INFORMATION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4;
1. A person appointed and commissioned as a collector of internal revenue,
under the act of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 432, is entitled to the compen-
sation, provided for by § 34 of that act, of a percentage commission
to be computed on the moneys accounted for and paid over by him,
from the time he enters on the duties of his office and his services are
accepted, and not merely from the time he takes the oath of office
and files his official bond. United States v. Flanders, 88.
2. A collector of internal revenue appointed under that act is entitled, in
a suit against him on such bond, brought to recover public money
collected by him and not paid over, to have allowed, as a set-off,
money paid by him for publishing advertisements required to be made
by § 19 of that act, if the amount is found to be reasonable and
proper, although the item was not formally allowed or certified by the
accounting officers in the Treasury Department or otherwise. Ib.
INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7.
JUDGMENT.
See ESTOPPEL, 2;
PATENT, 1;
PRACTICE, 1.
A. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME Court.
1. An order awarding a peremptory writ of mandamus which directs the
collector of taxes of a county to collect a tax that had been duly
levied and extended on the county tax books is a final judgment sub-
ject to review when the other conditions exist. Davies v. Corbin, 36.
2. The power to review the judgment in a proceeding for mandamus to
enforce the collection of a tax to pay all judgment creditors of a
specified class, depends upon the amount of the whole tax ordered to
be collected, and not upon the amount of the judgment debts due to
cach or any individual petitioner. Ib.
3. When a record shows that two questions are presented by the plead-
ings, one Federal and one non-Federal, and that the judgment below
rested upon a decision of the non-Federal question, this court has no
jurisdiction to a review that judgment. Adams County v. Burlington
& Missouri Railroad, 123.
4. When the jurisdiction of this court for review of the judgments and
decrees of circuit courts depends upon the amount in controversy,
that amount is the sum shown by the whole record, including counter-
claims, and not by the claims set up by the plaintiff only. Hilton v.
Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165, affirmed. Bradstreet Co. v. Higgins, 227.
5. When a cause commenced in a State court, and removed to a Circuit
Court, is brought to this court, and it does not appear on the face of
the record that the citizenship of the parties was such as to give the
Circuit Court jurisdiction on removal, the judgment below will be
reversed without inquiry into the merits, and the cause sent back with
instructions to remand it to the State court from which it was
improperly removed. Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway
v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, affirmed. In so remanding the cause this
court will make such order as to costs a is just. Hancock v. Holbrook,
229.
6. This court has no jurisdiction over the decision and judgment of
a State court upon adverse claims to real estate made under a com-
mon grantor whose title was derived from the United States and is
not in dispute. Romie v. Casanova, 91 U. S. 379, and McStay
v. Friedman, 92 U. S. 723, affirined. Hastings v. Jackson, 233.
7. Whether the destruction of a building by fire, communicated from
buildings burned by the Confederate forces on leaving Richmond, was
covered by a policy which excepted losses resulting from riois, civil
commotions, insurrections, or invasions of a foreign enemy, is not a
Federal question but one of general law, the decision of which by a
State court is not reviewable here. Grame v. Mutual Assurance
Co., 273.
8. When a mandate of this court, made after hearing and deciding an
appeal in equity, directed such further proceedings to be had in the
court below as would be consistent with right and justice, and that
court thereafter mace a decree which prejudiced the substantial
rights of a party to the suit, in respect of matters not concluded by
the mandate or by the original decree, its action touching such mat-
ters is subject to review, upon a second appeal. Mackall v. Richards,
9. A bill was brought in the name of A. B. "in his capacity as president
of the N. O. National Bank." Throughout the pleadings and all
proceedings below it was treated as the suit of the bank.
peal it was assigned for error that it was the suit of A. B., and as A.
B. and the defendant were citizens of the same State that this court was
without jurisdiction. Held, That the defendant was bound by the
construction put upon the bill below, and the objection to jurisdic-
tion was too late. Fortier v. New Orleans Bank, 439.
10. In an action at law, submitted to the decision of the Circuit Court by
the parties waiving a trial by jury, in which the record does not show
the filing of the stipulation in writing required by section 649 of the
Revised Statutes, this court, upon bill of exceptions and writ of error,
cannot review rulings upon the admission or rejection of testimony,
or upon any other question of law growing out of the evidence; but
may determine wheti er the declaration is sufficient to support the
judgment. Bond v. 1 stin, 604.
11. When there is no demurrer to the declaration, or other exception to
the sufficiency of the pleadings, no exception to the rulings of the
court in the progress of the trial, in the admission or exclusion of
evidence, or otherwise, no request for a ruling upon the legal suffi-
ciency or effect of the whole evidence, or no motion in arrest of judg-
ment, and the only matter presented by the bill of exceptions which
this court is asked to review arises upon the exception to the general
finding by the court for the plaintiff upon the evidence adduced at
the trial, no question of law is presented which this court can review.
