Where the master of a vessel was also part owner, and made a contract of affreightment with a lumber company, of which he was also a member, and the cargo was consigned to the master, the case is not within admiralty jurisdiction, but appropriate to that of a court of chancery. Grant v. Pouillon, 162.
Where a judgment of the Circuit Court, sitting in admiralty, was affirmed here by a divided court, interest was not to be calculated upon the judgment. Hemmenway v. Fisher, 255.
3. The eighteenth rule of this court never applied to cases in admiralty which are brought up by appeal, and the rule itself is repealed by the sixty-second rule. Ibid.
4. The admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the United States extends to cases of collision upon navigable waters, although the place of such collision may be within the body of a county of a State, and may be above the flux and reflux of the tide. Jackson v. Steamboat Magnolia, 296 5. The District Courts exercise this jurisdiction over fresh-water rivers "navigable from the sea," by virtue of the judiciary act of 1789, and not as conferred by the act of 1845, which extends their jurisdiction to the great lakes and waters "not navigable from the sea." Ibid.
6. The admiralty jurisdiction of the courts of the United States does not extend to cases where a lien is claimed by the builders of a vessel for work done and materials found in its construction. Peoples' Ferry Company v. Beers,
7. Whether the District Courts can enforce a lien in such cases, where the law of the State where the vessel was built gave a lien for its construction, is a question which the court does not now decide. Ibid.
8. Where a tow-boat was descending the Mississippi river with a vessel fastened to each side, and another at the stern, and a collision ensued between one of the vessels thus lashed and an ocean steamer ascending the river, the evidence shows that the latter was in fault, and must pay for all the damage. Snow et al. v. Hill et al., 543.
9. Where a vessel had been seized under a process of foreign attachmert issuing from a State court in Pennsylvania, and a motion was pending in that court for an order of sale, a libel filed in the District Court of the United States for mariners' wages and process issued under it, could not divest the authorities of the State of their authority over the vessel; and of the two sales made, one by the sheriff and one by the marshal, the sale by the sheriff must be considered as conveying the legal title to the property, and the sale by the marshal as inoperative. Taylor v. Carryl, 583. 10. Where property is levied upon, it is not liable to be taken by an cfficer acting under another jurisdiction. Ibid.
11. The cases examined where conflicting claims against the same property are set up under the laws of the United States and under State laws. Ibid. 12. The process of foreign attachment in Pennsylvania is identical with that which issues out of the District Court of the United States sitting in admiralty. Ibid.
13. The adiniralty jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, althougr.
clusive on some subjects, is concurrent upon others. The courts of com
mon law deal with ships or vessels as with other personal property. Ibid.
14. In order to give jurisdiction in rem, the seizure by the marshal must have
been valid; and this was not the case when the vessel was, at the time
of seizure, in the actual and legal possession of the sheriff. Ibid.
AGENTS.
1. A broker who negotiates the sale of an estate is not entitled to his com-
mission until he finds a purchaser in a situation and ready and willing
to complete the purchase on the terms agreed upon between the broker
and the vendor. McGavock v. Woodlief, 221.
2 Where an assignee of a claim upon a foreign Government, holding it under
an assignment supposed to be good, but afterwards adjudged invalid,
prosecuted the claim to a successful result, and was subjected to costs
and expenses in protecting the fund from rival claimants, and thereby
preserving it, he was entitled to a reimbursement of these costs and ex-
penses by the true owner, upon a final settlement of accounts between
them. Williams v. Gibbes, 535.
3. Being placed in the position of a trustee, it was his duty to defend the title,
and the expenses for so doing were properly chargeable to the estate. Ibid.
4. The aignee ought also to have been allowed a compensation for his
trouble and personal exertions in the prosecution of the claim; and under
the special circumstances of this case, the Circuit Court having allowed
thirty-five per cent. of the sum realized, this court are not prepared to
say it is too much. Ibid.
5. At a sale of public lands in a Territory, an agent who purchased for another
must account, as trustee, to his employer, although the statutes of the
Territory have abolished all resulting trusts. Irvine v. Marshall, 558.
