Continued. ASSIGNMENT. SALE OF LAND UNDER EXECUTION. nothing for it before bill filed to set aside the sale, such assignee can not set up any equities to defeat the bill. Coggeshall et al. v. Ruggles, 401. ASSIGNMENT OF A MORTGAGE. 2. A mortgage interest, as distinct from the debt, is not a fit subject of assignment. It has no determinate value. If it should be assigned, the assignee must hold the interest at the will and disposal of the creditor who holds the bond. Medley et al. v. Elliot et al. 532. ATTACHMENT. PUBLICATION OF NOTICE. 1. Of the computation of the sixty days' time required by the statule. In the computation of time under the section of the attachment act, requiring that sixty days shall intervene the first publication of notice and the term of court, the rule is to exclude the day on which the notice is first inserted in the newspaper, and include the day on which the term commences. Forsyth et al. v. Warren, 68. REQUISITES OF THE NOTICE. 2. In an attachment suit, the notice of publication recited a date to the writ subsequent to the return term. Such mistaken and unnecessary date, the notice being otherwise in full compliance with the statute, was not regarded as a fatal defect in the notice. Ibid. 68. JUDGMENT IN ATTACHMENT. 3. When limited to the amount claimed in the affidavit. It is a fatal error for the plaintiff in an attachment in which there is no other jurisdiction obtained in the case except by levying the attachment and publishing the notice, to take judgment for more than the sum claimed in the affidavit and notice, with the subsequently accruing interest. Ibid. 68. 4. Waiver of such error. Nor does the defendant waive such error by coming into court after judgment, though at the same term, and praying an appeal. Ibid. 68. ATTACHMENT OF BOATS AND VESSELS. THE LIEN-HOW CREATED. 1. And whether released by a discharge of the property. The lien given on boats and vessels for supplies, etc., is not created by the levy of an attachment writ, but by statute, and the levy is but a means furnished to enforce the lien. Therefore, where a tug boat was discharged from attachment by order of the court on the execution of a bond by the owners, as allowed by the statute, and the attachment suit, under which the levy was made, was dismissed by the plaintiff, it was held that the statutory lien was not thereby released, and a plea in a second suit by attachment, of the discharge of the vessel by the giving of hond in the prior suit, was adjudged bad on demurrer. Tug Boat E. P. Dorr v. Waldron et al. 221. 35-62D ILL. ATTACHMENT OF BOATS AND VESSELS. CHARACTER OF THE LIEN CREATED BY STATUTE. Continued. 2. As distinguished from a maritime lien. A maritime lien does not arise on a contract for materials and supplies furnished to a vessel in her home port; and in respect to such contracts, it is competent for the State legislatures to create such liens as they may deem just and expedient, not amounting to a regulation of commerce, and to enact reasonable rules and regulations for their enforcement. Tug Boat E. P. Dorr v. Waldron et al. 221. 3. The proceedings by attachment given by the statutes of this State against boats and vessels to enforce liens for supplies, etc., have no resemblance to libels in the courts of admiralty, but are of the same character as ordinary suits by attachment, requiring notice to be given of the pendency of the suit; and by them no prior liens are interfered with. They are not proceedings in admiralty such as the district courts of the United States are invested with exclusive jurisdiction over by law. Ibid. 221. CONFLICT OF LAWS. 4. Jurisdiction of State and Federal courts. The jurisdiction of the United States district courts on the lakes and navigable waters connecting the same, is governed by the act of Congress of February 3, 1845, and is not exclusive, but is concurrent with such remedies as may be given by State laws. Ibid. 221. OBJECTION AS TO JURISDICTION. 5. Should be made in court below. On appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Chicago, rendered in a suit by attachment against a vessel for supplies furnished, it was objected that the proceeding failed to show that the court had jurisdiction, and that the affidavit did not show that the supplies were furnished at the home port of the vessel, and that she was a domestic vessel: Held, that as the objection was one that might have been obviated by amendment, if made in the court below, it came too late when urged for the first time in this court. Ibid. 221. ATTORNEY AT LAW. PRESUMPTION AS TO HIS AUTHORITY. 1. When an attorney enters the appearance of a party to a suit, it will be presumed that he had authority; but the presumption is not conclusive, and may be rebutted if done in apt time. Leslie et al. v. Fischer, 118. 2. The practice does not require a written retainer, and, as it would be a breach of professional duty in an attorney to enter an appearance without authority, until overcome by proof it will be presumed that it was proper and authorized. Ibid. 118.. OF AN ATTORNEY'S LIEN. See LIENS, 1. BAILMENT. BURDEN OF PROOF. In action by bailor against bailee. See EVIDENCE, 4, 5. BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS. See EXCEPTIONS AND BILLS OF EX- BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF CHICAGO. AWARDING CONTRACTS ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS. 1. Whether the courts will control the discretion of the board in that regard. BURDEN OF PROOF. See EVIDENCE, 4, 5, 6; WILLS, 23. CHANCERY. JURISDICTION IN CHANCERY. 1. When there is a remedy at law. Where one partner borrowed 218. WHEN A CAUSE MAY BE SET FOR HEARING. 2. It is error to proceed to the hearing of a cause in equity and 3. When one of the defendants to a bill in chancery, being inter- BILL TAKEN AS CONFESSED. 4. Of the proofs. Where a bill is taken as confessed, the court may, REMOVING CLOUD UPON TITLE. 5. Character of relief which may be given. On bill to remove a cloud 6. Defective tax title. Equity has jurisdiction to entertain a bill to 7. A court of equity will entertain jurisdiction of a bill by the 8. Terms of decree-refunding taxes to defendant. On bill to set aside a "After replication is filed, the cause shall be deemed at issue and stand for CHANCERY. REMOVING CLOUD UPON TITLE. Continued. deed was a cloud upon the title, it was objected that the bill should SETTING ASIDE SHERIFF'S SALE. 9. Of the terms imposed. In 1855, A, as principal, and B, as surety, OF AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE. 10. Where the vendor of land, after the sale, loans the vendee FAILURE OF A DEFENDANT TO ANSWER. 11. Effect upon his rights. Where the holder of such mortgage, who |