Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

INDEX.

ADMIRALTY.

1. When a vessel, libelled for smuggling and for violations of the Chinese Exclusion Act, is discharged on giving the bond required by law, it may be again libelled in another district for similar offences, alleged to have been committed prior to the offences charged in the first libel; but if both suits proceed to judgment, there can be but one forfeiture of the vessel. The Haytian Republic, 118.

2. On the 31st day of July, 1891, proceedings were commenced in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the voluntary dissolution of a Steam Tow Boat Company, a corporation organized under the laws of that State, and an order was made on that day restraining creditors from bringing action and requiring all to show cause, on the 16th day of November, 1891, before a referee, why the prayer of the petitioner should not be granted. An order was made at the same time for the appointment of a receiver, which required him to give bonds before entering on the duties of his office. On the 1st of August, 1891, in the forenoon of that day, these orders were entered and the papers filed in the office of the clerk of the court. On the afternoon of the same day, which was Saturday, and on Monday, August 3, libels in admiralty were filed in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York to enforce maritime liens against six of the vessels of said Tow Boat Company's fleet. On the 1st of August the marshals for the district seized and took into custody three of the six, and on the 3d of August did likewise with the other three. On the 4th of August the receiver filed his official bond, duly approved, and entered upon the discharge of his duties. On the same day he went to take possession of the six vessels and found them in the custody of the marshal. Thereupon, on his motion, process issued against the several libellants, to bring them before the Supreme Court of the State, where, after hearing, they were enjoined from taking any further proceedings on their libels. This judgment of the Supreme Court being affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and the judgment of the latter court being remitted to the Supreme Court and entered there as its judgment, the libellants sued out a writ of error to this court. Held, that the state court had no jurisdiction in personam over the libellants as holders of maritime

683

liens when the libels were filed; that the question of jurisdiction was,
as the case stood, one for the District Court to decide in the first
instance; that the District Court had jurisdiction; and that the judg
ment under review was in effect an unlawful interference with pro-
ceedings in that court. Moran v. Sturges, 256.

3. Though courts, for the purpose of protecting their jurisdiction over
persons and subject-matter, may enjoin parties who are amenable to
their process, and subject to their jurisdiction, from interference with
them in respect of property in their possession or identical contro-
versies therein pending, by subsequent proceedings as to the same
parties and subject-matter in other courts of concurrent jurisdiction;
and though, where property is in the actual possession of one court
of competent jurisdiction, such possession cannot be disturbed by
process out of another court; yet, upon the facts disclosed in this
record, the District Court was not required to stay its hand until the
termination of the proceedings in the state court, that court being
without jurisdiction as to maritime liens, and being incapable of dis-
placing them. Ib.

4. The District Court in a libel in admiralty for collision, having adjudged
both vessels to be in fault, and only one having appealed, the only
question here is as to the fault of the appealing vessel; and on the
evidence the court holds it to have been in fault. The Des Moines,
584.

5. On a question purely of fact the court finds the St. John in fault, and
decrees accordingly. The St. John, 586.

6. On the facts detailed in the opinion, the court holds that there was
no contributory negligence on the part of the libellant. The Adelia,
593.

7. On a review of the facts it is held that the Northfield was free from
fault and the decree below is affirmed. Hutchinson v. The Northfield,
629.

8. By the terms of a charter party to the United States, the owner of a
vessel undertook to keep her tight, staunch, strong and sound, and
her machinery, boilers and everything pertaining to her in perfect
working order, and to provide her with everything necessary for effi-
cient sea-service. The government undertook to deliver the vessel to
the owner in New York at the expiration of the charter party in as
good condition as she was at the signing of it, ordinary wear and tear,
damage by the elements, bursting of boilers, breaking of machinery
excepted. The vessel was injured and sunk by a marine risk assumed
by the charterer while engaged in the transportation of stores and
men in the waters of North Carolina. She was raised and taken to
New Berne, where she was temporarily repaired by the government;
but, being found out of order, was discharged at Port Royal by the
government, and taken to New York by the owner. Held, that by
reason of the failure of the owner to keep the vessel tight, staunch,

strong and sound, the government was relieved from its liability
to deliver the vessel to the owner in New York. Strong v. United
States, 632.

