an injunction against the infringement of a patent, it may assess the dam- ages the complainant has sustained by the injunction, as well as compel an account of the profits ; ^ and has the power to award treble damages"^ but not to award treble profits."* A statute pro- vides that '"the original jurisdiction of the circuit court for the Southern District of New York shall not be construed to extend to causes of action arising within the Northern District of said State." ^ Where in order to obtain the relief sought it would be necessary for the court to take possession by its officers of land beyond its territorial jurisdiction, it has been said that such a decree should not be granted.^ TIius, it seems that the court will not decree a partition of land beyond the jurisdiction, since 18 Buokingliam v. McLean, 13 How. 244 ; Peek d. Frame, 9 Blatclif. 104 ; Saun- 150. ders c Logan, 2 Fislier, 107 ; Schwanzel § .310. 1 Arglasse v. Muscliamp, 1 r. Ilolenshade, 3 Fisher, 106 ; Brodie c. Verii. 75; Carron Iron Co. v. Maclaren, Orphir Silver Mining Co., 4 Fislier, . '17. 5 H. L C. 416 ; Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. •* Covert c. Sargent, 42 Fed. K. 208 ; 444 ; Wiieeler v. McCormack, 4 Fislier's Campbell v. James, 5 Fed. R. 807. Pat. Cas. 433 ; s. c. 8 Blatclif. 267. For ^ U. S. R S. § 657 ; Hodge ;;. Hudson an excellent review of tlie authorities, see River Railroad Co., 3 Fisher's Pat. Cas. the learned opinion of Judge, subse- 410; s. c. Blatclif. 85; Locomotive E. quently Chief Judge Davies, in (iardner v. S. T. Co. r. Erie Railway Co., 10 Blatclif. Ogden,22\. Y. 327. See also Carpenter r. 202; Black c. Thorne, 10 Blatclif. . Hake v. Brown, 37 Fed. U. 783: bury v. Marten, 15 Jur. 166; Mills r. l.lL'ctrical Accumulator Co. v. Julien El- Dennis, 3 J Ch. (N. Y.) 367; Seton on ectric Co., 38 Fed. R. 117. Decrees (4th ed.) 714. ButseeCroxon r. 9 § 316. Lever, 12 W. R. 237. § 322. 1 Walsli V. Trevannion, 16 Sim- 3 Powell v. Powell, Mad. & Geld. 53. ons, i78 ; Eyre i- The Countess of Shafts- ■» Bennet v. Hamill, 2 Sch. & Lcf 5r.6. bury, 2 P. Wms. 102, Sheffield v. The ^ Agar v. Fairfax, 17 Ves. 533, 554; 574 DECREES. [CIIAP. XXIV. instances will a decree nisi be entered against an infant defend- ant, although there is some doubt upon tliis point.'' In a few exceptional cases, when an infant plaintiff in his bill exercised an election between two conflicting claims, the court has allowed him a day after he became of age in which to show cause against it." I'he usual form of the '?i,isi clause in such a decree is as fol- lows : "And this decree is to be binding on tlie defendant, tlie infant, unless on being served, after he shall have attained the age of twenty-one years, with subpoena to show cause against tliis decree, he shall within six months from tlie service of such subpoena show unto this court good cause to the contrary." ^ Such a clause should be inserted in the order for making a decree of foreclosure absolute, as well as in the decree.^ The omission of a similar clause in such a decree is error.^*^ The six months after the service of process within which cause must be shown must be, it seems, lunar not calendar months. ^^ At the expiration of them and upon proof of the requisite facts, an order making the original decree absolute should be entered. ^^ A decree for a foreclosure should also be nisi, providing for either a strict fore- closure or a foreclosure sale, unless the whole amount due shall be paid within a reasonable time, usually six lunar months, from the time of the conclusion of the accounting and the certificate of what is due under the mortgage. ^"^ An omission of such a clause is error. ^^ At the expiration of the allotted time, if the debt be still unpaid, the jilaiutiff should obtain an order confirm- ing the foreclosure or directing the sale.^^ The time for payment may always be enlarged, even after a peremptory order for a sale,^*^ upon terms, which usually are that the defendant give Attorney-General c. Hamilton, 1 Madd. ^- Seton on Decrees (4tli eil ), 711. 214. ^'^ Clark r. Reyhurn, 8 Wall. 318; Seton on Decrees (4th cd.), 714 ; Eyre Iloweli r. Western R. R. Co., 94 U. S. V. Tlie Countess of Sliaftsbury, 2 V. 4Pio , Cliicago & V. R. R. Co r. Fosdick, Wms. 102; Sheffield r. The Duchess of lOG U. S. 47, Ferine v. Dunn, 4 J. Ch. Buckingham,! West, 082. See Kingsbury (X. Y ) 140. V. Buckner, 134 U. S 650. " Clark t- Reyburn, 8 Wall. .''^18. ' Gregory f. Molesworth, .3 Atk. 020; is Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 1001 ; Sir John Napier r. Lady Effingiiam, 2 Chicago & V R. R. Co. r. Fosdick, 106 P. Wms. 401 : Lord Bronk r. Lord Hert- U S. 47, 71 ; Sheriff'- Sparks, West, 130; ford, 2 P. Wms. 518 ; Taylor r. Fhilii)s,2 Senhouse r. Earl, 2 Ves. Sen 450; Ves. Sen. 23, Whiting r. Bank of United States, 13 ^ Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 711. Pet. 0. '' Williamson r. Gordon, 19 Ves. 114. i'> Edwards r. Cunliffe. 1 Madd. 287; 1 ' Coffin ' . ITeatli. Met. (Mass.) 76. Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 1088. " Sftor on Decrees (4th ed.), 711. § 323.] DECREES IN THE NATURE OF DECREES XISI. 575 good security to pay the amount due, with interest and costs in full.^'' It has also been held that a decree of foreclosure absolute may also be reopened ; ^^ but it has been said that this can only be done when it has been obtained by fraud or under circum- stances of oppression.^9 The Supreme Court has held that " what is indispensable to such a decree is, that there should be declared the fact, nature, and extent of the default which constituted the breach of the condition of the mortgage, and which justified the complainant in filing his bill to foreclose it, and the amount due on account thereof, which, with any further sums subsequently accruing, and having become due, according to the terms of the security, the mortgagor is required to pay within a reasonable time, to be fixed by the court, and which if not paid, a sale of the mortgaged premises is directed." -^ By rule, " in suits in equity for the foreclosure of mortgages in the Circuit Courts of the United States, or in any court of the Territories having juris- diction of the same, a decree may be rendered for any balance that may be found due to the complainant over and above the proceeds of the sale or sales, and execution may issue for the collection of the same, as is provided in the eighth rule of the Supreme Court regulating the equity practice, Avhen the decree is solely for the payment of money." -^ Tliis rule does not authorize, on tlie foreclosure of a mortgage for the failure to pay interest, the entry of a decree for the balance of principal not due.-^ A State statute giving mortgagors a right of redemption within a certain time after a mortgage sale, will in all cases be followed by the Federal courts, since it establishes a rule of property .^^ In the absence of such a statute there is no right of redemption after the sale under a decree of foreclosure has been confirmed.-* § 323. Decrees in the nature of Decrees nisi. — Decrees in the nature of deci'ees nisi are decrees takintr a bill against a defend- 17 Monkliouse v. Corporation of Bed- ^i Rule 92. fonl, 17 Ves. 380 ; Geldanl v. Hornby, 1 2- Oliio Central R. R. Co. v. Central Hare, 251 ; Holford v. Yate, 1 K. & J. Trust Co., 133 U. S. 83. 677 ; (^oonibe v. Stewart, 13 Bcav. 11. -^ Brine v. Insurance Co , 96 U. S. 627 ; 18 Campbell r. Hoiyland, L. R. 7 Cli D. Orvis v. rowell. 98 U S. 176 ; Hiinunock 166; Seton on Decrees (4tb ed.), 1088. r. Loan & Trust Co., 105 U. S. 77 ; Mason 19 Patcli r. Ward, L. R. 3 Cli. 203,212; v Nortliwestcrn Ins. Co., 106 U. S. 163; Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 1098. Conn. Mutual Life Ins, Co. !.'. Cushman, 2:' Chicago & Vincennes Railroad Com- 108 U. S. 51. pany v. Fosdick, 106 U. S. 47, 70, per 24 Parker c. Dacres, 130 U. S. 43. Matthews, J. 576 DECREES. [chap. XXIV. ant as confessed, and decrees under the statute affecting property within, and against a defendant without the. jurisdiction of the court. Decrees taking bills as confessed are described in Chap- ter YII. The cases when a decree against a defendant not served with process can be entered under the Act of March 3d, 1875, have been already described. ^ Any defendant or defend- ants to such a statutory decree " not actually personally notified " of tlie suit, in accordance with the provisions of the statute, may, at any time within one year after final decree, enter his appear- ance in said suit, and thereupon the court must make an order setting aside the decree therein, and permitting such defendant to plead on payment of such costs as the court shall deem just; and thereupon the suit is proceeded with to final judgment accord- ing to law.2 § 324. Time of Entry of Decree. — A decree can regularly be entered only during a term of the court. ^ The court has power to allow a decree to be entered even in vacation as of a previous term, mmc pro tunc? Such leave will always be granted when the delay was caused by the action of the court/^ §325, Frame of Decree. — Decrees originally always consisted of three, and sometimes of four, parts. These were : the date and title ; the recitals ; the declaratory part, if that were re- quired ; and the ordering part.^ A decree usually begins with a recital of the day of the month and year when it was pro- nounced,^ and of the title of the cause, in which the parties should have the same designations that were given them in the bill.'^ Next always followed, formerly, a recital of the pleadings, evidence, and former proceedings in the cause.'* The equity rules, however, provide that " In drawing up decrees and orders, neither the bill nor answer, nor other i)leadings, nor any part thereof, nor the report of any master, nor any other prior pro- ceeding, shall be recited or stated in the decree or order ; but the decree and order shall begin, in substance, as follows : 'This cause came on to be heard (or to be further heard, as § .32.3. 1 See § 07. 3 Gray v. Brignanlello, 1 Wall. 627. 2 U. S. R. S § 7-J8; Act of Mnrcli .3, § 82o." i Daniell's Cli. Pr. cli. xxv. 187.5, fli. 1.37, § 8 (18 St. at L. 472), 1st 2 Wliitney v. Relden, 4 Paige (N. Y.), Supp. U. S. II.' S. 17fi. 140; Barclay v. Brown, 7 Paige (N. Y.), §.324. 1 GriswoM ('. Hill, I Paine, 483. 246. 2 Gray v. Brignardello, 1 Wall 627 ; « Daniell's Cli. Pr. ch. .\xv. Grisvvold r. Hill, 1 Paine, 483. * Scton on Decrees ( Itli cd.), 9-19. § 325.] FRAME OF DECREE. 577 the case may be) at tliis term, and was argued by counsel ; and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows, viz.'"^ When a decree is entered by consent, the fact that consent was given should be stated. The proper place for such a statement is ordinarily in the recitals, unless consent be only given to certain directions, when the state- ment of the consent should immediately precede such directions.^ it has been said also that it should appear affirmatively upon the face of the decree, that the defendant was properly served with process." The declaratory part of a decree, which if desired at all should be next inserted, contains a declaration of matters of fact, or of the rights of one or more of the parties to the cause, or a statement of the reason for the decree or any part thereof. This statement of reasons is not usual,^ although its utility has been noticed,^ and it is sometimes adopted. ^"^ Instances of declara- tions of matters of fact are, the existence and validity of a will or other instrument, ^^ and the validity of a patent.^ So, whenever there are interfering patents, and a suit is brought by any person interested in any one of them, or in the working of any one of them, to obtain relief against the interfering patentee, the court, on notice to advei'se parties, and other due proceedings had ac- cording to the course of equity, may adjudge and declare either of the patents void in whole or in part, or inoperative, or invalid in any particular part of the United States, according to the interest of the parties in the patent or the invention patented. But no such judgment or adjudication can affect the right of any person, except the parties to the suit and those deriving title under thom subsequent to the rendition of such decree.^^ And where a party establishes his right to property, the direc- tion to transfer it to him is often preceded by a declaration of his title.^* The court will not thus decide rio-hts as between co- 5 Rule 86. G. 591, GOT; Austin v. Austin, 11 Jur. ^ Seton on Dec'rees (4tli ed.) 1535; n. s. Soft. Bartletti;. Wood.O W. 11. 817. n Seton on Decrees (4th ed.) 19, 20. 7 Allen V. Blunt, 1 Blatclif. C. C. 480. i- Union Sugar Refinery v. Matliiesson, 3 ^.r parte Earl of Ilciiester, 7 Ves. 3 Cliff. 14(5 348, 373; Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 19. i'^ U. S. 11. S. § 4918. See Foster v. 9 Bax V. Whilbrcad, IG Ves. 16,24; Lindsay, 3 Dili. 126; Pentlarg^e v. Pent- Gordon V. Gordon, 3 Swanst. 400, 478. larjre, 19 Fed. R. 817 ; s. c. 22 Fed. R. 1' Gordon v. Gordon, 3 Swanst. 400, 412. 478; Jenour i\ Jenour, 10 Ves. 573; At- i» Jenour v. Jenour, 10 Ves. 6G2; Se- torney-General v. Clapham, 4 De G. M. & ton on Decrees (4th ed.), 20. VOL. I. — 37 578 DECEEES. [chap. XXIV. defendants unless a cross-bill have been filed for that purpose,^^ or it be necessary in order to determine the rights of the plain- tiff, or possibly when the evidence is clear and the case between them ripe for decision ; ^^ and lantruagc in a decree broad enough to determine such rights will usually be construed as merely de- termining rights as between the plaintiff and the defendants, if no controversy between the defendants appear upon the plead- ings.^" The court will not make a declaration of mere future rights,^^ nor as to the rights of i)arties upon a contingency that has not happened,^^ nor, it was formerly held, as to mere legal rights ; -^ unless sucb a determination is indispensable to the dec- laration of the present equities of the parties. A declaration that a deed to i)ropcrty beyond the jurisdiction of the court is fraudulent and void is of no effect unless accompanied by a di- rection that a party to the suit execute a reconveyance or de- liver up the deed for cancellation, and compliance is made with such dircction.'^^ It seems that the court will not make a decla- ration of the rights of the ])arties in a decree taken jrro confesso or upon a defendant's default at the hearing.22 The conclusion of a decree is its ordering or mandatory part, which contains the specific directions of the court upon the matter before it.^^ As these directions vary according to the nature of the case be- fore the court, it would be impossible to lay down any definite rule concerning them. Nothing is more elastic and less arbitrary than this part of a decree in equity. The directions to the differ- ent parties may be separate, reciprocal, direct, or inverted, as long as they are not inconsistent.-* If there be several plaintiffs suing jointly, the decree may be joint or several, in conformity with their respective rights, as finally determined ; and if a num- " Thomas v. Lloyrl, 25 Beav. 620; 19 Dowling r. Dowling, L. R. 1 Cli.612 ; Graliam r. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 704, Seton on Decrees (4th ed), 20. Seton on Decrees (4th edition), 20. See ^' Birkenliead Docks v. Laird, 4 De G. §§ 170, 171. M. & G. 732 ; Webl) r. Byng, 8 De G. M. & ' * io Jolly '•. Arbutlinot, 4 De G. & J. 224, G. 683 ; Seton on Decrees (4th ed ), 20. 245 ; Gresley v. Mousley, 4 De G. & J. 78, '-i Carpenter v. Strange, 141 U. S. 87, 99; Cottinghani r. Earl of Slirevvshiiry, 100. 3 Hare, 627; Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 22 Jennings v. Simpson, 1 Keen, 404. 20. 23 Daniell's Chancery Practice, chap. 1^ Graham v. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 704. xxv. 1** Cro.ss V. De Valle, 1 Wall. 5; Lady 21 f.ingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland (Md.), LangdMlec Briegs, 4 W. R. 703; Fletcher 286, 275; Hodges v. Mullikin, 1 Bland r. Bealey. 33 W. R. 745; Seton on De- (Md ), 503, 507; Owings' Case, 1 Bland crees (4th ed ), 20. (Md.), 370, 404. § 325.] FRAME OF DECREE. 579 bcr of defendants, a single direction may be given to all, or a. separate direction, or even a separate decree against each.^^ Cer- tain general rules governing particular kinds of decrees may, however, be stated. If the decree be for the performance of any specific act except the payment of money, as, for example, for the execution of a conveyance of land or the delivering up of deeds or other documents, the decree must prescribe the time within which the act must be done.^^ Decrees for an account should always specify the time from which the account is to be taken.-" " Every decree for an account of the pci'sonal estate of a testator or intestate shall contain a direction to the master to Avhom it is referred to take the same, io inciuirc and state to the court wliat parts, if any, of such pei'sonal estate are outstanding or undisposed of, unless the court shall otherwise direct." ^^ The old form of a decree to set aside a forged instrument was that the document " be cut, damned, and cancelled." ^o In suits in equity for the foreclosure of mortgages, a decree may be rendered for any balance that may be found due to the complainant over and above the proceeds of the sale or sales, and execution may issue for the collection of the same as is provided in the eighth equity rule.^^ Where Bradley was trustee under two deeds of trust, a decree appointing Johnson a trustee in his place " in the deed of trust," without specifying which deed of trust, was held void for uncertainty .^1 25 Linsran >: Henderson. 1 Bland (Md.), ^8 Rule 73. 236, 256 ; Hodges r. Miillikin, 1 Bland -'■* Bishop of Winchester ?•. Fonrnier, 2 (Md.), 503, 507; Quarles v. Quarles, 2 Ves. Sen. 445 ; Fitton r. Earl of Maccles- Munford (Va.), 321; Elliott i-. Pell, 1 field, 1 Vern. 287, 2<,)2 ; Seton on Decrees Pai,a:e (N. Y.), 26.3. (4th ed.). 1346. 2' Rule 8. 30 Rule 92. '^' Cummins i'. Adams, 2 Irish Eq. 393. 3i Shepherd v. Peffer, 133 U. S. 626. 580 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. CHAPTER XXV. COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. § 326. Definition of Costs and Distinction between Costs at Law and in Equity. — Costs is the term given to the sum of money which is paid to the successful party to a litigation, to reimburse him for his expense and trouble in the same. The costs of an action at law are governed by fixed and arbitrary rules. ^ In equity, the award or denial of costs is always in the discretion of the court ;'^ and so very frequently is their amount when awarded.^ When, however, it is said, as it often is, that the award of costs in equity is purely discretionary, it should not be supposed that courts of equity are governed by no fixed princi- ples in their decisions relative to the costs of proceedings before them. All that is meant by the expression is that, in awarding costs, they will take into consideration the circumstances of the cases before them and the situation or conduct of the parties, and exercise with reference to these points a discretion governed by certain reasonably definite rules, the enforcement of which is not dependent upon the caprice of the judge by whom each cause hap- pens to be heard, but is often a ground of review by an appellate tribunal.'* § 327. Who are given Costs. — Courts of common law invariably award costs to the successful party, except in the cases hereafter stated.^ Courts of chancery in general follow the rule of the civil law, vietus victori in cxpensis condemnatus est, and decree the j)ayment of costs by tlie unsuccessful to the successful parties to a suit before it.^ It often happens, however, that they depart so § 326. 1 Hathaway v. Roacli, 2 W. & § .327. i Hathaway v. Koacli, 2 W. & M.'63. M.'63. •^ Kiddle y. Mandeville, 6 Cranch, 86. -^ Wooster v. IIand.y, 23 Fed ]?.40; •^ Trustees v. Greennugh, 10.5 U. S. Am. Diamond Rock Co. v. Sheldon, 28 • •■21 \ Central Railroad r. I'cttus, 113 U- S. Fed. R. 217; Vancouver r. Bliss, 11 Ves. 1 10. 458 ; Staines v. Morris, 1 V. & B. 8 ; Mil- 4 Brooks V. Byam, 2 Story, 563 ; Tnis- lii gton v. Fox, 3 M. & C. 3.38, .^58 ; Hunter tees t). (ireenough, 10.'') U S. .527 ; Central r. Town of Marlboro', 2 W. & M. 1G8; R. R. V. Pettus, 113 U. S. 116. Ilovey v. Stevens, 3 W. & M. 17. § 327.] WHO ARE GIVEN COSTS. 581 far from this rule as to deny costs to the successful party, and, in certain classes of cases, they will even compel him to pay costs to those against whom he obtains a decree.^ In some cases the costs may be apportioned.^ Under no circumstances, however, will a court dismiss the plaintiff's bill and award him costs against a defendant,^ although under sjiccial circumstances it might then allow him' costs out of a fund in court.^ If a plaintiff begins or continues a suit after he has received formal notice of a full and unconditional offer of all that he is entitled to, he may be denied costs, not only of all the [)roceed.ings taken by him after such an offer," but also of the whole suit.^ This principle applies to bills for an accounting; when, although on account of the uncertain state of the account the defendant may not be able to, and so does not, make a tender of the balance due from him, yet if he has shown a willingness to account, the court may re- lieve him from paying costs.^ K a plaintiff charge fraud which, though he establishes his case on other grounds, he fails to prove ; ^'^ or, in some cases, if he claims relief more extensive than that to which he is entitled ; " or if, on account of public policy or otherwise, he is allowed to obtain relief in a matter wherein he himself acted unlawfully or dishonorably;^ or if he have been guilty of laches,^'^ which do not bar his claim entirely, — he will be denied costs. A defendant will also be denied costs when successful under similar circumstances ; ^* for instance, when the plaintiff's bill is clearly bad and he answers instead of demur- ring.i^ The English rule seems to be that it is beneath the dig- 3 Grattan v. Appleton, 3 Story, 7u5 ; ^ Parrot r. Treby, Prec. in Ch. 254; Brooks r. Byam, 2 Story, 55o. Bennett v. Attkins, 1 Y. & C. 247 ; Asli- * Farwell r. Kerr, 28 Fed. R. 345 ; Lip- burnham v. Thompson, 13 Yes. 402. But pincott t'. Shaw Carriage Co., 34 Fed. K. see Daniell's Cli. Pr. (5tli Am. ed.) 1396, 570. 1397. 5 Barns v. Omally, 4 McLean, 57G ; i» Wriglit v. Howard, 1 Sim. & S. 190; Hobbs V. McLean, 117 U. S. 567. But Scott v. Dunbar, 1 Molloy, 442. See see Fechheimer v. Baum, 43 Fed. R. 710, Fislier r. Boody, 1 Curtis, 200, 223. 730, and m/ra, § 335. " Baldwin v. Ely, 9 How. 580. 6 Fechheimer r. Baum, 43 Fed. R. 719, i- Debcnham v. Ox, 1 Yes. Sen. 276; 734, infni, § 33-5. But sec Hobbs v. Mc- Davis v. Symonds, 1 Cox Eq. 402. Lean, 117 U. S. -567. '3 Anon., 2 Atk. 14; Lee r. Brown, 4 " Millington v. Vox, 3 M. & 0. .338, Yes. 362. 352; Loveridge (• Larned, 7 Fed. R. 294 ; ^* Attorney-General i'. Brewers' Co., Calkins r. Bortrand, 8 Fed. R. 75-5. But 1 P Wms. 37G ; Bunker v. Stevens, 26 see Inhabitants of New Providence Town- Feii. R. 245. sliip 0. Halsey, 117 U. S. 3.36. '•' Mronks r. Byam, 2 Story, 5-53; Har- » Millington v. Fox, 3 M. & C. 338, land ,-. Bankers' & M. Tel. Co., 32 Fed.R. 352. 305. 582 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. nity of a sovereign to demand costs, and that, therefore, when he is successful in a suit, his counsel will waive all claim for any.^ Instances when costs have not been given to a successful party, because the situation of his adversary appealed to the sympathy of the court, were when the decision of the case involved the decision of a difficult and doubtful question of la\v,i" especially in suits brought for the specific performance of a contract affecting the sale of land ; ^^ when the court enforced a contract made u[)on a very inadequate consideration ; ^^ and in other cases of peculiar hardship.^*^ A change of the law by a ruling of the Supreme Court subsequent to the filing of the bill has been held no ground for refusing the defendant costs.-^ Costs are usually included in a decree for a perpetual injunction against the infringement of a trademark, although no demand that he cease using the trade- mark was made on the defendant before the suit was brought.^ The Revised Statutes provide that when in a Circuit Court a plaintiff in an action at law originally brought there, or a peti- tioner in equity other than the United States, recovers less than the sum or value of five hundred dollars, exclusive of costs, in a case which cannot be brought there unless the amount in dispute exclusive of costs exceeds said sum or value, he shall not be allowed costs, and the court may in its discretion award costs against him.^s This statute applies when by the allowance of a counterclaim the amount recovered by the plaintiff is reduced to less than five hundred dollars.^* The statute does not apply to a suit removed from a State court.-^ If the amount recovered is less than two thousand, but more than five hundred dollars, the statute does not apply, although the jurisdictional amount is now the former sum.^*^ If there was, when the suit was brought, a reasonable expectation of the recovery of more than five hundred dollars, costs will not be awarded against the plaintiff."'^'' 16 Emperor of Austria v. Day, 2 Giff. - Sawyer v. Kellogg, 9 Fed. R. 601. 628; s. c. .3 De G. F. & J. 217. -^ U. S. R. S. § %8. IT Grattan v. Appleton, 3 Story, 755; -■* Hamilton r. Baldwin, 41 Fed. R.429. Rose V. Calland, 5 Ves. 186. -^ Field r. Schell, 4 Blatchf. 435 ; Kills i» Rose V. Calland, 5 Ves. 186 ; White v. Jarvis, 3 Mason, 457 ; Krcager v. Judd, V. Foljambe, 11 Ves. 387; Willco.x i-. Bel- 5 Fed. R. 27. laers, T. cS: R. 491. -'' Eastman v. Sherry, 37 Fed. R. 844; 19 Burro wes v. Lock, 10 Ves. 470. Johnson v. Watkins, 40 Fed. R. 187. ^^ Lilliay. Airey. 1 Ves. Jr. 277 ; Shales -' Gibson ;•. Men)i)liis, i.<:c. R. Co., 31 I'. Barrington, 1 r. Wms. 481 ; Drybutter Fed. R. 553. For the rule under tie V. Bartholomew, 2 P. Wms. 127. practice at common law in Tennes.see, "1 Fargo r. South Eastern Ry. Co., 28 see Johnson v. Mississippi & T. R. Co., 31 Fed. R. 906. Fed. R. 551. § 327.] WHO ARE GIVEN COSTS. 583 111 suits to adjust claims against the United States, costs can- not be allowed unless the government puts in issue the I'ight of the plaintiff to recover ; and then only in the discretion of the court.