INDEX.

ACCOUNTING. See Assignment, 2; Practice, 9.

ACCOUNTS WITH THE UNITED STATES, SETTLEMENT OF See Court of Claims, 1; Evidence, 8.

1. The courts of the United States, as courts of admiralty, have not exclusive jurisdiction of suits in personam, growing out of collisions between vessels while navigating the Ohio River. Schoonmaker v. Gilmore, 118.

2. A small schooner, having no watch on deck, was, in a very dark night, lying at anchor inside the Delaware Breakwater, when vessels were constantly arriving for shelter from an approaching storm. Among them was one well manned, which, in proceeding to a proper anchorage, without any fault of either omission or commission on her part, collided with and sunk the schooner. If a sufficient watch had been on the deck of the latter, the collision might have been avoided. Held, that the vessel was not liable. The "Clara," 200. 3. At about ten o'clock in the forenoon, when the weather was clear and fine, a steamship and a schooner were on the ocean. The schooner, having seen the steamship when six or seven miles away, kept steadily on her course. The steamer saw the schooner when three miles off, and from that time until a collision between them occurred both vessels were sailing on courses which crossed each other, so as to involve risk of collision. Held, that under the circumstances it was the duty of the steamship to keep out of the way of the schooner, and the latter having held her course, the former is liable for the damages occasioned by the collision. The "Benefactor," 214.

4. The ruling in The Abbotsford (98 U. S. 440), that under the act of Feb. 16, 1875 (18 Stat. 315), the finding of facts by the Circuit Court in admiralty cases is conclusive, and that only rulings upon questions of law can be reviewed by bill of exceptions, reaffirmed. Id. ADVERSE POSSESSION. See Vacant Lands, Entry upon, under Colo of Title.

AGENT. See Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, 3.

ALABAMA. See Constitutional Law, 11, 12; Damages; Municipal Bonds,

4-6.

AMENDMENT. See Municipal Corporations, 5, 6.

APPEAL.

1. An appeal will be dismissed when it appears from the record, taken as
a whole, that the amount actually in controversy is not sufficient to
give the court jurisdiction. Banking Association v. Insurance Asso-
ciation, 121.

2. Gray v. Blanchard (97 U. S. 564) reaffirmed. Id.

3. An appeal is the only mode by which the appellate jurisdiction of this
court can be exercised in equity suits, brought in the courts of the
United States, and it does not lie before a final decree has been
rendered. Hayes v. Fischer, 121.

4. A proceeding in the court below for contempt cannot be re-examined
here on an appeal or a writ of error. Id.

5. A bond is not sufficient for the purposes of either an appeal to this
court or a supersedeas, if the obligors are not thereby bound for the
payment of costs, should the appellant fail to make his plea good.
Seward v. Corneau, 161.

6. The Circuit Court in a foreclosure suit appointed a receiver of the rents
and profits of the mortgaged land, and ordered that all persons who
had come into the possession thereof pendente lite should surrender it
to him on his demand. On their refusal to do so, a writ was issued
commanding the marshal to eject them. They thereupon addressed
a petition to one of the judges, praying that the writ be revoked by
the court. Held, that an appeal does not lie from his order at cham-
bers, denying the petition. Hentig v. Page, 219.

7. Where no security having been taken at the time of entering an order
allowing an appeal from a decree passed by the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia sitting in general term, the appellant, within
the time limited by statute, filed with the clerk a bond with sureties,
conditioned according to law, and approved by a judge of that court,
by whom, on the same day, a citation was signed, — Held, that the
power of the judge over the appeal and the security was thereupon,
in the absence of fraud, exhausted, and that the control of the super-
sedeas as well as of the appeal was transferred to this court. Draper
v. Davis, 370.

-

ARGOLS OR CRUDE TARTAR. See Customs Duties, 1.

ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY.

tion to.

See Bankruptcy; Stock, Subscrip-

Where a bankrupt has fraudulently conveyed his property, his assignees
in bankruptcy are the only parties to sue for and subject it to the
payment of his debts. Trimble v. Woodhead, 647.

ASSIGNMENT. See Claims against the United States; Set-off.

1. The assignment of a judgment, and of all bonds and instruments
which, during the progress of the suit wherein it was rendered, were

ASSIGNMENT (continued).

taken in connection therewith, transfers to the assignee a bond given
by the defendant with surety, whereby he secured the release of his
property which had been seized under an attachment issued in the
suit. George v. Tait, 564.

