Fed. 755, refusing to allow resident of same State as defendant to intervene as plaintiff in Federal court; Northern, etc., Co. v. Binninger, 70 Ill. 573, holding that to entitle corporation to remove cause, petition must show all corporators to be non-residents; Gordon v. Green, 113 Mass. 261, refusing petition where some of defendants failed to join; Crane v. Reeder, 30 Mich. 460, refusing to allow removal at instance of defendant, long after appearance and plea to merits; Horne v. Boston, etc., R. R., 62 N. H. 455, holding corporation, chartered by three States, is citizen of each, and cannot remove suit brought by citizen of one: Upton v. New Jersey, etc., R. R., 25 N. J. Eq. 374, holding rule not affected by death, of defendant after suit instituted; Kennedy v. Ehlen, 31 W. Va. 558, 8 8. E. 408, refusing to remove suit at instance of plaintiff, where some of defendants resident in same State. Cited, arguendo, in Fisk v. Hendrie, 13 Sawy. 45, 49, 32 Fed. 422, 425, Galpin v. Critchlow, 112 Mass. 343, and Du Vivier v. Hopkins, 116 Mass. 128. And see note in 3 Dill. 356, F. C. 8,802.

Denied in Whelan v. New York, etc., R. R., 35 Fed. 853. 858, 860. 1 L. R. A. 68, 71, 72, and n.. declaring act to have been repealed by act of 1887. Distinguished in Osgood v. Chicago, etc., R. R.. 6 Biss. 336, F. C. 10,604, and Burnham v. Chicago R. R., 4 Dill. 506. F. C. 2,174, under statute.

Miscellaneous. Cited also in Hollingsworth v. Parish of Tensas. 1' Fed. 112, but apparently erroneous; Clark v. Delaware, etc.. Canal Co., 11 R. I. 37, but application not apparent.

13 Wall. 588, 21 L. 758, MOORE v. ROBBINS.

Appeal and error.- Decree of State Supreme Court, remanding cause for further proceedings, is not final decree to which writ of error will lie, p. 588.

The following citing cases apply this rule to a similar state of facts: St. Clair Co. v. Lovingston, 18 Wall. 628, 21 L. 813, Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 654, 22 L. 410, McComb v. Commissioners of Knox Co., 91 U. S. 2, 23 L. 185, Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 4, 27 L. 74, 1 S. Ct. 16, and Great Western Tel. Co. v. Burnham, 162 U. S. 342, 40 L. 993, 16 S. Ct. 851. Cited and principle applied in International Bank v. Jenkins, 109 Ill. 224, holding decree as to one party is not appealable until final disposition as to all; Morehead v. International R. R., 46 Tex. 182, holding order arresting judgment and granting new trial, is not final. See also note in 91 Am. Dec. 197.

18 Wall. 589-598, 21 L. 923, BULLARD v. BANK.

Banks and banking.- National bank, organized under act of 1864, cannot acquire lien on its own stock held by its debtors, pp. 595-597.

Cited and followed in Second Nat. Bank v. National State Bank, 10 Bush, 375, a similar case; Hagar v. Union Nat. Bank, 63 Me. 512, denying right of bank to hold cash dividend to satisfy shareholder's debt; Delaware, etc., R. R. v. Oxford Iron Co., 38 N. J. Eq. 345, and Feckheimer v. National, etc., Bank, 79 Va. 83, 85, both holding assignee in bankruptcy may compel transfer of shares; Goodbar v. City Nat. Bank, 78 Tex. 475, 14 S. W. 855, holding attachment of stock will hold it as against bank. Cited, arguendo, in Continental Nat. Bank v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 7 Fed. 376, and Richardson v. Wallace, 39 S. C. 224, 17 S. E. 727, and dissenting opinion, 8. C., 39 S. C. 235, 236, 17 S. E. 731, 732.

Distinguished in Masury v. Arkansas Nat. Bank, 87 Fed. 385, under facts; Bohmer v. City Bank, 77 Va. 448, as to State banks whose charter gave priority of lien.

Statutes. An implication from general expressions in statute, is is admissible if it contradicts either the letter or spirit of the statute, p. 596.

Cited and relied upon in Knickerbocker v. Wilcox, 83 Mich. 207, 21 Am. St. Rep. 599, 47 N. W. 124, denying authority of national bank to enter into contract of suretyship; Whitney v. First Nat. Bank, 50 Vt. 400, 28 Am. Rep. 510, denying power of national banks to receive special deposits.

Banks and banking.- By-law, giving bank lien on its stock, is not regulation "of its business and the conduct of its affairs," within national banking act of 1864, p. 596.

V.

