Distinguished in Hart v. United States, 118 U. S. 67, 30 L. 98. 6 8. Ct. 963, holding that pardon did not authorize the payment of the claim.

Statutes.- General terms in statutes should be limited in their application, so as not to lead to injustice, oppression or any unconstitutional operation, p. 153.

Cited and followed in Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U. S. 555, 28 L. 776, 5 S. Ct. 264, construing Chinese restriction act; The Case of the Chinese Merchants, 7 Sawy. 554, 13 Fed. 611, holding that act of Congress should be construed in harmony with the objects of the treaty; The State of Maine, 22 Fed. 736, holding that intention of Congress to make acts of American shipmasters within a foreign jurisdiction criminal, though legal by laws of port, should only be inferred from specific indications. Lee Kan v. United States, 62 Fed. 919, 15 U. S. App. 516, construing McCreary act for exclusion of Chinese.

War.- Pardon of president relieves claimants of proceeds of captured and abandoned property from consequences of participation in Rebellion, and from necessity of establishing their loyalty in order to prosecute their claims, p. 153.

Cited in Austin v. United States, 155 U. S. 425, 39 L. 209, 15 S. Ct. 171, holding act of 1883 made the establishment of loyalty a prerequisite to jurisdiction; dissenting opinion in Sprott v. United States, 20 Wall. 468, 22 L. 373, majority holding that purchaser of cotton from Confederate States, who knew that purchase money went to sustain the Rebellion, cannot in Court of Claims recover the proceeds, when it has been captured and sold.

Aliens domiciled here prior to the Civil War are under obligation of fidelity to this government, and may be punished for giving aid and comfort to Rebellion, p. 155.

Cited and principle applied in Radich v. Hutchins, 95 U. S. 212, 24 L. 409, holding foreigner, domiciled here, giving aid to Rebellion, cannot enforce a demand against agents of such rebel government; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 686, 694, 42 L. 904, 906, 18 S. Ct. 471, 474, holding that child born in United States of parents domiciled here but who are subjects of emperor of China, but not in the diplomatic service, is a citizen of the United States. Cited in 53 Am. St. Rep. 181, note on jurisdiction over persons temporarily within the State, collecting authorities. Cited, without particular application, in Fisher v. Fielding, 67 Conn. 104, 52 Am. St. Rep. 272, 34 Atl. 715, 32 L. R. A. 239, and n.; dissenting opinion in Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. 242, 41 L. 145, 16 S. Ct. 983, majority holding Congress can provide for severe punishment of aliens forbidden to immigrate, if it provides for a Judicial trial.

18 Wall. 177-185, 21 L. 354, THE CAYUGA.

Appeal and error.— Confirmation of master's report, on a reference in collision case, by Circuit Court, cannot be reviewed by Supreme Court, where there is no certified copy of testimony introduced before him, and transcript does not afford satisfactory statement of facts to enable court to determine if there is any error in the report, p. 183.

Towage. Steamer towing canal-boat with long hawser, held liable for accident caused by tow swinging against a point, p. 184. Cited and principle applied in The Margaret, 94 U. S. 497, 24 L. 147, holding that steamtug, towing, is bound to know the channel of her home port, and whether it was safe to enter; In re Humboldt M. Assn., 60 Fed. 443, and Humboldt L. M. Assn. v. Christopherson, 73 Fed. 248, 44 U. S. App. 434, both holding tug in venturing to cross bar with tow under prevailing conditions was guilty of gross negligence; The Hercules, 81 Fed. 225, holding master of tug should have been placed on his guard by a displacement of buoy, amounting to 200 feet.

16 Wall. 185-190, 21 L. 310, SMITH v. ADSIT.

Courts. Decision of State court dismissing suit for want of jurisdiction, in which party claimed sale had violated an act of Congress, is not reviewable in Supreme Court, pp. 188-189.

Cited in Smith v. Adsit, 23 Wall. 374, 23 L. 116, holding Federal court could not review decision of State court as to what amounts to a trust.

Courts. Whether State court had jurisdiction of case or not, is question exclusively for judgment of State court, p. 190.

16 Wall. 190-195, 21 L. 296, BANK v. TURNBULL.

Removal of causes.- Statutory summary proceeding to try title to personal property seized on execution, cannot be removed into Federal courts under act of 2d of March, 1867, p. 195.