Martinton v. Fairbanks, 670.
See HABEAS CORPUS, 1, 2;
MANDAMUS, 1;
PRACTICE, 7.
B. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS.
1. Under the act of March 3, 1875, ch. 137, the Circuit Court has jurisdic-
tion of a suit between citizens of different States to foreclose a mort-
gage made to secure the payment of a negotiable promissory note of
which the plaintiff is indorsce, although the payee and mortgagee
is a citizen of the same State with the defendant. Mersman v. Wer-
ges, 139.
2. A bill in equity, in Indiana, which avers that a deed is void on its face,
and an answer which does not deny the averment, will support the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States in that district
to quiet the title of the complainant as against the deed. Holland v.
Challen, 110 U. S. 15, affirmed. Reynolds v. Crawfordsville Bank, 405.
3. A suit on an administrator's bond taken in the name of a State for the
benefit of parties interested is, for the purposes of jurisdiction, re-
garded as a suit in the name of the party for whose benefit it is brought.
Maryland v. Baldwin, 490.
4. A case cannot be removed from a State court under the act of March 3,
1875, 18 Stat. 470, after hearing on a demurrer to a complaint because
it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Alley
v. Nott, 111 U. S. 472, affirmed. Scharff v. Levy, 711.
E. Two citizens of West Virginia conveyed to a trustee certain real prop-
erty in that State, to secure the payment of notes executed by them
to a Missouri corporation, which was subsequently dissolved, and its
assets placed in the hands of a citizen of the latter State. Upon de-
fault in the payment of the notes, the trustee, under authority given
by the deed, advertised the property for sale. The grantors thereupon
instituted a suit in equity in one of the courts of West Virginia to
enjoin the sale, making the trustee, the Missouri corporation, and the
person who held its assets, defendants. Upon the joint petition of
that corporation and the defendant holding its assets, the cause was
removed to the Circuit Court of the United States, and was there
finally determined: Held, That since the trustee was an indispensable
party, his citizenship was material in determining the jurisdiction of
the Circuit Court; and as that was not averred, and did not otherwise
affirmatively appear to be such as gave the right of removal, the de-
cree must be reversed and the cause remanded to the State court.
Thayer v. Life Association, 717.
See CONFLICT OF LAW, 1, 2;
JURISDICTION, A, 9;
PRACTICE, 4;
REMOVAL OF CAUSES.
C. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
1. A claim against the United States for a part of the money received from
Great Britain in payment of the award made at Geneva under the
Treaty of Washington, is both a claim growing out of a treaty stipu-
lation and a claim dependent upon such stipulation, and is excluded
from the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims by § 1066 Rev. Stat.
Great Western Insurance Co. v. United States, 193.
2. Where property to which the United States asserts no title, is taken by
their officers or agents, pursuant to an act of Congress, as private
property, for the public use, the government is under an implied ob-
ligation to make just compensation to the owner. Such an implica-
tion being consistent with the constitutional duty of the government,
as well as with common justice, the owner's claim for compensation
is one arising out of implied contract, within the meaning of the
statute defining the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, although
there may have been no formal proceedings for the condemnation of
the property to public use. United States v. Great Falls Manufactur-
ing Co., 645.
3. The owner may waive any objection he might be entitled to make,
based upon the want of such formal proceedings, and, electing to re-
gard the action of the government as a taking under its sovereign
right of eminent domain, may demand just compensation for the
property. Ib.
See COURT AND JURY;
WAIVER OF JURY.
See PUBLIC LAND, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14.
The legal title to real estate acquired subsequent to the lease by a lessor
owning the equitable title at the date of the lease, inures to the ben-
efit of the lessce as against a judgment creditor of the lessor whose
judgment is subsequent to the lease. Skidmore v. Pittsburgh & Cin-
cinnati Railway, 33.
LEGISLATIVE CONFIRMATION.
See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
1. F conveyed to W, as trustee, real estate in Illinois on trust to permit
F's wife to use and occupy and receive the rents and profits during
her lifetime and to her own use, and at any time to convey on the
written request of F and the wife, to the person designated, and
in case of the wife's death in the husband's lifetime to convey to the
husband for life with remainder to their children: Held, That, under
the laws of Illinois in force when the rights of the parties became
fixed, a judgment creditor of F had no lien at law upon his interest
in the property, and could acquire one only by filing a bill in equity.
Brandies v. Cochrane, 344.
2. At the common law (in force in Illinois when the rights of the parties
became fixed), the lien of a judgment against one having a power of
appointment, with the estate vested in him until, and in default of,
appointment, was liable to be defeated by execution of the power,
even though the purchaser had actual notice of the judgment. Ib.
3. The general doctrine in equity that where a person has a general power
of appointment, and executes this power, the property appointed is
deemed, in equity, part of his assets, cannot be invoked to support a
claim of a judgment lien at law upon the antecedent estate, which
the exercise of the power had displaced. Ib.
|