See CLAIMS AGAINST FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS;
CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
See LIFE INSURANCE, 1, 2, 3;
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT;
PROMISSORY NOTE.
See APPEAL BOND;
CONTRACT, 2;
SURETY.
Hitz v. National Metropolitan Bank, 111 U. S. 722, was decided after elabo-
rate argument and careful consideration, and is adhered to by the
court. Matoon v. McGrew, 713.
The rulings of the court in Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. United
States, 104 U. S. 680, and Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v.
United States, 104 U. S. 687, maintained. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad
v. United States, 733.
See JURISDICTION, A, 4, 5, 6; B, 2, 4;
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5.
The fourth section of the act of Congress, approved May 6, 1882, ch. 126,
as amended by the act of July 5, 1884, ch. 120, prescribing the certifi-
cate which shall be produced by a Chinese laborer as the "only
evidence permissible to establish his right of re-entry" into the
United States, is not applicable to Chinese laborers who, residing in
this country at the date of the treaty of November 17, 1880, departed
by sea before May 6, 1882, and remained out of the United States
until after July 5, 1884. Chew Heong v. United States, 536.
See COURT AND JURY;
PRACTICE, 5, 6.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6;
CLAIMS AGAINST FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
An instrument, by which A, as attorney in fact by substitution, for good
consideration, assigns to B an interest in claims to be established
against a foreign government in a mixed commission, is valid in
equity, although made before the establishment of the claim, and
creation of the fund; and may work a distinct appropriation of the
fund in B's favor, to the extent of the assignment, within the rule
laid down in Wright v. Ellison, 1 Wall. 16. Peugh v. Porter, 737.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
1. A voluntary transfer of a claim against the United States by way of
mortgage, completed and made absolute by judicial sale, is within the
provision, in Rev. Stat. § 3477, that assignments of claims against the
United States shall be void, "unless they are freely made and exe-
cuted, in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the
allowance of such a claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and
the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof." St. Paul & Duluth
Railroad v. United States, 733.
2. A transfer of a contract with the United States by way of mortgage,
completed and made absolute by judicial sale, is within the prohibi-
tion of Rev. Stat. § 3737, that "no contract or order, or any interest
therein, shall be transferred by the party to whom such contract or
order is given to any other party, and any such transfer shall
cause the annulment of the contract or order transferred, so far as the
United States are concerned." Ib.
1. A schooner was sailing E. by N., with the wind S., and a bark was
close-hauled, on the port tack. The schooner sighted the green light
of the bark about half a point on the starboard bow, about three
miles off, and starboarded a point. At two miles off she starboarded
another point. As a result the light of the bark opened about two
points. The bark let her sails shake and then filled them twice. The
schooner continued to see the green light of the bark till the vessels
were within a length of each other, when the bark opened her red
light. At the moment the vessels were approaching collision, the
schooner put her helm hard a-starboard, and headed northeast. At
that juncture the bark ported, and her stem struck the starboard side
of the schooner amidships, at about a right angle: Held, That the
bark was in fault and the schooner free from fault. The Elizabeth
Jones, 514.
2. If the case was one of crossing courses, under article 12 of the Rules
prescribed by the act of April 29, 1864, ch. 69, 13 Stat. 58, the
schooner being free and the bark close-hauled on the port tack, the
bark did not keep her course, as required by article 18, and no cause
for a departure existed under article 19, and she neglected precau-
tions required by the special circumstances of the case, within arti-
cle 20. lb.
3. The final porting by the bark was not excusable as being done in ex-
tremis, because it was not produced by any fault in the schooner. 1b.
4. The decree of the Circuit Court was affirmed, without interest. b.
1. When a contract of carriage, signed by the shipper, is fairly made
with a railroad company, agreeing on a valuation of the property
carried, with the rate of freight based on the condition that the
carrier assumes liability only to the extent of the agreed valuation,
even in case of loss or damage by the negligence of the carrier, the
contract will be upheld as a proper and lawful mode of securing a due
proportion between the amount for which the carrier may be respon-
sible and the freight he receives, and of protecting himself against
extravagant and fanciful valuations. Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad
2. H shipped five horses, and other property, by a railroad, in one car,
under a bill of lading, signed by him, which stated that the horses
were to be transported "upon the following terms and conditions,
which are admitted and accepted by me as just and reasonable. First.
