3. A warranty, in a contract of fire insurance, that "smoking is not allowed on the premises," is not, if smoking is then forbidden on the premises, broken by the assured or others afterwards smoking there. Ib.

4. An application for fire insurance, warranted to be "a just, full and true exposition of all the facts and circumstances in regard to the condition, situation, value, ownership, title, incumbrances of all kinds, insurance and hazard of the property to be insured," contained these questions: "Is there a mortgage, deed of trust, lien, or incumbrance of any kind on property? Amount, and in whose favor?" Held, that the questions related only to incumbrances created by the act or with the consent of the applicant, and that an omission to disclose an existing lien created by statute for unpaid taxes was no breach of the warranty. Hosford v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 404.

5. In an action upon a policy of insurance by which the insurer agreed to pay the sum insured to the beneficiary within ninety days after sufficient proof that the insured within the continuance of the policy had sustained bodily injuries, effected through external, violent and accidental means, and that such injuries alone occasioned death within ninety days from their happening, but that no claim should be made when the death or injury was the result of suicide (felonious or otherwise, sane or insane) the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, (subject to the limitation that it is not to be presumed as matter of law that the deceased took his own life or was murdered,) to show that the death was caused by external violence, and by accidental means; and no valid claim can be made under the policy if the insured, either intentionally, or when insane, inflicted upon himself the injuries which caused his death, or if his death was caused by intentional injuries inflicted upon him by some other person. Travellers' Ins. Co. v. McConkey, 661.

INTEREST.

1. No interest can be recovered in an action by the United States upon a bail bond conditioned for the appearance of a person to answer to an indictment for forgery. United States v. Broadhead, 212.

2. This case falls within the well-settled principle that interest is not allowed on claims against the United States, unless the government has stipulated to pay interest, or it is given by express statutory provision. Angarica v. Bayard, 251.

3. No claim for the allowance of interest can be predicated on the language of any notification, or circular or letter which issues from the Department of State, during the administration of a predecessor of the Secretary; no binding contract for the payment of interest is thereby created; and the existing Secretary is at liberty to act on his own judgment, irrespective of anything contained in any such notification, circular or letter.

Ib.

INTERVENOR.

See RAILROAD, 3.

JUDGMENT.

1. Plaintiffs' complaint in ejectment sought to recover "all the north part
of lot 2, in section 36, township 38 N. of range 10 W. of the second
principal meridian, which lies west of the track of the Lake Shore and
Michigan Southern Railroad, and north of a line parallel with the north
line of said lot 2, and 753 feet south therefrom." Defendant denied
every allegation. The record showed that after the parties had sub-
mitted the cause to the court, "the court, having heard the evidence,
and being fully advised, finds for the plaintiffs, and orders and adjudges
that they are entitled to and shall have and recover of the defendant
the possession of so much of said lot 2 as lies south of the south line
of lot number 1, as indicated by a fence constructed and maintained by
the defendant as and on said south line
which the plaintiffs
shall recover of the defendant." Held, (1) That though the order
embraced both a finding and a judgment, it was not for that reason a
nullity; (2) That it was not a general finding for the plaintiffs, but a
finding for them as to the part of the land described in the order, and
that the judgment for the possession of this part of the premises was
in accordance with the local law of the district in which the cause was
tried, Rev. Stat. Indiana, 1881, § 1060; (3) That this court is bound
to assume from the record that the tract described in the order was a
part of the premises described in the complaint. Morgan v. Eggers, 63.
2. If, after transfer by the plaintiff of the subject of controversy in a liti-
gation in Louisiana, the court, on being informed of the transfer,
refuses to permit the suit to be discontinued by the plaintiff, a judg-
ment does not make it res judicata as to the assignee. St. Romes v.
Levee Steam Cotton Press Co., 614.

3. Dismissal of a suit for want of parties does not make the subject of it
res judicata. Ib.

A.

JURISDICTION.

JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT.

1. A brought ejectment against B. B thereupon filed a bill in equity,
(which was subsequently amended,) to remove a cloud from the title,
setting up that the deed under which A claimed was a mortgage, with
a written contract of defeasance. A demurred. Upon hearing on the
demurrer it was ordered that if B should, within fifteen days, bring
into court the amount due on the mortgage, and interest, and all taxes
paid by A., etc., A should be restrained from further persecution of
the ejectment suit; but if he should fail to do so within that time, the
bill should be dismissed and the defendant allowed to proceed with
the suit. Held, (1) That this order, made upon hearing of a de

murrer to a bill in chancery, was wholly irregular; but (2) That this
court was without jurisdiction as the order was not a final decree.
Jones v. Craig, 213.

2. It appearing that, before reaching and deciding the federal question dis-
cussed here, the Supreme Court of South Carolina had already decided
that the plaintiff's action could not be sustained according to the mean-
ing of the provisions of the statute of that State under which it was
brought, this court dismisses the writ of error for want of jurisdic-
tion, under the well settled rule that, to give this court jurisdiction of
a writ of error to a state court it must appear affirmatively not only
that a federal question was presented for decision to the highest court
of the State having jurisdiction, but that its decision was necessary to
the determination of the cause, and that it was actually decided, or
that the judgment as rendered could not have been given without
deciding it. De Saussure v. Gaillard, 216.

3. When a State grants a right of remedy against itself, or against its offi-
cers in a case in which the proceeding is in fact against the State,
it may attach whatever limitations and conditions it chooses to the
remedy; and its own interpretation and application of its statutes
on that subject, given by its own judicial tribunals, are conclusive
upon the parties seeking the benefits of them. Ib.

