elements of a judgment. That it has the character and attributes of a judgment, and is equally conclusive, the authorities are entirely uniform. [Authorities cited.] The Acorn, 2 Abb. U. S. 444.

17. (Dec., 1874.) In this district, if there is a stay of proceedings against one of several joint defendants, pending action upon his discharge in bankruptcy, the case cannot proceed against his co-defendants unless the plaintiff chooses to enter a nolle prosequi as to him. Hinman v. Cutler, 2 Lowell, 364.

18. A qualified judgment cannot be entered against one of several joint defendants, which leaves the liability of his codefendants undetermined. Ib.

Mandamus.

1. (Dec., 1872.) Mandamus from the different courts will not lie, by an assignee in bankruptcy, representing sundry bankrupts, against the auditor of a state, to recover from the state taxes long before paid into the state treasury, upon the ground that the legislature had by law directed them to be refunded to the parties who had paid the same, or to their representatives. Such a mandamus is not ancillary to a jurisdiction already acquired, but is in effect an original proceeding. Graham v. Norton, 15 Wall. 427.

New Trial.

1. (Jan., 1836.) Although a venire de novo is frequently awarded by a court of error upon a bill of exceptions, to enable parties to amend, and though amendments may, in the sound discretion of the court, upon a new trial, be permitted, the venire de novo is, in no instance, anything more than an order for a new trial in a cause in which the verdict or judgment is erroneous in matter of law; and is never "equivalent to a new suit." No statute of the United States alters the law in this regard. United States v. Hawkins, 10 Pet. 125.

2. (Feb., 1832.) In a civil action brought to recover a pecuniary penalty, the court has full power to grant a new trial, although the verdict was in favor of the defendant. United States v. Halberstadt, Gilp. 262.

Oyer.

1. (May, 1812.) Oyer of a bond does not include oyer of its condition; nor e converso. If oyer is wanted, it must be prayed of each. United States v. Sawyer, 1 Gall. 86.

2. If the defendant, on oyer, does not set out the whole of the bond, the plaintiff may relieve himself by praying it to be enrolled. Ib.

1. (Feb., 1817.) Nature of the process of sequestration, in the practice of the civil law. Laidlaw v. Organ, 2 Wheat. 179,

note a.

2. (Feb., 1823.) Collusive captures and violations of the revenue laws, committed by a private armed vessel, are a breach of the condition of the bond given by the owners, under the Prize Act of June 26, 1812, c. 430, s. 3. If such breach appear upon a demurrer, the defendants are not entitled to a hearing in equity, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20, s. 26. Greeley v. United States, 8 Wheat. 257.

3. (Jan., 1833.) All the proceedings in a case are supposed to be within the control of the court while they are in paper, and before a jury is sworn, or judgment given. Orders made may be revised, and such as, in the judgment of the court, may have been irregular or improperly made, may be set aside. Breedlove v. Nicolet, 7 Pet. 414.

4. (Jan., 1833.) It is not essential that any court, in establishing or changing its practice, should do so by the adoption of written rules. Its practice may be established by a uniform mode of proceeding for a series of years, and this forms the law of the court. In this case it appears that the Louisiana law, which regulated the practice of the District Court of Louisiana, has not only been repealed, but the record shows that in the year 1830, when the decision was given in this case, there was no such practice of the court, as was adopted by the act of Congress of 26 May, 1824. The court refused the statement of facts to go to the jury for a special finding, because they say "such was contrary to the practice of the court." Duncan v. United States, 7 Pet. 436.

5. By the COURT: On a question of practice, it would seem that the decision of the District Court, as to what the practice is, should be conclusive. The practice of the court cannot be better known and established than by its own solemn adjudications on the subject. Ib.

6. (Oct., 1873.) Where the purpose of testimony is to impeach a witness for want of veracity, it is not improper to ask the person on the stand, what is the general "reputation" for truth of the witness sought to be impeached. It is even more proper than to ask what is his general "character" for truth; though the question is sometimes asked in the latter form; the word "character" being then used as synonymous with "reputation." Knode v. Williamson, 17 Wall. 587.

7. (May, 1814.) The marshal may have an attachment, to enforce the payment of his fees of office, against suitors in the court. Anonymous, 2 Gall. 101.