The above principle has been followed in Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 282, 28 L. 148, 4 S. Ct. 29, holding bill to restrain judgments or suits in same court can be maintained without reference to the citizenship of the parties; Pratt v. Albright, 10 Biss. 516, 519, 9 Fed. 637, 639, and Poole v. Thatcher, 19 Fed. 51, both holding issue between plaintiff and garnishee as to indebtedness of latter to defendant in principal action is not removable; In re Sabin, 18 N. B. R. 151, 21 Fed. Cas. 123, holding District Court has jurisdiction of controversy as to a fund under control of assignee in bankruptcy, without regard to the residence of parties in interest; King v. Shepherd, 20 Fed. 338, after judgment given in State

court, cause is not removable to Federal court as against parties filing their petition of intervention; Flash v. Dillon, 22 Fed. 2, holding statutory proceeding for property taken under execution from State court is not removable; Ladd v. West, 55 Fed. 354, holding proceeding in equity in aid of prior judgment at law is not removable; Cœur D'Alene Ry., etc., Co. v. Spalding, 93 Fed. 286, holding petition, for appointment of receiver and for a determination of the priority of judgment in the original case, is not removable; Harrison v. Shorter, 59 Ga. 513, query, whether claim case, as authorized by State laws, is removable to Circuit Court; Beeser v. Munford, 63 Ga. 447, holding illegality of final process of State court, is not such a suit as can be removed to Federal courts; Hochstadter v. Harrison, 71 Ga. 22, holding claim to property levied on under final process is not removable; Goodrich v. Hunton, 29 La. Ann. 375, 376, Calhoun v. Levy, 33 La. Ann. 1299, and Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 76 Me. 62, all holding suit to enjoin execution of judgment of State court is not removable; Jackson v. Gould, 74 Me. 577, holding action to review judgment of State court not removable; Chappell v. Chappell, 86 Md. 544, 39 Atl. 989, holding that auxiliary proceedings respecting alimony, counsel fees and costs. are not removable; Du Vivier v. Hopkins, 116 Mass. 128, 17 Am. Rep. 144, holding claim against insolvent estate, pending on appeal from decision of commissioners of Probate Court, is not removable.

Distinguished in Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U. S. 287, 26 L. 450, holding suit in which plaintiff sought to be protected against a judgment, to which he was not a party, was removable under act of March 3, 1875; Pettus v. Georgia, etc., Co., 3 Woods, 626, 627, 628, F. C. 11,048, holding petition filed by counsel, claiming lien on property for fees in original suit, was an independent action and removable; Stackhouse v. Zunts, 4 Woods, 173, 15 Fed. 482, holding suit brought to enjoin an execution because of fraud, removable; Kalamazoo Wagon Co. v. Snavely, 34 Fed. 825, holding suit by judgment creditor to subject land taken in name of debtor's brother to defraud creditors to payment of judgment is removable; Pelzer Mfg. Co. v. Fire Ins. Co., 62 Fed. 2, holding that bill to correct mistake in judgment could be removed; Braithwaite v. Jordan, 5 N. Dak. 223, 65 N. W. 709, 31 L. R. A. 249, holding action on undertaking given to secure a stay of proceedings is not a proceeding to enforce the judgment, it is not, therefore, within the exclusive jurisdiction of court rendering the judgment.

16 Wall. 196-203, 21 L. 465, KOONTZ v. NORTHERN BANK.

Receivers. It is sufficient if purchaser from receiver see that there was a suit in equity, in which a receiver was appointed; that he was authorized to sell; that sale was made under such authority; was confirmed by the court, and that deed accurately recites the property sold, p. 202.

Cited in dissenting opinion in Pressley v. Lamb, 105 Ind. 193, 4 N. E. 696, arguendo.

Receiver. If court is deceived by receiver's report respecting conditions of sales and purchaser participated in the deception, it could, before rights of innocent purchasers had intervened, have set aside the whole proceeding, p. 202.

Cited and principle applied in Stuart v. Gay, 127 U. S. 527. 32 L. 194, 8 S. Ct. 1283, holding that sale of mortgaged property under foreclosure may be set aside if purchaser make default, no rights of innocent third parties intervening; Thompson v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. 542, 51 Pac. 864, holding court may vacate sale by assignee because of fraudulent representations of purchaser; Ala. Iron, etc., Co. v. Anniston, etc., Co., 57 Fed. 31, 13 U. S. App. 506, holding court bound to recognize the estoppel of the receiver as its agent, and to protect innocent purchasers of the certificates. Rand v. Rand, 78 N. C. 17, as to powers of a receiver.