9. The findings of fact by the Circuit Court in an admiralty suit are con-
clusive upon this court. The Louisville, 657.

BANKRUPT.

1. The order of the Circuit Court in this case, directing an assignment to
the trustees in bankruptcy of the judgment against the oil company
on bills transferred by the bankrupt to the appellant, is affirmed.
First National Bank of Cincinnati v. Cook, 628.

2. A decree setting aside a conveyance by a bankrupt to his wife as
fraudulent is sustained; but it is also held that a personal decree
against her for rents, issues and profits, and for the use and occupa-
tion of the premises was error. Clark v. Beecher, 631.

3. On the facts it is held that the conveyance which is the subject of dis-
pute in this suit was fraudulent under the bankrupt laws. Woolfolk
v. Nisbet, 650.

4. Members of a limited partnership purchased and paid for the interest
of one of the members. Subsequently the remaining members became
bankrupt. Held, that the assignee in bankruptcy had no claim
against the outgoing partner as a debtor by reason of this transaction.
Wight v. Condict, 666.

CASES AFFIRMED OR FOLLOWED.

1. The judgment in this case is reversed on the authority of Covington &
Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204. Covington & Cin-
cinnati Railroad, Transfer & Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 224.

2. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, affirmed, fol-
lowed and applied to the facts in this case. Reagan v. Mercantile
Trust Co., 413.

3. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, followed. Reagan
v. Mercantile Trust Co., 418; Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,
420.

4. United States v. Philadelphia, 11 How. 609, followed. United States v.
Harrison, 531; Same v. Carrère, 532.

5. Woods v. Lawrence County, 1 Black, 386, affirmed and followed. Rich-
ardson v. Lawrence County, 536.

6. McGuire v. Massachusetts, 3 Wall. 387, followed. Hammond v. Massa-
chusetts, 550.

7. Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 573, followed. Churchill v. Utica, 550;
Williams v. Nolan, 551.

8. Brown v. Bass, 4 Wall. 262, followed. Brown v. Johnson, 551.

9. United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, followed. United States v. May-
rand, 552.

10. Green v. Van Buskirk, 5 Wall. 307, followed. Tillinghast v. Van Buskirk,
553; Same v. Same, 557.

11. A petition for a writ of mandamus is denied on the authority of
Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 6 Wall. 742. Ex parte Milwaukee &
Minnesota Railroad Co., 554.

12. Dismissed on the authority of Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, and
Georgia v. Grant, 6 Wall. 241. Mississippi v. Stanton and Grant, 554.

13. Gaines v. New Orleans, 6 Wall. 642, followed.
14. United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, followed.
555.

Gaines v. Lizardi, 555.

United States v. Cook,

15. Union Insurance Co. v. United States, 6 Wall. 759, followed. United
States v. Bales of Cotton, 556.

16. Williamson v. Suydam, 6 Wall. 723, followed.

557.

Williamson v. Moore,

17. Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229, followed. Dutton v. Palairet, 563.
18. United States v. Adams, 7 Wall. 463, followed. United States v. Mowry,
564; Same v. Morgan, 565; Same v. Burton, 566.

19. Ex parte Zellner, 9 Wall. 244, followed. Ex parte Pargoud, 567.
20. Railroad Co. v. Fremont County, 9 Wall. 89, followed. Burlington &
Missouri River Railroad Co. v. Mills County, 568.

21. Willard v. Presbury, 14 Wall. 676, followed. Willard v. Willard, 568.
22. Butz v. Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575, followed. United States v. Burlington,

568.

Flanders v. Tweed, 569.