1. Where this court affirmed a decree of a Circuit Court, which was, that a
conveyance of property should be executed upon the payment of a sum
of money; and the Circuit Court proceeded to carry out its decree by
issuing an attachment against the party who refused to execute such
conveyance, an appeal will not lie to this court from the order directing
the attachment. McMicken v. Perrin, 133.
2. The appeal must be dismissed, with costs, on motion. Ibid.
3. Where an appeal from a decree is taken within ten days from the rendition
of the decree, it is in time to operate as a supersedeas; and so, also, if
taken within ten days after the decree is settled and signed. Silsby v.
Foote, 290.
1. The penalty of the bond taken, when an injunction is awarded, is no evidence
of the amount or value in dispute. Brown v. Shannon, 55.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES.
See COMMERCIAL LAW.
BANKRUPTCY.
1. Deeds of large tracts of land made by a grantor when deeply in debt, and
when suits were pending against him, and who shortly afterwards peti-
tioned for the benefit of the bankrupt act, the possession and occupation
of the land continuing the same after the sale as before, and the consid-
eration money one-half only of the actual value, held to be fraudulent
and void as against creditors. Hudgins v. Kemp, 45.
3. The Circuit Court of the United States has no power to entertain an original
bill brought by a creditor, who has come in and proved his debt against
the bankrupt, for the purpose of annulling or vacating a discharge and
certificate in bankruptcy, obtained in the District Court upon imputations
of fraud, done in contemplation of bankruptcy by the bankrupt; or to
give relief, either at law or in equity, in a suit brought by a creditor who
had proved his debt under the commission, who had assented to the
bankrupt's discharge and certificate, and who had taken a dividend out
of the bankrupt's estate. Commercial Bank of Manchester v. Buckner, 108
3. The District Court, which passed the decree in bankruptcy, can take cogni-
zance of such a case. Ibid.
4. Whether or not such a bill could be filed by a creditor who had not come
in and proved his debt, and who was not a party to the decree in bank-
ruptcy, is a question which the court does not now decide. Ibid.
5. Nor has the Circuit Court the power, under its general jurisdiction over
frauds, to give relief either at law or in equity, in a suit brought by a
creditor who had proved his debt under the commission, had assented to
the bankrupt's discharge and certificate, and had taken a dividend out of
the bankrupt's estate. Ibid.
1. A refusal of the court below to grant a new trial is not a proper subject
for a bill of exception. Doswell v. De La Lanza, 29.
2. The Circuit Court of the United States in Alabama, by a general rule
adopted the practice of the State courts, which is regulated by a stat-
ute providing that no bill of exceptions can be signed after the adjourn-
ment of the court, unless with the consent of counsel, &c. United States
v. Breitling, 252.
3. But where a judge holding the Circuit Court in Alabama signed a bill of ex-
ceptions under special circumstances, after adjournment, and without the
consent of counsel, this court will consider the exception as properly
before it. It is in the power of a court to suspend its own rules, or
except a particular case from them, to subserve the purposes of justice.
Ibid.
4. And the signature of the judge was attached to the bill, in conformity with
the decisions of this court. lbid.
5. The exception brings up the charge of the court to the jury, but not the
admission of evidence which was objected to on the trial, but to the ad-
mission of which no exception was noted. Ibid.
6. The charge of the court, being founded on a hypothetical state of facts of
which there was no evidence, was erroneous. Ibid.
7. Rulings of the court below, in admitting or rejecting evidence, can be
brought to this court for revision only by a bill of exceptions. Suydam
v. Williamson, 429.
8. Where there is a bill of exceptions, the writ of error does not operate only
upon that part of the record. Wherever an error is apparent on the
record, it is open to revision, whether it be made to appear by a bill of
exceptions, or in any other manner. Ibid.
9. A bill of exceptions may include in its scope the rulings of the court below as
to the admissibility of evidence, which a demurrer to evidence cannot do.