-^ Costs in such a suit include only " what is actually in- curred for witnesses and summoning the same, and fees paid to the clerk of the court." -^ No costs are allowed against the United States in a suit to recover a penalty or forfeiture accruing under any law providing for the internal revenue, when the suit was brought by the government on information received from any per- son other than a collector, deputy collector, or inspector of inter- nal revenue.^^ No costs are awarded for or against the United States in the Supreme Court or in the Circuit Courts of Appeals.^^ When upon a reference the master reports in favor of the plain- tiff for nominal damages, the award of costs is in the discretion of the court, and depends upon the peculiar circumstances of each case.'^^ The successful party to a suit may also be obliged to pay costs to an opponent who has not acted unconscientiously, in three classes of cases : when the successful party has acted unconscientiously in the suit or in the matters which gave rise to it ; ^^ when a defendant has been necessarily made a party to a suit in which he has no direct personal interest, — for example, an heir-at-law, who is a passive defendant to a suit to prove a wiU;^* and when a bill is filed to redeem a pledge or relieve an estate from the burden of a mort- gage or other incumbrance.^^ In cases where the finally success- ful party is obliged without his fault to pay costs to one of the others, if the suit was made necessary by the misconduct of one of the defendants, the latter is obliged to repay the amount of those costs to tlie fi rst.^*^ Thus, the costs paid out of the fund to the plaintiff in a suit of interpleader are usually decreed to be repaid by the unsuccessful defendant.'^^ In suits founded upon 28 24 St. at L. ch. 359, p. 508, § 15. 34 Crew r. Joliff, Prec. in Cli. 93 ; Lux- 29 24 St. at L. ch. :Wy, p. 508, § 15. ton r. Stephens, 3 P. Wnis. 373. 2« U. S. R. S. § '.)(■)',). 35 Taner v. Ivie, 2 Ves. Sen. 400, 408. »i Supreme Court Rule 24 ; Circuit «6 Martinius r. Helniuth, 2 V. & B. 412, Court of Appeals Rule 'M. note. vSee Brodie r. St. Paul, 1 Ves. Jr. Si Calkins v. Bertrand. 8 Fed. R. 755; .326; Badeaa v. Rogers, 2 Paige Ch. F.verest v. Buffalo Luhrieating Oil Co., (N. Y.) 209. 31 Fed. R. 742; Hill v. Smith, 32 Fed. R. 37 Martinins v. Helmuth,2 V. & B. 412, 753; Kirk i". DuBois, 46 Fed. R. 480. note: Badeau r. Rogers, 2 Paige Ch. 33 Wright V. Howard, 1 Sim. & S. (\. Y)20;). But see Ferguson !,-. Dent, 190. 46 Fed. R 88; infra, § 3.34. 584 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CIIAP. XXV. letters-patent for inventions, when the patentee has claimed in his specification that he was the original inventor of more than he did first invent, he cannot recover costs unless he has filed a proper disclaimer in the Patent Office before the commencement of the suit.-"^ When an action at law or suit in equity is dis- missed in the court of first instance for want of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or over the subject-matter, or for a lack of the requisite difference of citizenship, no costs are al- lowed.s^ When a case removed from a State court is remanded for want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, the rig-ht to costs is secured by the bond filed with the petition for the removal.^^ Wlien a case was begun in a State court and afterwards removed, in the districts of Michigan costs accrued in the State court before the removal may be taxed-''^ In the Second Circuit such costs are not allowed.'*"'^ No costs are usually granted in a case in the Circuit Court where the judges are divided.'*-^ In an appellate court, when a judgment or decree is reversed for want of jurisdic- tion in the court below, costs are imposed upon the party who sought the jurisdiction of the court below, cither by original pro- cess or by removal, whether he is respondent or ajipcllant.*^ When an appeal or writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, costs of the motion, including the clerk's fee for printing and supervising the record, may be taxed.^'^ When both parties ap- peal, and the decree is in all respects affirmed, usually no costs of the appeal are allowed.*^ §328. Classification of Costs. — Different principles regulate the amount of costs according as they are decreed to be paid by one party to another, or out of a fund in court. ^ In the former 3S U. S. R. S. § 4022; Proctor i'. Brill, ^° Veazie i;. WilliaiDs, 3 Story, 611, 632. 16 FimI, R. 791. ^* IMan.-^field C. & L. M Ry. Co. v. Swan, 3« Biirnham v. Kangeley, 2 W. & M. Ill U. S. 371> ; Continental Insurance Co. 417 ; Pentlarge v. Kirby, 20 Fed. R. 898. v. Rlioads, 119 U. S. 237; Pepcr v. For- But see U. S. V. Treachvell, 15 Fed. R. dyce, 110 U. S. 400, Everliart i'. Huiits- 532; Cooper i-. New Haven Steamboat ville College, 120 U S 223; King Bridge Co.. 18 Fed. R. 588. Co. ;•. Otoe County, 120 U. S. 225 ; Penin- •»" See § 3 of .Judiciary Act of 1875, as sula Iron Co. v. Stone, 121 U. S. 631 ; amended in 1887 ; 24 St. at L. cli. 373. Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 077. ^1 Wolf V. Insurance Co., 1 Flippin, ''•'' Bradstrect Company v. Iliggins, 114 .377 ; Cleaver r. Trader's Ins. Co., 40 Fed. U. S. 262; Circuit Court of Appeals Rule R. 803. See Central Trust Co. v. Central 23 Iowa Ry. Co., 38 Fed. R. 863. ^''> Tbe William Co.v, 9 Fed. R. 672. *2 Cliadbourne v. German American § 328. • Trustees v. Greenougb, 105 Ins. Co., 31 Fed. R. 025; Clare v. Na- U. S. 527; Central R. R. v. Peltus, 113 tional Citv B:uik, 14 Blatchf. 445. U. S. 116.' § 330.] attoeney's fees. 585 case costs are said to be taxed as between party and party, in the latter as between solicitor and client.^ § 329. Costs as between Party and Party. — Costs as between party and party are rcg'ulated by statute. They are the amount of the " bill of fees of the clerk, marshal, and attorney, and the amount })aid printers and witnesses, and lawful fees for exempli- fications and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use on trials." 1 § 330. Attorney's Fees. — The Revised Statutes fix the follow- ing sums to be taxed as attorney's fees in a bill of costs between party and party : " On a trial before a jury, in civil or criminal causes, or before referees, or on a final hearing in equity or ad- miralty, a docket foe of twenty dollars, provided that in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, where the libellant recovers less than fifty dollars, the docket fee of his proctor shall be but ten dollars. In cases at law, when judgment is rendered with- out a jury, ten dollars. In cases at law, when the cause is dis- continued, five dollars. For scire facias and other proceedings on recognizances, five dollars. For eacli de])osition taken and admitted in evidence in a cause, two dollars and fifty cents. For services rendered in cases removed from a District to a Circuit Court by writ of error or appeal, five dollars." ^ It has been held that a docket fee can be taxed for each hear- ing before the court after bill, answer, and replication have been filed,^ but not for a hearing upon a demurrer which is overruled, when the defeudant has leave to answer and an answer is filed.^ When a demurrer is sustained, a docket fee is allowed.^ When a motion to remind is granted, a docket fee is allowed.^ To con- stitute " a fiuul hearing in equity or admiralty," there must be a hearing of the cause upon its merits.*^ No docket fee is allowed for a hearing upon an interlocutory application.' When a bill is 2 Trustees r. Creenough, 105 U. S. » McLean v. Clark, 23 Fed. R. 8G1. 527; Central R. U. v. Pettus, ll.> U. S. 4 Price v. Coleman, '22 Fed. R. 604. 116. - Josslyn v. Phillips, 20 Fed. R. 481. §320. 1 U. S. R. S § 983. But see ^ Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R. 49; Spaulding v. Tucker, 2 Sawyer, 50. Goodyear D. V. Co. v. Osgood, 2 B. & A. § 330. 1 U. S. R. S. § 824. The same Pat. Cas 520; Coy v. Perkins, 13 Fed. R. and the three following sections also rog- 111 ; Yale Lock Manuf. Co r. Colvin, 14 ulate the fees of district attorneys. Be- Fed. R. 260. Coufra, Goodyeiir v. Snwyev, sides the cases elsewhere cited, see 17 Fed. R. 2. Bashaw v. U. S.. 47 Fed. R. 40. '^ Doucrhty v. West. B & C IManuf. Co., 2 American Diamon.l Hock Boring Co. 8 Blatchf. 107 : Central Trust Co. r. Wa- V. Sheldon, 28 Fed. R. 217. bash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 32 Fed. R. 084. 586 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [chap. XXV. dismissed without a hearing- no docket fee is allowed.^ When a bill is taken as confessed, there must be a hearing before the de- cree, and consequently the complainant is entitled to tax a docket fee.^ It has been held that no docket fee will be allowed on the dismissal of a bill for want of prosecution ; ^^ nor for a reference upon a motion for an interlocutory injunction ; ^^ nor for a hearing upon a jjetition for leave to intervene ; ^^ nor when the complain- ant has the bill dismissed upon his own motion before a final hear- ing ;^'^ nor for a trial at which the jury disagreed.^"* It has been said that " the fee is taxable whenever the trial is entered upon by the swearing of a jury in a common-law case, or by the introduc- tion of testimony or the final opening of the argument upon a final hearing in equity or admiralty. The fee is not made by the statute to depend upon a judgment or decree, but is taxable on a trial or final hearing. As the labor for which the docket fee is supposed to be a compensation is performed on or before the trial, equitably the party ought not to lose the benefit of it by a discontinuance entered after the trial or hearing has begun." ^^ In a case where, after an interlocutory decree requiring the defendant to account, the plaintiff moved for a dismissal of his bill, he was obliged to pay the defendant a docket fee as well as other costs. ^"^ Where several suits by the same plaintiff's against different defend- ants were submitted and tried together before referees, a docket fee in each case was allowed.^'' It has been said that no docket fee should be allowed when the attorney who appeared and acted 8 Wonster r. Handy, 23 Fed. R 40 ; Goodyear I). V. Co. v. Osgood, 2 B. & A. Pat. Cas. 520 ; Coy v. Perkins, 13 Fed. R. Ill ; Yale Lock Manuf. Co. v. Colvin, 14 Fed. R. 269. Contra, Goodyear v. Saw- yer, 17 Fed. R. 2. s Andrews r. Cole, 20 Fed. R. 410. w Wooster ?-. Handy, 23 Fed. R. 49 ; Wijrliton V. Brainord. 28 Fed. R. 29. 11 Douslity ;•. W. B. & C. Manuf. Co., 8 Blatchf 107. 1- Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co., .32 Fed. R. 684; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. V. Texas & P. Ry. Co , .38 Fed. R. 775. 1^ Coy V. Perkins, 13 Fed. R. Ill ; Yale Lock Manuf. Co. v. Colvin, 14 Fed. R. 2t)9; Wooster v. Handy, 23 Fed. R. 49; Calm V Qun Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. Corning, R. 870. 7 Blatclif 16. •-'; Hunter r. International Ry. Imp. Co., •^■- In re Strauss v. Meyer, 22 Fed. R. 28 Fed. R. 842. 467,- Tuck V. Olds, 29 Fed. R. 883 ; Mo. -' Broyles v. Buck, 37 Fed. R. 137. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., .'38 Fed. 2« Wooster v. Handy. 23 Fed. R 40, 63 ; R. 775. In the Second and Si.xtli Circuits Archer i-. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 31 Fed. such deposition fees are taxable. Ing- R.660; Green v. French, 5 N. J. L. J. ham V. Pierce, 37 Fed. R. 047 ; Hake c. 228. 58S COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. in the district of Tennessee^ and perhaps in that of New Jersey,'^'' would seem to be that the fee can only be taxed in the first suit.^^ The expenses of taking the deposition cannot be deducted from the attorney's fee.^^ It has been held that the fee cannot be taxed in favor of a party who did not appear by an attorney at the taking of the deposition .^'^ The attorney's costs belong to the party, not to his attorney, and proceedings to collect them should be taken in the name of the party .^* In the absence of a special agreement, however, the value of the attorney's services to his client will be considered as worth at least the taxable costs. ^^ The Revised JStatutes further provide that there shall be allowed to a district attorney fees from the United States as follows : " For examination by a district attorney, before a judge or commissioner of persons charged with crime, five dollars a day for the time neces- sarily employed. For each day of his necessary attendance in a court of the United States on the business of the United States, when the court is held at the place of his abode, five dollars ; and for his attendance when the court is held elsewhere, five dollars for each day of the term. For travelling from the place of his abode to the place of holdiug any court of the United States in his district, or to the place of any examination before a judge or com- missioner, of a person charged Avith crime, ten cents a mile for going and ten cents a mile for returning. When an indictment for crime is tried before a jury and a conviction is had, the district attorney may be allowed, m addition to the attorney's fees herein provided, a counsel fee, in proportion to the importance and diffi- culty of the cause, not exceeding thirty d U. S. R. S. § 4646. 590 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. made except for services rendered on matters as to which the party the counsel represents has an adverse interest to the United States, or an interest otherwise proper in the opinion of the court to be I'cpresented by special counsel, or for services rendered in a contestation between parties claiming to participate in the dis- tribution of the proceeds." ■*- " Fees of special counsel in })rize-cases, incurred or authorized by any Department, or for the defence of captors, against de- mands for damages made by claimants in the district court, not paid l)y claimants, nor from the prize-fund in the particular cause, and audited and allowed by the Department incurring or authorizing them, and by the Solicitor of the Treasury, shall be a charge upon, and paid out of, the funds appropriated for de- fraying the expenses of suits in which the United States is a party or interested." *3 " The Attorney-General shall, whenever in his opinion the pub- lic interest requires it, employ and retain, in the name of the United States, such attorneys and counsellors-at-law as he may think necessary to assist the district attorneys in the discharge of their duties, and shall stipulate with such assistant attorneys and counsel the amount of compensation, and shall have super- vision of their conduct and proceedings." ^* " Every attorney or counsellor who is specially retained, under the authority of the Department of Justice, to assist in the trial of any case in which the Government is interested, shall receive a commission from the head of such Department, as a special assistant to the Attorney-General, or to some one of the district attorneys, as the nature of the appointment may require ; and shall take the oath required by law to be taken by the district attorneys, and shall !)e subject to all the liabilities imposed upon them by law." *^ " No comi)ensation shall hereafter be allowed to any person, besides the respective district attorneys and assistant district at- torneys, for services as an attorney or counsellor to the United States, or to any branch or Department of the Government thereof, except in cases specially authorized by law, and then only on the certificate of the Attorney-General that such services were actu- ally rendered, and that the same could not be performed by the 42 U. R. R. S. § 4648. " U. S. R. S § 3G3. 43 U. S. R. S. § 4649. ** U. S. R. S. § 366. § 330.] attorney's fees. 591 Attorney-General, or Solicitor-General, or the officers of the De- partment of Justice, or by the district attorneys." "^^^ "All suits and proceedings arising out of the provisions of law governing national banking associations, in wliich the United States or any of its olliccrs or agents shall be parties, sliall be conducted by the district attorneys of the several districts under the direction and supervision of the Solicitor of the Treasury." 4" " Whenever the head of a Department or Bureau gives the Attorney-General due notice that the interests of the United States require the service of counsel upon the examination of witnesses touching any claim, or upon the legal investigation of any claim, pending in such Department or Bureau, the Attorney- General shall provide for such service." *^ " It shall be [the] duty of every district attorney to whom any collector of customs, or of internal revenue, shall report, accord- ing to law, any case in whicli any line, penalty, or forfeiture has been incurred in the district of such attorney for the violation of any law of the United States relating to the revenue, to cause the proper proceedings to be commenced and i)rosecuted without de- lay, for the fines, penalties, and forfeitures in such case provided, unless, upon inquiry and examination, he shall decide that such proceedings cannot probably be sustained, or that the ends of pub- lic justice do not require that such proceedings should be insti- tuted ; in which case he shall report the facts in customs cases to the Secretary of the Treasury, and in internal revenue cases to tlie Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for their direction. And for the expenses incurred and services rendered in all such cases, the district attorney shall receive and be paid from the Treasury such sum as the Secretary of the Treasury shall deem just and reasonable, upon the certificate of the judge before whom such cases are tried or disposed of : Provided, That the annual compen- sation of such district attorney shall not exceed the maximum amount prescribed by law, by reason of such allowance and payment." ^^ " No per diem or otlier allowance shall be made to any district attorney, clerk of a Circuit Court, clerk of a District Court, mar- <6 U. S. R. S. § 365. ^s u. S. R. S. § 364. " U S. R. S. § 380; Freliiiffhuysen v. « U. S. R. S. § 838; Re District At- Baldwin, 12 Fed. R. 395; Kennedy v. torney, 23 Fed. R. 20; Bashaw r. U.S., Oihson, 8 Wall. 498 ; Gibson r. Peters, 35 47 Fed. R. 40. Fed. R. 721 ; s. c. 36 Fed. R. 487. 592 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. slial or deputy marshal, for attendance at rule-days of a Circuit or District Coui't ; and when the Circuit and District Courts sit at the same time no greater per diem or other allowance shall be made to any such officer than for an attendance on one court." ^^ " No district attorney shall be allowed by the Attorney-General to retain of the fees and emoluments of his office which he is re- quired to include in his semi-annual return, for his personal com- pensation, over and above the necessary expenses of his office, including necessary clerk hire, to be audited and allowed by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department, a sum ex- ceeding six thousand dollars a year, or exceeding that rate for any time less than a year." ^^ " There shall be paid to the district attorney for the Southern District of ^c\y York, in addition to his salary, at the rate of six thousand dollars a year, such sum as shall be necessary, to- gether with the costs and fees allowed him by law, to pay such amount as may be hxed by the Attorney-General for the proper expenses of his office. But nothing in this or the other section shall forbid the allowance of additional compensation for services in prize-causes, as provided in title ' Prize.' " ^^ '^The district attorneys and marshals for the District of Oregon and Nevada shall be entitled to receive, for the like services, double the fees hereinbefore provided ; but neither of tlicm shall be allowed to retain of such fees any sum exceeding the aggregate compensation of such officer as hereinbefore provided." ^^ Counsel fees allowed by the court to a district attorney cannot be reduced by the Attorney-General or by the accounting officers.^^ A district attorney is not entitled to fees for obtaining warrants for the removal of prisoners arrested in one district and triable in another.^5 A district attorney is entitled to a j^er diem for attend- ance before a commissioner to examine poor convicts applying for discharge, and for attendance before a commissioner on days when recognizances are taken though no witnesses are examined.^''' The allowance for travel and court attendance are designed to 6« U. S. R. S. § 881. V. U. S., 45 Fe.l. K. 110 ; Tutliill v. U. S., 81 U. S. R. S. § 8%. 38 Ferl. R. oSB ; U. S v. Tnthill,136 U. S. s-^ U. S. R. S. § 8.3G , 11 A. G. Opinions, G52 ; Van Hoorebeke v. U. S., 4G Fed. R. 77. 450. s'' U. R. R. S. § 837. 65 Bird v. U. S., 45 Fed, R. 110. 5^ U. S. V. Waters, 133 U. S. 208 ; Bird &<= Bird r. U. S., 45 Fed. U. 110. § 330] attorney's fees. 593 reimburse court expenditures, not to compensate for services.^' Consequently a district attorney cannot charge for travel done by his assistants and for their attendance before court commissiou- ors although he paid such exj3enditures.°^ Unless they otherwise agree with the Attorney General, the assistant district attorneys must pay their travelling expenses out of their salaries.^ Where a judgment is satisfied by deducting a judgment against the United States in another action, the money is " collected or realized" within the meaning of the statute.'''* The percentage is allowed not only in cases arising under the customs revenue laws, but also in those growing out of the internal revenue laws; and the district attorney is entitled to two per centum of the sum which the government receives under a compromise with a person who has been prosecuted by him.^^ A suit against a surety upon a collector's bond to recover moneys due for customs duties from the revenue officer to whom they were paid, is a suit arising under the revenue laws, and the district attorney who prosecuted it is entitled to his percentage.^^ If a proceeding in rem under the internal revenue laws is discontinued by direction of the proper authority, on the payment of costs by the claimant the district attorney is not entitled to a percentage on the value of the property.--'^ For prosecuting an action to enforce a statutory lien for internal revenue taxes, the district attorney is entitled to ten per centum of the amount collected or realized.^'* How much will be collected or realized cannot be told until it is done, and the percentage cannot, therefore, be taxed when a judgment is entered against a defendant.^ Under Section 838 of the Revised Statutes, providing that it shall be the duty of every district attorney to institute the proper proceedings for any fines, penalties, and forfeitures which may have been incurred by reason of the violation of the internal rev- enue laws, unless he shall decide that the ends of justice do not require such proceedings, in which case he shall report the facts, 57 Townsend v. U S.. 22 Ct. of CI. 207. gi U. S. v. -500 Barrels of Whiskey, 2 58 Townsend v. U. S., 22 Ct. of CI. 207. Bond, 7. 59 Townsend v. U. S.,22 Ct. of CI. 207, "i Beckwith v. U. S., 16 Ct. of CI. 250. 21.3 ; U. S. R. S. § 36.3. "^ n a. G. Op. 329. ^ U. S. V. One Horse, 7 Ben. 405 ; «* Bliss v. U. S.. 37 Fed. R. 101. Beckwith v. U. S., 10 Court of Claims «^ Kin? r. U. S., 99 U. S. 229, 234; 11 250. A. G. Op. 393. VOL. I. — 38 594 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [cHAP. XXV. and that for the expenses incurred and services rendered in all sucli cases he shall be paid as therein provided. The district attorney is not entitled to recover for services unless prosecutions have been commenced. *^^ Under Section 824 of the Revised Statutes, providing for the compensation of district attorneys for the examinati: IT. S , 37 Fed R. 2.52. "♦ St.-mton i>. U. S., 37 Fed. R. 252. '0 Bird V. U. S., 45 Fed. R. IIU. "^ Stanton r. U. S., 37 Fed. R. 252. § 330.] attorney's fees. 595 five dollars allowed for a discontinuance."^ An order remittiijg a criminal case from the Circuit Court to the District Court, on motion of the district attorney, is not a judgment within the meaning of Section 824 of the Revised Statutes." Under Section 824 of the Revised Statutes, providing that where an indictment " is tried before a jury, and a conviction is had, the district attorney may be allowed, in addition to the attorney's fees herein provided, a counsel fee in proportion to the importance and dilliculty of the case, not exceeding thirty dollars," the attorney is entitled to a counsel fee in a case where the defendant pleads not guilty, and the prosecution produces its evidence, even though the defendant offers no evidence, or then consents to a verdict of guilty."^ A district attorney may recover the docket fee of twenty dollars in a case where the jury disagree.^^ An attachment for a contempt is an independent proceeding in which the statutory fees are allowed.^° When a district attorney goes from the place where he is en- gaged in court to a hearing before a commissioner he is entitled to his mileage for the whole distance, if such distance is less than that from his home to the place where the commissioner sits;?i A district attorney is entitled to recover for clerk hire and for necessary expenses of the office, such as telegrams and printing and stationery ;^'^ and stenographers' charges for taking and tran- scribing the testimony in a criminal case ; ^-^ but he cannot recover fees paid by him to the clerk of a coui-t of the United States.®* Such clerk must collect his fees from the Treasury Department.®' Under Section 84(3 of the Revised Statutes, providing that where tlie ministerial officers of the United States shall incur extraor- dinary expense in executing the laws thereof, the payment of which is not speciiically provided for, the President is autliorized to allow the payment tlicreof, an action will not lie for money paid out by a district attorney to prevent the escape of an alleged criminal, where no allowance has been made by the President.®*' 76 Stanton v. U. S., 37 Fed. "R 252. ^i Van Hoorebcke r. U. S., 40 Fed. R. ■^ Stanton v. U. S., 37 Fed. U. 252. 456. "8 Tutliill r. U. S , 38 Fed. R. 538 ; U. S. »- Stanton v. U. S., 37 Fed. U. 252. V. TuthiU, 136 U. S. 0.32, mem. 8.3 Fisli v. U. S., 36 Fed. K. 677. '3 Van Iloorebeke v. U. S., 46 Fed. »* Stanton i-. U. S., 37 Fed. K 252. R. 456. 85 Stanton v. U. S., 37 Fed. K. 252. '■•' Van Hoorebeke v. U. S., 40 Fed. U. See infra, § 331. 450. ^" Stanton v. U. S , 37 Fed. R. 252. 