Opinion of the Court.

on the ground that the vessel was not one of the class described in the act. Appeal was then taken to the Circuit Court, where the decree of the District Court was affirmed. The owners of the yacht appealed to this court. Pending the appeal here they prayed for a writ of injunction to restrain the prosecution of the suits in the State courts by the administrator.

Mr. Geo. F. Edmunds, made the motion and filed a brief in support of it.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court. Without deciding whether an injunction may be granted under any circumstances by this court to stay proceedings in the State courts during the pendency of an appeal in a suit brought by the owners of a vessel to obtain the benefit of the limitation of liability provided for by §§ 4283, 4284, 4285, and 4286 of the Revised Statutes, we are all of the opinion that this motion should be denied. Both of the courts below have decided that the vessel owned by the appellants did not come within the purview of the statute, and consequently that the relief asked for should not be granted. If the suits in the State courts go on and judgments are rendered against the appellants, there is a way in which decisions overruling defences set up under the statute may be brought here for review, and the errors, if any, corrected.

In view of these facts we are not inclined to use the extraordinary writ of injunction to stay proceedings in suits begun in the State courts before the appellants filed their libel in the District Court, simply because of the expense that will be consequent upon trials pending the appeal. If we have the power it should not be used in a doubtful case, and after two judgments below denying the relief, unless the reasons are imperative.

Writ refused.

INDEX.

ABATEMENT.

1. The rule at common law, that qui tam actions on penal statutes do not
survive, prevails in the federal courts as to actions on penal statutes
of the United States, even in States where the statutes of the State
allow suits on State penal statutes to be prosecuted after the death of
the offender. Schreiber v. Sharpless, 76.

2. An action to recover penalties and forfeitures for the infringement of a
copyright under the provisions of § 4965 Rev. Stat. is abated by the
death of the defendant. Id.

ACTION.

See ABATEMENT;

JURISDICTION, B, 7;
PARTNERSHIP, 2.

ALABAMA.

See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR;
LIMITATIONS, Statute of, 3, 4;
PLEADING, 2, 3.

AMENDMENT.

See JURISDICTION, A. 14.

APPEAL.

See JURISDICTION, A, 8, 9, 10;
SUPERSEDEAS.

ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY.

A, residing in Maryland, and a stockholder in a manufacturing corpora-
tion in Rhode Island, pledged with B, also residing in Maryland, as
security for a debt due from A to B, bonds of the company secured

by mortgage of all its property. The company became embarrassed
and unable to pay its debts, and its stockholders became individually
liable to its creditors. A became bankrupt, and B agreed with the
assignee to receive the bonds and a sum of money in payment of A's
debt, and to indemnify the assignee against loss or damage as holder
of the stock. B then instituted proceedings to enforce the individual
liability of other stockholders: Held, That, the agreement with the
assignee was not an agreement to save A harmless against liability as
stockholder; that neither the assignee in bankruptcy nor the bank-
rupt's property in his hands was subject to the liability which
attached to the stock, and that B assumed no liability which could
be set up by a stockholder as a defence against his individual liabil-
ity to B. American File Company v. Garrett, 288.

ATTORNEY AT LAW.

A contract with an attorney to prosecute a claim against the United
States for a contingent fee is not void; and under the circumstances
of the case, the parties having agreed upon fifty per cent. of the claim
as a contingent fee, the court is not prepared to assume that the
division is extortionate. Stanton v. Embrey, 93, U. S. 548, approved
and followed. Bemiss v. Bemiss, 42.

See CONTRACT, 3.

AWARD.

See CLAIMS CONVENTION WITH MEXICO, 1.

BANK.

See ESTOPPEL, 1;

PRINCIPAL AND Agent, 1.

BANKRUPTCY.

Property was sold to H, by order of a court of bankruptcy. He not pay-
ing for it, the court, without notice to him, vacated the order of sale,
and made an order selling it to C, who paid for it, and went into
possession of it. Afterwards, on review, the sale to C was set aside,
and the sale to H reinstated. H, having paid for the property, re-
ceived possession of it, and afterwards the money paid by C was
repaid to him: Held, that C was not liable to pay to H the profits
derived by him from the use of the property while he had it. Conro
V. Crane, 403.

See JURISDICTION, A, 19.

BILL OF EXCHANGE.

When a bank, the owner and holder of a bill of exchange on a foreign
country, remits it for collection to its correspondent abroad, and the
bill is not paid at maturity, and is protested, the correspondents are
not entitled to damages on the protest, as against the owner, even
though the owner may have failed before maturity of the bill, being
largely indebted to the correspondent. Hambro v. Casey, 216.

BOND.

See INTERNAL REVENUE, 2.

BOUNDARIES.

See COUNTY.

BRIDGE.

See COUNTY;
NEBRASKA.

BROKERS.

See CUSTOM.

CHAMPERTY.

See CONTRACT, 3.

CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
See JURISDICTION, B.

CLAIMS AGAINST FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.

See CLAIMS CONVENTION WITH MEXICO.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

Payment of a claim against the United States, to a tutrix appointed under
the laws of Louisiana is a valid payment making her responsible to
the minors, if wronged, for the receipt of the money by herself or
by her authorized attorney. Bemiss v. Bemiss, 42.

See ATTORNEY AT LAW;
GUARDIAN AND WARD;
TAX SALE.