PUBLIC LANDS, act of August 5, 1892 (see Public Lands, 2): St. Paul, Minn.
& Man. Ry. Co. v. Donohue, 21.

SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT of March 2, 1893 (see Constitutional Law, 13;
Safety Appliance Act): St. Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. v. Taylor, 281.
TERRITORIES, act of July 30, 1886 (see Territories, 4): Ponce v. Roman
Catholic Church, 296.

ACT OF GOD.

See NEGLIGENCE.

ADMINISTRATION.

See STATES, 4.

ADMIRALTY.

1. Limitation of liability; law governing.

In a proceeding to limit liability instituted by the owners of a foreign
vessel lost on the high seas, the right to exemption must be determined
by the law as administered in the courts of the United States. La
Bourgogne, 95.

2. Same; practice on failure of petitioners to produce log books.

In a proceeding for limitation of liability the remedy of claimants against
the fund for the failure of the petitioners to produce log books ordered

to be produced by the court is to offer secondary evidence or ask for
dismissal of the proceeding; they cannot proceed and ask the court to
decide the case; not according to the proof but on presumption of
wrongdoing and suppresssion of evidence. Ib.

3. Same; privity of owner of vessel at fault in collision.

Under the circumstances of this case the fault of the officers and crew of
the steamship La Bourgogne resulting in collision and loss of the vessel
and its passengers, crew and cargo, was not committed with the fault
and privity of its owner, so as to deprive it of the right to a limitation
of liability under §§ 4282, 4289, Rev. Stat. Ib.

4. Same; effect of negligence of officers and crew of vessel.
Mere negligence of the officers and crew of a vessel, pure and simple and of
itself, does not necessarily establish the existence on the part of the
owner of the vessel of privity and knowledge within the meaning of
the limited liability act of 1851 as reenacted in §§ 4282-4287, Rev.
Stat. The Main, 152 U. S. 122, distinguished. Ib.

5. Same; effect of compliance with regulations of Treasury Department in-
consistent with statute.

Under 4405, Rev. Stat., the regulations of the supervising inspectors
and the supervising inspector general when approved by the Secretary
of the Treasury in regard to carrying out the provisions of §§ 4488,
4489, Rev. Stat., have the force of law, and the owner of a foreign
vessel is required to comply therewith by the act of August 7, 1882,
c. 441, 22 Stat. 346, and, even if such regulations are inconsistent with

the statute, compliance therewith does not amount to a violation of
the statute and deprive the owner of the right to a limitation of lia-
bility on account of privity with the negligence causing the loss. Ib.

6. Same; freight to be surrendered.

In the case of a foreign vessel making regular trans-oceanic trips the freight
for the voyage to be surrendered by the owner in a proceeding for limi-
tation of liability when the vessel is lost on the return trip is that for
the distinct sailing between the regular termini and does not include
the freight earned on the outward trip. Ib.

7. Same.

Notwithstanding that where a contract of transportation is unperformed
and no freight is earned no freight is to be surrendered, such freight
and passage money as are received under absolute agreement that
they shall be retained by the carrier in any event must be surrendered
by the owner of a vessel seeking to limit his liability under the pro-
visions of §§ 4283-4287, Rev. Stat. Ib.

8. Same; subsidy as freight to be surrendered.

An annual subsidy contract made by a foreign government and a steamship
company for carrying the mails was held under its conditions not to be
divisible, and no part thereof constituted freight for the particular
voyage on which the vessel was lost which should be surrendered by
the owner in a proceeding for limitation of liability. Ib.

9. Foreign law; enforcement in courts of United States.

Where the law of the State to which a vessel belongs gives a right of action
for wrongful death occurring on such vessel while on the high seas, such
right of action is enforceable in the admiralty courts of the United
States against the fund arising in a proceeding to limit liability, The
Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398; and the law of France does give such right
of action for wrongful death. Ib.

10. Limitation of liability—Law governing question whether vessel in fault
and fund liable.

In determining whether claims for wrongful death are enforceable against
the fund in a limited liability proceeding, notwithstanding the right to
enforce such claims is based on the right of action given by the law of
the country to which the vessel belongs, the question of whether the
vessel was in fault and the fund liable must be determined by the
law of the United States courts. The duty to enforce the cause of
action given by the foreign law does not carry with it the obligation
to give the proof the same effect as it would have in the courts of that
country if the effect is different from that which such proof would have
in the courts of the United States. Ib.

11. Limitation of liability; effect of non-payment of freight adjudicated on
right to.

Where there is an honest controversy as what the pending freight for the

voyage includes, and in the absence of too contumacious conduct, a
limitation of liability should not be refused because the petitioner has
not, pending the determination of such controversy, actually paid
over to the trustee the entire amount of the pending freight as finally
adjudicated. Ib.

ADMIRALTY RULES.

See ante, p. 544.

For special index, see p. 456.

AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.
Fourteenth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5;
JURISDICTION, A 6.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

Right of party to take whole case to Circuit Court of Appeals from Circuit
Court where question of jurisdiction of latter court involved in proceedings
therein.