Cited and followed in Anglo-Cal. Bank v. Grangers' Bank, 63 Cal. 364, holding rule applicable to State banks; Nicollet Nat. Bank v. City Bank, 38 Minn. 88, 8 Am. St. Rep. 645, 35 N. W. 579, holding similar State statute rendered nugatory such by-law of State bank; Bank of Atchison v. Durfee, 118 Mo. 444, 40 Am. St. Rep. 402, 24 S. W. 136, and Brinkerhoff-Farris, etc., Co. Home Lumber Co., 118 Mo. 460, 24 S. W. 132, both holding bona fide purchaser of stock, not affected by by-law creating lien, if he had no notice thereof; Carroll v. Mullanphy Sav. Bank, 8 Mo. App. Cited in 252, holding bank cannot restrict right to transfer stock. discussion obiter in In re Peebles, 2 Hughes, 398, 399, F. C. 10,902, New Orleans Banking Assn. v. Wiltz, 4 Woods, 47, 10 Fed. 333, and Driscoll v. West Bradley, etc., Co., 59 N. Y. 108. See also notes in 11 Am. Dec. 581, 85 Am. Dec. 619, 37 Am. Rep. 356, and 43 Am. St. Rep. 156.

18 Wall. 598-604, 21 L. 856, THE FAVORITA.

Collision. Rules of navigation must vary according to the exigencies of business and the wants of the public, p. 601.

Collision. Where one vessel is placed in peril by another, entirely at fault, blame is not imputable to former if master commit error of judgment in trying to avoid collision, p. 603.

Cited and followed in The City of New York, 15 Fed. 629, and The State of Alabama, 17 Fed. 864, both holding change of course by sailing vessel did not shift burden from steamer to show fault; The Nereus, 23 Fed. 458, holding liability cannot be increased by error committed while collision imminent; The E. A. Packer, 49 Fed. 99, holding tug not liable for failure to reverse rather than change her course; The Steam Tug Luckenbach, 50 Fed. 132, 8 U. S. App. 9, holding burden on tug, running at excessive speed, to establish fault in other vessel; The George L. Garlick, 91 Fed. 927, holding signalling vessel failing to observe signal given by herself, is alone liable. Cited, arguendo, in dissenting opinion in The Britannia, 153 U. S. 154, 38 L. 669, 14 S. Ct. 804.

Collision. Ocean steamer, running at rate of eight or ten miles an hour, in East river, across mouths of ferry slips, condemned for collision with emerging ferry-boat, p. 603.

Under similar facts, the following cases cite and apply this ruling: The Breakwater, 155 U. S. 262, 39 L. 143, 15 8. Ct. 102, McFarland v. Selby, etc., Co., 9 Sawy. 58, 59, 17 Fed. 256. 257, and The Monticello, 15 Fed. 476. Cited, arguendo, in The Steamer J. W. Everman, 2 Hughes, 19, F. C. 7,591.

Shipping. Demurrage allowed ferry-boat owners while boat being repaired, although they had spare boat which ran during that time, p. 603.

Cited and relied upon in New Haven Steamboat Co. v. The Mayor, 36 Fed. 718, where facts were similar; The Emma Kate Ross, 50 Fed. 847, 8 U. S. App. 171, affirming S. C., 46 Fed. 874, holding similar rule applicable wherever substitution made; by way of analogy in The Mary Steele, 2 Low. 372, F. C. 9.226, allowing fishing-boat, accustomed to make weekly trips, damages for loss of profits. Clted, arguendo, in The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 129, 41 L. 946, 17 S. Ct. 517.

18 Wall. 604-622, 21 L. 947, ESPY v. BANK OF CINCINNATI.

Banks and banking. Money paid by mistake, ou raised or altered check, neither party being at fault, may be recovered back, p. 615.

The following citing cases are on all fours with the principal case on this point: Marine Nat. Bank v. National City Bank, 59 N. Y. 78, 17 Am. Rep. 312, and City Bank v. National Bank, 45 Tex. 218, 220. Principle applied in Leather, etc., Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 128 U. S. 35, 32 L. 344, 9 S. Ct. 4, ruling similarly where check paid on forged indorsement of payer's name; Third Nat. Bank v. Allen, 59 Mo. 314, allowing recovery of money paid on forged check. See also note in 17 Am. St. Rep. 899.

Erroneously distinguished in Rapp v. National Bank, 136 Pa. St. 438, 20 Atl. 510, where raised check was received as cash deposit.

Distinguished in Deposit Bank v. Fayette Nat. Bank, 90 Ky. 20, 21, 18 S. W. 840, 341, 7 L. R. A. 851, where drawer's name forged.

Banks and banking. Where money has been paid on a raised check, if either party has been guilty of negligence whereby the other has been injured, he must bear loss, p. 615.

Cited and applied in First Nat. Bank v. State Bank, 22 Neb. 774, 8 Am. St. Rep. 298, 36 N. W. 292, holding bank paying forged check is liable therefor. And see note in 17 Am. St. Rep. 896.

