in Stockwell v. The United States, (13
Wallace, 531,) was, that the 4th sec-
tion of the Act of July 18th, 1866,
(14 U. S. Stat. at Large, 179,) did not
effect such a repeal of the 2d section
of the Act of March 3d, 1823, (3 Id.,
781,) as took away the right of the
United States to proceed under said
2d section, upon a cause of action
which arose before the Act of 1866

took effect. United States v. Claflin,

55

An indictment, under § 3296 of the
Revised Statutes, which charges a
removal of a certain quantity of
"distilled spirits" on which the tax
had not been paid, to a place other
than the distillery warehouse, is
good. United States v. Anthony, 92

See CRIMINAL PRACTICE, 1 to 4.
INTERNAL REVENUE, 5.
NATURALIZATION, 1.

1. C., as special agent of the Post-Office
Department, prosecuted an action
given by statute, as well for himself
as for the United States, to final judg-
ment, against T., the avails of which,
as to costs, would belong to him
alone, and, as to damages, to him and
the United States, in equal parts.
The bond of T. and B., running to
the United States alone, was taken
in satisfaction of such judgment.
A large part of the sum due on the
bond was paid, and, out of it, the
costs of the suit, belonging to C., 1.
were paid, and the balance was di-
vided between him and the United
States. Suit was then brought by
the United States, on the bond, to
recover the balance due on it, and
judgment was obtained. Satisfaction
of such judgment was entered, with-
out payment made, by the law offi-
cers of the United States, by direc-
tion of the Post-Office Department.
C. moved to set aside the entry of
satisfaction: Held, that the motion
must be denied, United States v.
Bacon,
279

See PROBABLE CAUSE.

PROMISSORY NOTE, 2.

To an action of debt, brought by.
the United States, on the bond of a
surety for a paymaster in the navy,
the defendant pleaded matters which
amounted to allegations of laches on
the part of the United States in their
dealings with the paymaster, and
also that the defendant had revoked
his bond: Held, that the pleas were
bad. Raymond v. United States, 51

See COLLISION, 4.

PROBABLE CAUSE.

LIEN.

Wall., 558,) decides, that a material
man furnishing repairs and supplies
to a vessel in her home port, does.
not thereby acquire any lien upon
the vessel, by the general maritime
law, as received in the United States,
but that, so long as Congress does
not interfere to regulate the subject,
the rights of material men furnishing
necessaries to a vessel in her home
port may be regulated, in each State,
by State legislation; that such con-
tracts are maritime, and fall within
the domain of the Admiralty juris-
diction; and that, when, in such
cases, a lien is given by the State
laws, such lien may be enforced by
the District Courts of the United
States, under the 12th Rule, as modi-
fied by the Supreme Court of the
United States, May 6th, 1872. The
John Farron,

24

2. The provision for a lien, made by a
State lien law, will be enforced, when
the contract is maritime, in the Courts
of Admiralty, although the same law
gives an unconstitutional power to
the State Courts to proceed in rem
to enforce such lien.
id.

3. The statute of New York, of April
24th, 1862, (Laws of 1862, p. 956, § 1,)
gives a lien on a vessel for a debt
contracted by her "master, owner,
charterer, builder or consignee," or
the agent of either of them," within
the State, on account of labor or ma-
terials furnished in the State for re-
pairing such vessel. H., the owner
of a vessel, contracted in writing to
sell her to S., and delivered posses-
sion and control of her to S., who,
as her apparent owner, contracted, in
New York, upon her credit, a debt
for repairs to her. In the contract
of sale it was agreed that S. should
have possession, and might make re-
pairs, but that such repairs should
not be a lien on the vessel, or a claim
against H., but the creditor had no
notice of such agreement: Held, that
there was a lien on the vessel for the
debt, under such statute.

id.

4. A maritime lien exists for supplies
furnished to a vessel in a foreign port,
which were necessary and were fur-
nished on the credit of the vessel,
unless the necessity for such credit

7. A mortgage was given on a vessel
and was recorded in pursuance of sec-
tion 1 of the Act of Congress of July
29th, 1850, (9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 440,)
now § 4192 of the Revised Statutes
of the United States. Afterwards,
and while she was in the possession
of her owner at her home port in
Buffalo, New York, repairs were there
done to her, on the credit of the ves
sel. The statute of New York gave
a lien on the vessel for such repairs,
in preference to all other liens, ex-
cept seamen's wages. After the re-
pairs were made the mortgage was
foreclosed and the vessel was sold,
and was purchased by the claimant,
on the foreclosure sale. Afterwards,
a libel in rem was filed against the
vessel to enforce such lien for re-
pairs: Held, that such lien had pri-
ority over the title acquired under
the foreclosure of the mortgage. The
William T. Graves,
189

8.

A British vessel, in distress, put into
the Danish port of St. Thomas. Re-
pairs to her were necessary. N. at-
tended there to the business of the
vessel, and, with the connivance of
T., the master, made out fraudulent
accounts against the vessel, and T.
drew three drafts on the owners of
the vessel, for over $6,000, which
were expressed, on their face, to be
"recoverable against the vessel,
freight and cargo." F., in good faith,
and without knowledge of the fraud,

1. This question was put to the appli-
cant for a policy of insurance in a
life insurance company: "Have the
person's parents, uncles, aunts, broth-
ers or sisters been afflicted with con-
sumption, scrofula, insanity, epilepsy,
disease of the heart, or any other
hereditary disease?" He answered,
"No, except one brother temporarily
insane six years since; causes, do-
mestic and financial trouble, followed
by hard drinking and excessive use
of opium and morphine. Recovery
followed reformed habits. No hered-
itary taint of any kind in family, on
either side of house, to my knowl-
edge." The policy having been after-
wards issued, in a suit brought on it
the defendant proved the temporary
insanity of an uncle of the applicant,
but there was no evidence of any
hereditary insanity in the family of
the applicant: Held, that the ques-
tion put to the applicant was only an
inquiry whether any of the diseases
mentioned in it had appeared among
the relatives of the applicant in the
form of an hereditary disease; that
the applicant understood it in that
sense; and that the answer was true.
Gridley v. Northwestern Ins. Co., 107

LIMITATION OF ACTION.

I. The provision in § 1047 of the Re-
vised Statutes, (formerly § 4 of the
Act of February 28th, 1839, 5 U. S.
Stat at Large, 322,) that "no suit or
prosecution for any penalty or for-
feiture, pecuniary or otherwise, ac-
cruing under the laws of the United |

Holders of some mortgage bonds of
a railroad corporation brought a suit
in equity, in this Court, against the
corporation, and three individual de-
fendants, who were trustees in the
mortgage, to foreclose the mortgage,
and remove the trustees. To the
foreclosure portion of the bill, the
corporation pleaded the pendency of
a foreclosure suit in a Court of the
State, but, as that suit was not be-
tween the same parties or those fully
authorized to represent the same par-
ties, in the same behalf and for the
same relief, the plea was overruled.
Brooks v. Vermont Central R. R. Co.,