480, 51 N. E. 557, 42 L. B. A. 352, contract to promote passage of special assessment to enable defendant to secure contract; McBratney v. Chandler, 22 Kan. 695, 31 Am. Rep. 215, contract for services as lobbyist; Burney v. Ludeling, 47 La. Ann. 96, 16 So. 516, agreements contemplating use of private influence to secure legislation; Houlton v. Dunn, 60 Minn. 29, 51 Am. St. Rep. 495, 61 N. W. 899, 30 L. R. A. 740, and n., contract to secure passage of land bill by lobbying; Sweeney v. McLeod, 15 Or. 338, 15 Pac. 279, agreement to prevent passage of law by "legitimate importunity;" Spalding v. Ewing, 149 Pa. St. 379, 34 Am. St. Rep. 611, 24 Atl. 220, 15 L. R. A. 729, contract to procure allowance of postmaster's claim; Chippewa Valley Ry. v. Chicago, etc., Ry., 75 Wis. 246, 44 N. W. 22, 6 L. R. A. 608, contract of one railroad to assist another to secure land grant; Weed v. Black, 2 McAr. 274, 29 Am. Rep. 620, contract with congressman to lobby claim. See notes in 3 Dill. 387, F. C. 16,805, 40 Am. Dec. 524, 66 Am. Dec. 507, 508, and 13 Am. St. Rep. 299.

Contracts. Compensation cannot be recovered for professional services of attorney in securing passage of private claim bill, when blended with services as lobbyist; the invalid consideration is not separable from the valid, p. 452.

Cited and applied in Meguire v. Corwine. 101 U. S. 111, 112, 25 L. 901, denying recovery under contract to procure appointment as counsel against government, on consideration of division of fees; Manhattan Trust Co. v. Dayton, 59 Fed. 333, 16 U. S. App. 588, holding indivisible contract, illegal in part, must fall; Crichfield v. Bermudez Paving Co., 174 Ill. 481, 51 N. E. 557, 42 L. R. A. 352, holding contract void, where part of consideration was illegal; McBratney v. Chandler, 22 Kan. 695, 31 Am. Rep. 215, holding contract for services, partially as attorney and partially as lobbyist, void; Edwards County v. Jennings, 89 Tex. 620, 35 S. W. 1054, holding contract, partly based on consideration of creation of monopoly, unenforceable; Simpson v. Normand, 51 La. Ann. 1366, 26 So. 270, refusing concubine's claim for services as house servant. Miscellaneous.— Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 682, 24 L. 559, as to necessity for public honesty; Brady v. Atlantic Works, 3 Fed. Cas. 1196, no application to case; Gatton v. Chicago, etc., R. R., 95 Iowa, 142, 63 N. W. 599, 28 L. R. A. 566, as to existence of Federal common law.

21 Wall. 453-456, 22 L. 616, HILL v. MENDENHALL.

Appearance.- Voluntary appearance, by attorney, is as effective, for purposes of jurisdiction, as actual service of summons, p. 454.

Cited in Downs v. Allen, 23 Blatchf. 60, 22 Fed. 808, holding partnership bound by judgment entered on appearance by attor ney, under authority of one member; Fisher v. March, 26 Gratt. 778, holding judgment on appearance enforceable in other States.

Attorney and client.— When an attorney of record appears in an action for a party, his authority, in absence of proof to contrary, is presumed, p. 454.

Followed in Bonnifield v. Thorp, 71 Fed. 927, holding attorney' lack of authority to appear must be established by positive evidence; Rutledge v. Waldo, 94 Fed. 265, holding burden on defendants of proving appearance for them in original action unauthorized; Coler v. County Commrs., 6 N. Mex. 116, 118, 27 Pac. 624, 625, holding attorney's stipulations binding on client; Latimer v. Latimer, 22 S. C. 262, holding attorney's lack of authority must be clearly shown by party asserting same.

Judgments. In action on judgment rendered in another State, defendant may contradict record to extent of showing that court therein had not jurisdiction of his person, p. 454.

Cited and principle followed in Hatch v. Ferguson, 57 Fed. 971, holding judgment upon appearance does not preclude defendant from showing appearance unauthorized, in subsequent proceeding; Koonce v. Butler, 84 N. C. 224, holding lack of attorney's authority to appear may be shown on motion to vacate judgment; Guthrie v. Lowry, 84 Pa. St. 537, record of action in another State may be contradicted by evidence impeaching jurisdiction; Bowler v. Huston, 30 Gratt. 276, 32 m. Rep. 679, holding defendant in action on foreign judgment may show lack of appearance or service, by special plea; Bowyer v. Knapp, 15 W. Va. 290, holding return of sheriff on process in foreign suit only prima facie evidence; Moch v. Virginia Ins. Co., 4 Hughes, 119, 10 Fed. 706, holding decision of court as to its jurisdiction, binding on parties thereto, in suit in another State.

