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, 3. Though courts, for the purpose of protecting their jurisdiction over 4. The District Court in a libel in admiralty for collision, having adjudged 5. On a question purely of fact the court finds the St. John in fault, and 6. On the facts detailed in the opinion, the court holds that there was 7. On a review of the facts it is held that the Northfield was free from 8. By the terms of a charter party to the United States, the owner of a strong and sound, the government was relieved from its liability 9. The findings of fact by the Circuit Court in an admiralty suit are con- BANKRUPT. 1. The order of the Circuit Court in this case, directing an assignment to 2. A decree setting aside a conveyance by a bankrupt to his wife as 3. On the facts it is held that the conveyance which is the subject of dis- 4. Members of a limited partnership purchased and paid for the interest CASES AFFIRMED OR FOLLOWED. 1. The judgment in this case is reversed on the authority of Covington & 2. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, affirmed, fol- 3. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, followed. Reagan 4. United States v. Philadelphia, 11 How. 609, followed. United States v. 5. Woods v. Lawrence County, 1 Black, 386, affirmed and followed. Rich- 6. McGuire v. Massachusetts, 3 Wall. 387, followed. Hammond v. Massa- 7. Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 573, followed. Churchill v. Utica, 550; 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- 10. Green v. Van Buskirk, 5 Wall. 307, followed. Tillinghast v. Van Buskirk, 11. A petition for a writ of mandamus is denied on the authority of 12. Dismissed on the authority of Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, and 13. Gaines v. New Orleans, 6 Wall. 642, followed. Gaines v. Lizardi, 555. United States v. Cook, 15. Union Insurance Co. v. United States, 6 Wall. 759, followed. United 16. Williamson v. Suydam, 6 Wall. 723, followed. 557. Williamson v. Moore, 17. Bronson v. Rodes, 7 Wall. 229, followed. Dutton v. Palairet, 563. 19. Ex parte Zellner, 9 Wall. 244, followed. Ex parte Pargoud, 567. 21. Willard v. Presbury, 14 Wall. 676, followed. Willard v. Willard, 568. 568. Flanders v. Tweed, 569. 23. Flanders v. Tweed, 9 Wall. 425, followed. 25. Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539, and City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 26. Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, followed. Long v. Patton, 573; Under- 27. United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56, followed. United States v. Riley v. Welles, 578. 28. Wolcott v. Des Moines Co., 5 Wall. 681, followed. States, 579. 31. Smith v. Stevens, 10 Wall. 321, followed. Stevens v. De Aubrie, 580. Cousin v. Generes, 581. 33. Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537, followed. 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 39. Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, followed. Humbird v. Jackson 40. Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454, followed. Charleston v. Jessup, 41. State v. Stoll, 17 Wall. 425, followed. South Carolina ex rel. Robb v. 42. Railroad Co. v. Fuller, 17 Wall. 561, followed. Chicago & North- 43. The Confiscation Cases, 20 Wall. 92, followed. Kenner v. United States, 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- 46. Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. Clough, 21 Wall. 317, followed. 47. Chambers County v. Clews, 21 Wall. 317, followed. Lee County v. 48. Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall. 44, followed. Schow v. Harriman, 49. Cary v. San Francisco Savings Union, 22 Wall. 38, followed. Oulton v. 50. Barnes v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 294, and Stockdale v. Atlantic Ins. 52. Bailey v. Clark, 21 Wall. 284, followed. Bailey v. Work, 616. 53. Blake v. National Banks, 23 Wall. 307, followed. Blake v. Fourth 54. Gregory v. McVeigh, 23 Wall. 294, followed. 617. Windsor v. McVeigh, 55. Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, followed. Commercial Bank 56. Mining Co. v. Boggs, 3 Wall. 304, followed. Crary v. Devlin, 619. Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65, followed. Herhold v. Upton, 624. 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. |