1 bid.
10. Where the only bills of exception were to the refusal of the court to grant
a continuance and change the venue, the judgment of the court below
must be affirmed, as these matters are not the subjects of review by this
court. Mc Faul v. Ramsay, 523.
11. The laws of Iowa permitting a demurrer only when the petition by a fair
and natural construction does not show a substantial cause of action, a
demurrer to part of the petition in this case was properly overruled. Ibid.
12. Exceptions must be taken or the points reserved whilst the jury are at the bar.
Barton v. Forsyth, 532.
13. Where there was an affidavit made, after verdict and judgment, that the
affiant was the real party in interest, and prayed to be substituted for, or
admitted with, the defendant, and the court overruled the motion, an
exception to this ruling will not bring up the points which were raised
at the trial; nor will it bring up the ruling upon the motion. Ibid.
CALIFORNIA.
1. The regulations for the colonization of the Territories of the Government of
Mexico, made 21st November, 1828, in pursuance of the act of the General
Congress, August 18, 1824, provided: 1st. That the Governors of the
Territories should be empowered to grant vacant lands, among others, to
private persons who may ask for them, for the purpose of cultivating and
inhabiting the same. 2d. That every person soliciting lands shall addres
to the Governor a petition, expressing his name, country, and religion, and
describing as distinctly as possible, by means of a map, the land asked
for. 3d. The Governor shall proceed to obtain the necessary informa-
tion, whether the petition contains the proper conditions required by the
law of the 18th August, 1824, both as regards the land and the petitioner
in order that the application may be at once attended to; or, if it be
preferred, the municipal authority may be consulted, whether there be
any objection to the making of the grant. 4th This being done, the Gov-
ernor will accede or not to such petition, in conformity to the laws on
the subject. 5th. The definitive grant asked for being made, a document,
signed by the Governor, shall be given, to serve as a title to the party
interested, wherein it must be stated that the grant is made in exact
conformity with the provisions of the law; in virtue of which, possession
shall be given. 6th. The necessary record shall be kept, in a book pro-
vided for the purpose, of all the petitions presented and grants made,
with maps of the lands granted, and a circumstantial report shall be
forwarded quarterly to the Supreme Government. United States v. Cam-
buston, 59.
2. Where there was no evidence, with respect to a grant of land in California,
that any one of these preliminary steps had been taken, this court cannot
confirm the claim. Ibid.
3. The decisions of this court in cases of claims to land in Louisiana and
Florida are not applicable where precise and recent regulations exist,
directing the manner in which land shall be granted. Ibid.
4. There are also strong grounds of suspicion with respect to the bona fides
of the grant in question; but as the claimant may not have had an oppor-
tunity of producing evidence in the court below, the case will be re-
manded to that court for further proceedings. Ibid.
5. As the act of Congress passed on the 3d of March, 1851, does not specify the
time within which an appeal must be made to this court from the District
Courts of California, the subject must be regulated by the general law
respecting writs of error and appeals. Either party is at liberty, there-
fore, to appeal from such a decree within five years from the time of its
rendition. United States v. l'acheco, 261
6. Under the sixty-third rule of this court, an appellee in a case from California
may docket and dismiss according to that rule; but a new appeal may
be taken at any time within five years, or it may be that the record may
be filed by the appellant at the same term at which a certificate or record
had been filed by the appellee, and the case dismissed. Ibid.
7. After a case has been thus docketed and dismissed at the instance of an
appellee who is a claimant of land, if a patent should be taken out, it will
still be subject to be reviewed by this court at any time within the five
years above mentioned. Ibid.
8. Where a petitioner files a claim to land in California before the board of
commissioners created by Congress, the intervention of rival claimants is
a practice not to be encouraged. United States v. Fossat, 413.
9. Where there is no natural boundary or descriptive call for the termination of
lines of a tract of land, and the quantity of land called for in the grant is
"one league of the larger size, a little more or less," the survey must only
include a league. The words "a little more or less" must be rejected. Ibid.
