ACCOUNTING. See Assignment, 2; Practice, 9.
ACCOUNTS WITH THE UNITED STATES, SETTLEMENT OF See Court of Claims, 1; Evidence, 8.
1. The courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, have not exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam, growing out of collisions between vessels while navigating the Ohio River. Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 118.
2. A small schooner, having no watch on deck, was, in a very dark night, lying at anchor inside the Delaware Breakwater, when vessels were constantly arriving for shelter from an approaching storm. Among them was one well manned, which, in proceeding to a proper anchorage, without any fault of either omission or commission on her part, collided with and sunk the schooner. If a sufficient watch had been on the deck of the latter, the collision might have been avoided. Held, that the vessel was not liable. The "Clara," 200. 3. At about ten o'clock in the forenoon, when the weather was clear and fine, a steamship and a schooner were on the ocean. The schooner, having seen the steamship when six or seven miles away, kept steadily on her course. The steamer saw the schooner when three miles off, and from that time until a collision between them occurred both vessels were sailing on courses which crossed each other, so as to involve risk of collision. Held, that under the circumstances it was the duty of the steamship to keep out of the way of the schooner, and the latter having held her course, the former is liable for the damages occasioned by the collision. The "Benefactor," 214.
4. The ruling in The Abbotsford (98 U. S. 440), that under the act of Feb. 16, 1875 (18 Stat. 315), the finding of facts by the Circuit Court in admiralty cases is conclusive, and that only rulings upon questions of law can be reviewed by bill of exceptions, reaffirmed. Id. ADVERSE POSSESSION. See Vacant Lands, Entry upon, under Colo of Title.
AGENT. See Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, 3.
ALABAMA. See Constitutional Law, 11, 12; Damages; Municipal Bonds,
AMENDMENT. See Municipal Corporations, 5, 6.
1. An appeal will be dismissed when it appears from the record, taken as a whole, that the amount actually in controversy is not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. Banking Association v. Insurance Asso- ciation, 121.
2. Gray v. Blanchard (97 U. S. 564) reaffirmed. Id.
3. An appeal is the only mode by which the appellate jurisdiction of this court can be exercised in equity suits, brought in the courts of the United States, and it does not lie before a final decree has been rendered. Hayes v. Fischer, 121.
4. A proceeding in the court below for contempt cannot be re-examined here on an appeal or a writ of error. Id.
5. A bond is not sufficient for the purposes of either an appeal to this court or a supersedeas, if the obligors are not thereby bound for the payment of costs, should the appellant fail to make his plea good. Seward v. Corneau, 161.
6. The Circuit Court in a foreclosure suit appointed a receiver of the rents and profits of the mortgaged land, and ordered that all persons who had come into the possession thereof pendente lite should surrender it to him on his demand. On their refusal to do so, a writ was issued commanding the marshal to eject them. They thereupon addressed a petition to one of the judges, praying that the writ be revoked by the court. Held, that an appeal does not lie from his order at cham- bers, denying the petition. Hentig v. Page, 219.
7. Where no security having been taken at the time of entering an order allowing an appeal from a decree passed by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia sitting in general term, the appellant, within the time limited by statute, filed with the clerk a bond with sureties, conditioned according to law, and approved by a judge of that court, by whom, on the same day, a citation was signed, — Held, that the power of the judge over the appeal and the security was thereupon, in the absence of fraud, exhausted, and that the control of the super- sedeas as well as of the appeal was transferred to this court. Draper v. Davis, 370.
ARGOLS OR CRUDE TARTAR. See Customs Duties, 1.
ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY.
See Bankruptcy; Stock, Subscrip-
Where a bankrupt has fraudulently conveyed his property, his assignees in bankruptcy are the only parties to sue for and subject it to the payment of his debts. Trimble v. Woodhead, 647.
ASSIGNMENT. See Claims against the United States; Set-off.
1. The assignment of a judgment, and of all bonds and instruments which, during the progress of the suit wherein it was rendered, were
taken in connection therewith, transfers to the assignee a bond given by the defendant with surety, whereby he secured the release of his property which had been seized under an attachment issued in the suit. George v. Tait, 564.