596 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. The Act of March 3, 1887, provides that no district attorney, clerk, or marshal shall receive any per diem compensation for attendance in court " except for days when the court is open by the judge for business, or business is actually transacted in court, and when they attend under Sections 583, 58-1, 671, 672, and 2013 of the Revised Statutes, which fact shall be certified in the approval of their accounts." ^" The method of adjusting the accounts of district attorneys is described in the following Sec- tion on Clerk's Fces.^^ §331. Clerks Fees. — The fees of the clerk of the Supreme Court are fixed by rule as follows : " For docketing a case and filing and indorsing the transcript of the record, five dollars. For entering an appearance, twenty-five cents. For entering a continuance, twenty-five cents. For filing a motion, order, or other paper, twenty-five cents. For entering any rule, or for making or copying any record or other paper, twenty cents per folio of each one hundred words. For transferring each case to a subsequent docket and indexing the same, one dollar. For entering a judgment ov decree, one dollar. For every search of the records of the court, one dollar. For a certificate and seal, two dollars. For receiving, keeping, and paying money in pur- suance of any statute or order of court, two per cent, on the amount so received, kept, and paid. For an admission to the bar and certificate under seal, ten dollars. For preparing the record or a transcript thereof for the printer, indexing the same, supervising the printing, and distributing the printed copies to the justices, the reporter, the law library, and the par- ties or their counsel, fifteen cents per folio. For making a man- uscript copy of the record, when required under Rule 10, twenty cents per folio, but nothing in addition for supervising the print- ing. For issuing a writ of error and accompanying papers, five dollars. For a mandate or other process, five dollai's. For filing briefs, five dollars for each party ap])earing. For every copy of any opinion of the court, or any justice thereof, certified under seal, one dollar for every printed page, but not to exceed five dollars in the whole for any copy." ^ Upon moneys paid into court the clerk is allowed a commission of one per centum.^ The 87 24 St. atL. 809. § 3:11. i Supreme Court Rule 24; 22 S8 Infra, § 331 nott^s, 141-153, U. S. St. at L. ch. 443, p. 631. R. S. §§ 839-846; 18 St. at L. 333. ^ Florida v. Anderson, 91 U. S. 683. § 331.] clerk's fees. 597 compensation of the clerk of the Supreme Court is limited to six thousand dollars a year. The balance of his fees and disburse- ments over and above his necessary clerk hire and incidental expenses, as certified by the Supreme Court or a justice thereof appointed by it for the purpose, must be paid into the Treasury .^ In cases where a manuscript copy of the record is not furnished the printer, the fee of the clerk for his service under the last preceding paragraph is one half the rates allowed by law for making a manuscript copy, which is charged to the party bringing the cause into court, unless the court otherwise directs. When a manuscript copy is required to be made, full fees for a copy may be charged, but nothing in addition for the other services required.* In all cases the clerk must deliver a copy of the printed record to each party without extra charge. In cases of dismissal, reversal, or affirmance with costs, the fee allowed in the last paragraph is taxed against the party against whom the costs are given. In cases of dismissal for want of jurisdiction, such fees are taxed against the party bringing the cause into court, unless the court otherwise directs.^ The plain- tiff in error or appellant, on docketing a case and filing the record, must enter into an undertaking to the clerk, with surety to his satisfaction for the payment of his fees, or otherwise satisfy him in that behalf.'^ Wiien a party has printed the transcrii»t of the record at his own expense, ho may docket the case without giving security for the clerk's fees; but before the printed copies are delivered to the justices or the parties for use on the final hear- ing, or on any motion in the progress of the cause, the clerk can require the payment of fifteen cents a folio for attending to the correctness and proper indexing of the printed copies of tlie rec- ord.' If the clerk demand the fees in advance, they must be paid.^ The proper method of collecting such costs from the {par- ties or their sureties, is to issue an attachment against them, respectively, to compel payment of fces.^ When the clerk has no security for fees dtie to him from a party entitled to a mandate, he may withhold the mandate until his fees are paid, or he is 3 22 St. at L. 603. See U. S. K. S. ^ Supreme Court Rule 10. 844. • Bean v. Patterson, 110 U. S. 401. •» Re Amendments to Rules, 108 U. S. » Steever v. Rickman, 109 U. S. 74. 1, 4. ^ Supreme Court Rule 10. ^ lie Amendments to Rules, 108 U. S. 1.4. 598 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. otherwise satisfied in that behalf.^'^ The salaries of the clerks of the Circuit Courts of Appeals are three thousand dollars a year, payable in equal quarterly instalments. i' The fees and costs in the Circuit Courts of Appeal are the same as the fees and costs in the Superior Court. ^^ The fees of the clerks of Circuit and District Courts are fixed by statute as follows : — "For issuing and entering every process, commission, sum- mons, capias, execution, warrant, attachment, or other writ, except a writ of venire, or a summons or subpoena for a witness, one dollar." ^^ In scire facias on a forfeited appearance bond in a criminal case, a separate notice must issue to each obligor. This is in the nature of a writ, and the clerk is entitled to his allowance for the same.^^ "For issuing a writ of summons or sul>poena, twenty-five cents." ^^ Section 829 of the Revised Statutes requires that the clerk shall insert in each writ of subpoena the names of as many witnesses in a cause as convenience in serving will permit. Where the clerk makes the copies of the subpoenas or the sub- pcena tickets, and furnishes them to the marshal for service, at the request or by the acquiescence of the district attorney, the clerk is entitled to charge the government for making such copies. 1^ The clerk may issue separate subpoenas for witnesses in criminal cases when necessary to secure their immediate attendance.^' " For filing and entering every declaration, plea, or other paper, ten cents." ^^ No paper is considered filed unless it has the proper indorsement by the clerk.^^ Merely placing a paper in the court papers is no filing.^^ When it is necessary to enter on the calendar a note of such filing, an additional fee of fifteen cents is allowed.'-^^ The clerk is entitled to ten cents for every w Osbnrn v. United States, 131 U. S. i" Jones v. United States, 39 Fed. R. CXXXVII. 410. 11 20 St. at L. cii. 517, § 2, p. 820. i^ U. S. R. S. § 828. 12 20 St. at L. ch. h\l, § 2, p. 827. '^ Erwin r. U. S., 37 Fed. R. 470, 484 ; 13 U. S. R. S. § 828. See Goodrich v. Henry Amy & Co. v. Siielby Connty, 1 U. S., 47 Fed. R. 207. Flippin, 104. 1* Jones V. United States, 39 Fed. R. 2' Erwin v. U. S., 87 Fed. R 470, 484; 410. Henry Amy & Co. v. Slielhy County, 1 15 U. S. R. S. § 828. Flippin, 104. ic Erwin v. United States, 37 Fed R. 21 Erwin v. U. S., 37 Fed. R. 470, 484; 470 ; United States v. Van Duzee, 140 Henry Amy & Co. v. Shelby County, 1 U. S. 169, 170. Flippin, 104. § 331.] clerk's fees. 599 separate voucher filed by him, thoiigli such vouchers are filed with his report of moneys on hand."'^'^ Charges for filing ijroi- cipes for bench-warrants are proper, since it is the practice for the clerk to wait for instructions from the district attorney, in the form of a pnecipe, before issuing such warrants, and to file the ptrcecipcs?'^ After sentence, no prcecipe for commitment is neces- sary, and no allowance should be made for filing thcm.^^ The clerk is entitled to fees from the United States for filing each separate voucher covered by the marshal's account with the govcrnmeut.'^-^ The clerk is entitled to a fee of ten cents for filing each separate voucher returned by the marshal with his accounts.-^ It is the clerk's duty to lile the appointments of deputy-marshals, and record their oaths of office, and he is entitled to receive the fees therefor from the government, whether or not the government can reimburse itself from the officers.^'^ Though the expense of taking the oaths and executing the bonds of deputy-marshals, jury commissioners, bailiffs, district attorneys, and their assist- ants must be ])aid by themselves, the fees for filing them are chargealtle against the government.-'^ The expense of aj:)proving their accounts must be paid by the United States, and the clerk may collect from the United States his fees for entering the orders of approval, and for certified copies of the same when required.-^ " Discharged tickets," issued out of the district attorney's office, officially notifying the clerk that certain government witnesses are no longer required, are properly filed by the clerk as " other papers," within Section 828 of the Revised Stntntes, and he is entitled to collect the specified fee therefor.-"'^ The clerk of the District Court is entitled to fees from the government for filing scpnratcly, in criminal cases, the ])rocess or copy of process, the bail bond, and the recognizance of witnesses sent up by the com- missioner,^^ for entering an order for trial and recording a ver- dict in a criminal casc.-'^^ The clerk can charge for filing each separate j)aper sent up l)y the commissioners after the hearing in criminal cases, and for filing each separate account of deputy- 22 Gno(lrii:li r U. S , 05 Fc: V.-xn Duzeo, 140 U. S. 169. 25 Van Duzee v. U. S., 41 Fe.l. H. 571 ; -« U. S. v. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 169. U S. r. Van Dnzee, 140 U S. ICO. 30 Taylor >: U. S., 45 Fed. R. 531; -i U. S V. Van Dnzee, MO U. S. 1G9. Goodrich v. U. S., 47 Fed. R. 2G7. 25 Jones V. U. S., 39 Fed U 410. si jo„es ,-. U. S , 39 Fed. R. 410. 2S Marvin !.' U. S., 44 Fed, R. 405. ''■-' U. S. i-. Van Duzee, 110 U. S. 2' Van Duzee r. U. S., 41 Fed. R. 571. 109. 600 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. marshals, which are the vouchers to accounts current of the marshal.*^ Under section 828 of the Revised Statutes, allnwing- the clerk of the Circuit Court ten cents for " liling and enterhit;' every declaration, plea or other paper," the clerk is not required to fasten together all the papers in a case sent up by the com- missioner, aud (ile the bundle as one paper, but may file them as received ; Jior is he required to enter every paper that he files on the court docket, but may make the entry on any proper book ke[)t for the purpose.^* The clei-k may charge for filing the oaths, Ijonds, and appointments of deputy-marshals, jury commissioners, bailiffs, district attorneys and their associates, attoi'neys to defeud accused persons and supervisors of elections, when required to be entered in his office.*^ Under Section 1014 of the Revised Statutes, ])ro- viding for the examination of persons accused of offences against the United States, before a commissioner of the Circuit Court, or other magistrate of any State, agreeal)ly to the usual mode of process in such State, and that copies of the process shall be returned into the clerk's office, together with recognizances of witnesses for their appearance, the clerk is entitled to a filing fee for each separate paper, and not to one fee only in each case.^^ The clei-k of the District and Circuit Courts and the Chief Super- visor of Elections should file and indorse each paper that comes into his possession officially, although jicrtaining to the same case or matter, and not simjjly the outside paper or wrapper, and he is entitled to fees for each paper filed. He is also entitled, as supervisor of elections, to fees for indexing and entering records of elections, as required by law.-^' If two or more depositions are embraced in a single paper, or a series of sheets attached together, they form but a single paper, within the meaning of the law.^^ "For administering an oath of affirmation, except to a juror, ten cents." ^ Affidavits of service by government witnesses are properly administered l)y the clerk, and he is entitled to charge therefor.-*o When blanks furnished by the department for ab- 3'i Erwin V. U. S., 37 Fed. K. 470 ; U. S. ■'"' Taylor v. U. S. 45 Fe.l K. 5:31 ; U. S. V. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 169. v. Van i)iizee, 140 U. S. ICO. 31 Van Dnzeo /•. U. S.. 41 Fed. li. 571 ; ^ Dimmic-k ?•. U. S., 36 Feil. R. 82. U. S. r. Van Duzee. HO U. S. ICf) as u. S. r. Barber, 140 U. S. 104, 168; '^ U. S. V. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 109 ; jnr Mr Justice Brown. Goodrich v. U. S., 47 Federal Reporter, ^y u. S. K. S. § 828. 267. ^'' Taylor r. U. S., 45 Fed. R. 531. § 331.] clerk's fees. • 601 stracts of payment, of witnesses, etc., contain jurats, the clerk is entitled to a fee of twenty-five cents for each jurat.'^^ The clerk may not charge for administering the oaths of office to deputy- marshals, jury commissioners, bailiffs, district attorneys, and their assistants, or preparing their official bonds, but he may charge for filing their oaths, bonds, and appointments.*- " For taking an acknowledgment, twenty-five cents." '*^ It has been held that the acknowledgment of the principal and sureties to a recognizance in a criminal case is a single act, and that the commissioner can charge but a single fee for the same.** "For taking and certifying depositions to file, twenty cents for each folio of one hundred words." '^^ Where a suit is voluntarily dismissed by the complainant, without a submission or hearing, on a settlement of the case at complainant's costs, with consent of the defendant and the attorneys of both parties, the solicitor's fees for taking depositions are not allowable ; but the clerk's fees are a proper charge under a decree dismissing the case at com- plainant's costs.*'^ " For a copy of such deposition furnished to a party on request, ten cents a folio." '^' A party may tax the fee ])aid for a copy of his own deposition, for use in printing the evidence, as required by a rule.'*^ " For entering any return, rule, order, continuance, judgment, decree, or recognizance, or drawing any bond, or making any rec- ord, certificate, return, or report, for each folio, fifteen cents." *^ "When, by order of the court, the clerk enters upon the minutes a proceeding in a court of official character, such as a memorial concerning the death of a public man, the fee for entering is properly chargeable to the government.^'^ Where tlie number of words is less than one hundred, they arc counted a folio ; and as such entry is, in fact, a record, the departmental construction is the proper one, which gives the clerk ten cents for fding a paper, and liftecn cents for the record entry in the calendar.^^ The clerk may charge fees in an e(iuity cause, as to absent defendants, as to " Marvin v.V. S., 44 Federal Reporter, '•o Calm r. Qnng Wah Lung, 28 Fed. R. 405. 30G. i- U. S. V. Van Duzee, 140 U. S. 1G9. <' U. S. R. S. § 828. 43 U. S. R. S., § 828. 48 Brewster I'.'simler, .38 Fed. R. 549. ** U. S. V. Barber, 140 U. S. 177. But *^> U. S. R. S. § 828. see Taylor v. U. S., 45 Fed. R. 531. ^o Y.rsvui v. U.S., ."7 Fed. R. 470. ••£ U. S. R. S. § 828. 51 Amyi-. Shelby County, 1 Flippin, 104. 602 ♦ COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. whom the cause is continued.''^ Where a cause, after behig re- ferred to an auditor, is, with the sanction of the court, settled by the parties, and entry made, " Dismissed, at defendant's costs, by consent," the process and pleadings in the State court, together with the proceedings for removal sent up in the transcript, and the proceedhigs in the Federal court, should be entered upon the final record ; and the clerk may properly charge fifteen cents per folio for such entry .^^ A judgment is an order of the court within the meaning of the fee bill.'^* For entry of the return of a grand jury the clerk is entitled only to the statutoi'y folio fces.^^ Orders made by the court upon the marshal to bring to court for trial prisoners who have been committed by commissioners to jails of other counties are not within the ]>rovision of Section 1030 of the Revised Statutes, that no writ is necessary to bring into court any prisoner or person in custody, but that it shall be done uj)on order, and that no fee can be charged therefor by the clerk or marshal. That statute relates solely to prisoners and witnesses while in attendance on court, and the clerk is entitled to charge the proper fees for making and authenticating such ordcrs.^^ The ju'ovision of Section 828 of the Revised Statutes, giving certain fees for making dockets and indexes taxing costs, etc., in any " cause," applies to proceedings by the United States against witnesses for contempt, and such fees are a legitimate charge by the clerk.°'^ The clerk is entitled to fees for entering orders of the approval of clerk's and district attorney's and marshal's and commission- er's accounts, and filing the papers with same, for swearing bail- iffs, for filing venires and precepts to distribute, and other jiapers, and for making the acknowledgments of sureties on recogni- zances.^s The clerk's fees for entering orders approving accounts of commissioners and the district attorney, for entering reports of money paid into court, and filing vouchers pursuant to a standing- order of the court and Section 708 of the Revised Statutes, for making transcripts required by 24 St. at Large, p. 507, § 10, when ordered by the district attornoy, and for entering an oi'der ap- pointing an attorney to dcfciid a poor [)erson, are all chargealjlo to the United States.^''-' Under the Act of Feb. 22, 1876,60 the ^■^ F.xpnrtp Leo, 4 rraiicli C. ('. 107. " Taylor r. U. S.. 4.') Fed. ^\ W?,\. »J r.lain r. Home Ins. Co., m l-Vd. M. "' Taylor v. U. S., 40 I\ Van Duzee, 140 U. S, 109, 1* U. S. R. S. § 828. 1' y U. S. R. S. § 828. 1 5 Matter of Vernieulo, 10 Ben. 1. "'^ Pagan v. Cullen. 28 Fed. R. 843. i'^*'' Ex parte Woodbury, 7 Fed, R. 705. m Leach i: Kay, 2 Fiiiipin C. C. 690. § 331.] clerk's fees. 609 to give the clerk a right to commissions."^ But a subsequent decision holds that money deposited in a bank, under a decree of the court, and subject to its order, is within the meaning of Chapter 20, of the Acts of 1793, which provides that the clerk shall be entitled to a percentage on " all money deposited in court." "^ The money must either actually or constructively pass through the clerk's hands."* Money received by a master in chancery in payment of property sold upon the foreclosure of a mortgage, may, in pursuance of section 995 of the Re- vised Statutes, be deposited with a designated depositary of the United States, and the clerk is then entitled to his commissions thereon ;^^^ but money paid by a bidder at such a sale as security for his compliance with his bid may by order of the court be paid in a certified check on a bank, and deposited in a trust company, and then the clerk is not entitled to a commission thereon."*' So a clerk who receives, keeps, and pays out money under a judgment is entitled to a commission of one per cent on the amount so re- ceived, the same to be paid by the defendant as a part of the costs."' "For travelling from the office of clerk where he is required to reside to the place of holding any court required by law to be held, five cents a mile for going, and five cents a mile for return- ing, and five dollars a day for his attendance on the court while actually in session." "^ A circuit court opened at the time and place appointed by law is in actual session within the meaning of this statute, although no suitors appear, and the court be ad- journed to a future day without transacting any business what- ever, and the clerk is entitled to his per diem fee of five dollars.^^^ Under Sections 2011-2014 of the Revised Statutes, providing for the opening of the Circuit Court not less than ten days prior to a registration for election or prior to the election for member of Congress, and continuing court until the day following the elec- tion, and Section 828, allowing the clerk five dollars for attend- ance on the court while actually in session, the clerk is entitled to such fee for every day the court is in session, under those sec- 112 Ex parte Plitt, 2 Wall. Jr. 4-53, "« Easton v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., "3 Ex parte Prescott, 2 Gall. 146. 44 Fed R. 718. "* Leech v. Kay, 4 Fed. R. 72. i'" Blake r. Hawkins, 19 Fed. R. 204. "5 Thomas v. Chicago & C. S. Ry. Co., "s U. S. R. S. § 828. 37 Fed. R. 548. "9 Jones v. U. S., 21 Ct. CI. 1. VOL. I 39 610 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. tions, and for his record of its proceedings.^^o When his deputy attends a session of the court, the clerk is entitled to a per diem fee for such attendance, even though the clerk has received Si per diem fee for his personal attendance the same day at a session of the court at another place.^^^ The proviso relative to compensation for attendance of court officers in Act of August 4, 1886,^22 ^r^g repealed by the proviso covering the same subject-matter in the Act of March 3, 1887,^^^ providing for a per diem fee where " the court is opened by the judge for business, or business is actually transacted." And since the passage of the latter act it is sufficient, to entitle the clerk to his per diem, if the court be opened for business by the judge. ^^^ Under Act of August 4, 1886,^^^ provid- ing that none of the money thereby appropriated shall be used to pay clerk's per diem for attendance in court except for days when business was actually transacted, the burden is on the clerk to show that business was actually transacted by the court on the days for which he claims his 'per diem for attendance.^-^ The clerk of a Federal court is entitled to his per diem fee for attend- ing court on a day when it is adjourned, on the written order of a judge.^^' The clerk is not entitled to a fee for keeping a list of tbe names and residences of jurors, as this is part of tbe duties of a jury commissioner.^-^ A clerk who is also a commissioner may charge a per diem fee for his attendance at court and a per diem fee for hearing a cause as commissioner on the same day.^^g Where a deputy clerk acts with the jury commissioner in drawing juries while the court is not in session, he is entitled to the same compensation allowed the jury commissioner for like services, where such compensation is shown to be a reasonable charge for the work performed.^^*^ Under the Act of June 30, 1879,^^^ appointing the clerk a jury commissioner ex officio, he is entitled to a jury commis- sioner's compensation for services performed as such.^^^ For the annual statement to the Attorney-General of the judg- 120 Pleasants v. U. S., .35 Fed. R. 270. i^s Marvin v. U. S., 44 Fed. R. 405. 121 Erwin v. U. S., 37 Fed. R. 470. i29 Goodrich ?;. U. S , 42 Fed. R. 392 ; 122 24 St. at L. 253. Erwin v. U. S., 37 Fed. R. 470. 123 24 St. at L. 541. i3) Goodrich v. U. S., 42 Fed. R. 392; 124 Erwin v. U. S., 37 Fed. R. 470. Erwin v. U. S., 37 Fed. R. 470. 125 24 St. at L. 258. i^i 21 St. at L. 43. 126 Marvin r. U. S , 44 Fed. R. 405. 182 Marvin v. U. S., 44 Fed. R. 406. 127 Pitman v. U. S., 45 Fed. R. 159. § 331.] clerk's fees. 611 ments, y lot, by constables, or other officers of corporate places, the marshal shall receive, for each jury, two dollars for the use of the officers employed in drawing and summoning the juroi's and returning each venire, and two dollars for his own services in dis- tributing the venires. But the fees for distributing and serving venires, drawing and summoning jurors by township officers, in- cluding the mileage chargeable by the marshal for each service, shall not at any court exceed fifty dollars." '^ Where the jurors are drawn by State officers, the marslial is still entitled to his fees for serving the venires on such officers ;^^ where the venires are served by a State officer, the marshal is not entitled to a trav- elling fee.^ " For holding a court of inquiry or other proceedings before a jury, including the summoning of a jury, five dollars." ^^ 13 24 St. at L. c. 362, p. 641. ^8 u. S. R. S. § 829. " U. S. R. S. § 829. 1^ U. S. V. Coggswell, 3 Sumner, 204; 15 Bottomley i-. U. S., 1 Story (Mass.), U. S. v. Smith, 1 W & M. 184. 136, 153. ••«> U. S. V. Smith, 1 W. & M. 184. 16 The Georgeanna, 31 Fed. R. 405. 21 u. S. R. S. § 829. " The IVrscvorance, 22 Fed. R. 462. § 332.] marshal's fees. 623 " For serving a writ of subpoena on a witness, fifty cents ; and no furtlicr compensation shall be allowed for any copy, summons, or notice for a witness." ^ The marshal cannot charge mileage for the service of a writ of subpoena issued, at the same time and in the same cause, upon witnesses residing in the same locality with one for whom a writ of arrest is issued in a criminal cause. The service of such sub- poena does not require another " actual and necessary " travel.^'^ " For serving a writ of possession, partition, execution, or any final process, the same mileage as is allowed for the service of any other writ ; and for making the service, seizing or levying on prop- erty, advertising and disposing of the same by sale, set-off, or otlierwise according to law, receiving and paying over the money, the same fees and poundage as are or shall be allowed for similar services to the sheriffs of the States, respectively, in which the service is rendered." ^^ Where a marshal who levied the execu- tion has received his half commissions, his successor will be enti- tled to no more than his half commissions for completing and paying it over.^^ The marshal is not entitled to fees where no property is sold nor any money received under an execution.^^ Otherwise where money is paid, though no sale is necessary ,2" The marshal cannot charge interest on his fees, although he may on his disbursements.^^ If the State court compensates services similar to those per. formed by a marshal, although not performed there by a like offi- cer, the marshal is entitled to the same compensation.^^ When an execution against the person was issued in the county of New York, the defendant held under arrest for some time, and the ac- tion subse(|uently settled by a compromise, the defendants paying a smaller sum than that specified in the execution, it was licld that the marshal was entitled to poundage on the whole amount for which the execution issued ; and that the rate of poundage should be that allowed the sheriffs in the different counties 2i! U. S. R. S. § 829. 25 15 Op. Atty.-Gen. 346. 23 U. S. V. Ralston, 17 Fed. R. 895; 15 26 jrwin r. Cummins, Hempst. 703. Atty.-Gen. Opinions, 108. But see 3 "-7 jJo,ueroy y. Harter, 1 McLean (Ind.), Atty.-Gen. Opinions, 496 ; Harmon v. 448. U. S., 43 Fed. R. 560 ; Fletcher v. U. S., ■» /?e Donahue, 8 Bankr. Reg. 453. 45 Fed. R. 213. 29 Pomeroy v. Barter, 1 McLean (Ind.), 2* U. S. R. S. § 829; Pomeroy v. Har- 448; The Trial, 1 Blatciif. & H. 94. ter, 1 McLean (Ind.), 448. 624 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. througliout the State, and not the special rate allowed in the county of New York.^*' When the marshal extends an execution on real estate for the government he is entitled to his fees for the same, though the land is not yet sold or redeemed, nor in any way converted into money .^^ The fees for services of a deputy marshal belong legally to the marshal, and he controls them, and his re- ceipt must operate as a discharge of the fees.^^ No fee is allowed for service of a writ or warrant unless actually executed.^^ Mile- age is to be computed from the place where the process is returned to the place of service. The " place of return" is the place where the process is issued.'^* The marshal may charge poundage on the debt, if authorized by State laws, where an insolvent is discharged from imprisonment by the Secretary of the Treasury on payment of costs.^'5 The marshal's duty to serve, and right to compensation for the service of precepts, which are agreed to have been duly issued by the court or a commissioner in accordance with estab- lished usage, cannot be affected by the opinion of the comptroller that the issue of such precepts was unnecessary .^6 " For each bail-bond, fifty cents." -5' " For summoning appraisers, fifty cents each."^^ " For executing a deed by a party or his attorney, one dollar." ^^ " For drawing and executing a deed, five dollars." ^^ The mar- shal cannot object to the purchaser drawing his own deed if he choose.*^ " For copies of wi'its or papers furnished at the request of any party, ten cents a folio." *- When tlie marshal has, with the proper sanction of the Attorney-General, provided blank indictments and informations for the necessary use of the district attorney, he is entitled to be reimbursed for such expenditures.^^ " For every proclamation in admiralty, thirty cents."** " For serving an attachment in rem or a libel in admiralty, two 30 U. S. v. Haas, 5 Fed. R. 29. 3 Cranch C. C. 403; Ringgold v. Lewis, «i U. S. V. Smith, 44 Fed. R. 405. 3 Cranch C C. 367, Swann v. Ringgold, 82 Wintermute v. Smith, 1 Bond, 210. 4 Cranch C. C. 288. 33 Ex parte Paris, 3 W. & M. 227. 36 Harmon v. U. S., 43 Fed. R 560. 8* Matter of Crittenden, 2 Flippin, 212. 37 u. S. R. S. § 829. 3^ Townsend i-'. U. S., 1 U. S. L. J. 88 u. g. R. S. § 829. 534 b ; and for cases in which the mar- ^9 u. 8. R. S. § 829. shal is entitled to poundage, see U. S. v. *" U. S. R. S. § 829. Ringgold, 8 Pet. 150; Causin v. Chubb, *i The John E. Mulford, 18 Fed. R. 455. 1 Cranch C. C. 207 ; Ringgold v. Glover, *- U. S. R. S. § 829. 2 Cranch C. C. 427; U. S. v. Smith, 3 *3 Harmon r. U. S, 43 Fed. R. 560, 565. Cranch C. C. 66; Mason v. Muncaster, " U. S. R. S. § 829. § 332.] marshal's fees. 625 dollars." ^^ Where process in rem is issued against u vessel, but before process is served the claimant, waiving service, gives a bond under section 941 of the Revised Statutes, and the case pro- ceeds to final decree, no actual seizure having been made bj the marslial, he is still entitled to his fees on the settlement of the case.**^ It is not necessary that there should be a sale in order to entitle him to his fees.*'' " For the necessary expenses of keeping boats, vessels, or other property attached or libelled in admiralty, not exceeding two dol- lars and fifty cents a day." ^^ On delivering up the property the marshal may demand his fees of the person entitled to recover it.*^ He must take actual possession of the vessel, or he is not entitled to fees.^^ He may take such possession as to render him liable to the parties, and yet not be entitled to fees.^^ The mar- shal's actual expenses for ship-keeping must, by vouchers, etc., be established to be necessary to the satisfaction of the court.^^ And the approval by the district attorney of the employment of extra keepers will not be sufficient to establish the right of the marshal to an allowance for the employment of such extra keepers. ^^ Not- withstanding the limit named in this clause, the marshal will be allowed the extra cost of dockage of a vessel seized while on a marine railway from which she could not be removed without danger of sinking.^"^ The libellant must get an order from the court directing the withdrawal of tlie keeper, if he would not be liable for keeper's fees should he lose the suit. Mere notice to the marshal is not enough.^^ If the parties agree that the vessel should be four months in the marshal's charge, the sum actually paid a watchman by him is taxable as part of the costs, even though the claimant also had a keeper on the vessel.^^ Entry by the marshal into the bonded warehouse where the goods are stored, and levying of process against and affixing a notice of seizure upon such property, is an attachment upon the property within the meaning of the statute, and the custody fees of a keeper who visited the storehouse three times a day, though he <5 U. S. R. S. § 829. 51 Tlie Hibernia, 1 Sprague, 78. « The City of Washington, 13 Blatchf. " The Free Trader, 1 Brown Adra. 72. 410. 58 The Captain John, 41 Fed. R. 147, ^'^ The Captain John, 41 Fed. R. 147. 149; The Perseverance, 22 Fed. R. 462. 48 U. S. R. S. § 829. 54 The Novelty, 9 Ben. 195. *9 The Georgeanna, 31 Fed. R. 405. ^5 The Independent, 9 Ben. 489. 5^ The Hibernia, 1 Sprague, 78. 56 The San Jacinto, 30 Fed. R. 266. VOL. I. — 40 626 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CIIAP. XXV. did not enter, are taxable as costs.^'^ The court will not allow pay for extra men emploj^ed by the marshal to prevent the col- lector of customs from taking by force property from his cus- tody. ^^ Nor will the court allow the marshal five dollars a day on the ground that two men were employed to watch, — one by day and one by night.°^ But two dollars and fifty cents a day is not the absolute limit, and more will be allowed in the case of danger from thieves, and in other emergencies requiring more than one man to guard the property, since the marshal is bound to protect from damage a vessel in his custody. ^^ But when a marshal has done work in a defective manner, and additional labor becomes necessary in consequence, no compensation for the latter should be allowed.^^ A marshal, being the party served, is not entitled to fees for serving a warrant for the delivery of a ves- sel to the claimant issued upon a stipulation of the parties ; but he is entitled to be reimbursed for any expenses he is put to on account of having been served with such warrant.'^^ The cost of pumping out a vessel in charge of the marshal is properly allowed against the claimants in admiralty.^^ If, in the estimation of the court, it was, under the circumstances, prudent for the marshal to remove and insure property in his possession, he will be allowed the expenses necessarily incurred thereby .^^ And he should in- sure it with reference to its actual market value, irrespective of its original cost.*^^ The marshal is also entitled to be reimbursed for his expenses in hiring wharfage for a vessel in his custody, when such a course appears to have been necessary .*^^ If several processes are issued against one vessel, and the marshal has pos- session under all the processes, the per diem custody fees should be apportioned equally among the claimants, saving to the mar- shal, in case any party fails to pay his proper proportion, a remedy against the other j)arties for the amount.^^ " When tlie debt or claim in admiralty is settled by the parties without a sale of the property, the marshal shall be entitled to a 57 Jorgensen r. Casks of Cement, 40 ''* U. S. v. Tliree Hundred Barrels of Fed. R. 006. Alcohol, 1 Ben. 72. 58 The Perseverance, 22 Fed. R. 462. '''^ U. S. r. Three Hundred Barrels of 69 The Perseverance, 22 Fed. R. 4r)2. Alcohol, 1 Ben. 72. 6'> The Perseverance, 22 Fed. R. 4r.2. s*"' The Novelty (Steamhoat), Ben. 61 The Nellie Peck, 25 Fed. R 4fi3. 195. But see Tlie F. Merwin, 10 Ben. 62 The Jeanie Landles, 17 Fed. R. 01. 403. fi3 Tlie Captain John, 41 Fed. Reporter "The Circassian, 6 Ben. 512; The 147. John Walls, Jr., 1 Sprague, 178. § 332.] marshal's fees. 627 commission of one per centum on the first five hundred dollars of the claim or decree, and one-half of one per centum on the excess of any sum thereof over five hundred dollars : Provided^ that, when the value of the property is less than the claim, such com- mission shall be allowed only on the appraised value thereof." ^^ The word " claim " as here used applies equally to " a claim of forfeiture to the United States, in a proceeding in rem against a vessel," as well as to cases where the demand or claim is personal in its naturc.^^ Tlie sum paid a libelhmt in settlement of his claim, and not the amount claimed in tlic libel, is the basis upon which the marshars commissions are to be determined J*^ The issuing of a process and the giving of a bond under section 941 of the Revised Statutes to the marshal will entitle him to his com- missions in a suit in rem against a vessel under this clause, although the service of the process be waived and seizure of the vessel be not actually made. If the amount of the final de- cree is paid before execution, that is such a settlement of the claim as will entitle the marshal to his commissions.'^ So if part of the goods are sold or there is a part-payment in settlement, the marshal will be entitled to his commissions pro rataJ^ Where a vessel is sold by a trustee under the limited liability act, the mar- shal is not entitled to a commission.'^ " For sale of vessels or other property under process in admir- alty or under the order of a court of admiralty, and for receiving and paying over the money, two and one-half per centum on any sum under five hundred dollars, and one and one-quarter per cen- tum on the excess of any sum over five hundred dollars." ''^ The marshal is not authorized by law to employ an auctioneer to make sales under process or decree in admiralty ; and if he employs one, ho can make no charge for the services of sucli auctioneer which he could not otherwise have charged. Nor can lie make such charge by a notice prior to the sale, that an auctioneer's fee will be required of the purchaser in addition to his bid.'^ Where a nvdv- 68 U. S. R. S. § 829. Robinson v. Bags of Sugar, 35 Fed. R. es The Captain John, 41 Fed. R. 147, 00:'.. IT)] 7- Swann r. Ringgold, Cranch C. C ''* Robinson r. Bags of Sugar, o-5 Fed. 240. R 00:5 ; The Clintonia, 11 Fed R. 740. "^ The Vernon, .SO Fed. R. 113. 'i The City of Washington, 13 Bhitclif. "^ U. S. R. S. § 829. 410. Compare Bone /'.The Norma, Newb. "^ The John C. Mulford, 18 Fed. R. Adm. 533; and see The CMntonia, 11 Fed. 455; Crofut v. Brandt, 13 Abb. Pr. (n. s.) R 740, citing The Russia, 6 Ben. 84; 132. 628 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. shal has been paid liis fees and commissions on the sale of a ves- sel under decree, and a claimant files a petition on which monition is issued, asking that the balance of the proceeds be paid to him, and the court so orders, the marshal cannot claim an additional commission on the amount paid by the claimant.'^ Upon an in- terlocutory sale of prize property, the marshal is entitled to full commissions." So if the property is removed to and sold in another district."^ The marshal's title to commissions accrues at the time of the sale, and he is entitled to deduct his fees at the time when he pays the proceeds into court.'^ If, by agreement of parties, the vessel is sold outside of the territorial limits of the marshal's authority, he is, nevertheless, entitled to his fees.^ " For disbursing money to jurors and witnesses, and for other expenses, two per centum." ^^ The comptroller may not object to the recovery of witness fees disbursed by the marshal in accord- ance with a court order.^^ " For expenses while employed in endeavoring to arrest, under process, any person charged with or convicted of a crime, the sum actually expended, not to exceed two dollars a day, in addition to his compensation for service and travel." ^^ Part of the expense in serving a writ in a criminal case is the per diem paid the mar- shal's deputy.^ Where a marshal, acting as the deputy of the marshal of another district, arrests criminals in that district, and such marshal relinquishes to him all claim for fees for such arrest, the marshal is entitled to compensation for his services in pursu- ing, arresting, and bringing back such fugitives from justice.^^ The marshal is entitled, as expenses, to a jyer diem paid his deputy, not to exceed two dollars a day.*' "For every commitment or discharge of a prisoner, fifty cents." ^' A fee may be properly allowed the marshal when the prisoner is released entirely from custody, but not when brought into court for trial or testifying.^ No fee should be allowed the marshal for a commitment made in any other case than under an order of the court or in the execution of a mittimus.^^ ■?« The Colorado. 21 Fed. R. 592. ^^ u. S. R. S. § 829. T7 The A very, 2 Gall. 308. ^^ U. S. v. Harker, 3 Sawyer, 237. "8 The San Jose Indiano, 2 Gall. 311. 85 Fletcher r. U. S., 45 Fed. R. 213. "9 The Avery, 2 Gall. .308. »« U. S. v. Harker, 3 Sawyer, 237. 83 The San Jose Indiano,2 Gall. 311. 87 u. S. R. S. § 829. « U. S. R. S. § 829 88 Ex parte Paris, 3 W. & M. 227. 82 Harmon v. U. S., 43 Fed. R. 560, 567. ^ Ex parte Paris, 3 W. & M. 227. § 332.] marshal's fees. 629 " For transporting criminals, ten cents a mile for himself, and for each prisoner and necessary guard ; except in the case pro- vided in the next paragraph."^'* Expenses for transporting guards for prisoners will be allowed though they were also summoned as witnesses and paid mileage.^^ If expense of a guard is charged, it must be shown to be necessary.^ " For transporting criminals convicted of a crime in any dis- trict or Territory where there is no penitentiary available for the confinement of convicts of the United States, to a prison in an- other district or Territory designated by the Attorney-General, the reasonable actual expense of transportation of the criminals, the marshal, and the guards, and the necessary subsistence and hire." ^^ The Attorney-General has held that the Act of June 16, 1874, chapter 285, Section 1 (18 Stat, at Large, 72), super- sedes the provision of this clause allowing mileage to marshals, and that the expense of guards employed by the marshal for transporting the prisoners are a part of the actual expenses of the marshal.^* " For attending the Circuit and District Courts, when both are in session, or either of them when only one is in session, and for bringing in and committing prisoners and witnesses during the term, five dollars a day." '^^ The fact that the fifth day of July was generally celebrated as Independence Day, the fourth falling on Sunday, did not deprive a marshal of his per diem fee for attending court on that day, where the record showed that the court was open and transacted business on that day.^^ The mar- shal may not charge a joer diem allowance for days occurring be- tween sessions though within the term.^" The hire of hacks to transport prisoners to and from the court, when shown to be in accordance with the usual practice, will be allowed.^" Compensa- tion will not be allowed to a marshal for the inspection or keep- ing of state jails, unless he acts under the direction of a United States court for the purpose of determining their fitness for hold- ing United States prisoners.^ »o U. S. \\. S. § 829. 509, cited mpra, § .330, note 87, and § 333, 81 Matter of Crittenden, 2 Flippin, 212. note 12.S. 82 Matter of Crittenden, 2 Flippin, 212. ^g Fletcher r. U. S., 45 Fed. R. 213. <»3 U. S R. S. § 829. 97 McMulIen v. U. S., 24 Ct of CI. .-594. »^ 14 Op. Atty.-Gen. 681. n* Harmon v. U. S.. 48 Fed. R. -560. »6 U. S. R. S. § 829. See 24 St. at L. a^ U. S. R. S. § 8.S0; U. S. v. Smith, 1 W. & M. 184. 630 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. " For attending examinations before a commissioner, and bring- ing in, guarding, and returning prisoners charged with crime, and witnesses, two dollars a day, and for each deputy, not exceeding two, necessarily attending, two dollars a day." ^^^ When the com- missioner hears the case of a prisoner, and decides that he must give bail for his appearance in court to answer an indictment, and commits him to the custody of the marshal or his deputy, if either happens to be present, until the required bail is given, the marshal is entitled to a fee for attendance at the court and for the service of a guard, if such service is rendered and was necessary ; and the marshal, not the commissioner, is the judge of such necessity.^^^ The number of officers necessary to preserve order, not exceeding the marshal and two deputies, is a matter to be decided by the commissioner in the honest exercise of his discretion. ^^^ Neither the marshal nor his deputy is entitled to a per cUetn fee for at- tendance before a commissioner on days for which he has received a per diem allowance for attendance before the court.^^ *' For travelling from his residence to the place of holding court to attend a term thereof, ten cents a mile, for going only." ^^ The mileage allowance here granted api)lics to every trip the marshal takes from his residence to the court, and he is not restricted to one such trij> for each term ; but where the court adjourns over for one or more days, he may return home, and charge travel for going to attend the term at the days to which it is adjourned. He may also charge travel for going to each special term.^^^ " For travel, in going only, to serve any process, warrant, at- tachment, or other writ, including writs of subpoena in civil or criminal cases, six cents a mile, to be computed from the place where the process is returned to the place of service, or when more than one person is served therewith, to the place of service which is most remote, adding thereto the extra travel which is necessary to serve it on the others. But when more than two writs of any kind required to be served in behalf of the same party on the same person might be served at the same time, the marshal shall be entitled to compensation for travel on only two of such writs ; and to save unnecessary expense, it shall be the duty of the clerk to insert the names of as many witnesses in a cause i'50 U. S. R. S. § 829. 105 Fletcher v. U. S , 45 Fed. R. 213. 101 U. S. V. Ebbs, 10 Fed. R. 369. i"* U. S. R. S. § 829. 102 Harmon v. U. S., 43 Fed. II. 5G0. lO^ Harmon v. U. S., 43 Fed. R. 560. § 332] marshal's fees. 631 in such subpoena as convenience in serving the same will per- mit." ^'^'^ The clause of the fee-bill allowing for travel in going only, as a compensation for actual travel in going and return- ing, being independent of the clause allowing fees for trans- portation of officer and prisoner only while the officer has the prisoner in custody, he is entitled both to transportation for himself and prisoner, and to travel in going to serve a warrant of removal or warrant to commit.^'^'' Notwithstanding the Acts of 1853 and 1875, Section 829 of the Revised Statutes will be ad- hered to as the true rule for computation of mileage. ^^^ By the Act of June 16, 1874,^"^ it was provided " that only actual travelling expenses shall be allowed to any person holding employment or appointment under the United States, and all allowances for mile- age and transiiortation in excess of the amount actually paid are hereby declared illegal ; and no credit shall be allowed to any of the disbursing officers of the United States for payment or allowances in violation of this provision." The Act of Congress of February 22, 1875, ch. 95, § 7, after making certain provisions for the allow- ance of the accounts of attorneys, marshals, and clerks, further provides that " no such officer or person shall become entitled to any allowance for mileage or travel not actually and necessarily performed under provisions of existing law." ^^^ It was held that the act did not preclude a marshal from full mileage on each of two or more writs served at the same time and place on different persons, but applied only to cases in which there was no actual travel, as where a w^'it was sent through the mail to be served by a deputy near the place of service. ^'^ Tn one case it was held that the marshal was entitled to but one mileage fee for serving several writs in the same locality, though they were for different purposes.^^2 But the later decisions seem to hold differently. ^^^ The marshal is entitled to mileage for actual travel in enabling him to make a return of 7iulla hona.^^^ He is not entitled to con- structive mileage, and his actual travelling expenses must be divided among the causes in his hands to serve at the same i"fi U. S. R. S. § 829. 560 ; Fletcher v. United States, 45 Fed. R. 107 Harmon v. U. S., 43 Fed. R. 560. 213. 1^3 Matter of Crittenden, 2 Flippin, 212. "2 U. S. v. Rolston, 17 Fed. R. 895. 109 18 St. at L. 72 (1 Suppl. U. S. R. S. "^ H;irmon v. U. S., 43 Fed. R. 560 ; 37). Fletcher r. U. S., 45 Fed. R. 213 iw 18 St. at L. 338. i" Anon., Henipst. 450. Ill Harmon v. United States, 43 Fed. R. 632 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. time.^^^ Should the marshal arrest the wrong person, he is not entitled to fees of any kind ; nor will he be allowed additional mileage for transporting a prisoner to a particular place by any other than the usual route of travel to that place. ^^^ He may charge actual expenses for serving a monition, instead of the statutory mileage.^^^ " In all cases where mileage is allowed to the marshal lie may elect to receive the same or his actual travelling expenses, to be proved on his oath to the satisfaction of the court." ^^^ Under Section 5438 of the Revised Statutes a deputy is liable to punish- ment for presenting a false claim for fees to the marshal,^^^ or false vouchers, false affidavits, or other false proof as to the number of miles travelled. ^'^'^ Generally the marshal should not be allowed any charges that are not expressly granted by statute.^-^ The marshal cannot claim compensation for estab- lishing and settling his claims against the government.^^^ But when in an admiralty proceeding a reference is ordered to de- termine the amount of a marshal's fees, the expense must be borne by the claimant, even, it has been held, though the ref- eree awards a sum less than the marshal's claim, and one which the claimant was at all times willing to pay.^-'^ The Attorney- General is authorized to exercise general supervision over the ac- counts of marshals as well as other officers of the United States courts. ^'^^ A deputy marshal is entitled to full compensation for eleven days' attendance at the polls, notwitlistanding a notice from the Attorney-General to such deputy before his appointment as supervisor of the election, that he would be paid for the number of days he should serve, not exceeding five days.^^^ The Attorney- General's regulations as to the length of service and compensation of special deputy marshals cannot invalidate a claim for services as such rendered before those regulations were in existencc^^*^ A deputy marshal has no claim against the United States for services 115 Re Donalnio, 8 Bankr. Reg. 453. 12-^ U. S. v. Smitli, 1 W. & M. 184 ; U. S. 116 Matter of Crittenden, 2 Flippin, 212. v. Cogswell, 3 Sumner, 204. 1" The Wavelet, 25 Fed. R. 733. i'-^^ Tlie Captain John, 41 Fed. R. 147. 118 U. S. R. S. § 829. i'-^" U. S. R. S. § 3G8 ; U. S. v. Waters, 119 U. S. V. Strohach, 4 Woods, 592. 133 U. S. 208, 214. 120 U. S. r. Wallace, 40 Fed. R. 144. i-^ Stocksdale v. U. S., 30 Fed. R. 62. 121 The John K. Mulford, 18 Fed. R. i-^« U. S. v. Davis, 132 U. S. 334; s. C. 455 ; Crofiit r. Brandt, 13 Abb. Pr. (n s.) 10 Sup. Ct. R. 105 ; U. S. v. Schofield, 132 132; Bottoniley r U. S. , 1 Story, 153; U S. 337; s. c. 10 Sup. Ct. R. 106. 9 Op. Atty.-(ien. 98. § 332.] marshal's fees. 633 rendered as deputy marshal, but only against' the marshal.^27 jf the marshal cannot obtahi his disbursements for taking the census from the proper department, though he makes repeated applica- tions, he may retain the amount out of the public moneys in his hands. 1-*^ The marshal must pay to his deputies and assistants employed in taking the census the same funds, or their equiva- lent, which ho has received from the government. ^^^ " There shall be paid to the marshal his fees for services ren- dered for the United States, for summoning jurors and witnesses in behalf of the United States, and in behalf of any prisoner to be tried for a capital offence, for the maintenance of prisoners of the United States confined in jail for any criminal offence ; also for his reasonable actual expense for the transportation of criminals, and of the marshal and guards, to prisons designated by the Attorney-General, and for hire and subsistence in that behalf, as hereinbefore provided ; also his fees for the commitment or discharge of prisoner ; his expenses necessarily incurred for fuel, lights, and other contingencies that may accrue in holding the court within this district, and providing the books necessary to record the proceedings thereof : Provided, that he shall not incur, or be allowed, an expense of more than twenty doHars in any one year for furniture, or fifty dollars for rent of a building, and making improvements thereon, without first submitting a statement and estimates to the Attorney-General and getting his instructions in the premises." ^^^ A marshal's clerk is not an officer of the court, and is entitled to fees and mileage, if he is used as a witness for the government.^^^ A deputy marshal is an officer of the court, and is entitled to a j)er diem allowance and mileage if he is summoned as a witness for the government when he is not in attendance at court.