Judgments.— In suit on foreign judgment, defects appearing on face of record may be taken advantage of upon its production under plea of nul tiel record, but those requiring extrinsic evidence to make them apparent must be formally alleged before they can be proven, p. 455.

Cited and applied in Bonnifield v. Thorp, 71 Fed. 928, holding authority to appear must be challenged by direct attack; Eaton v. Hasty, 6 Neb. 427, 29 Am. Rep. 368, holding fraudulent appearance may be shown despite record; Ritchie v. Carpenter, 2 Wash. 522, 26 Am. St. Rep. 884, 28 Pac. 383, holding pleas to jurisdiction must be direct and certain. See 16 Am. Dec. 100, note.

Judgments. In suit on record of judgment rendered in another State, on defendant's appearance by attorney, attorney's lack of authority to appear can be shown only by special plea, p. 456.

Followed in Ritchie v. McMullen, 159 U. S. 241, 40 L. 135, 16 S. Ct. 173, a similar case.

21 Wall. 456-475, 22 L. 678, RAILROAD CO. v. MARYLAND.

Principal and agent.- Agent or receiver cannot withhold the money of principal, under pretense of illegality in transaction by virtue of which it was obtained, p. 467.

Money received. Sult of State against a railroad to recover one-fifth of passenger fares received, the State having stipulated therefor in granting the charter, cannot be sustained if it be assumed this stipulation was invalid, on the principle that an agent cannot withhold his principal's money under pretense of illegality of the transaction, pp. 467, 468.

Courts.

Unconstitutionality of charter stipulation for payment of proportion of railroad's earnings to State having been alleged as defense to such payment, State court was bound to pass thereon and its decision is reviewable by Supreme Court, p. 469.

Commerce. State cannot impose tax on movement of commerce between States, p. 472.

Cited in Pickard v. Pullman Car Co., 117 U. S. 48, 29 L. 790, 6 S. Ct. 642, holding privilege tax per annum on every foreign sleeping-car run over railroads in Tennessee, void.

Constitutional law.- Power to make and regulate charges for transportation, as distinguished from taxation thereon, is absolutely within State control, p. 472.

Cited and applied in Stone v. Farmers' Loan Co., 116 U. S. 325, 329, 29 L. 642, 643, 6 S. Ct. 342, 343, holding State's right to limit railroad rates cannot be granted away by its legislature unless by words of positive grant; Pullman's Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 24, 35 L. 617, 11 S. Ct. 878, upholding tax on capital stock of foreign car company in proportion to mileage over which its cars are run in State; Ashley v. Ryan, 153 U. S. 444, 38 L. 777, 14 S. Ct. 867, holding State, in permitting foreign railroad corporation to consolidate with home corporation, may impose such conditions as it deems proper; Louisville, etc., R. R. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 703, 40 L. 860, 16 S. Ct. 724, upholding authority of State to prohibit consolidation of competing railroads; Wells-Fargo Co. v. Oregon R. R., etc., Co., 8 Sawy. 613, 15 Fed. 571, holding railroad corporation created by State bound to furnish express facilities; Atlantic, etc., R. R. v. United States, 76 Fed. 192, holding Congress may regulate charges for transportation over railroads incorporated by it; Stone v. Yazoo, etc., R. R.. 62 Miss. 634, 52 Am. Rep. 195, upholding power of State to prescribe rates chargeable by railroad corporation created by it; Norfolk, etc., R. R. v. Pendleton, 86 Va. 1007, 11 S. E. 1063, holding State may reasonably regulate rates for transportation therein. Cited generally in Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 343, 37 L. 474, 13 S. Ct. 633, holding company, on Federal condemnation of lock, entitled

to compensation for toll franchise also; Lake Shore, etc., R. R. v. State, 8 Ohio C. C. 224, upholding requirement that trains stop at towns of certain size; dissenting opinion in Wabash, etc., R. R. v. Illinois, 118 U. S. 590, 30 L. 255, 7 S. Ct. 20, majority holding State law punishing rate discrimination void as applied to interstate traffic. See 25 Am. St. Rep. 889, valuable note on subject.