Banks and banking.— Where holder of raised check sends it to drawee bank for information, latter is bound by reply as to genuineness of signature and state of account, pp. 618, 619.

Banks and banking.- Response of bank officer that check is good, in absence of contrary intention, applies only to genuineness of signature and state of account, p. 619.

Cited and followed in Clews v. Bank of New York, 89 N. Y. 422, 424, 42 Am. Rep. 304, 306, under similar facts; German Sav. Bank v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 101 Iowa, 545, 63 Am. St. Rep. 408, 70 N. W. 773, holding bank may recover money paid to person whose name is forged on check as payee; by way of analogy in White v. Continental Nat. Bank, 64 N. Y. 320, 21 Am. Rep. 614, holding, by accepting bill of exchange, drawer does not warrant holder's title. See notes in 39 Am. Dec. 523, 524, and 89 Am. Dec. 443.

Banks and banking.- Quære, whether indorsement of word "good," on raised check, by bank officer, would estop bank from suit to recover amount paid, pp. 619, 620.

Distinguished in Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Citizens' Bank, 28 La. Ann. 191, 192, 26 Am. Rep. 95, 96, holding, in such case, bank cannot recover.

Banks and banking.— Bills of exchange and checks differ, in that latter are always drawn on funds on deposit, and indorsement as good, implies possession of funds, p. 620.

Cited and applied in Garrettson v. North Atchison Bank, 39 Fed. 166, 7 L. R. A. 430, holding bank bound to person receiving check for valuable consideration; Born v. First Nat. Bank, 123 Ind. 80, 18 Am. St. Rep. 313, 24 N. E. 173, 7 L. R. A. 443, and n., holding drawer is released by certification; Kahn v. Walton, 46 Ohio St. 207, 20 N. E. 209, holding mere reply that drawer's credit is good to certain amount, does not bind bank to cash any checks which drawer may revoke. And see note in 26 Am. Rep. 96. Cited obiter in First Nat. Bank v. Whitman, 94 U. S. 345, 24 L. 231, and Famous Shoe, etc., Co. v. Crosswhite, 51 Mo. App. 61.

Banks and banking.- Where check is certified with intent to give it credit for negotiation, bank is liable thereon to third persons; aliter where such certification is only for satisfaction of person taking it, p. 621.

Banks and banking.- Verbal reply that check is good, to person about to receive it, extends only to matters of which officer is presumed to have information, unless question was clearly directed to other matters, pp. 621, 622.

Cited and followed in Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Sells, 3 Mo. App. 95, holding bank paying draft on erroneous identification, cannot recover from person identifying; Bank of Springfield v. First Nat. Bank, 30 Mo. App. 276, holding such statement does not bind bank to pay at any time thereafter. See also note, 44 Am. Dec. 254.

18 Wall. 623-626, 21 L 859, GRANT v. STRONG.

Mechanics' liens.- When mechanic's lien has attached, mere taking of negotiable note as security, does not operate as release, p. 624.

Rule followed in Pope v. Graham, 44 Tex. 199. See also note in 41 Am. St. Rep. 762.

Liens. Whether lien is obtained, or is displaced when it once attaches, is largely matter of intention, determinable from acts and surrounding circumstances, p. 624.

Cited and relied upon in McMurray v. Brown, 91 U. S. 266, 23 L. 324, and Central Trust Co. v. Richmond, etc., R. R., 68 Fed. 94, 31 U. S. App. 675, both holding lien not waived where contract, which would so operate, not carried out; Howe v. Kindred, 42 Minn. 436, 44 N. W. 313, holding lien not waived by mere acceptance of collateral.

Mechanic's lien does not attach where builder takes real security which, upon completion of work, he surrenders for mere note, pp. 625, 626.

Cited and followed in Ohio Falls Car Co. v. Central Trust Co., 71 Fed. 921, 37 U. S. App. 523, holding lien for supplies, waived by acceptance of note; Willison v. Douglas, 66 Md. 102, 6 Atl. 532, holding right to lien waived by acceptance of mortgage; Manufacturing Co. v. Weatherly, 101 Tenn. 324, 47 S. W. 433, holding agreement to give credit beyond life of mere lien, waives lien. Cited incidentally in Stearns v. Lawrence, 83 Fed. 745, 54 U. S. App. 546; arguendo, in Jones v. Great Southern, etc., Hotel Co., 86 Fed. 383.

18 Wall. 626-628, 21 L. 938. DAVENPORT v. DOWS.

Corporations.- Stockholder, suing in case corporation refuses to do so, must make corporation party, p. 627.

Cited and relied upon in Swan Land, etc., Co. v. Frank, 148 U. S. 611, 37 L. 580, 13 S. Ct. 694, holding corporation indispensable party to suit against portion of stockholders, by party holding unliquidated claim for damages; Forbes v. Gracey, 9 Fed. Cas. 402, suit to enjoin collection of illegal taxes; First Nat. Bank v. Smith.