^-'^^ Where the marshal's fees and com- pensation for services rendered the United States are fixed by some positive statutory rule, whether for enumerati'd or non- enumerated services, they must be certified to and paid out of the Treasury, and cannot lawfully constitute any part of the judgment or decree in the cause.^^^ No per diem allowance can properly be made to any marshal or deputy marshal for attend- 127 Wallace v. Douglas, 103 N. C. 19. I3i /rj. parte. Simons, .32 Fed. Rep. 681. 128 U. S. V. Ten Eyek, 4 McLean, 119. 132 j^^-^ p„r,p Biinlell, :12 P\-(l. Hop. (381. 129 U. S. V. Patterson, 3 McLean, 53. is^ The Antelope, 12 Wheat. 510. is» U. S. R. S § 8.30. 634 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. ance at rule-days of a Circuit or District Court ; and when the Circuit and District Courts sit at the same time, no greater per diem or other allowance shall he made to any such officer than for attendance on one court.^^* Every mai'shal must, on the first days of January and July in each year, or within thirty days thereaftei", make to the Attor- ney-General, in such form as he may prescribe, a written return for the half year ending on said days respectively of all the fees and emoluments of his office, of every name and character, and of all the necessary expenses of his office, including necessary clerk hire, together with the vouchers for the payment of the same for such last half year. And every marshal shall state separately therein the fees and emoluments received or payable for services rendered by himself personally, those received or payable for ser- vices rendered by each of his deputies, naming him, and the pro- portion of such fees and emoluments which, by the terms of his ser- vice, each deputy is to receive. Said returns must be verified by the oath of the officer making them.^^^ A marshal must account for all fees which he has earned whether he has collected them or not. The words " fees and emoluments " are held to include those earned, and not collected. But if the marshal shows that after a reason- able effort he cannot collect them, it seems that he will be cred- ited with such as he is unable to collect ; ^^^ but one Attorney- General decided that a marshal should not be credited in his accounts for fees which he has not collected because the parties were insolvent or non-residents. ^s" All fees, charges, and emolu- ments to wliicli a marshal is entitled, by reason of the discharge of the duties of his office, or in any case in which the United States will be bound by a judgment rendered therein, whether prescribed by statute or allowed by a court, or a judge thereof, should be included in the semi-annual return required of said marshal. ^-^^ The marshals for the districts of Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona are " entitled to receive for the like services, double the fees hereinbefore provided ; " but they shall not be allowed to retain of such fees any sum exceeding the ag- gregate compensation of such officer as hereinbefore provided.^^^ i»i U. S. R. S. § 831. "8 u. S. R. S. § 834. 135 u. S. U. S. § 83:3. 139 u. S. R. S. § 837 ; Act of August 7, 138 9 A.-G. Op. 176 ; 11 A.-G. Op. 455. 1882, ch. 43G (22 St. at L. 344). 13' 11 A.-G. Op. 455. § 332.] marseial's fees. 635 The marshals of the Territories of New Mexico and Arizona respectively shall be allowed to retain of their fees and emolu- ments such sum as shall be necessary to make their whole com- pensation including salary six thousand dollars per year each, if such fci's and emolumeuts shall be sullicient therefor.^'^o "No marshal shall be allowed by the Attorney-General, except as provided in the next section, to retain of the fees and emolu- ments which he is required to include in his semi-annual return, as aforesaid, for his personal compensation, over and above the necessary expenses of his office, including necessary clerk-hire, to be audited and allowed by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department, and a proper allowance to his deputies, any sum exceeding six thousand dollars a year, or exceeding that rate for any time less than a year. Tiie allowance to any deputy shall in no case exceed three-fourths of the fees and emoluments received or payable for the services I'cndcred by him, and may be reduced below that rate by the Attorney-General, whenever the returns show such rate to be unreasonable." ^*^ But " marshals may be allowed to retain, for all official services in prize causes, an additional compensation not exceeding in amount one-half of the maximum compensation allowed to them " by Section 841 of the Revised Statutes.^'^^ The Attorney-General cannot fix a dcp- nty's salary ; he can only reduce the rate of his compensa- tion ; ^*3 and under Section 841 has limited the earnings of a deputy-marshal to three thousand dollars a year.""* Marshals are entitled to retain fees received, until the limit fixed as the maximum of their compensation is exceeded.^^^ Allowances to marshals for personal compensation, for each calendar year, must be made from the fees and emoluments of that year, and not otherwise.^*'' Every marshal must, at the time of making his lialf-yearly return to the Attorney-General, pay into the Treasuiy, or deposit, to the credit of the Treasurer, as he may be directed by the Attorney-General, any surplus of the fees and emolmnents of his office which said returns show to exist over and above the compensation and allowances authorized by law to be retained by i" 26 St. at L. ch. G50; Act of July 2, "* Soliloss r. Hewlett, 81 Ala. 260, 2G0; 1890. Res- Dept, of Justice {187(3). p. 202. "1 U. S. R. S. § 841, "^ U, S. V. Cigars, 2 Fed. R. 491 ; U, S, 1*2 U, S. R. S. § 842; U. S. v. Averill, R. S, §§ 842, 844. 130 U. S. 335, 3S9. i« U. S, R, S. § 843. 1*3 Phillips V. U. S., 11 Ct. of CI. 570. 636 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. him ; ^^^ and in every case where a marshal shows that a surplus may exist, the Attorney-General must cause such returns to be carefully examined, and the accounts and disbursements to be regularly audited by the proper officer of his department, and an account to be open with such officer in proper books to be pro- vided for that purpose. 1*^ The accounts of marshals must be examined and certified by the district judge of the district for which they are appointed before they are presented to the ac- counting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement. They shall then be subject to revision upon their merits by said accounting officers, as in case of other public accounts. But no accounts of fees or costs paid to any witness or juror, upon tlie order of any judge or commissioner, shall be so re-examined as to charge any marshal for an erroneous taxation of such fees or COStS.149 " Before any bill of costs shall be taxed by any judge or other officer, or any account payable out of the money of the United States shall be allowed by any officer of the Treasury, in favor of clerks, marshals, or district-attorneys, the party claiming such account shall render the same, with the vouchers and items thereof, to a United States circuit or district court, and, in the presence of the district-attorney or his sworn assist- ant, whose presence shall be noted on the record, prove in open court, to the satisfaction of the court, by his own oath or that of other persons having knowledge of the facts, to be attached to such account, that the services therein charged have been actually and necessarily performed as therein stated ; and that the dis- bursements charged have been fully paid in lawful money ; and the court shall thereuj)on cause to be entered of record an order approving or disapproving the account, as may be according to law and just." ^^^ " Accounts, and vouchers of clerks, marshals, and district-attorneys, shall be made in duplicate, to be marked respectively 'original' and ' duplicate.' " ^^^ The certificate is a prima facie evidence of the legality and correctness of the ac- count, but the proper department may require further evidence in support of it.^^^ "^ U. S. R. S. § 844. ^^ Act of February 22, 1875 (1 Suppl. "8 U. S R. S. § 845. U. S. K. S. 14.-)) ; 18 St. at L. 333. "9 U. S. R. S. § 840; Act of October 2, i" Act of February 22, 1875 ; 18 St. at 1888, cb. lOr.O (25 St. at L. 545) ; U. S. v. L. 33.T (1 Snppl U. S. R. S. 145). Kno.\, 128 U. S. 230, 233. i" U. S. v. Smith, 1 Wood. & M. 184. § 333.] witnesses' fees. 637 § 333. Witnesses' Fees. — A witness' fces are, " for each day's attendance in court, or before any officer pursuant to law, one dollar and fifty cents, and five cents a mile for going from his ]Aace of residence to the place of trial or hearing, and five cents a mile for returning." ^ When a witness is subpoenaed in more than one cause between the same parties, at the same court, only one travel fee and one per diein compensation are allowed for at- tendance.^ Both are taxed in the case first disposed of, after which the per diem attendance fee alone is taxed in the other cases in the order in which they are disposed of.^ When a wit- ness is detained in prison for want of security for his ai)pearance, he is entitled, in addition to his subsistence, to a compensation of one dollar a day."* A witness can be subpoenaed, and must be allowed mileage from and to his residence, in any part of a dis- trict, to attend a court held within that district,^ or from another district if he does not reside more than one hundred miles from the place of trial.^ If a witness in a civil case resides more than one hundred miles from the place of trial and voluntarily attends, according to the ruling in the Second Circuit, mileage for only one hundred miles can be taxed J It was held by the District Court for South Carolina that a witness for the United States, voluntarily coming to and attending court on the verbal instruc- tions of the district attorney, is entitled to the per diem and mileage fees, although his residence is out of the district, and more than one hundred miles from the place at which the court is held.^ According to the rulings in the First Circuit,^ a witness is entitled to mileage from his residence, no matter how far distant it may be. The Circuit Court for Iowa lays down the rule as follows : " The general rule, therefore, is that as testimony by deposition can be taken when the wntness resides more than one hundred miles from the place of trial, mileage for a greater dis- tance is not ordinarily chargeable against the party not summon- § 333. 1 U. S. R. S. § 848. Fed. R. 113; Haines i-. McLaughlin, 29 2 U. S. R. S. § 848. Fed. R. 70 ; Buffalo Ins. Co. v. Prov. & 8 U. S. R. S. § 848. Stonington S. S. Co., 29 Fed. R. 237 ; * U. S. R. S. § 848. Wooster v. Hill, 44 Fed. R. 819. 5 The Syracuse, 36 Fed. R. 830 ; Sims » In re Williams, 37 Fed. R. 325. f. Schult, 40 Fed. R. 14.3. » Frouty v. Draper, 2 Story, 199; « U. S. R. S. § 876; The Syracuse, 36 Wliipple r. Cumberland Cotton '.Manuf. Fes, Moseley, 204. 2 WalL Jr. 453. 17 Adair r. Sliaw, 1 Scli. & Lef. 243, 280 ; 3 Fecliheimer v. Baum, 4-3 Fed. K. 719 ; Uvedale r. Uvedale, 3 Atk. 117. Central 11. R. & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 18 Bennet v. Goin^, 1 Molloy, 529; 113 U. S. 116, 128. Young V. Everest, 1 R. & M. 426 ; Minuse * Adams v. Kepler Milling Co., 38 Fed. V. Cox, 5 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 441. R. 281. §336. 1 Trustees v. Greenough, 105 ^ Trustees 'j. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527. U. S. 627. § 337. i U. S. R. S. § 983. ■^ Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527 ; 2 u. S. R. S. § 984 ; Jerman i-. Stewart, Cowdrey v. G. H. & H. K. R. Co., 93 U. S. 12 Fed. R. 27L 352 ; Ex parte Jaffray, In re Waite & § 338.] SECURITY FOR COSTS. 645 be included in the bill of costs.^ The bills when taxed must be filed with the papers in the cause.'* When the taxation is by the clerk, a motion for a retaxation of the costs may be made before, or an ai)peal taken to, a judp;c of the court.^ A party who objects to a charge in lump should demand a specification of the items of which it is composed.*^ Where there is a dispute as to a question of fact, material to the taxation of a bill of costs, a reference may be had to an auditor." Costs as between solicitor and client are taxed by the court, usually by means of a reference to a mas- ter.^ An appeal from a decree containing an erroneous al- lowance of such costs can be made, provided that their amount is sufficient to give the appellate court jurisdiction.^ Upon such an appeal, that court may reverse the decree if the costs have been awarded upon erroneous principles : ^^ but will very rarely do so merely because it considers the sum allowed for a counsel fee too large.^^ § 338. Security for Costs. — A complainant who docs not reside within the district may be compelled to give security for costs.^ Such security may also be required of a non-resident defendant to a bill of interpleader when he takes aggressive action.^ In order to obtain an order compelling such security, the defendant must move for it as soon as he ascertains the plaintiff's resi- dence.^ If he takes after such discovery any step in the cause before moving, it seems that he thereby waives his right to se- curity,^ unless a necessity for unforeseen disbursements, such as the expense of a reference, subsequently arises.^ Upon a failure 3 Lee V. Simpson, 42 Fed. R. 434. § 3.38. i Lyman Ventilating & Eefri- * U. S. R. S. § 983. gerator Co. Southard, 12 Blatchf. 405. 6 Re Strauss v. Mej'er, 22 Fed. R. 1C7; But see Woodworth v. Sherman, 3 Story, Tuck V. Olds, 28 Fed. R. 883. 171. 6 Dedekam v. Vose, 3 Blatchf. 153. 2 Gross & Phillips Manuf. Co. v. Ger- 7 Bottomley v. U. S., 1 Story, 153. hard, 8 Reporter, 136. 8 Trustees i\ Greenough, 105 U. S. 527 ; ^ Migliorucci v. Migliorucci, 1 Dickens, Central R. R. & B. Co. i\ Pettus, 113 U. S. 147; Foster r. Swasey, 2 W. & I\r. 217 ; 116 ; Cowdrey ". G. H. & H. R. R. Co., 93 Bliss v. Brooklyn, 10 i?latch. 217 ; Prince U. S. 352. V. Towns, 33 Fed. R. 161. 9 Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527 ; * Migliorucci v. Migliorucci, 1 Dickens, Angell V. Davis, 4 Myl. &C. 360. 147 ; Foster v. Swasey, 2 W. & M. 217 ; 1' Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527 ; Bliss v. Brooklyn, 10 Blatchf. 217 ; Prince Central R. R.& B. Co. y. Pettus, 113 U.S. i-. Towns, 33' Fed. R. 101. But see 116. Stewart v. The Sun, 3G Fed. R. 307. 11 Trustees ?-. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527; ^ Uhle v. Burnham, 46 Fed. Reporter Stuart V. Boulware, 133 U. S. 78. But 500. see Central R. R. & B. Co. v. Pettus. 113 U. S. 116. 646 COSTS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY. [CHAP. XXV. to file security when required, the plaintiff's proceedings will be stayed.^ The plaintiff's proceedings may be stayed until he pays the costs of another suit between the same parties upon the same cause of action in which he was unsuccessful, even if that other suit was in a State court.'^ When one of several plaintiffs is a resident of the district, it seems that no security for costs will be required.^ If the defendant do not demand security for costs within a reasonable time ; that such security has not been given will not, when the cause is called for trial, be a ground for a continuance.^ Where a plaintiff has recov- ered judgment against a solvent defendant, and process is out- standing in the nature of an execution to collect the same, it is not proper to require the plaintiff to make a deposit to secure costs due a commissioner.^*^ It was held in New York, by Clian- cellor Kent, that a person who sued in another's right, as an ex- ecutor or administrator, could not be compelled to give security for costs.^i 6 Fox V. Blew, 5 Madd. 147. » Hawkins v. Willbank, 4 Wash 285. 7 Buckles i: Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. i» U. S. v. St. Charles Co., 31 Fed. R. Co., 47 Fed. R. 424. 442. 8 Winthrop i\ Royal Exch. Ass. Co., " Goodrich v. Pendleton, .3 J. Ch. (N. 1 Dickens, 282 ; Walker v. Easterby, 6 Y.) 520. See Cathcart v. Hewson, 1 Ves. 612 ; Gilbert v. Gilbert, 2 Paige'cii. Hayes, 173., (N. Y.) 00.3. § 340.] EXECUTIONS. 647 CHAPTER XXVI. ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND ORDERS. § 339. Enforcement of Decrees and Orders in General. — Decrees and orders are enforced in six ways : by writ of execution,^ by attaclimcnt,- by writ of scqnestration,^ by writ of assistance,"* by the action of the court itself through the medium of a master^ or receiver,^ and by bills to carry decrees into execution." Ecjuity Rule 10 provides as follows : " Every pei'son, not being a party in any cause, who has obtained an order, or in whose favor an order shall have been made, shall be enabled to enforce obedi- ence to such order by the same process as if he were a party to the cause; and every person not being a party in any cause, against whom obedience to any order of the court may be enforced, shall be liable to the same process for enforcing obedience to such orders as if he were a party in the cause." § 340. Executions.- — The rules provide that "final process to execute any decree may, if the decree be solely for the payment of money, be by a writ of execution, in the form used in the circuit court in suits at common law in actions of assumpsit." ^ A decree for a deficiency after a sale of mortgaged property in a foreclosure suit is enforced in the same manner.^ By a statute passed June 1, 1872, and re-enacted December 1, 1873, "the party recovering a judgment in any common-law cause in any circuit or district court, shall be entitled to similar remedies upon the same, by execution or otherwise, to reach the property of the judgment debtor, as arc now provided in like causes by the laws of the State in which such court is held, or by any such laws hereinafter enacted which are adopted by general rules of such circuit or district court ; and such courts may, from time to time, by general rules, adopt such State laws as may hereafter be § 339. 1 §§ 340, 380. ^ chapter XVII. 2 §§ .341-346. " § 34y a. 8 § .347. § 340. 1 Rule 8. See § 380. * § 348. 2 Rule 92. 6 § 349. 648 ENFOECEMENT OF DECREES AND OEDERS. [CHAP. XXVI. in force in such State in relation to remedies upon judgments, as aforesaid by execution or otherwise." ^ In cases wlicrc an appeal lies to or a writ of error may issue from the Supreme Court, the execution cannot issue till the expiration of ten days from the entry of the decree or judgment.* The writ may, however, be previously prepared l)y the clerk.^ The marshal in the courts of the United States has duties analogous to those of the sheriff in the diflerent States.*^ It is his duty "to attend the district and circuit courts when sitting in his district, and to execute throughout the district all lawful precepts directed to him, and issued under the authority of the United States ; and he shall have power to command all necessary assistance in the execu- tion of his duty." '' They have the right under the direction of the Attorney-General to protect judges of the courts of the United ' States while in the discharge of their official duties, and while on their way to hold court, and if necessary, to take luunan life in their defense.*^ " The marshals and their deputies have, in each State, the same powers in executing the laws of the United States, as the sheriffs and their deputies in such State have by law, in executing the laws thereof." ^ Under these provisions of the Revised Statutes, the marshal or his deputy, if resisted when in the performance of his duty, may call to his aid a suffi- cient force from his district, called the j^osse eomitatus, or power of his county, from the corresponding force which the sheriff or county officer has at his command,^*^ — that is, such number of men as are necessary for his assistance in the execution of the writs of the United States ; and herein every person above the age of fifteen and able to travel is bound to be aiding, and if they refuse to assist, may be punished by fine and imprisonment.^^ It has been said, that this force by the common law included all persons, whatever might be their occupation, whether civilians or not ; and including the military of all denominations, — militia, soldiers, marines, — all of whom were alike bound to obey the com- mands of a sheriff or marshal. " The fact that they are organized 8 U. S. R. S. § fll6. See Lamaster " U. S. R. S. § 787. V. Keeler, 123 U. S.":]7t) , and infra, § 380. » In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1 ; s. c. 39 « U. S. R. S. § 1008. " Fed. R. 833. 5 Board of Commissioners i\ Gorman, '•' U. S. R. S. § 788; In re Neagle, 135 19 Wall. 661. U. S. 1, 68. 6 In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1 ; s. c 39 i" 6 Op. Att'yGen 466, 469. Fed. R. 833; U. S. K. S. § 788. ii Bac Al.r. Sheriff (11). § 341.] CONTEMPTS. 649 as military bodies, under the immediate command of their own officers, does not in any wise affect their legal character. They are still the posse comitatus.''^ ^^ A recent act of Congress has, however, ])rovided, that " From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the army of the United States as a posse comitatus, or otherwise for the p"r!rpose of exe- cuting the laws, except in such cases and under such circum- stances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by Act of Congress." ^^ Under this act, it seems that aid of the army cannot be obtained by a marshal unless the President shall employ it to suppress insur- rection after a proclamation commanding the insurgents to disperse.^* Tlie marshal and his deputies may carry arms and use force in the execution of their official duty although a State statute forbids carrying concealed weapons ;^^ but they may not make arrests nor carry arms outside of the districts for which they are appointed. ^^ All writs of execution upon judgments or decrees obtained in a Circuit or District Court, in any State which is divided into two or more districts, may run and be executed in any part of such State ; but must be issued from and made returnable to the court wherein the judgment was obtained.^' In such a case, the writ may be executed, by the marshal of the district from which it was issued, in the other district without any independent writ being directed to him for that purpose. ^^ All writs of execution upon judgments obtained for the use of the United States, in any court thereof, in one State, may run and be executed in any other State or in any Territory, but must be issued from, and made returnable to, the court wherein the judgment was obtained. ^^ A suit against a marshal for an alleged failure to comply with the laws of tlie State in levying an execu- tion arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.^*^ § 341. Contempts. — An attachment is the projjcr process to compel obedience to a decree or order requiring the perform- 12 G Op. Att'y-Gen. 466, 473. le Walker v. Lea, 47 Foil. K. G45. 13 Act of June 18, 1878, § 15 ; 20 St. at i^ U. S. R. S. § 985. See pt-. 58-63. L. 145; 1 Sup. U. S. R. S. 363. i^ Prevost v. Gorrell, 5 W. N. C. (Pa.) 1* 10 Op. Att'y-Gcn. 1G2; U. S. R. S. 151. §§ 52'J8, 5300. !'• U S. R. S § Of^C. 15 U. S. er rel. McSweeney v. FulUiart, '^^ Sowles v. Witters, 4G Fed. R. 497. 47 Fed. R. 802 ; Sifford's Case, 5 Am. See § 17. Law Reg. 659. 650 ENFORCEMENT OF DECEEES AND ORDEKS. [CHAP. XXVI. ance of a specific act other than the payment of money ,^ or to punish a contempt of court.^ It seems, that in districts held in States where imprisonment for debt has been abolished, dis- obedience to a decree or order for the payment of money cannot be punished by attachment;^ unless the defaulting party is an officer of the court, as an attorney,^ or has bid in property at a judicial sale;^ or the motion is made by a master or the clerk of the Supreme Court to compel payment of his fees.^ The older cases both in the English Chancery and the Federal courts hold that it is a contempt to criticise in the press the conduct of the court,' and to publish anything which may .create prejudice against either party to a pending cause.^ A case in which punishment was inflicted by Judge Peck for a criticism pul)lished upon one of his decisions led to his impeachment trial before the Senate ; and although he was acquitted, a stat- ute was enacted which materially diminished the powers of the Federal courts to punish for contempt.'^ The courts of the United States have power " to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, contempts of their authority : Provided, That such power to punish contempts shall not be construed to extend to any cases except the misbehavior of any person in their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, or by any party, juror, witness, or other persons, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the said courts." ^^ Beyond this the Circuit and District Courts have no such power.^^ The act, just quoted in terms, applies to all courts. Whether it can be held to limit the authority of the Supreme Court, which derives its existence and powers from the Constitution, is doubtful.^^ It has been held § 341. i Rule 8; Mallory Manuf. Co. « Kule 82; Supreme Court Rule 10. V. Fox, 20 Fed. R. 400. * " See the language of Lord Cliancellor 2 U. S. R. S. § 725 ; Re Chiles, 22 Wall. Hardwicke in 2 Atk. 400, 471. Hollings- 157. worth V. Duanc, Wall. C. C. 77, 100; 3 Mallory Manuf. Co. ?•. Fox, 20 Fed. U. S. v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 102. R. 409. « 2 Atk. 4G9. « Jeffries v. Laurie, 27 Fed. R. 195, » U. S. R. S. § 725. lie Pitman, 1 Curtis, 186; Bagley v. " U S. R. S. § 725. Yates, 3 McLean, 465; The Laurens, 1 ^ Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall 505, Abb. Adm. 508; Re Paschal, 10 Wall. 510. 483 ; U. S. r. Mann, 2 Brock. 9. '- Mr. Justice Field in Ex parte Robin- ^ Camden v. Mayhew, 120 U. S. 73. son, 19 Wall. 505, 510. § 341.] CONTEMPTS. 651 at circuit that a United States commissioner has no power to punish for contempt.^^ It was held to be a contempt of court to sue in a court of another State a party while there for the i)ui- pose of attending- the taking of a deposition ; and a fine of the expenses of such suit inchiding the counsel fees therein, was imposed u])on the party who brought it.^'* JMisbehavior of a per- son in the i)rescnee of the court may consist in an assault,^^ or in abusive language addressed to the court ^*^ or one of its officers 1' or any person there.^^ Similar conduct in an ante- room of the conrt or so near the court-room as to be heard there- in is also punishable as a contempt.^^ It has been said to be a contempt for an attorney to carry a pistol into court.