4. This court has not original jurisdiction of an action by a State upon a
judgment recovered by it in one of its own courts against a citizen or
a corporation of another State for a pecuniary penalty for a violation
of its municipal law. Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 265.
5. An action in the Circuit Court by a patentee for breach of an agreement
of a licensee to make and sell the patented article and to pay royalties,
in which the validity and the infringement of the patent are contro-
verted, is a "case touching patent rights," of which this court has
appellate jurisdiction, under § 699 of the Revised Statutes, without
regard to the sum or value in dispute. St. Paul Plow Works v. Star-
ling, 376.

6. The copies of orders made in this cause by the Circuit Court of the
State after the entry of the final judgment to which the writ of error
from the Supreme Court of the State was directed, although annexed
to the petition for that writ, were too late in the cause to constitute a
ground for importing a federal question into it. Calhoun v. Lanaux, 634.
PRACTICE, 1;
WRIT OF ERror, 2.

See COSTS;
MANDAMUS ;

B. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. Two plaintiffs, citizens of Georgia, brought a suit in equity, in the
Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina,
against S., a citizen of South Carolina, and H., a sister of the plaintiffs,
also a citizen of South Carolina, to set aside the alleged payment by

S. to R., another defendant, of a bond and mortgage given by him to
B., the father of the plaintiffs and of H., and to have the satisfaction
of the mortgage aunulled, and the boud and mortgage delivered up by
S., and the bond paid, and the mortgaged premises sold. Before the
alleged payment to R., B. had assigned the bond to R., in trust for
the three children. When the suit was brought, B. was a citizen of
South Carolina: Held, that, as B. could not have brought the suit, the
Circuit Court was forbidden to take cognizance of it, by § 1 of the act
of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 470. Blacklock v. Small, 96.

2. This suit was a suit founded on contract, in favor of an assignee, and
was not a suit founded on the wrongful detention by S. of the bond
and mortgage. lb.

3. The defendant H., by answer, joined in the prayer of the bill, and asked
to have the bond and mortgage declared valid in the hands of R., as
trustee, for the benefit of H. and the plaintiffs, and for a decree that
S. pay to H. and the plaintiffs the amount secured by the bond and
mortgage: Held, that as H. and S. were, when the suit was brought,
both of them citizens of South Carolina, the Circuit Court had no
jurisdiction. Ib.

4. As that court had dismissed the bill on its merits, with costs, and the
plaintiffs and H. had appealed to this court, the decree was reversed,
with costs, in this court against the appellants, and the case was re-
manded, with a direction to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction,
without costs of that court. lb.

5. On the authority of United States v. Hill, 123 U. S. 681, it is held, that
an action against sureties to recover on a bail bond conditioned for
the appearance of the principal to answer to an indictment for making
and forging checks against an assistant treasurer is not a case for the
enforcement of a revenue law, within the intent of Rev. Stat. § 699.
United States v. Broadhead, 212.

6. A petition by defendant for removal of a cause from a state court, on
the ground of citizenship, which alleges that he is a citizen of another
named State of which none of the complainants are citizens, is insuffi-
cient unless the record discloses that they are citizens of other named
States of which the defendant is not a citizen, or are aliens. Cameron
v. Hodges, 322.

7. This court of its own motion uniformly takes the objection of want of
jurisdiction in the Circuit Court, especially as regards citizenship. Ib.
8. A want of jurisdiction of a Circuit Court arising out of a defect in the
allegations of citizenship in a cause removed from a state court, on the
ground of citizenship, cannot be cured by affidavits here. Ib.

9. This court questions the opinion of the Supreme Court of Louisiana
that the Circuit Court of the United States would have no authority
to order the erasure of an incumbrance from a mortgage book within
the State. Calhoun v. Lanaux, 634.

See PRACTICE, 2.

VOL. CXXVII-52

C. JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITEd States.
The acts of Congress and the statutes of Indiana make it a criminal
offence for an inspector of elections, or other election officer, at which
an election for a member of Congress is held, to whom is committed
the safe keeping and delivery to the board of canvassers of the poll
books, the tally sheets, and the certificates of the votes, to fail or omit
to perform this duty of safe-keeping and delivery. The prisoners in
the present case are specifically charged with an offence against the
election laws of Indiana and of the United States, by a conspiracy to
violate those laws; and this court holds that the District Court of the
United States for Indiana had jurisdiction to try and punish them for
that offence, and the judgment of the Circuit Court refusing the writ
of habeas corpus is accordingly affirmed. In re Coy, 731.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 25;

INDICTMENT.

D. JURISDICTION OF THE Court of CLAIMS.

Under § 1069 of the Revised Statutes, the Court of Claims had no jurisdic-
tion of so much of the claim to the 5 per cent fund, belonging to the
State of Louisiana under the provision of the Swamp Land Acts, as
was credited to the State on the books of the Treasury Department
more than six years before the bringing of the suit. United States v.
Louisiana, 182.

See CLAIMS AGAINST THE United States, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6.

E. JURISDICTION OF STATE Courts.

The appointment by a Circuit Court of the United States of a receiver of
a corporation organized under the laws of a State does not deprive a
court of the State of jurisdiction to hear and determine an application
for a mandamus directing a recorder of mortgages in the State to
cancel and erase from the books of his office an inscription against
property of the petitioner in favor of the corporation, the petition de-
scribing it as a mortgage on real estate, and setting forth the interest
of the corporation. Calhoun v. Lanaux, 634.

LACHES.

G. performed work for the District of Columbia, and received therefor in
January, 1874, certificates of indebtedness of the Board of Public
Works of the District. He pledged these certificates as collateral for
a 60-days note for an amount much less than their face, and made a
general transfer of them to the pledgee. Before the maturity of the
note his creditor absconded. He then notified the President and the
Treasurer of the Board verbally of the transfer, and verbally protested
to the Board against payment of the certificates to the persons who