APPENDIX.

I.

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF BUSINESS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR OCTOBER TERM, 1899.

Original Docket.

Number of cases,

Number of cases disposed of,

Leaving undisposed of,

Appellate Docket.

Number of cases on appellate Docket at close of October

Term, 1898,

Number of cases docketed at October Term, 1899,

Total,

Number of cases disposed of at October Term, 1899, .
Number of cases remaining undisposed of, showing a

reduction of one case,

18

4

14

304

370

674

371

303

II.

AMENDMENT TO RULES.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OCTOBER TERM, 1899.

Ordered, That an amendment be made of Rule 31 of this court, to take effect at the commencement of October Term, 1900, so that the Rule as amended shall read as follows:

617

31.

FORM OF PRINTED RECORDS AND BRIEFS.

All records, arguments and briefs, printed for the use of the court, must be in such form and size that they can be conveniently bound together, so as to make an ordinary octavo volume; and, as well as all quotations contained therein, and the covers thereof, must be printed in clear type (never smaller than small pica) and on unglazed paper.

(Promulgated May 14, 1900.)

INDEX.

ADMIRALTY.

Where this court in a collision case directed a decree dividing the damages as between the two vessels, and allowing to the owners of the cargo of one vessel a full recovery against the other vessel; and the court below, upon the production of the mandate of this court, refused to permit the latter vessel to recoup against the other one half the damages to the cargo, it was held that the remedy was by a new appeal and not by mandamus from this court, no disobedience of the mandate being shown. The Union Steamboat Co., 317.

APPEAL.

See ADMIRALTY.

ATTACHMENT.

See NATIONAL BANK, 5.

BANKRUPTCY.

1. The provisions of the second clause of section 23 of the Bankrupt Act of 1898 control and limit the jurisdiction of all courts, including the several District Courts of the United States, over suits brought by trustees in bankruptcy to recover or collect debts due from third parties, or to set aside transfers of property to third parties, alleged to be fraudulent as against creditors, including payments in money or property to preferred creditors. Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, 524.

2. The District Court of the United States can, by the proposed defendant's consent, but not otherwise, entertain jurisdiction over suits brought by trustees in bankruptcy to set aside fraudulent transfers of money or property, made by the bankrupt to third parties before the institution of the proceedings in bankruptcy. Ib.

3. A District Court of the United States has no jurisdiction, without the proposed defendant's consent, to entertain an action of replevin by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover goods conveyed to the defendant by the bankrupt in fraud of the Bankrupt Act and of his creditors. Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 524, followed. Mitchell v. McClure, 539. 4. A District Court of the United States has jurisdiction, by the proposed defendant's consent, but not otherwise, to entertain a bill in equity by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover property conveyed to the defendant by the bankrupt in fraud of the Bankrupt Act and of his creditors. Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, ante, 524, followed. Hicks v. Knost, 541.

5. After an adjudication in bankruptcy, an action of replevin in a state
court cannot be commenced and maintained against the bankrupt to
recover property in the possession of and claimed by the bankrupt at
the time of that adjudication, and in the possession of a referee in
bankruptcy at the time when the action of replevin is begun; and the
District Court of the United States, sitting in bankruptcy, has jurisdic-
tion by summary proceedings to compel the return of the property
seized. White v. Schloerb, 542.

CALIFORNIA WATER RATES.

1. The appropriation and disposition of water in California is a public use,
and the right to collect tolls or compensation for it is a franchise, sub-
ject to regulation and control in the manner prescribed by law, and
such tolls cannot be fixed by the contract of the parties. Osborne v.
San Diego Land and Town Company, 22.

2. It is not for the court to go into the reasonableness of the established
rates, which are sought to be enforced in this case, but if the consum-
ers are dissatisfied with them, resort must first be had to the body des-
ignated by law to fix proper rates, the board of supervisors of the
county. Ib.

CASES AFFIRMED OR FOLLOWED.