-*^ A hear- ing before a master in chancery or examiner is, for this purpose, treated as a proceeding in court.^^ The cases affecting receivers have been cited in the chapter on Receivers.-^ Proceedings before a grand jury are considered to be in the presence of the court ; -^ and an attempt in the hall adjoining the room where a grand jury is in session to bribe a witness summoned before it is a con- tempt of court.2^ It has been held in Ohio, under a statute simi- lar to that limiting the powers of the Federal courts to punish for contempts, that the publication of charges of misconduct against a judge holding court, in a newspaper which the writer had reason to believe would be circulated and read in the court- room, and which was thus circulated and read, is " misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the administration of court or justice." ^^ It is not a contempt to serve a suitor with a summons while he is in attendance on a term of court, provided he is not served in the court's presence.'^^ An officer of the court may be punished by attachment for his misbehavior in office after his term of office has expired by res- is In re Mason, 43 Fed. R. 510; Re is U. S. r. Emerson, 4 Cranoli C.C. 188; Perkins, cited 43 Fed. R. 515; Ex parte U. S. i'. Carter, 3 Cranch C. C. 428. Doll, 7 Phila. 595. la U. S. v. Emerson, 4 Crancli C. C. 188. 1* Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R. 17, -" Sharon v. Hill, '24 Fed. K. 726. 45-47. 21 Sharon v. Hill, 24 Fed. R. 720. 15 Sharon v. Hill, 24 Fed. R. 720 ; Ex '" See § 249. jmrte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; In re Terry, -^ Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267. 36 Fed. R. 419; U. S. v. Patterson, 20 2* Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 207. Fed. R. 509. 25 j^fyers i-. State, 21 Weekly Law 16 Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; In re Bulletin, 404 ; s. c. 22 N. E. R. 43. See Terry, 36 Fed. R. 419. Cooper r. People, 13 Colorado, 337. 17 Ex parte Terry. 128 U. S. 289 ; In re -'' Blight r. Fisher, Peters' Circuit Court Terry, 30 Fed. R. 419. Reports, 41. 652 ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND ORDERS. [CHAP. XXVI. ignation or otherwise.^" An attorney-^ or other officer--^ of the court may be thus compelled to pay to a person named in the order money received by him in his official capacity. Where, however, there is room for a reasonable doubt as to how much is due from the officer, the court will usually refuse to proceed against him summarily, and require the complaining part}' to begin a suit.^^ A juror has been punished for contempt because he had talked about the case in violation of the court's direction to the contrary.^' It has been held, that a person enjoined from the infringement of a patent is in contempt if he contributes to a fund to defray the expenses of another who is contesting the validity of the patent.-^^ It has been held, that a defendant cor- poration which, when enjoined from selling a certain cordial in certain bottles with a particular label, sold its entire stock of cordials with such bottles and labels to a third person, under an arrangement that he would fill all orders for the cordial which the defendant should receive, was guilty of contempt, although it did not share in the profits of such sales, and although it acted under advice of counsel.-^'^ It has been said to be a contempt of court to bring before it a collusive suit.'^^ It has been held that it is a contempt to represent by words and by printed circulars that a sale under an execution is invalid, and that any one who buys will become involved in litigation.^^ A person is not relieved from punishment for contempt because he acted in good faith under the advice of counsel that he was not infringing the court's order.^^ If, however, the question as to whether he is in contempt is doubtful, the court will not punish him.^' A domestic or foreign corporation, as well as an individual, may be fined for a contempt.^ 2^ Tlie Laurens, 1 Abb. Adm. 508. Fecamp i'. Western Distilling Co., 42 Fed. 28 In re Paschal, 10 Wall. 483 ; Jeffries R. 96. V. Laurie, 27 Fed. R. 195. 34 Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251 ; Cleve- -9 Re Pitman, 1 Curt. 180; Bagley v. land r. Chamberlain, 1 Black, il'.t. Yates, 3 McLean, 465; The Laurens, 1 ^5 /„ ,-e Sowles, 41 Fed. R. 752. Abb. Adm. 508. ^^ Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Ditt- 3' See In re Paschal, 10 Wall. 4^:3 ; man Powder Manuf. Co., 9 Fed. R. 316. U. S. (?. Mann, 2 Rrock.9. -'? California Paving Co. v. Molitor, 31 Re May, 1 Fed. R. 737 ; U. S. i: De- 113 U. S. 609; Onderdonk v. Fanning, vaughan, 3'Craiich C. C. 84. 2 Fed. R. 568; Lilienthal v. Wallach, 37 «•- Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, Fed. R. 241 ; Trua.x r. Detweiler, 46 Fed. 30 Fed. R. 683. R. 117. 3^ Societe Anonyme dc la Distillerie de ^8 United States v. Memphis & L. R. R. la Liqueur Benedictine de la Abbaye de Co., 6 Fed. R. 237. § 343.] HEARING UPON APPLICATIONS FOR ATTACHMENTS. 653 § 342. Notice of Applicatiou for Attachmeut. — The rulos pro- vide that if a decree be for the performance of a specific act, other than the payment of money, it must prescribe the time within which the act shall be done, " of which the defendant shall be bound without further service to take notice ; " ^ and that, " except in cases where personal or other notice is specially re- quired or directed," an entry of an order in the order-book is suf- ficient notice thereof to the parties to the suit.^ It is, however, the safer practice, if not indispensable, to make personal service of a certified copy of a decree or order, disobedience to which it is desired to punish by an attachment.^ In case of disobedience to a decree for the performance of a specific act, other than the payment of money, the rules direct the issue of an attachment ex ijarte by the clerk, upon the filing of an affidavit that the act has not been performed within the required time.^ It is, however, the usual practice to give notice to the delinquent, of an applica- tion for an attachment, either by an order to show cause or other- wise.^ An attachment may be issued at the request of a person not a party to the cause in whose favor an order has been made, or against a person not a party to the cause against whom obedience to an order can be enforced.^ Notice of the applica- tion, when required, should be served personally upon the person tliereby affected." If a party conceals himself to avoid personal service of the notice, perhaps notice may be served upon an attorney who has appeared for him in the proceeding in Avhich the contempt was committed.^ The proceeding is in its nature criminal, not civil.^ § 343. Hearing upon Applications for Attachments. — When the contempt was committed in the presence of the court, no notice nor trial of any disputed question of fact is necessary. ^ It has § 342. 1 Rule 8. Wonlw. 6.S ; HoUingsworth v. Dunne, 2 Rule 4. Wall. C. C. 141. 3 In re Gary, 10 Fed. R. 622; In re » Eureka L. & Y. C. Co. i-. Superior Lloyd, 10 Beav. 451. But see Ee Feeny, Court of Yuba County, 116 U. S. 410, 1 Hask. 304; s. c. 4 N. B. R. [70] 2o3 ; 418. ISkip V. Harwood, 3 Atk. 564; Hearn i'. » Er parte Kearney, 7 Wheaton, 38; Tenant, 14 Ves. 136 ; People v. Brower, In re Pitman, 1 Curtis, 186 ; Fischer v. 4 Paige (N. Y.), 405. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63; Hayes v. Fischer, 1 Rule 8. 102 U. S. 21 ; New Orleans v. Steamship 5 Worcester v. Truman, 1 McLean, Co., 20 Wall. 387 ; Re Manning, 44 Fed. 483 ; Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63. R. 275. 6 Rule 10. § 343. i Er parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; ^ Gray c. Chicago, I. & N. R. R. Co., 1 In re Terry, 36 Fed. R. 4i9. 654 ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND ORDERS. [CHAP. XXVI. been held at circuit that in any other case, at least when an attachment has been issued, a person charged with contcmjjt may demand that interrogatories be filed concerning the facts which, it is claimed, constitute his offence ; and that, if he denies the facts charged under oath, he cannot be punished, — the only remedy being an indictment against him for perjury : ^ but a recent decision of the Supreme Court seems contrary to these rulings.^ He cannot be compelled to answer interrogatories.'^ Otherwise, when at the argument of the motion for an attach- ment tl;e party accused of disobedience denies the charge, the court may either determine the disputed question of fact upon such affidavits as are then presented to it, or refer the question to a master.^ If the court find the charge proved, or the master so report and his report be confirmed, the court may then punish the offender by fine or imprisonment, and, if a fine be imposed, direct him " to stand committed till it be paid."^ The court may make a preliminary order directing that lie be fined ; determining the principles with regard to which the amount of the fine should be estimated ; and directing either the submission of the amount to the court upon affidavits, or a reference to a master for that purpose." Wiien an injunction against the infringement of a patent has been violated, the fine may include the profits made by the defendant by his contemptuous acts; and in that case the order may direct that that part of the fine be paid to the complainant.^ "When the contempt consisted in the institution of a suit, the fine should include the expenses of the defense of such suit including reasonable counsel fees, which must be paid to the party against whom the contemptuous suit was brought.^ In these cases the writ o£ attachment does not issue till after the final order. "In proceedings in equity between parties to a suit for contempt in not obeying the process of the court, or any order or decree in the cause, the proceedings in equity between parties to a suit for 2 U. S. V. Dodge, 2 Gall. 313 ; Hnllinps- contempt. See Wnodruff v. North Bloom- worth V. Dnane, Wall. C. C. 77. See field Gravel Min Co., 45 Fed. R. 129. U. S. V. Duanc, Wall. 0. C. 103. « Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63; U. 8 Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 2R7. S. R. S. § 725- * Hntlin•. Hayes. 6 Fed R. 63. 8 Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14, 26. ^ Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63. 656 ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND ORDERS. [CHAP. XXVI. of the fine as was imposed solely by way of punishiueiit to vindicate the dignity of the court.^ A prisoner committed for a contempt is not entitled to any credit for good beliavior.i'^ § 345. Writ of Attachment. — An attachment is a writ directed to the marshal of the court, sealed and bearing teste in the same manner as a writ of subpoena/ directing him to attach the body of the person named therein, and to safely keep the same, so that he can produce the person or persons thus attached in court at a certain day termed the return day of the writ, or until the further order of the court.'*^ The writ must be indorsed with the sj^ecial reason for which it is issued, and also with the name and address of the solicitor of the party issuing it.^ The writ may be issued either in vacation or in term ; and may be returnable immedi- ately ; provided, at least, that the party against whom it is issued then dwells or is within twenty miles of the \)\q.q,q of holding the court. Otherwise, a period of fifteen days between the teste and the return might be required.* § 346. Execution of Writ of Attachment. — The first thing to be done after the writ has been issued is to deliver it to the marshal to whom it is directed, or to one of his deputies author- ized by him to receive such writs. ^ Although the writ is always directed to the marshal of the judicial district within which it is to be executed,'-^ it is usually executed by one of his deputies. The marshal and his deputy can only execute the writ within the district for which he has been appointed \^ and not then against a person who has been brought there by force or fraud, or under such circumstances as would make it improper to serve a sub- poena upon him;* and probably not upon Sunday,^ nor usually in the court-room.^ If a writ is to be executed in a different district from that within which the court issuing it is situated, it should be directed to the marshal of that district." This has 9 New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 20 Cranch C. C. 3.31 ; Sommerville !•. French, Wall. 387. 1 Cranch C. C. 474. 1'^ In re Terry, .37 Fed. R. G49. * In the Matter of Allen, 13 Blatchf. § 345. 1 See U. S. R. S. § 911. 271 ; and see authorities cited under §§ 98, 2 Braithwaite's Pr. 159-161. 277. Cf. Wroe v. Clayton, 10 Simons, 8 Braithvvaite's Pr. 159. 183. 4 Acts of 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Wm. IV. 5 29 Car. IT. ch. 12, § 6 ; and see c. 36, § 15, note 3. authorities cited under § 84. § 346. 1 U. S. R. S. § 787. « United States i- Scholfield, 1 Cranch 2 U. S. R. S. § 787. C C. l.iU; Davis v. Sherron, 1 Cranch 3 U. S. R. S. § 787 ; In the Matter of C. V. 287 Allen, 13 Blatchf. 271; Voss v Luke, 1 ' Voss c Luke, 1 Cranch C. C. 331; § 3-iG.] EXECUTION OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT. 657 been held proper, when the writ issues to attach, for disobedience to a subpoena, a witness who lives within a hundred miles of the place of holding the court.^ It has been held that in other cases this cannot be done ; ^ but that, on presentation of a certified copy of the contempt proceedings and of the writ of attachment, the district attorney of the district where the delinquent is, may obtain from a commissioner of that district a warrant for the ar- rest of the party in contempt, who is then entitled to an examina- tion, pending which he may be discharged .on bail ; and that if the commissioner decides to hold the party in contempt, the judge of that district may issue a warrant for his removal as in other criminal cases.'^ If the delinquent be already in custody, either upon criminal sentence or civil process, no further arrest is necessary ; but the marshal should give notice of the attach- ment, which notice is called a detainer, to the keeper or jailer in whose custody he is.^^ If a return day be appointed in a writ, and it be issued to enforce obedience to an interlocutory order, the marshal may, but is not obliged to allow the delinquent to go at large with or without security for his surrender to him upon the return day.^^ If the delinquent do not then surrender himself to the marshal's custody, the latter and his bondsmen are responsible for all damages which the court shall determine have resulted therefrom to the party at whose instance the writ was issued.^^ It seems, however, that this cannot be done when the writ is issued for a refusal to perform a specific act in obedi- ence to a decree.^^ According to an old writer, it seems that when the marshal " has taken up the body he has paid obedience to the writ, though he does not actually bring him up to the court; because the contempt only induces a commitment, which is satisfied by imprisonment in the county gaol."^^ If, how- ever, he be specially ordered so to do, he must obey. Upon the return day of the writ the marshal should make a return thereto. Sommerville v. French, 1 Cranch C. C. " Trotter v. Trotter, Jacob, 533. 474. 1- Morris r. Hayward, 6 Taunton, 569; 8 Voss V. Luke, 1 Cranch C. C. 331. Studd i-. Acton, IH. Bhickstone, 468. But see Henry v. Ricketts, 1 Cranch i3 Moore v. Moore, 25 Beav. 8 ; U.S. C. C. 580. R. S. §§ 783-786. 9 Ex parte Graham. 3 Wash. C. C. 456, i* Rule 8 ; Cowdray v. Cross, 24 Beav. 462 ; Re Manning, 44 Fed. R. 275. 445. 10 United States i-. Jacobi, 4 Am. L. T. i^ Gilbert's Chan. 83. Rep. 148, 151, 152; A'e Manning, 44 Fed. R. 275. VOL. I. — 42 658 ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND ORDERS. [CHAP. XXVI. He cannot detain the party named in the writ after the return day, unless by the court's order.^^ There are three ordinary returns upon a writ of attachment : First, if the delinquent cannot be arrested, the marshal returns, " The within-named John Stiles is not found in my bailiwick," — this is termed a non est inventus, and upon it further process of contempt is grounded ; second, if the delinquent has been arrested, but the marshal has either accepted bail for his appearance or keeps him in his own custody, the return is, " I have attached the within named John Stiles, as within I am commanded, whose body I have ready," — this is called accept corjnis ; third, if the marshal has arrested the delinquent and lodged him in jail, or, finding him there has lodged a detainer against him, the marshal returns, " I have attached the within-named John Stiles, whose body remains in [naming the jail or prison] in my custody." ^'' Although the return is regularly made by the marshal, no matter by whom the writ has been executed, it will not be void if made by his deputy.^^ If the marshal refuse to make any return he may be compelled to do so, by means of an order to show cause followed by an attachment against himself.^^ When the marshal or his deputy is a party to a cause, or probably when a writ of attachment is issued against either of them, the writs and precepts therein must be directed to guch disinterested person as the court or any justice or judge thereof may appoint, and the person so appointed may execute and return them.^*^ In such a case the person serving the process should make affidavit thereof.^^ § 347. Sequestration. — The process of sequestration is a writ or commission issuing under the seal of the court, directed either to the marshal or to certain persons of the plaintiff's nomination, empowering him or them to enter upon and sequester the real and personal estate of a defendant (or some particular parcel of his lands), and to take, receive, and sequester the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and keep the same in their hands, or pay the same in such manner and to such persons as the court shall in its discretion appoint, until such defendant shall have performed some matter, previously ordered by the court, in the process 16 Ex parte Burford, 1 Cranch C. C. ^^ United States v. Scroggins, 3 Woods, 456. 629 ;, Daniells' Cli. Pr. 470. 17 Braithwaite's TV. 272, 281. 2) u. S. R. S. § 923 ; Rule 15. »8 Spafford v. Goodell, 3 McLean, 97. 21 Rule 15. § 348.] WRIT OF ASSISTANCE. 659 Specifically mentioned, for not doing Avhereof lie is in contempt.^ This is one of the oldest writs of the court of chanceiy, and has been the cause of many conflicts between the English chancel- lors and the courts of common law.^ Much curious history and learning upon the subject invite the attention of the antiquarian ; but, as it is now rarely used, little space will be devoted to it in this work. By the Equity Rules, whenever the marshal has re- turned 7ion est inventus under a writ of attachment, a writ of sequestration may issue to compel obedience to a decree or order of the court. ^ The writ, when not issued to the marshal, appoints two or more sequestrators.'* The usual number is four.^ The sequestrators are officers of the court, and as such are subject to new directions during their discharge of their functions,*^ may be attached for disobedience or misconduct,'^ and, if resistance be made to them, may be aided by the court with the exercise of its process of contempt,^ or by a writ of assistance.^ Sequestra- tors must from time to time account for what comes into their hands, and pay into court such money as they receive. ^^ § 348. Writ of Assistance. — The Equity Rules provide that " when any decree or order is for the delivery of possession, upon proof made by affidavit of a demand and refusal to obey the decree or order, the party prosecuting the same shall be entitled to a writ of assistance from the clerk of the court.*' ^ This is a writ commanding the marshal to eject the defendant from the land and put the plaintiff in possession ; and is executed in the same manner as a writ of habere facias jjossessione^n is ex- ecuted in favor of a successful plaintiff in the action of eject- ment ;2 "in the execution of which the sheriff may take with liiai the posse comitatus, or power of the county, and may justify breaking open doors, if the possession be not (luietly delivered. § 347. 1 Hinde's Ch. Pr. 127; Hoff- " Lord Pelliam r. Lord Unrloy, .3 man's Ch. Pr ch. iii. § 10 , Daniell's Cli. Swaiist 291, n Pr. ch XXV. § 7 '^ Angel v. Smith, 9 Ves. 3"G ; Lord 2 Gilbert's Forum Romanum, 78; Dan- Pelham v. Duchess of Newcastle, 3 iell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxv. § 7 Swanst. 293, n. , Rule 0. 3 Rules 7 and 8. See Shainwald i". ^ Lord Pelham ?;. Duchess of New- Lewis, 6 Fed. R. 766, 777. castle, 3 Swanst. 289, n. ; Rule 9. 4 Hoffman's Ch. Pr. ch. iii., § 10; i" Howell c. Lord Coningsby, 1 Fowl, Daniell's Ch.^Pr. ch. xxv. § 5. Ex. Pr. 161 ; Deshrow iv Crommie, Runb- 6 Daniell's Ch. Pr. ch. xxv. § 5. 272. 6 Hinde's Ch. Pr 138; Daniell'* Ch. § 348. i Rule 9. Pr. ch. xxv. §7; Hoffman's Ch. Pr. ch. - Hunter's Suit in Equity (6th ed ), iii. § 10. 168. 660 ENFOECEMENT OF DECREES AND ORDERS. [CHAP. XXVI. But, if it be peaceably yielded up, the delivery of a twig, a turf, or the ring of a door in the name of seisin, is sufficient execu- tion of the writ." ^ This writ is often used to put into possession receivers'* and sequestrators.^ It is not issued without an order for that purpose.^ It cannot issue against any but a party to the suit, or his representative, or one who came into possession under him since the suit was begun." The grantee of the pur- chaser at a foreclosure sale where the court has ordered the re- ceiver to put him in possession of the purchased property, and where the court has retained jurisdiction of the suit, may obtain a writ of possession.^ § 349. Action by Court itself. — In the year 1830, an act was passed in England, at the instance of Sir Edward Sugdcn, the author of Sugden on Powers, afterwards Lord St. Leonards, providing : " That when any person shall have been directed by any decree or order to execute any deed or other instrument, or make a surrender or transfer, or to levy a fine or suffer a recov- ery, and shall have refused or neglected to execute, make or transfer, or levy or suffer the same, and shall have been com- mitted to prison under process for such contempt, or, being con- fined in prison for any other cause, shall have been charged with or detained under process for such contempt, and shall remain in such prison, the court may, upon motion or petition, and upon affidavit that such person has after the expiration of two cal- endar months from the time of his being committed under or charged with, or detained under such process, again refused to execute such deed or instrument or make such surrender or transfer, or levy or suffer such fine or recovery, order or appoint one of the masters in ordinary, or if the act is to be done out of London, then, if necessary, one of the masters extraordinary, to execute such deed or other instrument or to make such sur- render or transfer, for and in the name of such person, and to levy such fine or suffer such recovery, in his name, and to do all acts necessary to give validity and operation to such fine and 3 Bl. Com. 412. ^ Terrell v. Allison, 21 Wall. 280 ; How- * Sharp V. Carter, 3 P. Wms. .375, arcl v. Railway Co., 101 U. S. 837, 849; 379, n. ; Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 441, Thompson v. Smith, 1 Dill. 458. 15(33. 8 Farmers' L & Tr. Co. y. Chicago & A. 5 Lord Telham v. Duchess of New- Ry. Co., 44 Fed. R. 653,658. But see Van castle, 3 Swanst. 289, n. ; Seton on De- Hook r. Tiirockmorton, 8 Paifie (N. Y.), crees (4th ed.), 1562. 33, People r. Grant, 45 Cal. 97 ; Stanley 6 Seton on Decrees (4th ed.), 1562. v. Sullivan, 71 Wis 585. § 349.] ACTION BY COURT ITSELF. 6G1 recovery, and to lead or declare the uses thereof : and the execu- tion of the said deed or other instrument, and the surrender or transfer made by the said master, and the fine or recovery levied or suffered by him, shall in all respects have the same force and validity as if the same had been executed or made, levied or suffered, by the party himself; and within ten days after the execution or making of any such deed or other instrument or sur- render or transfer, or levying or suffering such line or recovery, notice thereof shall be giveu by the adverse solicitor to the party in whose name the same is executed or made ; and such party, as soon as the deed or other instrument or surrender, transfer, fine or recovery shall be executed, made, levied, or suffered, shall be considered as having cleared his contempt, except as far as regards the payment of the costs of the contempt, and shall be entitled to be discharged therefrom, under any of the pro- visions of this act applicable to his case ; and the court shall make such order as shall be just, touching the payment of the costs of or attending any such deed, surrender, instrument, transfer, fine, or recovery." ^ " That where a person sliall be committed for a contempt in not delivering to any person or persons or depositing in court or elsewhere, as by any order may be directed, books, papers, or any other articles or things, any sequestrator or sequestrators appointed under any commission of sequestration shall have the same power to seize and take such books, papers, writings, or other articles or things, being in the custody or power of the person against whom the sequestration issues, as they would over his own property ; and thereupon such articles or things so seized and taken shall be dealt with by the court as shall be just ; and after such seizure it sliall be lawful for the court, upon the application of the prisoner, or of any other person in the cause or matter, or upon any report to be made in pursuance of this act, to make such order for the discharge of the prisoner, upon such terms, ami, if it shall see fit, making any costs to the cause, as to the court shall seem proper." '^ How far these acts will ])e followed by the Fcdci'al courts is a matter for future decision.^ The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has power to appoint a trustee to exe- § 349. 1 Acts of 1 Wm. IV. cli. .10, 3 See TJuIe 00; Slicpliord v. Comm'rs § 15, R. 15, passed in 18-30. of Ross Cnuntv. 7 Ohio, 271; Carpenter 2 Act of 1 Wm. IV. cli .36, § 15, R. 10. v. Strange, 141 U. S. 787. 