10. The grant is for one league of land, to be taken within the southern, western,
and eastern boundaries designated therein, and to be located at the
election of the grantee or his assigns, under the restrictions established
for the location and survey of private land claims in California by
the Executive department of this Government. Ibid.
1. The ancient English doctrines respecting maintenance or champerty have not
found favor in the United States; and in Michigan (where the land lies
which is involved in the present controversy) its application to sales, by
one out of possession, has been annulled. Roberts v. Cooper, 467.
2. Although, in that State, an agreement to carry on a suit upon condition of
receiving a share of the proceeds might be void, yet the rule would not
apply to a transfer of the legal estate to one, in trust for himself and the
other stockholders in a corporation. Ibid.
1. When a transcript of a record of another court was attached to the answer
as an exhibit, and portions of it particularly referred to, and the record
of the entire case pleaded, a decree, certified by the clerk, which had
been executed by the parties, must be considered as part of the record,
although it had not the signature of the judge. The signature of the
judge is not the only evidence by which a decree can be authenticated
Secombe v. Steele, 94.
2. Property was agreed to be sold, and the payment was to be made by a
deposit of the price in one of two banks, in Boston, and a certificate de-
livered to the vendor. The vendee made the deposit in another bank,
in Boston, and tendered the certificate to the vendor, within the time
limited, and the vendor having refused to receive it, he tendered the pur-
chase-money and interest, and that being refused, he filed his bill for a
specific performance, and paid the money into court. Held, under the
circumstances, to be sufficient. Ibid.
3. Creditors of the vendor, who recovered judgments and sold the property,
pending a suit for a specific performance, in which the purchase-money
had been paid into court, are not necessary parties to the suit, nor are
the purchasers at the sheriff's sale under such judgments. Ibid.
4. Under a statute of Minnesota, the court of chancery might divest the title
of the defendant in the land, without requiring him to make a convey-
ance. Ibid.
5. Where a bill in chancery was filed for the purpose of enjoining a judgment
at law, obtained upon a promissory note, and the bill did not allege that
adequate relief could not be had at law, and did not contain any charges
of fraud; neither did it aver that it was owing to the contrivance or un-
fairness of the defendant that an adequate remedy could not be had at
law, nor did it show the necessity of interference by a court of equity to
obtain a discovery, the bill must be dismissed. Hungerford v. Sigerson, 156.
6. Where the master of a vessel was also part owner, and made a contract of
affreightment with a lumber company, of which he was also a member,
and the cargo was consigned to the master, the case is not within admi-
ralty jurisdiction, but appropriate to that of a court of chancery. Grant
v. Pouillon, 162.
7. Where there was a covenant to sell land upon condition that the purchase-
money should be paid in instalments, and other acts done by the cov
enantee, in failure to perform which, rent was to be charged, and the
covenantee failed to execute his contract, the rent was justly chargeable.
Stinson v. Dousman, 461.
8. The Territory of Minnesota having abolished the court of chancery, the
excuses of the defendant must be judged of as if it was a case in chan-
cery, the statute having so directed. But in this case, time would be
held to be an essential consideration in the contract by a court of equity,
and the excuses for non-performance are insufficient. Ibid.
9. Where there were proceedings in a State court between a bank, one of its
creditors, and one of its debtors, and the bank having failed, assigned its
assets to trustees, who intervened in the dispute between the other two
parties, the judgment of the State court against the intervenors must be
considered final, and a bill filed by them in the Circuit Court of the
United States must be dismissed. Ingraham v. Dawson, 486.
10 If there were irregularities in the proceedings of the State court, it was for
that court to correct them, had complaint been made at the proper time.
1 bid.
11. A person dealing with an unlettered man who can neither read nor write,
and taking from him a promissory note for the payment of money and
a deed for property, in trust, to secure the payment, is bound to show,
when he seeks to enforce them, that they, or the material parts of them,
were read and fully explained to the party before they were executed,
and that he fully understood their meaning and effect. Selden v. Myers, 506.
|