Cited in

Receivers. Where intervention of rights of third parties prevents court from setting aside the proceedings because of deceit of receiver the injured parties must seek their remedy against that officer personally or his official bond, p. 203

16 Wall. 203-233, 21 L. 447, DAVIS v. GRAY.

Receiver is appointed for benefit of all concerned; he is a repre sentative of the court, and under its authority, pp. 217, 218.

Cited and principle applied in First Nat. Bank v. Wire & S. Works, 60 Mich. 499, 27 N. W. 661, reasserting doctrine; Cartwright's case, 114 Mass. 239, holding that receiver is an officer of the court, and funds in his custody are in the custody of the court; Tex., etc., Ry. Co. v. Gay, 86 Tex. 585, 605, 26 S. W. 603, 613, 25 L. R. A. 56, 65, declaring that a receiver is an officer of the court; Garden City, etc., Co. v. Geilfuss, 86 Wis. 622, 57 N. W. 352, where corporation has made a valid assignment for the benefit of creditors, a receiver cannot be appointed so as to supersede the assignment. Cited in 100 Am. Dec. 554, note.

Receiver cannot be sued touching the property in his charge without consent of court appointing him, p. 218.

Cited approvingly and relied upon in Express Co. v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 198, 199, 25 L. 320, holding that receiver was the only necessary party defendant; Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 128, holding that receiver cannot be sued for a money demand or for damages without leave of the court; In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 181, 37 L. 695, 13 S. Ct. 789, holding property within State in hands of receiver appointed by Circuit Court, is not subject to seizure under execution of State court to enforce taxes; Kennedy v. Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co., 2 Flipp. 707, 3 Fed. 100, Sutherland v. Railroad & Iron

court, cause is not removable to Federal court as against parties filing their petition of intervention; Flash v. Dillon, 22 Fed. 2, holding statutory proceeding for property taken under execution from State court is not removable; Ladd v. West, 55 Fed. 354, holding proceeding in equity in aid of prior judgment at law is not removable; Cœur D'Alene Ry., etc., Co. v. Spalding, 93 Fed. 286, holding petition, for appointment of receiver and for a determination of the priority of judgment in the original case, is not removable; Harrison v. Shorter, 59 Ga. 513, query, whether claim case, as authorized by State laws, is removable to Circuit Court; Beeser v. Munford, 63 Ga. 447, holding illegality of final process of State court, is not such a suit as can be removed to Federal courts; Hochstadter v. Harrison, 71 Ga. 22, holding claim to property levied on under final process is not removable; Goodrich v. Hunton, 29 La. Ann. 375, 376, Calhoun v. Levy, 33 La. Ann. 1299, and Edwards Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 76 Me. 62, all holding suit to enjoin execution of judgment of State court is not removable; Jackson v. Gould, 74 Me. 577, holding action to review judgment of State court not removable; Chappell v. Chappell, 86 Md. 544, 39 Atl. 989, holding that auxiliary proceedings respecting alimony, counsel fees and costs, are not removable; Du Vivier v. Hopkins, 116 Mass. 128, 17 Am. Rep. 144, holding claim against insolvent estate, pending on appeal from decision of commissioners of Probate Court, is not removable.

Distinguished in Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U. S. 287, 26 L. 450, holding suit in which plaintiff sought to be protected against a judgment, to which he was not a party, was removable under act of March 3, 1875; Pettus v. Georgia, etc., Co., 3 Woods, 626, 627, 628, F. C. 11,048, holding petition filed by counsel, claiming lien on property for fees in original suit, was an independent action and removable; Stackhouse v. Zunts, 4 Woods, 173, 15 Fed. 482, holding suit brought to enjoin an execution because of fraud, removable; Kalamazoo Wagon Co. v. Snavely, 34 Fed. 825, holding sult by judgment creditor to subject land taken in name of debtor's brother to defraud creditors to payment of judgment is removable; Pelzer Mfg. Co. v. Fire Ins. Co., 62 Fed. 2, holding that bill to correct mistake in judgment could be removed; Braithwaite v. Jordan, 5 N. Dak. 223, 65 N. W. 709, 31 L. R. A. 249, holding action on undertaking given to secure a stay of proceedings is not a proeeeding to enforce the judgment, it is not, therefore, within the exclusive jurisdiction of court rendering the judgment.

16 Wall. 196-203, 21 L. 465, KOONTZ v. NORTHERN BANK.

Receivers. It is sufficient if purchaser from receiver see that there was a suit in equity, in which a receiver was appointed; that he was authorized to sell; that sale was made under such authority; was confirmed by the court, and that deed accurately recites the property sold, p. 202.