PORTO RICO, act of April 12, 1900, §§ 33, 35 (see Jurisdiction, A 11): Kent
v. Porto Rico, 113.

TARIFF, act of October 1, 1890, § 25 (see Customs Duties): Anheuser-Busch
Assn. v. United States, 556.

TIMBER AND STONE ACT of June 3, 1878 (see Criminal Law; Public Lands, 3):
Williamson v. United States, 425.

See STATUTES, A.

ADMIRALTY.

1. Recognition of claims not denied by the admiralty.

Where a fund is being distributed in a proceeding to limit the liability of
the owners of a vessel, all claims to which the admiralty does not deny
existence must be recognized, whether admiralty liens or not. The
Hamilton, 398.

2. Right of seaman to recover for tort, in action brought under state statute-
Damages recoverable.

Where both vessels in collision are in fault the representatives of a seaman
on one of the vessels, killed without contributory negligence on his
part, may, where a state statute gives an action against the owner
of the other vessel, recover full damages, and are not limited to dam-
ages recoverable under the maritime law against the seaman's own
vessel for death or injury caused by negligence of the master thereof
or his fellow servants thereon. Neither the seaman's contract with
the owners of the vessel he is on, nor the negligence of his own vessel,
nor any provision of the Harter Act affects the claim against the other
vessel. Ib.

3. Enforcement in admiralty of state statute.

The statute of Delaware giving damages for death caused by tort is a valid
exercise of the legislative power of the State, and extends to the case of
a citizen of that State wrongfully killed while on the high seas in a vessel
belonging to a Delaware corporation by the negligence of another vessel
also belonging to a Delaware corporation. A claim against the owner
of one of the vessels in fault can be enforced in a proceeding in admiralty
brought by such owner to limit its liability. Ib.

ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

See CRIMINAL LAW, 1.

AGENCY.

See CONTRACTS, 2.

ALIENS.

1. Immigration Act; application of § 18; deserting sailors.

Even though one who makes it possible for an alien to land by omitting due
precautions to prevent it, may permit him to land within the meaning
of the penal clause of § 18 of the Immigration Act of March 3, 1903,

12 Stat. 1217, that section does not apply to the ordinary case of a
sailor deserting while on shore leave. Taylor v. United States, 120.

2. Immigration Act; effect of § 18 on sailors' shore leave.

This construction is reached both by the literal meaning of the expressions
"bringing to the United States" and "landing from such vessel" and
by a reasonable interpretation of the statute which will not be con-
strued as intending to altogether prohibit sailors from going ashore
while the vessel is in port. Ib.

3. Immigration Act; right of master of vessel to employ as sailor one ordered
to be deported.

The fact that an alien has been refused leave to land in the United States
and has been ordered to be deported does not make it impossible for
the master of a foreign vessel, bound to an American port, subsequently
to accept him as a sailor on the high seas. Ib.

AMENDMENT.

See PRACTICE, 12.

AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION.

Fifth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 12, 13, 15, 35, 44, 45; JURISDICTION, A 2.
Fourth. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 44, 45.

Fourteenth.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.

See JURISDICTION, C 1, 2.

APPEAL AND ERROR.

1. Application of rule as to joinder of parties.

The rule that all the parties must join in an appeal or writ of error unless
properly detached from the right so to do applies only to joint judg-
ments and decrees. This court has jurisdiction of an appeal taken or
writ of error sued out by one of several defendants if his interest is
separate from that of the other defendants. Winters v. United States,
564.

2. Right of one of several defendant trespassers to maintain separate appeal.
In a suit against several defendants as trespassers in which some of them
defaulted and others answered, held, that each defendant was a sep-
arate trespasser and that while those who defaulted were precluded
from questioning the correctness of the decree entered against them,
the answering defendants had nothing in common with the others and
could maintain an appeal without them. Ib.

3. Record; evidence not disclosed by, will not affect decision of court.
On writ of error to review a final judgment in habeas corpus proceedings
this court must determine by the record whether the state court erred
and its decision cannot be controlled or affected by an apparent ad-
mission of defendant in error that certain affidavits annexed to the

petition were used without objection as evidence. McNichols v. Pease,
100.

4. Record; necessity for showing that constitutional question was raised below.
Application of rule to cases brought from Philippine Islands.
Where a case is brought up from the Circuit Court on the ground that the
construction or application of the Constitution of the United States is
involved, the record must show that the question was raised for the
consideration of the court below; and, under § 10 of the act of July 1,
1902, 32 Stat. 695, this rule-applies to writs of error to review judg-
ments of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. Paraiso v.
United States, 368.

5. When writ of error from this court will run to inferior state court.
Where the highest court of the State dismisses an application for writ of
error for want of jurisdiction, the judgment of the lower court becomes
the judgment of the highest court of the State to which the case can be
taken, and the writ of error will properly run to it from this court.
Sullivan v. Texas, 416..