662 ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES AND ORDERS. [CHAP. XXVI. cute an assig-nment of a patent-right, if the defendant refuses to do so after a sale of the patent-right under a creditor's bill, and the decree for the sale may contain a provision for the appoint- ment of the trustee in case of such refusal together with a di- rection that the defendant execute the assignment.^ A Circuit Court of the United States has power to direct its marshal to remove buildings from land over which a complainant has a right of way.^ § 349 a. Bills to carry Decrees into Execution. — A bill to carry a decree into execution is proper where, after a decree has been pronounced, it has happened that owing to some neglect of the parties to proceed upon the decree, their rights have be- come so embarrassed by subsequent events that no ordinary pro- cess of the court upon the first decree will serve, and it is therefore necessary to have another decree of the court to as- certain and enforce them ;i or where a person who was not a party nor claims under a party to the original decree, claims in a similar interest, or is unable to obtain the determination of his own right until the decree has been carried into execution ; ^ or by or against a person claiming as assignee of a party to the original decree;^ or to carry into execution the judgment of an inferior court of equity.^ A bill of this description is generally partly an original bill, though not strictly original ; and some- times it is likewise a bill of revivor or a supplemental bill, or both ; and the frame of the bill, and the course of proceedings upon it vary accordingly.^ Such a bill is treated as ancillary to the principal suit, and the Federal court in which the original decree was entered will take jurisdiction of the same irrespective of the citizenship of the parties.*^ Upon a bill to carry a decree into execution the court is at liberty to examine into the grounds of the original decree, and if such decree appears to have been 4 Ager V. :Murray, 105 U. S. 126, 132. Organ r. Gardiner, 1 Cli. Cases, 2:^1 ; Lord 5 Gormley v. Clark, .34 U. S. 338. Carteret v. Pasclial, 3 I'eere Williams, § .340 a. 1 Mitford's PI. ch. i. § 3 ; 197; Binks v. Binks, 2 Bligh P. C. 593; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st Am. ed.) 1089; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st Am. ed.) 1691. .Tolinson ?•. Nortliley, Prec. in Ch. 1-34; "* Morgani-. , 1 Atk. 408 ; Mitford's s. c. 2 Vernon, 407. PI. ch. i. § 3; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st Am. •^ Mitford's PI. ch. i. § 3 ; Daniell's Ch. ed.) 1691. Pr. (1st Am. ed.) 1089-1690; Rylands v. & Mitford's PI. ch. i. § 3; Daniell's Ch. Latouche, 2 Biigli, TjOG ; Dldham r. Eboral, Pr. (1st Am. ed.) 1093. Cooper Sel. Cases, t<>mp. Brougham, 27. ^ Railroad Companies v. Chamberlain, 3 Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. 6 Wall. 748. Janesville Cotton xMills, 138 U. S. 552; § 349 a.] BILLS TO CAEKY DECREES INTO EXECUTION. 6C3 erroneous, to refuse to enforce it, even when the original decree was entered hy consent.'' Where a decree is capable of being executed by the ordinary process and forms of the court, what- ever the iniquity of the decree may be, till it is reversed the court is bound to assist it with the utmost process the course of the court will bear ; but where the common process of the court will not serve, and things come to be in such a state and condi- tion after a decree made, that it requires a new bill and a second decree upon that before the first decree can be executed ; if the first decree is unjust, the court desires to be excused in making it its own, and to build upon such foundations, and charging its conscience with promoting an apparent injustice ; and this ob- liges the court to examine the grounds of the first decree before it makes the same decree again.^ ' Lawrence Manufacturing Co. v. Mitford's PI. ch. i. § 3; Daniell's Ch. Pr. Janesville Mills, 138 U. S. 552, 562 ; Gay (1st Am. ed.) 1G91-1G92. V. Parprat, 106 U. S. 679 ; Lawrence v. ^ Lawrence i;. Berney, 2 Ch. Rep. 127 ; Berney, 2 Rep. in Ch. 127. Johnson v. Lawrence Manufacturing Co. )•. Janes- Northey, Prec. in Ch. 134; s. c. 2 Ver- vilie Mills, 138 U. S. 552,562; Mitford's non, 407; Attorney-General v. Day, 1 PI. ch. i. §3; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (1st Am. Vesey, 218 ; Wert v. Skip, 1 Vesey, 218 ; ed ) 1091-1692. Hamilton v. Houghton, 2 Bligh P. C. 169 ; G64 COKKECTION OF DECREE. [CHAP. XXVII. CHAPTER XXVII. COERECTION OF DECREE OTHERWISE THAN BY APPEAL,. § 350. Correction of Decrees in General. — When a party to a suit in equity, or his representative, feels himself aggrieved by a final decree of the court, there are eight ways in which he can apply to have such decree reversed, set aside, or varied : by peti- tion for a mere clerical or accidental error,^ by a petition for a rehearing,^ by a bill of review,^ by a bill in the nature of a bill of review,"* by a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of re- view,^ by a bill to set aside a decree on account of fraud, mis- take, accident, or surprise,^ by a bill to suspend or avoid the operation of a decree,'' and by an appeal.^ An interlocutory decree can be corrected at the entry of the final decree.^ § 351. Amendment upon Petition •v7ithout a Rehearing. — The rules provide that " clerical mistakes in decrees or decretal or- ders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, may, at any time before an actual enrolment thereof, be corrected by order of the court or a judge thereof, upon petition, without the form or expense of a rehearing." ^ Decretal orders may be corrected in the same manner.- In this way, corrections have been permitted of errors in the title of a decree or order ; ^ of an omission in a decree for specific performance of a direction to set- tle the conveyance,^ or of a reference as to title ; ^ of an omission in a decree in a creditor's suit of a direction to take the accounts of the personal estate ; ^ and of other defects or redundancies in respect to which a decree did not conform to the directions of the § 350. 1 § 351. § 351. 1 Rule 85. See Witters v. Sowlcs, 2 § 352. 32 Fed. R. 130 ; Hop Bitters Manuf. Co. 3 §§ 354-356. r. Warner, 28 Fed. R. 577. 4 §357. ^ Union Sugar Refinery r. Mathiesson, s § .353. 3 Cliff. 140. 6 § .358. 3 Spearing v. Lynn, 2 Vern. 37G. 7 § .359. * Trevelyan ;•. "ciiarter, 9 Beav. 140. 8 Cliapter XXX. ^ Hughes v. Jones, 2G Beav. 24. 9 Henry r. Travelers' Ins. Co., 34 Fed. « Pickard v. Mattheson, 7 Ves. 293. R. 258; Clark r. Blair, 14 Fed. R. 812. § 352.] PETITIONS FOR A REHEARING. 665 written opinion of the courtJ An order or decree entered by consent cannot be varied or modified in a material part without the assent of all the parties to the same ; but the court, it seems, may give such further directions as are necessary to carry it " into effect, according to its spirit and intent." ^ The former English practice occasionally though rarely allowed similar cor- rections in what were manifestly mere clerical errors after a de- cree had been enrolled ;^ and in one case in the Federal courts, it has been said that an error in calculating the amount ordered by the decree to be paid may be corrected after enrolment, upon motion or petition, by entering a credit as for its payment.^^ § 352. Petitions for a Rehearing. — A petition for a rehearing is the pro])cr method of correcting before enrolment errors in a decree which arc not evidently clerical or accidental. A j)etition for a re- hearing could formerly in England have only been made to a judge before whom the cause was heard, or to the Lord Chancellor.^ In the Federal courts a petition for a rehearing will usually be enter- tained only by the judge or justice before whom the cause was heard.2 The rules provide that " No rehearing shall be granted after the term at which the final decree of the court shall have been entered and recorded, if an appeal lies to the Supreme Court. But if no appeal lies, the petition may be admitted at any time be- fore the end of the next term of the court, in the discretion of the court." 3 Whether a petition filed within the time prescribed by the rules may be heard and granted subsequently is unsettled.* A 7 Gage V. Kellogg, 26 Fed. R. 242; 174; Beekman v. Peck, 3 J. Ch. (N. Y.) Rogers i'. Riessner, 34 Fed. R. 270 ; Tufts 415 ; Clark v. Hall, 7 Paige (N. Y ), 382 ; V. Tufts, 3 W. & M. 429 ; Pfanschmidt v. Thompson v. Goulding, 5 Allen (Mass.), Kelly Mercantile Co., -32 Fed. R. 067; 81. Witters v. Sowles, 32 Fed. R. 76.5 ; Burd- lo xMassie v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41. sail 1-. Curran, 31 Fed. R. 918; Albany y. §352. i Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. Steam Trnp Co., 26 Fed. R. 318 ; Dor- ed.) 1471. sheimer v. Rorback.y C. E. Green (N .!.), - Giant Powder Co. v. California Vig- 33; Sprague r. Jones, 9 Paige (N. Y.), orit Powder Co., 5 Fed. R. 197, 202. 395 ; Jarmon r. Wiswall, 9 C^ E. Green 3 Rule 88. See McMicken r. Perrin, (N. J.), «8. But .see R'y Reg. Manuf. 18 How. 507; Bank of Lewisburg r. Shef- Co. V. No. Hudson Co. R. Co., 2G Fed. R. fey, 140 U. S. 145. 411. * In Glenn )•. Noonan, 4.3 Fed. R. 403; » Chancellor Walworth in Leitch v. s. c 43 Fed. R. 550, Judge Thayer IieM Cumpston, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 476 ; Gage r. that it cannot. Cnntra is a dictum of Mr. Kellogg, 26 Fed. R. 242 ; Rogers v. Riess- Justice Field in Giant Powder Co. >: ner, 34 Fed. R. 270. California Vigorit Powder Co , 5 Fed. R. 9 Weston V. Ilaggerston. G Cooper, 197, 202. See Clarke v. Threlkeld, 2 134 ; Yow V. Townsend, 1 Dickens. .59 ; Cranch C. C. 408. Attorney-General v. Grcenhill, 34 Beav. 666 CORRECTION OF DECREE. [CHAP. XXVII. rehearing in England was formerly allowed almost as of course, upon the filing of a petition signed by two counsel, of whom one at least must have been concerned in the original hearing ; the rule having been stated by Lord Hardwicke, that " such credit is given by the court to their opinion that the cause ought to be reheard, that it will in general, order the cause to be set down" for that purpose, as a matter of course.^ This rule, however, has not been adopted in the courts of the United States, where a rehearing is discretionary with the judge to whom the application is made.^ Unless the judge acts of his own motion, a rehearing will be granted only for errors of law apparent upon the record and arising upon questions which were not argued at the original hearing, or upon newly discovered evidence of such a character that it would have authorized a new trial in an action at law.'^ " A rehearing should not be granted for newly discovered evidence where the evidence could have been obtained by reasonable diligence on the first hearing, nor when it is merely cumulative to that previously received, nor when, if presented, it would not have changed the result." ^ "A new hearing should not be had simply to allow a rehash of old arguments." ^ " If rehearings are to be had, until the counsel on both sides are entirely satisfied, I fear, that suits would become immortal, and the decision be postponed indefinitely." ^^ A rehearing can only talvc place for the purpose of altering a decree upon grounds which existed at the time when the decree was pronounced, and will not be allowed to remedy a grievance con- sequent upon a decree resulting entirely from cii'cumstances that have occurred subsequent to its entry.^^ The rules provide that "every petition for a rehearing shall contain the special matter or 6 Cunyngham r. Cunyngham, Ambler, Tufts, 3 VV. & M. 426; Hicks v. Otto, 22 89. See Attorney General v. Brooke, 18 Blatelif. 122 ; Page v. Holmes Burglar Ves. 319, 325 ; East India Co. v. Boddam, Alarm Telegraph Co., 2 Fed. R. 330 ; The 13 Ves. 421. Collins Co. v. Coes, 8 Fed. R. 517 ; Wit- •^ Mr. Justice Field in Giant Powder ters r. Sowles, 31 Fed. R. 5 ; Ptansclmiidt Co. V. Califordia Vigorit Powder Co., 5 v. Kelly Mercantile Co., 32 Fed. R. G67, Fed. R. 97. and cases cited in the opinions in these 7 Daniel v. Mitchell, 1 Story, 198 ; cases. But see Webster Loom Co. v. Jenkins ;•. Eldredge, 3 Story, 2'.»0 ; Emer- Higgins, 43 Fed. R. 673. son V. Davies, 1 W. & M. 21 ; Tufts v. 9 Mr. Justice Field in Giant Powder Tufts, 3 W. & M.426; Giant Powder Co. Co. v. California Vigorit Powder Co., 5 V. California Vigorit Powder Co., 5 Fed. Fed. R. 197, 201. II. 197. 1" Mr. Justice Story in Jenkins v. El- 8 Giant Powder Co. r. California Vig- dredge, 3 Story, 299, 805. orit Powder Co., 5 Fed. R. 197, 201 ; Jen- " Bowyer v. Bright, 13 Price, 31G ; kins c. Eldredge, 3 Story, 299; Tufts v. Hurlburd v. Freelove, 3 Wis. 537. § 352.] PETITIONS FOR A EEHEARING. 667 cause on which such rehearing is applied for, shall be signed by counsel, and the facts therein stated, if not apparent on the record, shall be verified by the oath of the jtarty or by some othur person." ^^ The allegations must be full, precise, and certain. It seems that they will be insuthcient if sworn to merely upon infor- mation and belief.^^ It has been held that when evidence of new facts not already in issue is to be given, the petition should be accompanied by a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, pleading these facts ; in wliich case, if the petition be granted, the hearing upon that bill will take place at the same time as the rehearing of the original suit.^^ The usual proceedings to obtain a rehearing are for the party desiring it to file his peti- tion in the clerk's office, and then to procure an order directing his opponent to show cause why his prayer should not be granted.^^ The adverse party may then answer, controverting or setting up new matter in avoidance of allegations in the petition ; or i)rob- ably may show cause against granting the rehearing on the return day of the order by an affidavit.!^ If there be any irregularity in the petition, it may be taken off the file at the respondent's mo- tion.^' Upon the return day of the order to show cause, if no adjournment be had, the matter is argued before the judge, by whose direction the decree or order complained of was made, unless he be absent, when the papers and the briefs of counsel should be filed with the clerk, who will mail them to him.^^ The petition will not be granted without notice to the adverse parties, and an oppor- tunity for their presence afforded them.^^ A rule of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York provides that when a " motion for a rehearing is made during the term at which a de- cree has been rendered, the enrolling or recording of such decree shall be suspended imtil the final disposition of such motion by the court." ^"^ Upon a rehearing the cause or matter is proceeded in as if it were heard for the first time. All depositions taken before 12 Rule 88. 1® Giant Powder Co. v. California Vig- 13 Page »'. Holmes Burglar Alarm Tel- orit Powder Co., 5 Fed. R. lUT. egraph Co., 2 Fed. R. 330. i' Wood r. Griffitli. 1 Mvnv. .35. " Baker v. Whiting, 1 Story, 218 ; i^ Giant Powder Co. v. California Vig- Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173, 178; Head orit Powder Co., 5 Fed. R. 1!».">. V. Godlee, Johns. .536, 579 ; Jopp v. Wood, " Giant Powder Co. v. California Yig- 2 De G. J. & S. 3-23. orit Powder Co., 5 Fed. R. 197. 15 Giant Powder Co. v. Cnlifornia Vig- ^J U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y., Rule 114. orit Powder Co., 5 Fed. K. 197. 668 CORRECTION OF DECREE. [CHAP. XXVII. the original hearing, though not then used, may be read,^^ and the plaintiff may withdraw from evidence any portion of the answer read before.^^ No new evidence can be used, unless a supplemental bill has been filed ; ^ but exhibits not previously used may be pro- duced ; ^ and if a witness has since the former hearing been con- victed of perjury ,25 or admitted receiving a bribe to influence his testimony ,26 that may be proved to the court. After one rehearing, a petition for another can only be filed by special leave of the court, and may be taken off the file if presented without such leave.-'' It has been held that an order granting a rehearing after the time prescribed by the rules has expired is void, not merely voidable ; and that a party does not by taking a subse- quent step in the cause, waive his right to move to vacate the same.28 The grant or refusal, absolute or conditional, of an application for a rehearing, which has been made in due time, rests in the discretion of the court where the cause is first heard, and is not a subject of appeal.^^ § 353. Supplemental Bills in the nature of Bills of Review. — A supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review is a bill that brings to the attention of the court new matter, which has arisen or been discovered since, and could not by the exercise of due dil- igence have been discovered before, the time for taking testimony in a cause expired, and which the party filing the bill alleges as a reason why a decree made and passed therein, but not signed and enrolled, should be reversed or modified. ^ Such a bill cannot be filed after a decree has been signed and enrolled. ^ The proper remedy in a similar case then is a bill of review.^ A supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review cannot be used to obtain a re- versal or modification of a decree for errors in law apparent upon its face.* That, before enrolment, can only be done by means of a petition for a rehearing.^ Matter of revivor and supplement may ■^1 Cun^'ngham u. Cunynjiham, Ambler, 100; Steines t'. Franklin rounty, 14 Wall. 89, 00. 15, 22; Railway Company r. Heck, 102 ■^■^ Allfrcy V. Allfrey, 1 Macn. & G. 87 ; U. S. 120; Kennon v. Gilmer, 1.31 U. S. Ojile V. Morgan, 1 l)e G. M. & G. 359. 22, 24 ; Boesch v. Graff, 1-33 U. S. 607, 23 Jenkins v. EWredge, 8 Story, 299. 699. 21 Herring v. Clobery, Or. & Ph. 251. § 35:1 i Perry r.Phelips, 17 Ves. 173; 25 Needliam v. Smith, 2 Vern. 46.3. Mitford's PI. cli. 1, § 2 ; Moore v. Moore, 2 2G Needham r. Smith, 2 Vern. 46-3. Ves. Sen. 506 ; Story's Eq. PI. §§ 422, 423. 27 Moss V. Baldock, 1 Phill. 118. 2 Beames' Orders, 1. 2a Glenn v. Lucas, 43 Fed. R. 5-50. 3 See §§ 354-3.-,6. 29 Roemer v. Bernheim. 132 V S. 10.3, 4 Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173. 106; Buffington v. Harvey, 05 U. S. 99, 5 gge § 352. § 353.] BILLS IN THE NATURE OF BILLS OF KEVIEW. 669 be incorporated in such a supplemental bill.^ An English chan- cery order made on the 17th of October, 1841, and wliich should probably be followed here, the clerk taking the place of the regis- trar and five dollars being reckoned as a pound sterling, provides : " That no su{)pleniental bill, or bill in the nature of a bill of re- view, grounded upon new matter discovered, or pretended to be discovered, since the pronouncing of any decree of tiiis Court, in order to the reversing or varying of such decree, shall be exhib- ited without the special leave of the Court first obtained for that purpose, and unless the party exhibiting the same do first deposit with the registrar of this Court so much money as together with the deposit by the rules of this Court required to be made on obtaining a rehearing of the cause or causes wherein such decree was pronounced will make up the sum of 50/., as a pledge to an- swer such costs and damages as shall be awarded to the adverse party, in case the court shall think fit to award any at the liear- ing of the cause on such supplemental or new bill." ' A supple- mental bill in the nature of a bill of review should state the facts which it is desired to prove, and, if they had then occurred, the reason why they were not discovered and given in evidence before publication, and it seems should state positively that the decree has not been enrolled, and not in the alternative, praying one sort of relief as upon a bill of review, if the decree has been enrolled, and if not enrolled, then to have the benefit of it as upon a supple- mental bill in the nature of a bill of review.^ Such a bill should conclude with a prayer that the cause may be reheard. It should be signed by counsel, and in other respects conform to the require- ments of a bill of review upon newly discovered facts.^ Like that, it can only be filed by leave of the court, which is obtained in the same way, and upon the same grounds as that to file such a bill of review ; ^"^ and the proceedings upon the two kinds of bills are also substantially tlie same.^^ But according to Lord Redesdale, '• Bills in the nature of bills of review do not appear subject to nny peculiar cause of demurrer, unless the decree sought to be re- versed does not affect the interest of the person filing the bill." ^^ 6 Perry i'. Plielips, 17 Ves. 176-178. 9 Story's Eq. PI. §§ 422,425. See infra, ' Order of 17th October, 1741 ; Beanies' § 355. Orders, 368. lo Story's Eq. PI. § 422. 8 Story's Eq. PL § 425. See tlie Ian- " Story's Eq. PL §§ 422-425. guage of Lord Eldon in Perry v. Plielips, i- Mitford's PI. cli. 1, § 3, pt. 3. 17 Ves. 173-178. 670 COEEECTION OF DECREE. [CHAP. XXVII. Laches may be a ground for refusing leave to file a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review, unless such laches is exten- uated by laches on the part of the defendant to it.^-^ Such a bill cannot be heard unless accompanied by a petition for a rehearing, when the rehearing of the original and the hearing of the supple- mental cause will be set down together.^'* § 354. Bills of Review. — A bill of review is a bill filed to re- verse or modify a decree that has been signed and enrolled for error in law apparent upon the face of such decree, or on account of new facts discovered since publication was passed in the origi- nal cause, and which could not by the exercise of due diligence have been discovered or used before the decree was made.^ A bill of review can only be filed to impeach a final, not to impeach an interlocutory decree.^ For an interlocutory decree can always be modified or reversed by the court without any bill for that pur- pose.3 But the expression " final decree " is here used with the meaning given it when spealcing of appeals.* The errors of law for which a decree may be reversed or modified must be clearly apparent upon the record, that is, " only such as arose upon the pleadings, proceedings, and decree, without reference to the evi- dence in the cause ; " ^ as, for example, the disregard of a statute,'' or want of jurisdiction,' or the finding of a fact contrary to an alle- gation in a defendant's answer when no evidence was taken ; ^ not errors in drawing conclusions from evidence,^ nor errors in cast- ing accounts,^^, nor it seems in matters of abatement,^^ nor in the 13 Story's Eq. PI. § 423; Sheffield v. Bank of United States, 13 Pet. 6; Canal Co. v. Sheffield & R. Uy. Co., 1 Putnam v. Day, 22 Wall 60; Thompson Phillips, 484. v. Maxwell, 95 U. S. 391. 1* Moore v. Moore, 2 Ves. Sen. 590, *" Story's Eq. PI. § 405; Gregor v. 598; Perry i-. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173. Molesworth, 2 Ves. Sen. 109. § 354. 1 Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 3, pt. 3; ^ Ketchum v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., Story's Eq. PI. §§ 403-420 ; Irwin v. 4 McLean, 1. Meyrose, 7 Fed. R. 533; Nickle v. Stuart, « Clark v. Killian, 103 U. S. 766. Ill U. S. 776. 9 Whiting v. Bank of United States, ■- Jenkins v. Eldredge, 3 Story, 299 ; 13 Pet. 6 ; De.xter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, Story's Eq. PI § 408 a. 303; Putnam v. Day, 22 Wall. 60; 3 Story's Eq. PI. § 408 a. See supra, Bufflngton v. Harvey. 95 U. S. 99; Kim- § 20.3. berley v. Arms, 40 Fed. R. 548 ; s. c. 136 * Story's Eq. PI. § 408 a ; Whiting p. U. S. 629. Bank of United States, 13 Pet. 6, 15; i" Massie v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41; Ray r. Lvw, 3 Cranch, 179; Jenkins v. Beames' Ord. 1 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 405. Eldredge, 3 Story, 299. - n Story's Eq. PI, § 411; Hartwell v. 6 Mr. Justice Bradley in Buffington r. Townsend, 6 Bro. Pari. R. 107; Slingsby Harvey, 95 U S 99. See also Whiting v. Hale, 1 Ch. Cas. 122. § 354.] BILLS OF REVIEW. 671 exercise of discretion,^^ nor matters of form,^^ — among which, however, the omission of a clause giving an infant defendant a day in which to show cause against a decree is not included, and on that ground a bill of review may be sustained.^* It has been held to be no sufficient ground for a bill of review that since the decree a State court has given to the Constitution of the State a construction different from that put upon it by the Federal court in its decree ;^^ nor that since the decree the Supreme Court has changed its ruling upon a question of law or fact.^^ In England, where the mandatory part of a decree was usually preceded by a statement of the facts upon which it was founded, only the decree itself could be examined for such errors ; ^^ but in the Federal courts where this custom does not exist, the whole record except the evidence may be thus corrected.^^ Bills of review for errors apparent upon the record can only be filed within the time limited for an appeal.^^ The time within which the control of the Circuit Court over the case is suspended by an appeal subsequently dis- missed, is not included in the computation of time;^*^ but not the period between the entry of a void order vacating the order sought to be reviewed and the vacation of such void order.^i Laches for a shorter period of time might be a ground for dismissing a bill of review.22 After a decree has been affirmed by the appellate court, it cannot be reviewed for any reason without the leave of that court ; "^ and leave will rarely, if ever, be granted them to file a bill of review for errors in law.^* Leave of court is not needed to enable a party to file a bill of review for errors apparent upon 12 BuflBngton v. Harvey, 95 U. S. 99 ; How. 586 ; Clark i-. Killian, 103 U. S. Irwin V. Meyrose, 7 Fed. R. 633. 766 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 410. See also 13 Story's Eq. PI. § 411. Massle v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41; Mc- » Story's Eq. PI. § 407; Perry v. Donald r. Wliitney, 39 Fed. R. 466. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173; Gregor v. Moles- ^o Ensminger v. Powers, 108 U. S. worth, 2 Vesey, Sen. 109. See supra, 292. § 322. -1 Central Trust Co. r. Grant Locorno- 15 King V. Dundee Mortgage & Tr. I. tive Works, 135 U. S. 207. Co., 28 Fed. R. 33. Contra, Knox v. '-- Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Green Columbia Liberty Iron Co., 42 Fed. R. Bay & M. R. Co., 16 Fed. R. 100, 113. 