Page 57 Wood-paper Patent, The, 23 Wall. 566... Pagi .74, 97 Woodrop Sims, The, 2_Dod. 83. 44 Woods v. De Mattos, 3 Hurl. & C. 995 333 Woods v. Russell, 5 Barn. & Ald. 942 207, 208, 209 Woolf v. Hamilton, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139. Williamson v. Kincaid, 4 Dall. 20.. 487 ..... Yates v. Thompson, 3 Clark & F. 544.... 139 109 Young v. United States, 97 U. 8. 39 298 t CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OCTOBER TERM, 1882. (108 U. S. 4) JOHNSON, Ex'r, etc., and others v. WATERS, Adm'r, etc. (October 16, 1882.) SUPERSEDEAS-ADDITIONAL SECURITY. A motion for additional security on a supersedeas bond, where it does not appear that the decree is collectible under ordinary execution, and the fair inference is that suit was instituted to subject the lands in dispute to payment of a debt, and that no personal decree can be given, and that the present bond is sufficient, will be denied. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana. Motion for additional security on the supersedeas bond. Henry B. Kelly and Julius Aroni, for the motion. John A. Campbell, contra. * WAITE, C. J. This motion is denied. It does not appear from the? motion papers that the decree appealed from is collectible under ordinary execution. The fair inference from the statements in the papers is that the suit was instituted to subject the lands in dispute to the payment of a debt, and that no personal decree for money can be given against the appellants. The controversy seems to be as to the rights of the appellee in the lands. The present bond is suffi cient in amount to protect him against loss pending the suit from sales for taxes, if he avails himself of the remedies by redemption and subrogation which the law affords. At any rate, the circumstances of the parties do not appear to have changed in this particular since the security was taken originally. (106 U. S. 39) CALL V. PALMER. (October 16, 1882.) MOTIONS TO ADVANCE CASES. Motions to advance under rule 32 should be accompanied by an agreed statement, or by such extracts from the record as will show that the case is one to which the rule is applicable. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa. Motion to advance under rule 32. J. H. Call, for appellant. WAITE, C. J. This motion is denied. Rule 32 applies only to cases which have been remanded by a circuit court to a state court, or dismissed, under the authority of section 5 of the act of March 3, 1875. This is an appeal from a decree on the merits in a suit removed from a state court to the circuit court. The record shows that a motion to remand was denied, and that the cause was regularly heard and decided. Motions under this rule should be accompanied by an agreed statement of the case, or by such extracts from the record as will show that the case is one to which the rule is applicable. See Palmer v. Call, 7 FED. REP. 787. (106 U. S. 99) BACON and others v. RIVES and others. (October 23, 1882.) REMOVAL-NOMINAL PARTIES-TRUST CREATED BY CONTRACT-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. Where the necessary parties on the respective sides of the controversy were citizens of different states, held, that the relation to the suit of the executors of the deceased father of the principal defendant, whose interest in his father's estate had been attached in their hands, must be regarded as merely incidental; and, though made formally defendants, they occupied substantially the position of garnishees, and their citizenship was immaterial, and could not affect the right of removal of the cause into the circuit court. A trust arises out of express agreement under which defendant received from complainants certain funds which he undertook to invest in particular kinds of property, in conformity with specific instructions given by those whom he represented. Unless otherwise distinctly declared by the statute prescribing fixed periods for the commencement of suits, the cause of action is not ordinarily deemed to have accrued against, nor limitation to commence running in favor of, the trustee of such a trust until the trust is closed, or until the trustee, with the knowledge of the cestui que trust, disavows the trust or holds adversely to the claim of those he represents. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia. Joseph Bryan, for appellants. E. R. Watson, for appellees. ⚫ HARLAN, J. This is a suit in equity. The complainants and appellants are John L. Bacon and H. E. C. Baskerville, partners as Bacon & Baskerville; John Stewart, Robert Ould, Robert H. Maury, and Isaac H. Carrington, trustees for the benefit of the creditors of William H. Macfarland, deceased, by virtue of a deed dated October 20, 1870; John W. Wright, sheriff of the city of Richmond, and as such administrator of William H. Macfarland,-all citizens of Virginia. The defendants are George C. Rives, a citizen of Texas, in his own right and as administrator with the will annexed of George Rives, deceased; J. Henry Rives, a citizen of Virginia, executor of George Rives, deceased; and Alfred L. Rives, a citizen of Alabama, and executor of William C. Rives, deceased. The suit was commenced on the twenty-second day of July, 1875, in the circuit court of Albemarle county, Virginia, and was thence removed, upon the petition of defendant George C. Rives, (in which the defendant Alfred L. Rives, executor of William C. Rives, united,) into the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Virginia. In the latter court a demurrer to the bill upon the part of the principal defendant, George C. Rives, was interposed upon the ground that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations, both of Texas and Virginia. The demurrer was sustained, and the bill dismissed. The case made by the bill is, substantially, as follows: In the summer of the year 1863, Bacon & Baskerville, John Stewart, Robert H. Maury, William H. Macfarland, and William C. Rives, uncle of the defendant George C. Rives, sent the sum of $131,000, in "confederate states treasury notes," the currency, at that time, of Virginia, Louisiana, and Texas,-to Col. James H. Stevens, then in Monroe, Louisiana, with instructions to invest or expend the same in the purchase of cotton on plantations in Louisiana and Texas, to remain thereon until the civil war was ended. Of that sum Bacon & Baskerville owned $48,000, Stewart $48,000, Maury $10,000, Macfarland $5,000, and W. C. Rives $20,000. Subsequently, however, Bacon & Baskerville became the owner of $80,000, and Stewart $16,000, of the $131,000, the interest of the other parties remaining the same as at the outset. The funds were sent to Stevens by Bacon & Baskerville, by whom all instructions were given and negotiations conducted. The proceeds of the investment, it was understood, were to be divided among the parties in proportion to their respective interests. About the third day of September, 1863, Stevens died in Louisiana, en route to Texas, and without having invested any of the funds transmitted to him. Shortly thereafter complainants were notified by the widow of Stevens that she held the $131,000 subject to their order. The defendant George C. Rives wrote to the same effect to his cousin, Alfred L. Rives, son and executor of W. C. Rives. Moved by the advice and solicitation of W. C. Rives, as well as by the encouraging character of certain letters written by George C. Rives to Alfred L. Rives, (and which letters were exhibited to complainants,) and influenced especially by the declaration of the former in his letter that if the funds were turned over to him he would act for the parties under their instructions, and would save it by investing it in city property in Austin, Texas, or in property which he represented would pay well, and could be readily sold at any time, the complainants made and appointed George C. Rives their agent in the room and stead of Stevens. Complainants, consequently, ordered and directed the funds, in the hands of Mrs. Stevens, to be paid to George C. Rives, and towards the close of the year 1863, or early in 1864, they were received by the latter. George C. Rives received the funds as agent and for the benefit of complainants, to be invested in conformity with specific instructions given by Bacon & Baskerville, the managers and business negotiators of the enterprise, with the concurrence of the joint owners of the funds, viz.: (1) That the funds should be invested in cotton on plantations in Texas, to remain thereon until the war ended, that being the first and chief object of the whole venture. If that could not be done, then (2) to invest them in ranch property, meaning lands in Texas with cattle and horses thereon. If that could not be done then (3) to invest them in town lots in Austin. |