1. The judgment in High v. Coyne, ante, 111, is followed in this case.
Fidelity Insurance Co. v. McClain, 113.

2. Knowlton v. Moore, ante, 41, followed in this case as to the points there
decided. Murdock v. Ward, 139.

3. Plummer v. Coler, ante, 115, affirmed and followed in this case. Ib.
4. Knowlton v. Moore, ante, 41, and Murdock v. Ward, ante, 139, followed.
Sherman v. United States, 150.

Taylor and Marshall v.

5. It results from the conclusions announced in No. 603, ante, 548, that the
writ of error in this case must be dismissed.
Beckham (No. 2), 548.

See BANKRUPTCY, 3, 4;

CONTRACT, 6, 7, 8;

INHERITANCE TAX, 6.

COAL MINE.

1. The act of Congress of March 3, 1891, concerning coal mines, makes three
requirements: (1) Ventilation of not less than fifty-five feet of pure air
per second, or 3300 cubic feet per minute for every fifty men at work,
and in like proportions for a greater number; (2) proper appliances and
machinery to force the air through the mine to the face of working
places; (3) keeping all workings free from standing gas; and if either
of these three requirements was neglected, to the injury of the plaintiff's
intestates, the defendant was liable. Deserant v. Cerillos Coal Rail-
road Co., 409.

2. The act does not give to mine owners the privilege of reasoning on the
sufficiency of appliances for ventilation, or leave to their judgment the
amount of ventilation that is suflicient for the protection of miners. Ib.

3. It does not allow standing gas, but requires the mine to be kept clear of
it, and if this is not done the consequence of neglecting it cannot be
excused because some workman may disregard instructions. Ib.

4. It is the master's duty to furnish safe appliances and safe working places,
and if the neglect of this duty concurs with that of the negligence of a
fellow-servant, the master is liable. Ib.

5. On the issues made, and on the evidence, and regarding the provisions
of the act of Congress, the instructions given by the trial court to the
jury were erroneous.

Ib.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

1. It is a doctrine firmly established that the law of a State in which land
is situated controls and governs its transmission by will or its passage
in case of intestacy. Clarke v. Clarke, 186.

2. The courts of a State where real estate is situated have the exclusive
right to appoint a guardian of a non-resident minor, and vest in such
guardian the exclusive control and management of land belonging to
said minor, situated within the State.

Ib.

3. When a suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or con-
troversy as to the effect or construction of the Constitution or laws of
the United States, upon the determination of which the result depends,
it is not a suit under the Constitution and laws; and it must appear
on the record, by a statement in legal and logical form, such as is re-
quired in good pleading, that the suit is one which does really and
substantially involve a dispute or controversy as to a right which
depends on the construction of the Constitution, or some law or treaty
of the United States, before jurisdiction can be maintained on this
ground. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Ann Arbor Railroad Co., 239.
4. Bills were filed in Tennessee by the American National Bank and others
against the Carnegie Land Company, a Virginia corporation, doing
business in Tennessee under the provisions of the act which was under
review in Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239; 176 U. S. 59; and also against
various creditors of that company. The prayer of the bill was that
it might be taken as a general creditors' bill; and it was alleged that
the company was insolvent, having a large amount of property in the
State, which it had assigned for the benefit of its creditors, without
preferences, which was in disregard of the statute of the State, that a
receiver should be appointed, the assets marshaled and the creditors
paid according to law. The company answered denying that it was
insolvent, and claimed that the assignment should be held valid, and
the trust administered by the assignees. During the pendency of the
suit, Sully and Carhart, New York creditors, filed a bill, setting up
that nearly all the assets, if not all of them in the hands of the assignee
of the company, and sought to be impounded by the bill filed by the
bank, were covered and conveyed to Sully, as trustee, and that Carhart
was entitled to priority over all other creditors of the defendant in the
appropriation of the assets covered by the deed of trust to Sully.
They asked for leave to file that bill as a general bill against the land
company, or, if that could not be done, that they might file it in the