2. A. assigned to the amount of a certain loan his interest in a policy of
insurance upon his life to B., his creditor. The latter agreed in
writing to make such a settlement with A.'s representatives as the
case may require, should he, in the event of A.'s death before
the payment of the money, receive from the insurance company the
amount due on the policy. Other similar assignments were from
time to time made. The last assignment imports an absolute trans-
fer to B. of all A.'s right, title, and interest in the policy and to the
payments previously made therefor, and all benefit and advantage to
be derived therefrom. Upon consideration of the evidence, - Held,
that the assignment must be construed as appointing B., upon the
death of A., to receive from the company such sum as would then
be due on the policy, and after reimbursing himself to the extent
of his loans to A., to pay the balance to the persons entitled thereto.
Page v. Burnstine, 664.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. See Bankruptcy, 1.,

BACK-TAX COLLECTOR. See Municipal Corporations, 5, 6.

BAD FAITH.

A party who, before its maturity and for a valuable consideration, pur-
chases mercantile paper from the apparent owner thereof acquires a
right thereto which can only be defeated by proof of bad faith or of
actual notice of such facts as impeach the validity of the transaction.
Swift v. Smith, 442.

BAILMENT.

See Personal Chattels, Sale and Delivery of, 2.

BANKRUPTCY. See Assignee in Bankruptcy; National Banks.

1. A., as attorney for B., procured a judgment by default in favor of the
latter against C., of whose insolvency and intent to commit a fraud
on the bankrupt law he had knowledge. Held, that that knowledge
was imputable to B. Rogers v. Palmer, 263.

2. C. having, with intent to give a preference to B., contributed to the
rendition of the judgment at an earlier day than without his aid it
could have been rendered, an execution was sued out and levied
upon his goods. Held, that he thereby procured them to be taken
on legal process within the meaning of the thirty-fifth section of the
Bankrupt Law of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 534), as modified by the
act of June 22, 1874. 18 Stat., part 3, pp. 180, 181. Id.
3. A., by his bond, acknowledged the receipt from an insurance company
of ten shares of its capital stock, and agreed to pay $200 therefor, in
instalments, one-fourth on the receipt of the stock certificate, and
the remainder in three equal amounts at three, six, and nine months
from Jan. 7, 1871, the date of the bond. He paid on executing

-

BANKRUPTCY (continued).

the company.

it $25, and his name was entered as a stockholder on the books of
The certificate was not delivered or demanded. In
1872 the company became bankrupt. Held, that the assignee is
entitled to recover of A. the unpaid instalments. Hawley v. Up-
ton, 314.

4. A bill, filed by the assignee in bankruptcy of an insurance company
against its former officers and directors, alleges that they had divided
among themselves and friends certain bonds belonging to it, and
prays for an accounting and relief. It appears from the proofs that
the bonds were never the property of the company, but were, with-
out consideration, borrowed, by some of its officers, for the fraudu-
lent purpose of exhibiting them, as part of its assets, to the official
examiners, thus furnishing evidence of its sound condition, and were
afterwards returned, according to agreement, to their real owners.
Held, that the bill was properly dismissed. Walker v. Reister, 467.
5. A., with a view of giving preference to B., a creditor, transferred
to him, Nov. 15, 1873, certain securities. B. accepted them with
knowledge that A. was insolvent. Proceedings in bankruptcy were
instituted against A. Feb. 7, 1874, and he was declared to be a
bankrupt. His assignee brought suit in June, 1875, against B. for
the value of the securities. Held, that he was entitled to recover.
Auffm'ordt v. Rasin, 620.

6. The tenth section of the act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., part 3, 178),
whereby, in cases of involuntary or compulsory bankruptcy, the
period of four months mentioned in sect. 35 of the Bankrupt Act of
March 2, 1867 (14 id. 534), was changed to two months, did not
take effect until two months after its passage. It was not intended
to destroy previously vested rights of property or of action, nor was
it in the nature of a statute of limitations. It merely declared that
certain acts thereafter committed, more than two months prior to
the institution of proceedings in bankruptcy, should be valid. Id.
7. Where the marshal of the United States to whom was directed a war-
rant of provisional seizure sued out of the proper court sitting in
bankruptcy, levied it upon certain goods in the possession of a third
party claiming title to them, Held, that they were subject to seiz-
ure under the warrant, if they were the property of the person
against whom the proceeding in bankruptcy was pending. Sharpe
v. Doyle, 686.

-

8. The marshal must, in such a case, act at his own risk in regard to the
ownership of them and their liability to seizure. Id.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. See Exceptions, Bill of.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES.

ment; Lien.

See Judg-

1. The transfer by indorsement to a creditor of negotiable paper before
maturity, merely as security for an antecedent debt, although it is
without his express agreement for indulgence, is not an improper