To pay freight thereon" at a rate specified, "on the condition that
the carrier assumes a liability on the stock to the extent of the follow-
ing agreed valuation: If horses or mules, not exceeding two hundred
dollars each. . . . If a chartered car, on the stock and contents
in same, twelve hundred dollars for the car load. But no carrier shall
be liable for the acts of the animals themselves,
nor for loss
or damage arising from condition of the animals themselves, which
risks, being beyond the control of the company, are hereby assumed
by the owner and the carrier released therefrom." By the negligence
of the railroad company or its servants, one of the horses was killed
and the others were injured, and the other property was lost. In a
suit to recover the damages, it appeared that the horses were race-
horses, and the plaintiff offered to show damages, based on their
value, amounting to over $25,000. The testimony was excluded, and
he had a verdict for $1,200. On a writ of error, brought by him:
Held, (1) The evidence was not admissible, and the valuation and
limitation of liability in the bill of lading was just and reasonable,
and binding on the plaintiff; (2) The terms of the limitation covered
a loss through negligence. Ib.
1. Where proceedings in rem are commenced in a State court and analo-
gous proceedings in rem in a court of the United States, against the
same property, exclusive jurisdiction for the purposes of its own suit
is acquired by the court which first takes possession of the res; and
while acts of the other court thereafter, necessary to preserve the ex-
istence of a statutory right, may be supported, its other acts in as-
suming to proceed to judgment and to dispose of the property con-
vey no title. Heidritter v. Elizabeth Oil Cloth Co., 294.
2. A derived title to the premises in suit through a seizure by officers of
the United States for violation of the internal revenue laws, and con-
demnation and sale of the same in the Circuit Court of the United
States: B derived title to the same premises under judgment and de-
cree in a State court to enforce a mechanic's lien. The proceedings
in the State court were commenced and prosecuted to judgment after
the marshal had taken the premises into his possession and custody
under the proceedings in the Circuit Court. Held, That B did not
hold the legal title of the premises as against A claiming under the
marshal's sale and the decree of the District Court. 16.
CONSOLIDATION OF CORPORATIONS.
1. A municipal ordinance of the city of New Orleans, to establish the
rate of license for professions, callings and other business, which as-
sesses and directs to be collected from persons owning and running
towboats to and from the Gulf of Mexico, and the city of New Or-
leans, is a regulation of commerce among the States, and is an infringe-
ment of the provisions of article I., 8, paragraph 3, of the Consti-
tution of the United States. Moran v. New Orleans, 69.
2. § 5508 Rev. Stat. is a constitutional and valid law.
brough, 110 U. S. 661, affirmed.
3. The exercise by a citizen of the United States of the right to make a
homestead entry upon unoccupied public lands which is conferred by
§ 2289 Rev. Stat. is the exercise of a right secured by the Constitu-
tion and laws of the United States within the meaning of § 5508 Rev.
Stat. lb.
Ex parte Yar-
United States v. Waddell, 76.
4. An information which charges in substance that a citizen of the United
States made, on a given day, at a land office of the United States, a
homestead entry on a quarter section of land subject to entry at that
place, and that afterwards, while residing on that land for the
purpose of perfecting his right to the same under specified laws of
the United States on that subject, the defendants conspired to injure
and oppress him and to intimidate and threaten him in the free exer-
cise and enjoyment of that right, and because of his having exer-
cised it, and to prevent his compliance with those laws; and in the
second count that, in pursuance of the conspiracy they did upon said
homestead tract, with force and arms, fire off loaded guns and pistols
in his cabin, and did then and there drive him from his home on said
homestead entry; and in the third count that the defendants went in
disguise on the premises when occupied by him, with intent to pre-
vent and hinder the free exercise of and enjoyment by him of the
right and privilege to make said homestead entry on lands of the
United States secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, and the right to cultivate and improve said lands and
mature his title as provided by the statute, states the facts with pre-
cision so as to bring the case within § 5508 Rev. Stat.
Ib.
5. The certificate of division contained two questions which this court
decided, and a third whether the demurrer below was well taken.
No ground of demurrer was assigned which raised any question ex-
cept the two decided, but the record disclosed a grave constitutional
question which was not argued or suggested by counsel. Held, That
the case should be remanded, with answers to the two questions, and
for further proceedings. Ib.
6. An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the
United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the
government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated him-
|