6. Writ of error; parties; effect of failure of district judge to sue out or join
in writ allowed by Circuit Court of Appeals after mandamus issued.
Where the Circuit Court of Appeals after issuing mandamus to the district

judge requiring him to modify a decree so as to conform to the decision
of this court, allows the party in interest a writ of error and the district
judge declines to sue out or join in the writ, the writ will not be dis-
missed because the district judge is not a party and the fact that he has
obeyed the order will not prejudice the position of the plaintiff in error.
Ex parte First Nat. Bank of Chicago, 61.

1. Laches in suing for fees excused when payment awaits an appropriation by
Congress.
Where one interested in attorney fees for collection of government claims

can expect nothing until the amount adjudged has been appropriated,
laches will not be charged against him if he bring the suit for an account-

ing within a reasonable period after the passage of the appropriation
act. In this case two years was not unreasonable. Earle v. Myers, 244.

2. Right of administrator, completing business of his intestate, to allowance
for his and his intestate's services and expenses.

Where an administrator of an attorney performs services and incurs ex-
penses in completing the business in which his intestate and another
attorney were interested he should be allowed therefor and those serv-
ices and expenses as well as those rendered and incurred by the intes-
tate can be settled in one suit where the account has been treated by
both parties as one account. Ib.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.

See CRIMINAL LAW; 1.

BANKRUPTCY.

1. As to authority of District Court to control litigation by trustee.

The decision of this court in First National Bank v. Chicago Title & Trust
Co., 198 U. S. 280, merely gave directions in general form to be carried
out by the District Court and it was not intended to supersede the
authority given to that court by the bankruptcy law to control litiga-
tion by the trustee. Ex parte First Nat. Bank of Chicago, 61.

2. Appeals; application of general order XXXVI, clause 3.

Clause 3 of general order in bankruptcy XXXVI applies to appealable cases
and must be complied with. Chapman v. Bowen, 89.

3. Appeals; when maintainable.

This appeal cannot be maintained because it does not come within either
paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of § 256 of the bankruptcy act. Ib.

4. Writ of error from state court; when not maintainable.

Where the decision below proceeds on principles of general law broad enough
to sustain it without reference to provisions of the bankruptcy act, the
question involved is not one which would justify a writ of error from
the highest court of a State to this court. Ib.

CARRIERS.

See NEGLIGENCE, 1;
RAILROADS.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Barney v. City of New York, 193, N. Y. 430, distinguished in Raymond v.
Chicago Traction Co., 20.

Boston &c. Mining Co. v. Montana Ore Co., 188 U. S. 632, distinguished in
Lawson v. United States Mining Co., 1.

Southern Railway v. Allison, 190 U. S. 326, distinguished in Patch v. Wabash
R. R. Co., 277.

Vicksburg v. Waterworks, 206 U. S. 496, distinguished in Water, Light & Gas
Co. v. Hutchinson, 385.

CASES EXPLAINED.

First National Bank v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 198 U. S. 280, explained in
Ex parte First Nat. Bank of Chicago, 61.

CASES FOLLOWED.

Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585, followed in American Tobacco Co. v.
Werckmeister, 284; Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 541.

Allen v. Riley, 203 U. S. 347, followed in Ozan Lumber Co. v. Union County
Bank, 251.

Amado v. United States, 195 U. S. 172, followed in Kent v. Porto Rico, 113.
Angle v. Chicago & St. Paul Ry. Co., 151 U. S. 1, followed in Bitterman v.
Louisville & Nashville R. R., 205.

Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U. S. 222, followed in McNichols v. Pease,
100.

Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, followed in Williamson v. United
States, 425.

Citizens' Street Railway v. Detroit, 171 U. S. 48, followed in Water, Light &
Gas Co. v. Hutchinson, 385.

Hale v. Allinson, 188 U. S. 57, 77, followed in Bitterman v. Louisville &
Nashville R. R., 205.

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, followed in American Tobacco Co. v. Werck-
meister, 284; Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 541.

Heath & Milligan Mfg. Co. v. Worst, 207 U. S. 338, followed in Ozan Lumber
Co. v. Union County Bank, 251.

Holland v.
Challen, 110 U. S. 15, followed in Lawson v. United States Mining
Co., 1.

Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S. 164, followed in Williamson v. United States,

425.

Hunt v. New York Cotton Exchange, 205 U. S. 322, followed in Bitterman v.
Louisville & Nashville R. R., 205.

Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. United States, 181 U. S. 584, followed in Anheuser-
Busch Assn. v. United States, 556.

McMillan v. Ferrum Mining Co., .197 U. S. 343, followed in Paraiso v.
United States, 368.