A defendant defeated on the merits after having specially assailed the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court because of defective writ and service
is not bound to bring the jurisdictional question directly to this court
on certificate under § 5 of the act of March 3, 1891; he may take the
entire case to the Circuit Court of Appeals and on such appeal it is
the duty of that court to decide all questions in the record; and, if
jurisdiction was originally invoked for diversity of citizenship, the
decision would be final except as subject to review by this court on
certiorari. Boston & Maine R. R. v. Gokey, 155.

See JURISDICTION.

APPEARANCE.

See JURISDICTION, B 2, 3.

APPLIANCES.

See SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.

APPROPRIATIONS OF PUBLIC MONEYS.

See INDIANS.

ARBITRATION AND AWARD.

Effect of death of party.

Quare as to the effect of the death of either party on an arbitration under
a contract of submission made independently of judicial proceedings
where the contract provides that the arbitration shall in such event
continue and the award be binding upon the representatives of the
deceased party. Brown v. Fletcher's Estate, 82.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11, 12.

ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5, 6;
STATES, 1.

ASSIGNMENTS.

See BANKRUPTCY, 5.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
See BANKRUPTCY, 2, 3.

BANKRUPTCY.

1. Courts of bankruptcy; powers of.

Congress has the right to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy through-
out the United States, and having given jurisdiction to a particular
court to administer the property, that court may, in some proper way,
call upon all parties interested to appear and assert their rights. In re
Wood and Henderson, 246.

2. Courts of bankruptcy; jurisdiction to reëxamine validity of payments or
transfers by bankrupt to attorney.

The bankruptcy court, or its referee, in which the bankruptcy proceedings
are pending, has jurisdiction under § 60d of the bankruptcy act to re-
examine, on petition of the trustee, the validity of a payment or transfer
made by the bankrupt in contemplation of bankruptcy to an attorney
for legal services to be rendered by him, and to ascertain and adjudge
what is a reasonable amount to be allowed for such services and to
direct repayment of any excess to the trustee; and if the attorney is a
non-resident of the district an order directing him to show cause or a
citation or notice of the proposed hearing may be served without the
district. Jurisdiction to reëxamine such a transfer was not conferred
upon any state court. Ib.

3. Trustee; suits by; service of process on non-resident defendant.
The trustee may not maintain a plenary suit instituted in the District Court

where the bankruptcy proceeding is pending against such attorney
upon service of process made on such attorney, if he is a non-resident
of that district, outside of the district. Ib.

4. Leasehold rights of bankrupt; jurisdiction to determine lessor's claim of
forfeiture, at suit of trustee.

Where the trustee can only sell a lease subject to the claim of the lessors
that the transfer of the bankrupt's interest in the lease gives a right of
reëntry under a condition therein, the bankruptcy court has jurisdic-
tion of a proceeding, initiated by the trustee and to which the lessors
are parties, to determine the validity of the lessor's claim and remove
the cloud caused by the lessor's claim. Gazlay v. Williams, 41.

5. Trustee's title to leasehold interest of bankrupt, where lease provides for
reëntry in case of assignment.

The passage of a lease from the bankrupt to the trustee is by operation of

law and not by the act of the bankrupt nor by sale, and a sale by the
trustee of the bankrupt's interest is not forbidden by, nor is it a breach
of, a covenant for reëntry in case of assignment by the lessee or sale of
his interest under execution or other legal process, where, as in this
case, there is no covenant against transfer by operation of law. Ib.

BANKRUPTCY, FORMS IN.

For index to, see ante, p. 584.

BANKRUPTCY, GENERAL ORDERS IN.
See ante, p. 567.

For special index, see p. 466.

BURDEN OF PROOF.

See PUBLIC LANDS, 5.

CARRIERS.

See COMMON CARRIERS.

CASES APPLIED.

Hibben v. Smith, 191 U. S. 310, applied in Cleveland & St. Louis Ry. v.
Porter, 177.

Shaffer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 516, applied in Cleveland & St. Louis Ry. v.
Porter, 177.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Beuttell v. Magone, 157 U. S. 154, distinguished in Empire State Cattle Co.
v. Atchison &c. Ry. Co., 1.

Ferguson v. McLaughlin, 96 U. S. 174, distinguished in St. Paul, Minn. &
Man. Ry. Co. v. Donohue, 21.

Maine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 142 U. S. 217, distinguished in Galveston,
Harrisburg &c. Ry. Co. v. Texas, 217.

The Main, 152 U. S. 122, distinguished in La Bourgogne, 95.

CASES FOLLOWED.

American Railroad Co. v. Castro, 204 U. S. 453, followed in American Rail-
road Co. v. de Castro, 440.

Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U. S. 339, followed in Scribner v. Straus, 352.
Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, followed in St. Louis & Iron Moun-
tain Ry. v. Taylor, 281.

Moore, In re, 209 U. S. 490, followed in Western Loan Co. v. Butte & Boston
Min. Co., 368.

New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336, followed in Delmar
Jockey Club v. Missouri, 324.

Philadelphia & Southern Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326,
followed in Galveston, Harrisburg &c. Ry. Co. v. Texas, 217.