2. Who may be heard on appeal.

An appellee, who has not himself appealed, cannot be heard in this court
to assail the judgment below. Southern Pine Co. v. Ward, 126.

3. Record; docketing of.

Although the record was not docketed until more than thirty days after
the appeal was allowed, as it was accomplished soon afterwards and
meanwhile no motion was made to docket and dismiss under Rule 9,
a motion subsequently made was denied. Ib.

4. Record; sufficiency of incorporation of papers and documents.

On appeal or writ of error to this court, papers or documents used in the
court below cannot in strictness be examined here unless by bill of
exceptions or other proper mode they are made part of the record.
Bassing v. Cady, 386.

1. As to status of army officer as civil officer of Philippine Government.
The fact that an officer of the United States Army, entrusted with money
by the Philippine Government to be expended in connection with his
military command, signs his account "Disbursing Officer" instead of
by his military title, does not make him a civil officer of the Philippine
Government; and quare whether he could become such a civil officer
in view of the act of March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 567, prohibiting the ap-
pointment of officers of the United States Army to civil offices. Car-
rington v. United States, 1.

2. Criminal liability of army officer in Philippine Islands for falsification of

accounts.

A money contribution by the Philippine Government to the performance
of certain military functions, and entrusting the funds to an officer of
the United States Army, who is held to military responsibility therefor
by court-martial, does not make that officer a civil officer of the Philip-
pine Government and amenable to trial in the civil courts for falsifi-
cation of his accounts as a public official. Ib.

3. Navy-Additional pay to aids—Who is an aid within meaning of §§ 1098,
1261, Rev. Stat., and opening clause of Personnel Act of 1899.
Under 1098, and 1261, Rev. Stat., and the opening clause of the Navy
Personnel Act of March 13, 1899, 30 Stat. 1004, a naval officer as-
signed to duty on the personal staff of an admiral as flag lieutenant,
without any other designation, is an aid to such admiral and entitled
to the additional pay of $200 allowed to an aid of a major general in
the Army. United States v. Miller, 32.

4. Navy-Longevity pay of aid to admiral; calculation of.

Under § 1262, Rev. Stat., and the act of June 30, 1882, 22 Stat. 118, an

VOL. CCVIII-40

aid to an admiral is not entitled to have his longevity pay calculated
upon the additional pay which he receives as aid, that being under
§ 1261, Rev. Stat., an allowance in addition to, and not a part of, the
pay of his rank. Ib.

ATTACHMENT.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7;

ESTOPPEL, 2;

LOCAL LAW (NEW MEX.).

AWARD.

See EMINENT DOMAIN.

BANKRUPTCY.

1. Discharge, effect of refusal of-Necessity for proof of refusal of discharge
in subsequent proceeding.

While an adjudication in bankruptcy, refusing a discharge, finally deter-
mines for all time and in all courts, as between the parties and their
privies, the facts upon which the refusal is based, it must be proved in
a second proceeding brought by the bankrupt in another district, and
of which the creditor has notice, in order to bar the bankrupt's dis-
charge therefrom, if the debt is provable under the statute as amended
at the time of the second proceeding although it may not have been
such under the statute at the time of the first proceeding. Bluthenthal
v. Jones, 64.

2. Amendments; power of bankruptcy court as to.

The power of the bankruptcy court over amendments is undoubted and
rests in the discretion of the court. In this case that discretion was
not abused in allowing amendments adding the name of the place to
the jurat of the justice of the peace taking the verification, and an
averment that the person proceeded against in bankruptcy did not
come within the excepted classes of persons who may not be declared
bankrupts. Armstrong v. Fernandez, 324.

3. Adjudication of bankruptcy; when general finding covers particular facts.
Where the record of a proceeding to have a person declared a bankrupt
shows that detailed findings of the commission of acts of bankruptcy
could have been supported by the evidence, the presumption is that
such findings would have been made had appellant so requested; and,
in the absence of such a request, the general finding that the party
could be declared, and was adjudged, a bankrupt is sufficiently broad
to cover any question involved upon the evidence as to the bankrupt's
occupation and the commission of acts of bankruptcy. Ib.

BANKS AND BANKING.

Transaction where bank discounting personal note of president of another
bank, accompanied by agreement of his bank, held relieved from liability
at suit of receiver of latter bank.

