district; Dulke v. State, 56 Ark. 496, 20 S. W. 603, foreclosing mortgage after sale with notice; Swamp-Land Dist. v. Glide, 112 Cal. 90, 44 Pac. 453, applying rule in action to collect swamp-land assessments; Garrison v. Hill, 81 Md. 557, 32 Atl. 193, holding statute requiring objection to will to be made within three years from probate, allows three years from its passage for objection to previously-probated wills; Gillette v. Hibbard, 3 Mont. 416, holding action on note not barred by new statute providing shorter time; Packsher v. Fuller, 6 Wash. 537, 33 Pac. 876, Baer v. Choir, 7 Wash. 638, 32 Pac. 778, and Moore v. Brownfield, 7 Wash. 26, 34 Pac. 200, all holding previously-existing cause of action has the full time provided by new statute; Huber v. Zimmerman, 8 Okl. 574, 58 Pac. 738, applying rule.

Limitation of actions.- Where a judgment was obtained in Ohio, and defendant moved into Kansas, a statute of limitations, subsequently passed by Kansas, applies to a suit on the judgment brought there, and time runs from passage of statute, p. 600.

17 Wall. 601-604, 21 L. 693, UNITED STATES v. LAPÉNE.

War.- Commercial contracts with subjects, or in territory of enemy, whether made directly or through a neutral agent, are illegal and void, and confer no rights, p. 602.

Cited with approval in Mitchell v. United States, 21 Wall. 352, 22 L. 587, holding trading by Northern citizen residing and doing business in the South during war, illegal; Desmare v. United States, 93 U. S. 612, 23 L. 960, collecting authorities, and refusing recovery for cotton seized by United States troops; Snell v. Dwight, 120 Mass. 15, dismissing bill for accounting on contract for illegal trading; Small v. Lumpkin, 28 Gratt. 835, holding note paid in Confederate currency, which was accepted, discharged. See note in 96 Am. Dec. 626.

Distinguished in Brown v. Gardner, 4 Lea, 151, 152, 153, holding contract for sale of plantation between residents of Alabama and Tennessee during war, valid.

War. While a whole State was in possession of Confederate forces intercourse and contracts between inhabitants thereof were legal, p. 603.

War.- Ordinarily the line of non-intercourse is boundary line between territories of contending nations, but during the Rebellion, line was that of military occupation or control by different governments, and not that of State lines, p. 603.

Distinguished in Brown v. Gardner, 4 Lea, 153, 154, 155, holding sale of plantation between residents of Alabama and Tennessee during war, valid.

War.- New Orleans firm, which sent out its agent to purchase cotton while whole State was in possession of Confederates, cannot recover for seizure of cotton purchased after occupation of New Orleans by United States forces, p. 604.

17 Wall. 604-609, 21 L. 721, UNITED STATES v. BOUTWELL. Mandamus. Office of the writ is to compel performance of a duty resting upon person to whom writ is sent, p. 607.

Cited with approval in Commissioners v. Sellew, 99 U. S. 626, 25 L. 335, holding writ against county, served on clerk of board, sufficient; Warner Val. Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 32, 41 L. 623, 17 S. Ct. 227, holding suit to quiet title against secretary of interior and land commissioner abates by former's resignation; United States v. Butterworth, 169 U. S. 602, 42 L. 873, 18 S. Ct. 441, holding suit for mandamus against commissioner of patents abates by his death.

Mandamus enforces a personal obligation and does not reach the office held by party to whom writ is directed, p. 607.

Cited with approval in Warner Val. Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 32, 41 L. 623, 17 S. Ct. 227, holding suit to quiet title against secretary of interior and land commissioner abates by former's resignation; United States v. Butterworth, 169 U. S. 602, 42 L. 873, 18 8. Ct. 141, holding suit for mandamus against commissioner of patents abates by his death; Board of Suprs. v. Thompson, 61 Fed. 925, 22 U. S. App. 418, granting mandamus against supervisors to compel levy of taxes to pay judgment.

Distinguished in Commissioners v. Sellew, 99 U. S. 626, 25 L. 335, holding writ against county, served on clerk of board, sufficient.

Mandamus is a personal action resting upon fact that defendant has neglected or refused to perform a personal duty due the relator, p. 607.

Cited with approval in United States v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 408, 26 L. 220, granting writ to compel delivery of patent by land office; Warner Val. Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 32, 41 L. 623, 17 S. Ct. 227, holding suit to quiet title against secretary of interior and land commissioner abates by former's resignation; United States v. Butterworth, 169 U. S. 602, 42 L. 873, 18 S. Ct. 141, holding suit for mandamus against commissioner of patents abates by his death.

Mandamus.- Before applying for a writ of mandamus a demand must be made on defendant, and it must appear that he refused to comply, either in direct terms or by conduct from which a refusal can be conclusively inferred, p. 607.

Cited with approval in Warner Val. Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 32, 41 L. 623, 17 S. Ct. 227, holding suit to quiet title against secretary of interior and land commissioner abates by former's resig.

water carrier, but ordered to remove burning powder; Camp v. Hall, 39 Fla. 574, 22 So. 797, holding employer liable for injury to boy employed in making crates, but ordered to push freight car; Brazil Coal Co. v. Gaffney, 119 Ind. 466, 471, 12 Am. St. Rep. 431, 435, 21 N. E. 1106, 1107, 4 L. R. A. 856, 857, and n., holding company liable for injury to boy ordered to couple cars, outside his regular employment; Brennan v. Gordon, 118 N. Y. 494, 16 Am. St. Rep. 776, 23 N. E. 811, 8 L. R. A. 821, and n., allowing damages for injury to porter put in charge of elevator, without sufficient instruction; Hayes v. Colchester Mills, 69 Vt. 7, 60 Am. St. Rep. 918, 37 Atl. 270, and Jones v. Old Dominion Cotton Mills, 82 Va. 155, 3 Am. St. Rep. 103, both holding employer liable for injury to boy while assisting in repair of belt; Michael v. Roanoke Machine Works, 90 Va. 496, 44 Am. St. Rep. 930, 19 S. E. 262, awarding damages to helper in boiler-shop, struck by crane, without warning. Cited, arguendo, in Sullivan v. Union Pac. R. R., 3 Dill. 337, F. C. 13,599. See exhaustive note in 36 Am. Dec. 284, and 67 Am. Dec. 597; valuable note in 16 Am. Rep. 498, 43 Am. Rep. 270, 17 Wall. 514, and 3 Dill. 325, F. C. 3,916.

Distinguished in Fisk v. Central Pac. R. R., 72 Cal. 44, 1 Am. St. Rep. 26, 13 Pac. 146, holding railroad not liable for injury to boy ordered to work outside his employment by person without authority; Ft. Smith Oil Co. v. Slover, 58 Ark. 176, 24 S. W. 107, holding company not liable for death of employee, though working outside regular employment; Capper v. Louisville, etc., R. R., 103 Ind. 307, 2 N. E. 750, holding railroad not liable for negligent injury to tunnel repairer, riding on freight train; Wormell v. Maine, etc., R. R., 79 Me. 410, 1 Am. St. Rep. 329, 10 Atl. 54, holding railroad not liable for injury to workman in car shops, ordered to couple cars outside; Michael v. Stanley, 75 Md. 474, 475, 23 Atl. 1095, holding employer not liable for injury to sawmill servant, although outside regular employment; Leary v. Boston, etc., R. R., 139 Mass. 585, 52 Am. Rep. 735, 2 N. E. 117, holding railroad employee, voluntarily assuming new risks, cannot recover for injury; Cole v. Chicago, etc., R. R., 71 Wis. 124, 5 Am. St. Rep. 205, 37 N. W. 88, collecting authorities, and refusing recovery to construction foreman, Injured while voluntarily undertaking to couple cars.

Master and servant. It is negligent and wrongful for a foreman in railroad machine shop to order a young boy to do a perilous thing, and railroad is liable for his tortious act, p. 559.

Cited and principle applied in Gravelle v. Minneapolis, etc., R. R., 3 McCrary, 364, 11 Fed. 573, holding railroad liable for injury to employee through negligence of yardmaster; Gilmore v. Northern Pac. Ry., 9 Sawy. 564, 18 Fed. 870, holding railroad liable for injury by thawing powder before a fire, under foreman's orders; Mason v. Edison Mach. Works, 24 Blatchf. 95, 96, 28 Fed. 229, 230, holding company liable for injury to workman ordered by foreman

to hold a heavy plate alone; Orman v. Mannix, 17 Colo. 571, 31 Am. St. Rep. 344, 30 Pac. 1039, holding railroad contractor liable for death of boy, ordered to remove burning powder; Camp v. Hall, 39 Fla. 574, 22 So. 797, holding employer liable for injury to boy while pushing freight car; Brazil, etc., Coal Co. v. Young, 117 Ind. 523, 20 N. E. 424, and Jones v. Florence Mining Co., 66 Wis. 280, 57 Am. Rep. 274, 28 N. W. 211, both holding mineowner liable for injury to boy through fall of rock, caused by negligence; Brazil Coal Co. v. Gaffney, 119 Ind. 466, 12 Am. St. Rep. 431, 21 N. E. 1106, 4 L. R. A. 856, and n., holding company liable for injury to boy ordered to couple cars, outside his regular employment; Gulf, etc., R. R. v. Jones, 76 Tex. 353, 13 S. W. 375, and Gulf, etc., R. R. v. Redeker, 67 Tex. 191, 60 Am. Rep. 22, 2 S. W. 528, both holding railroad liable for injury to minor, employed as brakeman, without parent's consent; Hayes v. Colchester Mills, 69 Vt. 7, 60 Am. St. Rep. 918, 37 Atl 270, and Jones v. Old Dominion Cotton Mills, 82 Va. 158, 3 Am. St. Rep. 105, both holding employer liable for injury to boy while assisting in repair of belt; Moon v. Richmond, etc., R. R., 78 Va. 750, 49 Am. Rep. 404, holding railroad liable for injury of trainman through negligence of conductor; Turner v. Norfolk, etc., R. R., 40 W. Va. 684, 687, holding railroad liable for death of boy employee on hand car, through negligence of foreman running it. See notes in 21 Am. Rep. 582, 2 McCrary, 244, and 11 Biss. 368.

Distinguished in Richmond, etc., R. R. v. Finley, 63 Fed. 231, 25 U. S. App. 16, holding railroad not liable for injury to brakeman coupling' by hand, under engineer's orders, but against company's rules; Fones v. Phillips, 39 Ark. 29, 34, holding mill company not liable for injury to boy previously warned of dangers; Fisk v. Central Pac. R. R., 72 Cal. 44, 1 Am. St. Rep. 26, 13 Pac. 146, holding railroad not liable for injury to boy, ordered to work outside his employment by one without authority; Hanson v. Hammel, 107 Iowa, 175, 77 N. W. 840, holding employer not liable for injury to servant by ordinary machinery; Dyer v. Rieley, 28 La. Ann. 9, holding steamboat-owner not liable for injury of deckhand by mate, outside scope of his employment; Wormell v. Maine, etc., R. R., 79 Me. 410, 1 Am. St. Rep. 329, 10 Atl. 54, holding railroad not liable for injury to workman in car shops, ordered to couple cars outside; Michael v. Stanley, 75 Md. 474, 475, 23 Atl. 1095, holding employer not liable for injury to sawmill servant, although outside regular employment; Anderson v. Morrison, 22 Minn. 276, refusing damages to boy employed at elevator, but injured while working on cottonpicking machine.

Master and servant.- Master impliedly agrees not to expose servants to hazard of losing their lives, or suffering great bodily harm, when it is neither reasonable nor necessary to do so, p. 559.

Cited and principle relied upon in Kielley v. Belcher Min. Co., 3 Sawy. 445, F. C. 7,760, overruling demurrer to complaint of miner

the corporation would be bound; South Bend, etc., Co. v. Pierre, etc., Ins. Co., 4 S. Dak. 180, 56 N. W. 100, receiver, not judgment creditors of corporation, sue for concealed assets. See note in 100 Am. Dec. 553. Cited in dissenting opinion in Republic Ins. Co. v. Swigert, 135 Ill. 179, 25 N. E. 689, 12 L. R. A. 337, majority holding that receiver has only the rights of the corporation; arguendo, in Bank v. Bossieu, 4 Hughes, 394, 3 Fed. 824, to show the large powers of assignee.

Corporations.-The capital stock, especially its unpaid subscriptions, is a trust fund for benefit of general creditors, p. 620.

The following citing cases have affirmed and variously applied this principle: County of Morgan v. Allen, 103 U. S. 508, 26 L. 502, holding invalid a surrender of county bonds given for subscription by a consent judgment; Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 152, 154, 26 L. 972, 973, disallowing payments on unauthorized stock to be set off against unpaid subscription; Richardson v. Green, 133 U. S. 43, 33 L. 522, 10 S. Ct. 284, disallowing stockholder advancing money to hold bonds as collateral for his debt against general creditors; Fogg v. Blair, 139 U. S. 125, 35 L. 106, 11 S. Ct. 477, collecting cases, stock cannot be issued to contractor as full-paid, without a fair equivalent; Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 427, 35 L. 234, 11 S. Ct. 534, collecting cases, those distributing new full-paid stock among themselves, are liable for face value (affirming S. C., 41 Fed. 546, 547); Bradley v. Farwell, 1 Holmes, 442, 443, F. C. 1,779, collecting cases, a partnership to which a director belongs cannot be secured at expense of other creditors; Foreman v. Bigelow, 4 Cliff. 547, F. C. 4,934, reviewing cases, disallowing suit against bona fide holder of stock issued as "full-paid; " Corbett v. Woodward, 5 Sawy. 417, F. C. 3,223, collecting cases, Lippincott v. Shaw Carriage Co., 25 Fed. 586, and Consolidated, etc., Co. v. Kansas City, etc., Co., 45 Fed. 14, collecting cases, Williams v. Jones, 23 Mo. App. 146, all disallowing dealings by director to his own advantage, against creditor and stockholder; In re Bachman, 2 Fed. Cas. 312, 12 Bank. Reg. 227, note for unpaid subscription is a debt to corporation within by-law disallowing transfers till all debts are paid; Glenn v. Abell, 39 Fed. 11, unpaid subscription provable against bankrupt stockholder, though no assessment is yet made under section 5067, revised statutes; Baltimore, etc., Tel. Co. v. Interstate Tel. Co., 54 Fed. 54, 8 U. S. App. 340, a corporation owning another and selling its plants leaves it insolvent, holds the proceeds as a trust fund for creditors; Grant v. East, etc., R., 54 Fed. 575, 13 U. S. App. 1, collecting cases, and Bruner v. Brown, 139 Ind.. 603, 38 N. E. 319, an agreement that stock is fully paid is void, but it may be paid in property if valued in good faith; Chavent v. Schefer, 59 Fed. 232, unpaid subscriptions may be recovered by creditor or representative, if not by corporation; National Bank v. Peavey, 64 Fed. 917, collecting cases, a statute making a stockholder liable for un