8. So against an indorser on the writ, who by the lex loci is liable to respond the costs. Ib.

9. (April, 1872.) If a third person intervenes for the purpose of setting up some charge or lien upon the property and not of resisting the confiscation, collateral proceedings may be taken suitable to the nature of the case. The Confiscation Cases, 1 Woods, 221.

10. (April, 1872.) The correspondence between a district attorney representing the United States, and the Attorney-General, is confidential in its nature, and cannot be cited by third persons. United States v. Six Lots of Ground, 1 Woods, 234.

11. A District Court of the United States cannot, three years after rendering a decree in a confiscation case, sit as a court of error upon its own decree and reverse it. Ib.

12. (Feb., 1869.) It is not necessary, in order to establish that a particular mode of proceeding has been adopted by a United States court, that there should be found a written rule. declaring such adoption. The practice of a court may be established without the existence of a positive written rule. United States v. Stevenson, 1 Abb. U. S. 495.

Production of Books and Papers.

1. (Jan., 1881.) What is sufficient length of notice to produce an original paper, to admit evidence of its contents. United States v. Duff, 19 Blatchf. 9.

2. Notice to produce a letter covers the envelope of the letter. Ib.

3. (Nov., 1875.) Proceedings against distillery. The court had the power to make the order requiring the production of the books and papers, and to enforce it. United States v. Distillery, 6 Biss. 483.

4. (June, 1870.) Where a summons for the production of books has been issued by the supervisor of internal revenue [act of July 20, 1868, sec. 49, 15 Stat. 144], and such summons has been duly executed, but not complied with, a United States district judge may, upon application and proof of these facts, issue a writ of attachment. Stanwood v. Green, 2 Abb. U. S.

185.

5. (Feb., 1879.) As the matter of the production of books and papers is expressly regulated by act of Congress, it is not a matter in which, by sec. 914 of the Revised Statutes, the practice of state courts, which is broader and allows this relief before issue joined, is adopted. United States v. Hutton, 10 Ben.` 269.

6. (May, 1832.) A proceeding in rem is not within the provisions of the act of Sept. 24, 1789, which authorizes an order to produce books and writings on the trial of actions at law. United States v. 28 Packages of Pins, Gilp. 306.

7. The affidavit of a party interested, taken without crossexamination, is competent evidence on a motion for an order on the opposite party, to produce books and writings, under the provisions of the act of Sept. 24, 1789. Ib.

8. (Feb., 1840.) The counsel for the plaintiffs in a suit for a forfeiture having notified the claimants to produce a certain invoice, the latter declined so doing until the former would say whether they would take the invoice with or without a letter which was written on the same sheet, and offered it to the plaintiffs in either way they chose. The plaintiffs declined making a choice without first seeing the letter, and the court ordered

that the invoice should be produced, but that the letter should not be included in that order. United States v. 25 Cases of

Cloths, &c., Crabbe, 356.

Res Judicata.

1. (Jan., 1842.) If the contract be joint and several, and the defendants sever in their pleas, whatever may have been the doubts and conflicting opinions of former times as to the effect of a nolle prosequi in such a case, it has never been held that a simple discontinuance of a suit amounts to a retraxit; or that it in any manner worked a bar to the repetition of the plaintiff's action. Amis v. Smith, 16 Pet. 303.

2. (Oct., 1874.) In a case where a decree is thus authorized, [under the thirty-ninth section of the Bankrupt Act], in other words, where jurisdiction exists in the District Court of the United States, to decree a person a bankrupt, and the person has been decreed a bankrupt accordingly, a party against whom the assignee in bankruptcy brings suit in another court, not appellate, to recover assets of the bankrupt's estate, cannot show that payments made on account, had reduced the petitioning creditor's debt so low as that the bankrupt did not owe as much as the petitioning creditor in his petition alleged. The finding of the District Court of the existence of a debt to the amount of $250, due from the party proceeded against, to the petitioning creditor, is conclusive, in a collateral action, of the fact that a debt of that amount was due. Sloan v. Lewis, 22 Wall. 150.

3. (Oct., 1876.) A sentence of a court, pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal. Windsor v. Me Veigh, 3 Otto, 274.

4. The doctrine, that where a court has acquired jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which arises in the cause, and its judgment, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is only correct when the court proceeds, after acquiring jurisdiction of the cause, according to the established modes governing the class to which the case belongs, and does not transcend, in the extent or character of its judgment, the law which is applicable to it. Ib.