23. Flanders v. Tweed, 9 Wall. 425, followed.
24. Supervisors v. Durant, 9 Wall. 415, followed. Supervisors v. Durant,
571; Washington County v. Mortimer, 571.

25. Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539, and City v. Lamson, 9 Wall.
477, followed. Kenosha v. Lamson, 573.

26. Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, followed. Long v. Patton, 573; Under-
hill v. Herndon, 574; Sturtevant v. Herndon, 575; Underhill v. Patton,
575.

27. United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56, followed. United States v.
Pollard, 577.

Riley v. Welles, 578.

28. Wolcott v. Des Moines Co., 5 Wall. 681, followed.
29. Ex parte Graham, 10 Wall. 541, followed. Ex parte Waples, 579.
30. Garnett v. United States, 11 Wall. 256, followed. Garnett v. United

States, 579.

31. Smith v. Stevens, 10 Wall. 321, followed.
32. United States v. Hodson, 10 Wall. 395,
Hodson, 580; Same v. Mynderse, 580.

Stevens v. De Aubrie, 580.
followed. United States v.

Cousin v. Generes, 581.
Ex parte Loud, 582.

33. Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537, followed.
34. Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236, followed.
35. Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 12, followed. Jacoway v. Denton, 583.
36. Pico v. United States, 2 Wall. 279, and Peralta v. United States, 3 Wall.

434, followed. Diaz v. United States, 590.

37. Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, followed. Norton v. Jamison, 591.

38. Oulton v. Savings Institution, 17 Wall. 109, followed. Oulton v. San
Francisco Savings Union, 591.

39. Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, followed. Humbird v. Jackson
County, 592.

40. Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454, followed. Charleston v. Jessup,
592.

41. State v. Stoll, 17 Wall. 425, followed. South Carolina ex rel. Robb v.
Gurney, 593.

42. Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 561, followed. Chicago & North-
western Railway Co. v. Fuller, 595.

43. The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92, followed. Kenner v. United States,
595; United States v. Six Lots, 596.

44. Habich v. Folger, 20 Wall. 1, followed. Priest v. Folger, 597.

45. Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339, and Day v. Micou, 18 Wall. 156, fol-
lowed. Brugere v. Slidell, 598.

46. Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. Clough, 21 Wall. 317, followed.
Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. Viles, 608.

47. Chambers County v. Clews, 21 Wall. 317, followed. Lee County v.
Clews, 609.

48. Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall. 44, followed. Schow v. Harriman,
609.

49. Cary v. San Francisco Savings Union, 22 Wall. 38, followed. Oulton v.
Savings & Loan Society, 615.

50. Barnes v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 294, and Stockdale v. Atlantic Ins.
Co., 20 Wall. 323, followed. Oulton v. California Insurance Co., 615.
51. Haycraft v. United States, 22 Wall. 81, followed. Lane v. United
States, 615.

52. Bailey v. Clark, 21 Wall. 284, followed. Bailey v. Work, 616.

53. Blake v. National Banks, 23 Wall. 307, followed. Blake v. Fourth
National Bank, 616.

54. Gregory v. McVeigh, 23 Wall. 294, followed.

617.

Windsor v. McVeigh,

55. Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, followed. Commercial Bank
v. Iola, 617.

56. Mining Co. v. Boggs, 3 Wall. 304, followed.
57. Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143, followed.
58. Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; Sanger

Crary v. Devlin, 619.
Atherton v. Fowler, 620.
v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56; and

Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65, followed. Herhold v. Upton, 624.
59. Affirmed upon the authority of Bigelow v. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339; Day v.
Micou, 18 Wall. 156; and Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92 U. S. 202.
Davies v. Slidell, 625.

60. Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, followed.

626.

Morrill v. Wisconsin,

61. Van Norden v. Benner, 131 U. S. App. cxlv, followed. Van Norden v.

Washburn, 627.

62. Ray v. Norseworthy, 23 Wall. 128, followed. Haynes v. Pickett, 627.

« AnteriorContinuar »