Distinguished in Covington Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 210, 38 L. 966, 14 S. Ct. 1089, holding State act fixing tolls on interstate bridge, invalid, reviewing cases; Carton v. Illinois Central R. R., 59 Iowa, 153, 44 Am. Rep. 675, 13 N. W. 69, holding regulation of rates invalid as affecting interstate commerce; dissenting opinion in Pullman's Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 82, 35 L. 620, 11 S. Ct. 881, majority opinion, supra.

Constitutional law. Stipulation in railroad charter for payment of proportion of railroad's earnings to State is not unconstitutional, p. 473.

Followed in Baltimore, etc., R. R. v. State, 45 Md. 609, 615, upholding same stipulation. Cited and principle applied in Memphis, etc., R. R. v. Nolan, 14 Fed. 533, holding State license on business of interstate express company, valid; Pullman's Car Co. V. Twombly, 29 Fed. 666, upholding State tax on interstate railroad's cars used in State; Honduras Co. v. Board of Assessors, 54 N. J. L. 284, 23 Atl. 670, holding State may levy tax on capital stock of domestic corporation engaged in foreign trade; People v. Wemple, 138 N. Y. 11, 33 N. E. 723, 19 L. R. A. 698, holding foreign corporation engaged in both State and interstate transportation taxable like domestic corporation; Union Transit Co. v. Lynch, 18 Utah, 390, 55 Pac. 642, holding cars owned by foreign corporation, but running in State, taxable therein.

Railroads.-Relief against exorbitant rates exacted by State lines of transportation, can only be found in competition or fear thereof, p. 474.

Miscellaneous.- Hayward v. People, 145 Ill. 58, 33 N. E. 885, and Indiana, etc., Ry. v. Allen, 113 Ind. 584, 15 N. E. 447.

21 Wall. 475-480, 22 L. 685, FOX v. GARDNER.

Bankruptcy.- Valid agreement to substitute another as creditor may be made before bankruptcy, and is pleadable as discharge o debt, if fair and binding on first creditor, p. 480.

Bankruptcy.- Debtor's acceptance of draft drawn on him by creditor known to be insolvent, with intent to give preference, is fraud on bankruptcy act, and assignee can recover amount of draft from acceptor, p. 480.

Cited in note in 95 Am. Dec. 166; also 3 Am. St. Rep. 736, note.

22 W

Fraud. Courts will not aid either party to enforce agreement founded on fraud, p. 480.

Cited generally in Second National Bank v. Brady, 96 Ind. 507.

21 Wall. 481-488, 22 L. 471, GROSHOLZ v. NEWMAN.

Homestead. Mere secret intention of husband and wife to make lot a portion of homestead, will not affect innocent purchaser thereof from husband alone, p. 487.

Cited and applied in McIntosh v. Atkinson, 63 Ala. 239, holding clear and definite intention of present residence and actual occupation necessary to constitute valid claim to homestead; Solary v. Hewlett, 18 Fla. 759, holding intention, not manifested by acts. of future occupancy of premises as homestead, insufficient; Oliver v. Snowden, 18 Fla. 835, 836, 43 Am. Rep. 339, 340, holding filing declaration does not exempt property unless actually occupied as home: Drucker v. Rosenstein, 19 Fla. 194, holding filing declaration does not exempt, property not being fit for occupancy; dissenting opinion in Bonner v. Minnier, 13 Mont. 282, 34 Pac. 33, majority holding homestead liable to liens for materials furnished for improvement thereof. See extended note in 70 Am. Dec. 347, 348, on homesteads; McDougall v. Meginniss, 21 Fla. 370, holding use of part of homestead not covered by residence, immaterial.

Adverse possession.- Where adverse possession is relied on to give title, possession for full period required by statute must be definitely shown, p. 487.

Cited in Brown v. Bocquin, 57 Ark. 105, 20 S. W. 814, holding date of commencement of adverse possession not definitely shown by proof of entry between 1870 and 1872.

Estoppel.- Where owner of lots deeds one in absolute terms to A., and subsequently mortgages it and another to A., A.'s grantee of former is not estopped by A.'s acceptance of mortgages from asserting ownership under deed, p. 488.

Equity. Recovery on ground that apparently absolute deed was really a mortgage, cannot be had where claim is unsupported by allegations in bill, p. 488.

Cited in Bradley v. Converse, 4 Cliff. 375, F. C. 1,775, holding recovery can only be had on case made in pleadings; Merrill v. Washburn, 83 Me. 191, 22 Atl. 118, holding bill not containing suffi cient allegations must be dismissed, irrespective of evidence.

21 Wall. 488-492, 22 L. 650, TEXAS v. CHILES.

Witnesses.- Revised statutes, section 858, making parties to actions competent witnesses in Federal courts, is not permissive merely, and under it one party may compel the other to testify, p. 488.