2. A. assigned to the amount of a certain loan his interest in a policy of insurance upon his life to B., his creditor. The latter agreed in writing to make such a settlement with A.'s representatives as the case may require, should he, in the event of A.'s death before the payment of the money, receive from the insurance company the amount due on the policy. Other similar assignments were from time to time made. The last assignment imports an absolute trans- fer to B. of all A.'s right, title, and interest in the policy and to the payments previously made therefor, and all benefit and advantage to be derived therefrom. Upon consideration of the evidence, - Held, that the assignment must be construed as appointing B., upon the death of A., to receive from the company such sum as would then be due on the policy, and after reimbursing himself to the extent of his loans to A., to pay the balance to the persons entitled thereto. Page v. Burnstine, 664.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. See Bankruptcy, 1.,
BACK-TAX COLLECTOR. See Municipal Corporations, 5, 6.
A party who, before its maturity and for a valuable consideration, pur- chases mercantile paper from the apparent owner thereof acquires a right thereto which can only be defeated by proof of bad faith or of actual notice of such facts as impeach the validity of the transaction. Swift v. Smith, 442.
See Personal Chattels, Sale and Delivery of, 2.
BANKRUPTCY. See Assignee in Bankruptcy; National Banks.
1. A., as attorney for B., procured a judgment by default in favor of the latter against C., of whose insolvency and intent to commit a fraud on the bankrupt law he had knowledge. Held, that that knowledge was imputable to B. Rogers v. Palmer, 263.
2. C. having, with intent to give a preference to B., contributed to the rendition of the judgment at an earlier day than without his aid it could have been rendered, an execution was sued out and levied upon his goods. Held, that he thereby procured them to be taken on legal process within the meaning of the thirty-fifth section of the Bankrupt Law of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 534), as modified by the act of June 22, 1874. 18 Stat., part 3, pp. 180, 181. Id. 3. A., by his bond, acknowledged the receipt from an insurance company of ten shares of its capital stock, and agreed to pay $200 therefor, in instalments, one-fourth on the receipt of the stock certificate, and the remainder in three equal amounts at three, six, and nine months from Jan. 7, 1871, the date of the bond. He paid on executing
it $25, and his name was entered as a stockholder on the books of The certificate was not delivered or demanded. In 1872 the company became bankrupt. Held, that the assignee is entitled to recover of A. the unpaid instalments. Hawley v. Up- ton, 314.
4. A bill, filed by the assignee in bankruptcy of an insurance company against its former officers and directors, alleges that they had divided among themselves and friends certain bonds belonging to it, and prays for an accounting and relief. It appears from the proofs that the bonds were never the property of the company, but were, with- out consideration, borrowed, by some of its officers, for the fraudu- lent purpose of exhibiting them, as part of its assets, to the official examiners, thus furnishing evidence of its sound condition, and were afterwards returned, according to agreement, to their real owners. Held, that the bill was properly dismissed. Walker v. Reister, 467. 5. A., with a view of giving preference to B., a creditor, transferred to him, Nov. 15, 1873, certain securities. B. accepted them with knowledge that A. was insolvent. Proceedings in bankruptcy were instituted against A. Feb. 7, 1874, and he was declared to be a bankrupt. His assignee brought suit in June, 1875, against B. for the value of the securities. Held, that he was entitled to recover. Auffm'ordt v. Rasin, 620.
6. The tenth section of the act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., part 3, 178), whereby, in cases of involuntary or compulsory bankruptcy, the period of four months mentioned in sect. 35 of the Bankrupt Act of March 2, 1867 (14 id. 534), was changed to two months, did not take effect until two months after its passage. It was not intended to destroy previously vested rights of property or of action, nor was it in the nature of a statute of limitations. It merely declared that certain acts thereafter committed, more than two months prior to the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy, should be valid. Id. 7. Where the marshal of the United States to whom was directed a war- rant of provisional seizure sued out of the proper court sitting in bankruptcy, levied it upon certain goods in the possession of a third party claiming title to them, Held, that they were subject to seiz- ure under the warrant, if they were the property of the person against whom the proceeding in bankruptcy was pending. Sharpe v. Doyle, 686.
8. The marshal must, in such a case, act at his own risk in regard to the ownership of them and their liability to seizure. Id.
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. See Exceptions, Bill of.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES.
1. The transfer by indorsement to a creditor of negotiable paper before maturity, merely as security for an antecedent debt, although it is without his express agreement for indulgence, is not an improper
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan » |