Creditor's suits.- Equity has jurisdiction to reach a debtor's property justly applicable to payment of debts, although there is no specific lien, but debt must be clear and judicially established, and legal means for its collection exhausted, unless the suit relate to a decedent's estate, p. 530.

Cited and principle applied in Shainwald v. Lewis, 7 Sawy. 156, 6 Fed. 773, after unsatisfied execution, enjoining fraudulent disposal of debtor's property and appointing receiver; Gilbert v. Quimby, 17 Blatchf. 406, 1 Fed. 115, refusing to prefer partnership to individual creditor, both attaching bankruptcy dividend; Mann v. Appel, 31 Fed. 380, maintaining creditor's bill to reach property fraudulently transferred; Goff v. Kelly, 74 Fed. 331, dismissing creditor's bill where demand was not reduced to judgment; Johnson v. Culbertson, 79 Fed. 5, holding creditor may reach deceased debtor's property after distribution, by bill in equity; Continental Nat. Bank v. Heilman, 81 Fed. 42, collecting authorities, and dismissing creditor's bill against debtor's heirs, where claim was not presented (affirmed in 86 Fed. 516); Chewett v. Morgan, 17 Fed. 822, subjecting land in heir's hands to payment of ancestor's debts, notwithstanding claim was not presented; Hughes v. Newton, 89 Fed. 215, 60 U. S. App. 605, refusing to subject decedent's land to payment of notes before foreclosure of mortgage securing them; Bedford Quarries Co. v. Thomlinson, 95 Fed. 211, dismissing bill to compel executors to satisfy contract debt of decedent, where legal remedy is adequate; Morton v. Grafflin, 68 Md. 562, 13 Atl. 346, dismissing bill where debt was not judicially established or legal remedy exhausted; Paddock, etc., Iron Co. v. McDonald, 61 Mo. App. 567, maintaining creditor's bill to reach property in hands of trustee; Fairbanks v. Welshans, 55 Neb. 380, 75 N. W. 872, dismissing bill by non-judgment creditor of insolvent partnership to set aside fraudulent transfer; Stanton v. Catron, 8 N. Mex. 363, 45 Pac. 886, collecting authorities, and dismissing bill by judgment creditor to remove, as a cloud, conveyance of land by debtor; dissenting opinion in Ex parte Hardy, 68 Ala. 340, majority holding statute authorizing imprisonment for debt, unconstitutional, and discharg ing prisoner. See exhaustive note in 66 Am. St. Rep. 272.

Creditor's suits.- Property pledged or conveyed for payment of a debt, must be first applied, before equity will interpose to reach other property, p. 530.

Cited in Continental Nat. Bank v. Heilman, 81 Fed. 43, dismissing creditor's bill against debtor's heirs, where claim was not presented and security depreciated; Hughes v. Newton, 89 Fed. 215, 60 U. S. App. 605, refusing to subject decedent's land to payment of notes before foreclosure of mortgage securing them.

Creditor's suits.- Equity will not interpose to reach a debtor's property, unless the case can be brought under some recognized head of equity Jurisdiction, p. 530.

Cited with approval in Continental Nat. Bank v. Heilman, 81 Fed. 43, dismissing creditor's bill against debtor's heirs, where claim was not presented; Chewett v. Morgan, 17 Fed. 822, subjecting real estate in heir's hands to payment of ancestor's debts, notwithstanding claim was not presented; Bickford v. McComb, 88 Fed. 433, dismissing bill by creditor of corporation to reach assets in hands of distributee, after insolvency; Hughes v. Newton, 89 Fed. 215, 60 U. S. App. 605, refusing to subject decedent's land to payment of notes before foreclosure of mortgage securing them; Bedford Quarries Co. v. Thomlinson, 95 Fed. 211, dismissing bill to compel executors to pay contract debt of decedent, where legal remedy is adequate; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 80, refusing to charge decedent's lands in heir's hands, where claim was not regularly presented; Morton v. Grafflin, 68 Md. 562, 13 Atl. 346, dismissing bill where debt was not judicially established or legal remedy exhausted; French v. Stratton, 79 Mo. 562, dismissing bill to charge homestead where estate was insolvent; Landreth v. Schevenel, 102 Tenn. 494, 52 S. W. 149, refusing to set aside husband's conveyance, made after creditor's compromise with him.

Executors and administrators.- Equity will not interpose to reach a deceased debtor's property, after distribution, without some satisfactory excuse for the creditor's failure to regularly present his claim, p. 531.

Cited with approval in Morgan v. Hamlet, 113 U. S. 451, 28 L. 1044, 5 S. Ct. 584, refusing to entertain claims of infants, even under allegation of fraud; Continental Nat. Bank v. Heilman, 81 Fed. 43, applying rule, and dismissing creditor's bill; Chewett v. Morgan, 17 Fed. 822, subjecting land in heir's hands to payment of ancestor's debts, notwithstanding claim was not presented; Bickford v. McComb, 88 Fed. 433, dismissing bill by creditor of corporation, to reach assets in hands of distributee, after insolvency and delay; Bedford Quarries Co. v. Thomlinson, 95 Fed. 211, dismissing bill to compel executors to pay contract debt of decedent, where legal remedy is adequate; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 80, Pearce v. Calhoun, 59 Mo. 275, and Winter v. Winter, 101 Wis. 497, 77 N. W. 884, all applying rule, and dismissing creditor's bill.

Courts. In the United States, Probate Courts have nearly all the powers formerly exercised by chancery and ecclesiastical courts in England, with respect to personal assets of decedents, and can do everything necessary to final settlement of estates, p. 531.

Cited with approval in Bedford Quarries Co. v. Thomlinson, 95 Fed. 211, dismissing bill to compel executors to pay debt of decedent, where legal remedy is adequate; French v. Stratton, 79 Mo. 562, dismissing equity bill to charge homestead with decedent's debts, although estate is insolvent.

17 Wall. 586-589, 21 L. 670, KNODE v. WILLIAMSON.

Depositions taken under order of court, but after several adjournments, of which defendant had notice, and in his absence, are admissible, p. 588.

Witnesses.-Questions as to general "reputation" of a witness for truth is proper, because the common opinion is what is wanted to impeach him, p. 588.

Cited with approval in People v. Markham, 64 Cal. 163, 30 Pac. 623, applying rule, and convicting policeman for accepting bribe from Chinese. See note in 17 Am. Dec. 76.

Depositions. One attempting to use a deposition, must show that he has given his adversary an opportunity to cross-examine by a definite and certain notice, unless notice is waived, p. 589.

Depositions.- Notice of taking deposition, which does not state the year, and gives the place as "the city," instead of "the town," is insufficient, and renders deposition inadmissible where adversary was not present, p. 589.

17 Wall. 590-591, 21 L. 692, HARRELL v. BEALL.

Fraudulent conveyances.— Where an insolvent procured his land to be sold under judgment liens, and bought in by his clerk for Inadequate price, his assignee in bankruptcy can recover it from a subsequent purchaser, who might reasonably have discovered the fraud, p. 591.

Appeal and error.- Question being wholly one of weight of evidence, involving no controverted proposition of law, the court did not reproduce facts in its opinion, p. 591.

Cited with approval in Levis v. Kengla, 169 U. S. 237, 42 L. 730, 18 S. Ct. 311, applying rule and dismissing bill to redeem land fifteen years after mortgage sale; Bollman v. Bollman, 6 S. C. 43, applying rule and refusing to set aside arbitration award in partnership accounting.

17 Wall. 592-596, 21 L. 715, MANUFACTURING CO. v. UNITED STATES.

Contract. Where United States contracted for carbines, to be delivered within specified time, and then ordered some changes, which necessitated delay, it is implied that both parties consented to a reasonable extension, and the government is liable for a subsequent refusal to accept them, p. 595.

Cited with approval in United States v. Smith, 94 U. S. 217, 24 L. 115, holding United States liable for improper suspension of contractor's work on buildings; Texas, etc., R. R. v. Rust, 19 Fed. 245, applying rule in reducing damages against bridge contractors

Attachment.- An interest or trust in goods, by which a party is to participate in the profits, is sufficient to sustain attachment against him, p. 544.

Evidence.

In proving secret understanding as to ownership of goods, statements made by one party, in absence of other, which were afterwards assented to by latter, or which were part of res gestæ of purchase of goods, are competent evidence, p. 544.

Fraudulent conveyances.- Where business relation between parties is shown, and fraudulent transfer of goods is involved, it is error to instruct jury that it is immaterial as to ownership of goods, how one party acquired his means, or whether his exhibit of means was correct or not, p. 545.

17 Wall. 545-553, 21 L. 685, ELDRED v. BANK.

Appearance. Filing of plea is both an appearance and a defense, and its withdrawal does not withdraw defendant's appearance, p. 551.

Cited with approval in Habich v. Folger, 20 Wall. 8, 22 L. 308, collecting authorities, and holding appearance by authorized attorney equivalent to service of process on parties; Creighton v. Kerr, 20 Wall. 13, 22 L. 311, holding jurisdiction not lost by withdrawal of appearance by attorney without prejudice; Romaine v. Union Ins. Co., 28 Fed. 638, collecting authorities, and explaining practice on motion to vacate service as irregular; Platt v. Manning, 34 Fed. 818, holding appearance cures defect in service of summons; L'Engle v. Gates, 74 Fed. 515, enforcing judgment in attachment suit rendered after appearance of defendant; Kinkade v. Myers, 17 Or. 471, 21 Pac. 558, holding, where service of summons is defective, defendant may appear specially to set it aside.

Distinguished in Graham v. Spencer, 14 Fed. 606, 607, holding withdrawal of appearance of non-resident by attorney, leaves court without jurisdiction.

Pleadings. After withdrawal of his plea, defendant may demur, move to dismiss, or file a new plea, but he is not out of court, p. 551.

Approved in Creighton v. Kerr, 20 Wall. 13, 22 L. 311, holding jurisdiction not lost by withdrawal of appearance by attorney, "without prejudice."

Distinguished in Graham v. Spencer, 14 Fed. 606, 607, holding withdrawal of appearance of non-resident by attorney, leaves court without jurisdiction.

Judgments.- State decision on a note, where defendant had appeared by plea, although not served, is a bar to an action on same note in Federal courts, p. 552

U. S. 675, 26 L. 889, applying rule, in action on municipal bonds; Vance v. Vance, 108 U. S. 521, 27 L. 811, 2 S. Ct. 859, holding statute requiring recording of “tacit" mortgages, valid; In re Brown, 135 U. S. 705, 34 L. 317, 10 S. Ct. 985, holding new limitation for actions on State lands unreasonable and void; Sayles v. Richmond, etc., R. R., 3 Hughes, 174, F. C. 12,424, applying rule in construing limitation on suit for infringement of patent; Pereles v. Watertown. 6 Biss. 81, 82, F. C. 10,980, holding statute reducing time to sue on municipal bonds from twenty years to one, void; United States v. Campbell, 10 Fed. 822, holding surety on warehouse bond, not liable for error in amount of taxes, after expiration of limitation; Duke v. State, 56 Ark. 496, 20 S. W. 603, holding new statute does not extinguish accrued cause of action and foreclosing mortgage; Lawrence v. Louisville, 96 Ky. 599, 49 Am. St. Rep. 311, 29 S. W. 451, 27 L. R. A. 561, holding action against city barred by special statute of limitations; Louisville, etc., R. R. v. Williams, - Ky. —, 41 S. W. 287, holding statute, limiting actions against railroads to one year, repeals six months' provision in charter (S. C., reversed in Ky. 45 S. W. 230); Stern v. Bates, 9 N. Mex. 291, 50 Pac. 326, holding new statute of limitations, allowing one year for previouslyexisting causes, valid; Parmenter v. State, 135 N. Y. 168, 31 N. E. 1039, holding statute limiting time for presenting claims to a few months, unreasonable, and claim not barred; Strickland v. Draughan, 91 N. C. 104, dismissing petition for rehearing not brought within time prescribed by new rule. Cited, arguendo, in Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 652, 37 L. 318, 13 S. Ct. 469, Balkam v. Woodstock Iron Co., 154 U. S. 188, 38 L. 957, 14 S. Ct. 1014, and Groesbeck v. Barger, 1 Kan. App. 63, 41 Pac. 204. See valuable note in 50 Am. Dec. 391.

Limitation of actions.- Statute declaring generally that an action must be brought within a limited time after accruing, will not bar an action which accrued more than the limited time before the statute was passed, p. 599.

Approved in Friedman v. McGowan, 1 Pennewill, 443, 42 Atl. 725, applying rule in action for injuries inflicted by vicious dog; Browning v. Browning, 3 N. Mex. 471, 9 Pac. 684, applying rule in action on promissory note.

Limitation of actions.- Statutory limitation on time of bringing actions commences to run when cause of action is first subjected to operation of the statute, unless otherwise provided, p. 600.

Approved and rule applied in Pereles v. Watertown, 6 Biss. 81, 82, F. C. 10,980, holding statute reducing limitation on actions on municipal bonds from twenty years to one, void; United States v. Campbell, 10 Fed. 823, holding time commences from liquidation of import taxes, and action herein barred; Herring v. Modesto Irr. Dist., 95 Fed. 721, applying rule in action on bonds of irrigation