In a transaction between two banks the president of one gave his personal

note to the other, accompanied by an agreement of his bank, signed
by himself as president, that the proceeds of the note should be placed
to the credit of his bank by, and remain with, the discounting bank
until the note was paid; while there were certain transfers of checks
between him and his own bank the record did not show that the maker
of the note personally received the proceeds thereof, and no conten-
tion was made that the agreement was illegal. Held, that under the.
circumstances of this case, the discounting bank was entitled to hold
the proceeds of the note, as represented by the credit given on its
books therefor, as collateral security for the payment of the note and
to charge the note against such credit, and relieve itself from further
responsibility therefor. Rankin v. City National Bank, 541.

See RECEIVERS, 1.

BILLS AND NOTES.

Delivery of check not equivalent to payment.

The delivery of a check is not the equivalent of payment of the money
ordered by the check to be paid, and in this case, the check not hav-
ing been cashed until after receivers had been appointed, the payee,
who had knowledge of their appointment and the issuing of an injunc
tion order, was required to repay the amount. Bien v. Robinson, 423.
See BANKS and BankinG.

BONDS.

See EQUITY, 2;

INJUNCTION, 2, 3, 4.

BOOKS OF ENTRY.

See LOCAL LAW (Okla., 4).

BOYCOTT.

See ANTI-TRUST ACT, 3.

BRIDGES.

See ADMIRALTY.

CARRIERS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

CASES APPROVED.

Compton v. Jesup, 68 Fed. Rep. 263, approved in Wabash Railroad v.
Adelbert College, 38.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Blackheath, The, 195 U. S. 361, distinguished in Cleveland Terminal R. R.
v. Steamship Co., 316.

Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, distinguished in Bennett v. Bennett, 505.
Russell v. Farley, 105 U. S. 433, distinguished in Houghton v. Meyer, 149.
United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, distinguished in Chin Yow v. United
States, 8.

United States v. Paine Lumber Co., 206 U. S. 467, distinguished in Starr v.
Campbell, 527

CASES FOLLOWED.

Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, followed in Burke v. Wells, 14.
Cleveland Terminal R. R. v. Steamship Co., 208 U. S. 316, followed in The
Troy, 321.

Donnell v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 208 U. S. 267, followed in Herring-
Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. Hall's Safe Co., 554.

Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71, followed in Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 481.
Halsell v. Renfrow, 202 U. S. 287, followed in Southern Pine Co. v. Ward, 126.
Harrison v. Magoon, 205 U. S. 501, followed in Notley v. Brown, 429.
Jamestown & Northern Railway Cọ. v. Jones, 177 U. S. 125, explained and
followed in Minneapolis, St. Paul &c. Ry. Co. v. Doughty, 251.
Kinkead v. United States, 150 U. S. 433, followed in Blacklock v. United
States, 75.

Mansfield v. Excelsior Refining Co., 135 U. S. 326, followed in Blacklock
v. United States, 75.

May v. New Orleans, 178 U. S. 496, followed in Burke v. Wells, 14.

Missouri Valley Land Co. v. Wiese, 208 U. S. 234, followed in Missouri
Valley Land Co. v. Wrich, 250.

National Live Stock Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 203 U. S. 296, followed in
Southern Pine Co. v. Ward, 126.

Plymouth, The, 3 Wall. 20, followed in Cleveland Terminal R. R. v. Steam-
ship Co., 316.

Smith, Auditor, v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138, followed in Braxton County Court
v. West Virginia, 192.

Swift v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, followed in Loewe v. Lawlor, 274.

CERTIFICATE.

See JURISDICTION, A 5, 6, 8.

CERTIORARI.

See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 3.

CHARTERS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3;

CORPORATIONS, 2;

TAXES AND TAXATION, 7.

CHINESE.

See IMMIGRATION, 2.

CHIPPEWA INDIANS.

See INDIANS, 1.

CITIZENSHIP.

See IMMIGRATION, 1;
JURISDICTION.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
See COURT OF CLAIMS.

COLLUSIVE SUIT.

See JURISDICTION, C 2.

COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
See ANTI-TRUST ACT, 1, 2.

COMITY.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7;

STATES, 1;

TREATIES.

COMMERCE.

See ADMIRALTY;

CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 5;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION.

See IMMIGRATION, 1.

CONCUBINAGE.

See ALIENS;

STATUTES, A 1, 4.

CONDEMNATION OF LAND

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 17;

EMINENT DOMAIN;

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 2, 10, 11, 17.

CONFLICT OF DECISIONS.

See PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 18.

CONGRESS.

I. ACTS OF.

See ACTS OF CONGRESS.