878. -3 Southard v. Russell, 16 How. 547; i« Tilghman v. Werk, 39 Fed. R. 680. Kingsbury v. Buckner. 134 U. S. 6.54 ; 1' Story's Eq. PI. § 407. Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. R. 548 ; s. c. 18 Whitins r. Bank of United States, 136 U. S. 629; Story's Equity Pleading, 13 Pet. 6 ; Buffington v. Harvey, 95 U. S. § 408. 99; Clark v. Killian, 103 U. S. 766. -^ Southard r. Russell, 16 How, 547; 13 Thomas v. Harvie's Heirs, 10 Wheat. Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. C50, 146; Kennedy v. Georgia State Bank, 671; Story's Eq PI. § 408. G72 COKRECTION OF DECREE. [CHAP. XXVII. the face of the record.^^ A bill defective as a bill of review may be sustained as a cross-bill.^*^ § 355. Provisions peculiar to Bills of Review for Matters of Fact newly discovered. — Bills of review Upon matters of fact newly discovered can only be filed by express leave of the court.i Leave should be obtained by a petition praying for leave to file the bill, and supported by an affidavit showing that the new matter, which it is desired to prove, was not known to the petitioner, and could not have been discovered by him, with the exercise of due dili- gence, in time to prove it before the entry of the decree sought to be reviewed,^ It seems that the affidavit must be positive, and not merely upon information and belief.^ Previous knowledge of it bv tlie petitioner's attorney or other agent while acting in tliat capacity, is equivalent to knowledge by the petitioner, and will be a reason for refusing to allow him to file the bill.* If the newly discovered facts are proved by documents tliat were under the control of the petitioner, very good reasons for his not discovering and producing them before must be shown in order to entitle him to file a bill of review founded upon them.^ The affidavit should also state the nature of the new matter, and the evidence desired to be given in its support, in order that the court may judge of its relevancy and materiality.^ It is said that the matter must be not only new, but material, and such as, if un- answered in point of fact, would clearly entitle the plaintiff to a decree, or would raise a question of so much nicety and diffi- culty as to be a fit subject of judgment in the cause." The new matter may be concerning a point not in issue in the original cause,^ provided that it be connected with the subject-matter of the bill.^ A bill of review will not lie on the ground of newly 25 Ross V. Prentiss, 4 McLean, 106. ^ Page v. Holmes Burglar Alarm Tele- '■^8 Houghton V. West, 2 Bro. Pari. Rep. graph Co., 2 Fed. R. J]30. by Tomlins, 88 ; Story's Eq. PI. § -401, * Norris v. Le Neve, 3 Atk. 26 ; n. 5. Greenlee v. McDowell, 4 Ireil. Eq. (S. C.) §355. 1 Anon., 2 P. Wms. 283; 481 ; Story's Eq. PI. §§ 413, 414. Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173 ; Ross v. ^ Forum Romanum, 187. Prentiss, 4 McLean, 106; Story's Eq. PI. 6 U. S v. Sampeyreac, Hempst. 118; § 412. Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303 ; Massie 2 Wortley v. Birkhead, 2 Ves. Sen. v. Graham, 3 McLean, 41 ; Story's Eq. 571 ; Young r. Keighly, 16 Ves. 348 ; PI. § 412. PurccU r. Miner, 4 Wall. 519; Dexter v. " Ord v. Noel, 6 Madd. 127. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303; Massie v. Graham, ^ Partridge v. Osl)orne, (J Russ. 195. 3 McLean, 41; Itoss v. Prentiss, 4 Mc- ^ U. S. v. Sampeyreac, Hempst. 118. Lean, 106 ; Story's Eq. PI. §§ 412, 413. § 356.] PROVISIONS COMMON TO ALL BILLS OF REVIEW. 673 discovered evidence which is merely cumulative, or goes to im- peach the character of witnesses.^*^ It has been held that a bill of review will not lie on the ground that a decree offered in evi- dence in the original suit and there held to be res adjudicata has since been set aside for want of jurisdiction, unless it is shown that the defect in the jurisdiction could not have been known or discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence when the decree was offered in evidence.^^ It has been said that the matter upon the discovery of which a bill of review is based, if previously known to the other party, must be of such a nature that he was not in conscience obliged to have discovered it to the court ; for if it was known to him and such as in conscience he ought to have discovered, he obtained the decree by fraud, and it ought to be set aside by an original bill.^^ Permission to file such a bill of review is always in the discretion of the court ; ^^ and lapse of time since the discovery of the new matter will always have great weight in inducing the court to look with disfavor upon an application for leave to file such a bill of review.^* It has been said that if the decree impeached has been affirmed by an appellate court, such a bill of review can only be filed by leave of tliat court.^^ A bill of review for newly discovered matter, if filed without leave, may upon motion be dismissed or taken off the file.i<5 § 356. Provisions common to all Bills of Review. — " To en- title a person to bring a bill of review, it is necessary that he should have obeyed or performed the decree ; as, if it be for land, that the possession be yielded ; if it be for money, that the money be paid ; if it be for evidences, that the evidences be brought in ; and so in other cases which stand upon the strength of the decree alone. But if any act be decreed to be done, which extinguisheth the party's right at the common law, as making of assurance or release, acknowledging satisfaction, cancelling bonds or evidences, and the like, those parts of the decree are to be spared until the w Soutliard v. Russell, 16 How. 547. » Blandy v. Griffith, 6 Fish. Pat. Cas. 11 Vetterlein v. Barker, 45 Fed. R. 741. 434 ; Thomas v. Harvie, 10 Wheat. 146, 12 Manaton v. Molesworth, 1 Eden, 18, 151 ; Tilghman i-. Werk, 39 Fed. R.680 ; 25. But see U. S. v. Sampeyreac, Hetnpst. Story's Eq. PI. § 419. 118; s. c. as Sampeyreac v. U. S , 7 I'et. i^ Southard r. Russell, 16 How. 547. 222. i« Carroll v. Parran, 1 Bland (Md.), 13 Beames' Orders, 1 ; Massie v. Gra- 125, note, ham, 3 M(;Lean, 41; Story's Eq. PL §§ 404, 417. VOL. I. — 43 674 CORRECTION OF DECREE. [CIIAP. XXVII. bill of review be determined ; but such sparing is to be warranted by public order made in court." ^ If, however, the plaintiff to the bill of review be insolvent,^ or for any other reason it be im- possible for him to obey the original decree ; ^ or if it directed him to perform an act after the performance of another act l)y the other party, and that other have omitted to perform liis part thereof;* or perhaps, if he have given security for its perform- ance,^ — his disobedience is no objection to the bill of review. By an English order in Chancery, made on March 12, 1700, it was ordered that for the future no bill of review should be allowed or admitted unless the party who preferred it first deposited the sum of X50 with the registrar of the court, as a pledge to answer such costs and damages as the court should award to the adverse partv, in case it should think fit to dismiss the bill of review.^ ■This order should probably be followed here, five dollars being reckoned as the equivalent of a pound sterling, and the money being deposited with the clerk of the court." The court may, however, dispense with this requirement.^ A decree entered by consent cannot be impeached by a bill of review.^ A decree entered by consent can be set aside only by an original bill alleging fraud or surprise. ^^ It is no objection to a bill of review that the party filing it has entered and procured the enrolment of the decree ; " because," said Lord Nottingham, " he can have no error till it be enrolled, and perhaps tlie defendant will never enroll it;"" and a party may file a bill of review to a decree entirely in his favor, claiming that it is less beneficial to him tlian it should have bccn.^^ If upon a bill of review a former decree has been reversed, another bill of review may be brought to reverse the decree of reversal ;^^ but after a bill of review lias been dismissed § .S56. 1 Daniell's Ch.Pr. {M Am. erl.) 150; Taylor v. Person, 2 Ilnwks (N. C), 1634-l•. Arnold, 5 Mason, 30:3. 251 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 40G. '^ Mitford PI. ch. 1, § 3; Stafford v. 5 Stallings v. Goodloe, 3 Murphey, Bryan, 2 Page (N. Y.), 45. § 356.] PKOVISIONS COMMON TO ALL BILLS OF KEVIEW. 675 upon demurrer or otherwise, no second bill of review will be allowed to be filed.^^ It has been held that a bill of review cannot be iiled pending an appeal, although the plaintiff alleges that he does not intend to perfect his appeal. ^^ No person can file a bill of review except a party who has been aggrieved by the decree com- plained of,^*^ or the assignee by operation of law of such a party. i" All the parties to the original decree should be joined either as plaintiffs or as defendants to the bill of review.^^ Lord Redes- dale gives the following rules for the framing of a bill of review : " In a bill of this nature it is necessary to state the former bill, and the proceedings thereon ; the decree, and the point in which the party exhibiting the bill of review conceives himself aggrieved by it ; and the ground of law, or new matter discovered upon which he seeks to impeach it ; and if the decree is impeached on the lat- ter ground, it seems necessary to state in the bill the leave obtained to file it and the fact of the discovery, though it may be doubted whether after leave given to file the bill that fact is traversable.^^ The bill may pray simply that the decree may be reviewed and reversed in the point complained of, if it has not been carried into execution. If it has been carried into execution, the bill may also pray the farther decree of the court, to put the party complaining of the former decree into tlie situation in which he would have been if that decree had not been executed. If the bill is brought to review the reversal of a former decree, it may pray that the original decree may stand. The bill may also, if the original suit has become abated, be at the same time a bill of revivor. A supplemental bill may likewise be added, if any event has happened which requires it ; and particularly if any person not a i)arty in the original suit becomes interested in the subject he must be made a party to the bill of review by way of supple- ment." ^^ The plaintiff, however, cannot put his case in the alter- " Pitt V. Earl of Ar^rlass, 1 Vera. 441 ; is Bank of the United States v. Wiiite, Dunnv V. Filmore, 1 Vern. 135. 8 Pet. 202. 1^ Kiniberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. R. 545 ^^ But see United States v. Sanipey- 550; s. c. 136 U. S. 629; Willian y. Wil- reac, Hempst. 118; Dexter t-. Arnold, lian, 10 Ves. 72, 87. 5 Mason, 303 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 420, 1'^ Whiting V. Bank of the United note 7. States, 13 Pet. 6 ; Thompson v. Maxwell, -^ Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 3, pt. o. See 95 U. S. 391. But see King v. Dundee also Wliiting v. Bank of United States, Mortgage &, Tr. I. Co., 28 Fed. R. 33. 13 Pet. 6. J" Story's Eq. PI. § 409; Thompson v. Maxwell, 95 U. S. 391. 676 COKRECTION OF DECREE. [CHAP. XXVII, native, as a bill of review, or, if the court shall think it not good as such, then as a bill of revivor and supplement.^i It is im- proper for a bill of review on account of errors of law to contain a statement of the evidence in the original cause.^ A bill of review which seeks relief because the original decree was erro- neous for errors of law appearing on its face, and because of the discovery of new facts, and because of fraud, has been held multi- farious.^ A bill of review should be signed by counsel, and other- wise conform in general to the requirements of an original bill.^^ If the court had jurisdiction of the original suit, it can take juris- diction of the bill of review, even though it would have none were the latter regarded as the beginning of a new suit.^^ It has been said that a Federal court cannot take cognizance of a bill of review to a decree of a State court.^^ The service and the appearance of a defendant to a bill of review is made and enforced in the same manner as to an original bill. But if the defendant be beyond the jurisdiction of the court, service of a subpoena upon his solicitor in the former suit may be allowed by the court.^' The usual de- fense to a bill of review for errors apparent upon the face of the decree is by demurrer ; ^s to which is usually joined a plea setting forth in full the original decree, although there seems to be no necessity for this practice.^^ If the demurrer is overruled, the decree is reversed or modified and the errors allowed, and no fur- ther answer or hearing is necessary .^'^ If the demurrer is sus- tained, that has all the effect of confirming the decree, and puts an end to the suit.^^ The rule is in such a case only to vary the decree upon such errors as are complained of, except as to con- sequential directions, which will be altered to conform to the changes made.^^ If a bill of review for apparent error contain a statement of the evidence taken in the original cause, that may be stricken out of the bill as surplusage on motion ; ^^ or it may be a ground of demurrer, if specially assigned ;2* but the bill, if other- 21 Perry v. Phelips, 17 Ves. 173. ^ Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, pt. 1, 5. 22 Biiffington V. Harvey, 95 U. S. 99. 29 Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, pt. 1, 5. 23 Kiiiiberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. R. 548, 8'^ Cook v. Bamfield, 3 Swatist. 007. 559 ; s. c. 136 U. S. (i29. 3i Webb v. Pell, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 368. 21 Mitford's PI. cli. 1, § 2, pt. 3. '^^ Moore v. Moore, 2 Ves. Sen. 596, 25 Oglesby v. Attrill,V2 Fed. R. 227. 698. See § 21. ^^ Mr. Justice Bradley in BufEngton v. 26 Mr. Justice Bradley in Barrow r. Harvey, 95 U. S. 99. Hunton, 99 U. S. 80, 83. ^ Buffington v. Harvey, 95 U. S. 99. 2" See supra, § 96. § 357.] BILLS IN THE NATURE OF BILLS OF EEVIKW. 677 wise good, cannot be dismissed for that reason upon a general demurrcr,35 although such evidence or an allegation of an error of fact cannot on a general demurrer be used in support uf the bill.3^ According to Lord Rcdesdale : " When any matter beyond the decree is to be offered against opening the enrolment, as length of time, tliat matter must be pleaded ; otherwise the plaintiff will not have the benefit of exceptions, as infancy, cover- ture, or the like."^" "A bill of review upon the discovery of new matter and a supplemental bill of the same nature being ex- hibited only by leave of the court, the ground of the bill is gen- erally well considered before it is brought ; and therefore in point of substance it can rarely be liable to a demurrer. But if brought upon new matter, and the defendant should think that matter not relevant, probably he might take advantage of it by way of de- murrer, although the relevancy ought to be considered at the time leave is given to bring the bill." '^^ If a demurrer to such a bill of review or supplemental bill be overruled, it does not dispose of the cause ; and the defendant must answer, because fact is at issue.^^ If the demurrer is allowed, however, the suit is at an end.*'' The defendant may, it seems, traverse, and attempt to dis- prove, the allegations concerning the discovery of the new facts.*^ Upon the argument of the demurrer, nothing can be read except the bill of review and the decree,*^ and, in the Federal courts, the record*^ in the original suit; but, after the demurrer has been overruled, the plaintiff is at liberty to read any evidence that was submitted therein, as at a rehearinij, the cause beino- then equally open.** Filing a bill of review does not prevent the execution of the decree impeached.*^ The court has power, when sustaining such a bill, to set aside a conveyance made in })ursu- ance of the decree.*'^ § 357. Bills in the Nature of Bills of Review. — As has been said above,^ only parties to the decree impeached or their privies 35 Buffington v. Harvey, 95 U. S. 99. *-^ Catterall v. Purcliiise, 1 Atk. 290. 36 Shelton v. Van Kleeck, 10(3 U. S. « Whiting v. Bank of the United 532. States, 13 Pet. 13 ; Story's p:q. PI. § 407. 87 Mitford's PI. ch. 2, § 2, pt. 2. « Catterall r. Purchase, 1 Atk. 290. 38 Mitford's Pi. ch. 2, § 2, pt. 2. *^ Williams v. Mellisli, 1 Vern. 117, n. 39 Cook V. Bamfieid, 3 Svvanst. 007. •*« Bank of the United States i: Eitcliie. « Mitford's Pi. ch. 2, § 2, pt. 2. 8 Pet. 128. « Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, .303; §357. i See § 3-56. U. S. V. Sampeyreac, Hempst. 118; Story's Eq. PI. § 420, n. 7. 678 CORRECTION OF DECREE. [CHAP. XXVII. by operation of law, as heirs, executors, or administrators, are entitled to file a bill of review ; but other persons in interest and in priority of estate, who are aggrieved by the decree, can liave tlie same relief hy means of a bill in the nature of a bill of roview.2 Such are assignees, devisees, and remaindermen of the original unsuccessful parties.^ Lord Redesdale also speaks as follows concerning such a bill : " If a decree is made against a person who has no interest at all in the matter in dispute, or had not such an interest as was sufficient to render the decree against him binding upon some person claiming the same or a similar interest, relief may be obtained against error in the decree by a bill in the nature of a bill of review. Thus, if a decree is made against a tenant for life only, a remainderman in tail, or in fee, cannot defeat the proceedings against the tenant for life, but by a bill, showing the error in the decree, the incompetency in the tenant for life to sustain the suit, and the accruer of his own interest, and thereupon praying that the proceedings in the origi- nal cause may be reviewed, and for that purpose that the other party may appear to and answer this new bill, and that the rights of the parties may be properly ascertained. A bill of this nature, as it does not seek to alter a decree made against the plaintiff himself, or against any person under whom he claims, may be filed without the leave of the court." ^ Otherwise, the frame of and proceedings under bills in the nature of bills of review are substantially the same as those relating to bills of review, § 358. Bills to impeach Decrees on Account of Fraud. — "If a decree has been obtained by fraud, it may be impeached by original bill without the leave of the court ; the fraud used in obtaining the decree being the principal point in issue, and neces- sary to be established by proof before the propriety of the decree can be investigated. And where a decree has been so obtained the court will restore the parties to their former situation, what- ever their rights may be." ^ Such a bill has been called an origi- nal bill in the nature of a bill of review.^ There are dicta stating '^ Story's Kq. PI. § 409. See also Story's Eq. PI. § 426 ; Riclimond 'i Story's Eq. PI. § 409; Wliiting i'. r. Tayleiir, 1 P. Wins. 784; Barnesle v. Bank of the United States, 13 Pet. 6; Powell, 1 Ves. Sen. 120 ; Evans r. Bacon, Singleton )'. Singleton, 8 B. Monr. (Ky.) 90 Mass. 218 ; Pacific; R. R. of Mo. iv Mo. 340 ; Turner v. Berry, .38 111. 541. Pacific Ry. Co., Ill United States, 505. 4 Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 2, pt. 3. 2 Mussel v. Morgan, 3 Bro. Ch. R. 74, § 358. 1 Mitford's PI. ch. 1, §2, pt. 3. 79; Story's Eq. Pi. § 426. § 358.] BILLS TO DirEACII DECREES ON ACCOUNT OF FKAUD. 679 that a decree obtained by fraud may be set aside upon petition ; " but it was finally settled that after enrohnont a decree could only be impeached for this account by an original bill.* This is the only manner in which a decree entered by consent can be impeached.^ Decrees entered by collusion,^ or surprise,' may also be rectified in this manner. Certain other cases, although if logical arrangement solely were considered they should be con- sidered under other heads, yet as they are usually spoken of in this connection by the books, may be here referred to. Lord Rcdesdale uses the following language, which has been copied by all subsequent text-writers : " Besides cases of direct fraud in obtaining a decree, it seems to have been considered, that where a decree has been made against a trustee, the cestui que trust not being before the court and the trust not discovered ; or against a person who has made some conveyance or incumbrance not dis- covered ; or when a decree has been made in favor of or against an heir, when the ancestor has in fact disposed by will of the subject-matter of tlie suit; the concealment of the trust or sub- sequent conveyance or incumbrance, or will, in tliese several cases, ought to be treated as a fraud. It has been also said that where an improper decree has been made against an infant, with- out actual fraud, it ought to be impeached by original bill." ^ A bill to set aside a decree for fraud must state the decree, and the proceedings which led to it, with the circumstances of fraud on which it is impeached.^ All the parties to the original suit or their representatives should be joined as parties to it.^*^ A bill to set aside a judgment or decree of a State Court oif account of fraud may be filed in a Federal court,^^ and if originally filed in a State court, may be removed to a Federal court, when the requisite dif- ference of citizenship exists. ^^ A bill to set aside tlie decree of 3 Sheldon ?•. Fortescne Aland, 3 P. 9 Mitford's PI. cli. 1, § 2, pt. 3 ; Story's Wms. 104, 111 : Story's Eq. PI. § 426. Eq. PI. § 470. * Mnsscl V. Morjran, 3 Bro. Ch. R. 74, '^ Ilarwood v. Paiiroad Co., 17 Wall. 79 ; Bennett r. Ilamill, 2 Sell. & Lefr. 566, 78. 576 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 420. " Gaines r. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10 ; Bar- 5 Buck r. Fawcett, 3 P. Wms. 242 ; row v. Ilunton, 09 U. S. 80 ; Jolinson r. Davenport 7\ Stafford, 8 Beav. 503 ; Gil- Waters, 111 U. S. 640; Arrowsniitli r. bert V. Endean, L. R. 9 Cli. D. 259 ; Se- Gleasnn, 129 U. S. 86, 101. But see Non- ton on Decrees (4th ed.), 1536. gud ?•. Clapp, 101 U. S. 651 ; Graham v. G Bnck V. Fawc-ett, 3 P. Wms. 242 ; Boston, H. & E. R; R. Co., 118 U. S. 161, Story's Eq. PI. §§ 420-428. 177. 'Stevensr. Guppy, 1 Turn &Rns.l78. i- Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U. S. 589. 8 Mitford's PI. ch." 1, § 2, pt. 3. See supra, § 21. 680 CORRECTION OF DECREE. [CHAP. XXVII. a Federal court on account of fraud may be filed in a Federal coui-t irresj)ective of the citizenship of the parties. ^^ A bill defec- tive as a bill to set aside a decree for fraud miuht perhaps be sus- tained as a bill of review for matters apparent upon the record, but not unless filed within the time allowed for an appeal.^* Upon an application for leave to file a bill of review for matters of fact newly discovered which were insufficient to support the bill, the court refused to separate from such allegations other allegations of fraud in obtaining the original decree, and to per- mit the bill to be filed as a bill to set aside the decree for fraud.^^ A bill to set aside a decree for fraud must show a valid and meritorious defense to the original decree. ^^ § 359. Bills to Suspend or Avoid the Operation of Decrees and Judgments. — Lord Redesdale speaks as follows concerning bills to suspend the operation of decrees : " The operation of a decree signed and enrolled has been suspended on special circumstances, or avoided by matter subsequent to the decree, npon a new bill for that purpose. Thus during the troubles after the death of Charles the First, upon a decree for a foreclosure in case of non-payment of principal, interest, and costs due on a mortgage, the mortgagor at the time of payment ])eing forced to leave the kingdom to avoid the consequences of his engagements with the royal party, and having requested the mortgagee to sell the estate to the best advantage and pay himself, which the mortgagee appeared to have acquiesced in ; the court upon a new bill enlarged the time for performance of the decree, upon the ground of the inevitable necessity which prevented the mortgagor from comply- ing with the strict terms of it, and also made a new decree on tbe ground of the matter subsequent to the former decree." ^ '' The embarrassments occasioned by the civil war in the reign of Charles L, and the state of affairs after his death, before the restoration of Charles II., occasioned many extraordinary appli- cations to the court of Chancery for relief, and perhaps induced the court to go far in extending relief; but there were many 13 Pacific n. n. of Mo. V. Mo. Pacific i^ Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. R. 548 ; Ry. Co., Ill United States 585; supra, s. c. 136 U. S. 629. §21. §359. 1 Mitford'sPl. ch. 1, §2,pt. 3; " Dunlovy v. Dunlevy, 38 Fed. R. 4G2. Cocker v. Bevis, 1 Ch. Cas. 61 ; and also See si(i>rn, § 351. rcfcrrinfj to Vcnables c. Foyle, 1 Cli. Cas. '^ Kimberly v. Arms, 40 Fed. H. 548, 2; Wliorewood r. Wiiorewood, 1 Ch. Cas. 558 ; 3. c. 136 U. S. 629. 250 ; Wakeiin v. Waltlial, 2 Ch. Cas. 8. § 359.] BILLS TO SUSPEND OK AVOID DECREES AND JUDGMENTS. 681 cases of extreme hardship, in which it was deemed impossible, consistently with established principles, to give relief; and all cases determined soon after the restoration, upon circumstances connected with the prior disturbed state of the country, ought to be considered with much caution." ^ No instance is known of the maintenance of such a bill in a Federal court. In a few cases the Federal courts have sustained bills to suspend the operation and enjoin the enforcement of judgments at law for matters subsequent.^ 2 Mitford's PI. ch. 1, § 2, pt. 3 Judges, 12 Wheat. 561. See Ballance v. 3 Johnson v. St. Louis, L M. & S. Ry. Forsyth, 24 How. 183. Co., 141 U. S. 602, 610; Parker v. The END OF VOL. L X N wmmmm^mmmmmm LAW LIBKAK^ UNIVEBSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES ^' v^ m ^ ^ ^u: _: '^^mMmP>-^ ' ^ummo/: ^ <^\Hmmo/^ A, ;3? _- >;Aava«!i-^x^'^" "V/AHvaaii^ sS ^ ^vM-UBi?ARYQr. '''^.l/OdllVJ'iO-^'' hi iOrl ^^.OFCALIfO/?^;. .>^,Of-CAIIFO%, V£)i iV^) 8|rY "-&;> '^ ^11 UC SnilTHFRN RFGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 000 856 534 3 '0% vvlOSANCELiiJV. O ""^/iiiMINn-iWV ^OF-CAIIFOP^ s.int;. >&Aavaani^ ^ S 1 <^ ^ y>> %0JI1V>J0-^ K^^IUBRARYQ< /« ■( .'ii^-' ^^OJllVJ-:!^-^ ^OFCA1IFO% AWFUNIVERSyA ^^Ayviian-^^"^ -i:/. ^^^HIBRARYG^ .si:UBRARYQ^, "^iJ/OJIWJJti^ • 'iD3nVD-J0>' ^VJF.!:iJ(\,^-iVy. Pi i^ A-OF-f All F0% .- t)f CAll F0% ;r.iiiii;'sor/^