1 Wheat. 233-237, 4 L. 79, WELCH v. MANDEVILLE.

Assignment of choses in action are valid at common law, and assignee can sue in name of assignor, pp. 236, 237, note.

The following citations rely upon the holding of the principal case: Brush Electric Co. v. California, etc., Co., 52 Fed. 960, 7 U. S. App. 409, holding licensee of patent can join licensor as party ,plaintiff; Buckner v. Greenwood, 6 Ark. 206, holding, under statute. assignee can sue in his own name; Price v. Bradford, 5 Ga. 366; Robinson v. Schley, 6 Ga. 523, holding assignee of judgment may sue in name of plaintiff; Blackerby v. Holton, 5 Dana (Ky.), 522, holding equity will enforce an assignment as a trust; Pitts v. Holmes, 10 Cush. 96, holding assignee of chose in action can sue in name of assignor with his consent; Scott v. Metcalf, 13 S. & M. 567, declaring that at law assignee was forced to sue in name of assignor; also Anderson v. Williams, 24 Miss. 686, holding party with equitable title must sue in name of one having legal title; Belton v. Gibbon, 12 N. J. L. 77, holding assignee may sue in name of assignor; Davenport v. Elizabeth, 43 N. J. L. 151, holding assignee suing in name of assignor, liable for costs; Otis v. Adams, 56 N. J. L. 40, 27 Atl. 1093, holding statute does not make assignable a part of a chose in action, so assignee of such part can sue in his own name, at law; Melick v. Melick, 17 N. J. Eq. 159, allowing party beneficially interested to conduct suit in name of executor; Freund v. Bank, 76 N. Y. 356, holding, under code, if assignee acquires the whole interest he may sue in his own name; Green v. Insurance Co., 84 N. Y. 575, holding real plaintiff could sue on judgment recovered in name of assignor; Rollison v. Hope, 18 Tex. 451, holding if debtor have notice of assignment and promises, to pay assignee, latter may sue in his own name; Cronin v. Patrick Co., 89 Fed. 83, involving negotiability of county bonds.

Assignment Dismissal.- Nominal plaintiff suing for his assignee cannot by collusive dismissal of suit bar subsequent suit for same cause of action, p. 236.

Cited in Mandeville v. Welch, 5 Wheat. 283, 5 L. 90, affirming rule; Cronin v. Patrick Co., 4 Hughes, 532, 89 Fed. 83, holding assignee of bond takes subject to equities; Hazelton v. Railway Co., 72 Fed. 328, allowing purchaser of contract being sued on, to have benefit of previous proceedings; Wagner v. National, etc., Ins. Co., 90 Fed. 402, collecting authorities, allowing plea of fraudulent dismissal to be set up in replication; Brown v. Insurance Co., 4 Fed. Cas. 382, holding judgment should be rendered on verdict, though as against nominal plaintiff action is barred; Chisolm v. Newton, 1 Ala. 372, rejecting evidence of admissions of nominal plaintiff; Cunningham v. Carpenter, 10 Ala. 112, permission of partner to dismiss his unascertained interest, amounts to nothing; Chapman v. Shattuck, 3 Gilm. 52, holding any compromise, between original parties after notice

44

of assignment, is void; Hackett v. Martin, 8 Me. 80, after assignment, no subsequent act of assignor can control; as also Matthews v. Houghton, 10 Me. 421, to the same effect; Whiting v. Insurance Co., 15 Md. 315, holding payment of debt by stranger, without debtor's consent, will not discharge him; Anderson v. Miller, 7 S. & M. 590, holding nominal plaintiff cannot discharge an action; Cameron v. Little, 13 N. H. 26, holding assignor cannot discontinue action brought in his name; Sloan v. Sommers, 14 N. J. L. 512, not permitting nominal plaintiff to release action: Wilson v. Stillwell. 14 Ohio St. 471, holding surety by agreement with nominal plaintiff, cannot obtain satisfaction of judgment, without payment in full; Gaullagher v. Caldwell, 22 Pa. St. 302, 60 Am. Dec. 85, upholding release obtained from nominal plaintiff, defendant having no notice of the assignment; McFadin v. McGreal, 25 Tex. 80, holding no recovery can be had against nominal plaintiff: Strong v. Strong, 2 Aikens, 378, holding nominal plaintiff cannot fraudulently discharge suit.

Distinguished in Kansas City v. Morgan, 76 Fed. 435, 47 U. S. App. 1, holding judgment obtained fraudulently by plaintiff's father, could not be collaterally attacked; Koch v. Lyon, 82 Mich. 516, 46 N. W. 780, admitting declaration of assignor made after assignment which was not for value.

Assignments.- Courts of law afford assignments every protection, p. 236.

Cited to this point in Lamkin v. Phillips, 9 Port. 102, applying equitable principles to assignments; Walters v. Whitlock, 9 Fla. 102, 76 Am. Dec. 613, holding courts will recognize an assignment for benefit of creditors, if valid in State where made; Pass v. McRea, 36 Miss. 149, that court of law will protect interest of assignee; Andrews v. Bank, 77 Md. 28, 25 Atl. 917, holding no appeal lies from denial of motion of equitable defendant to strike out order of dismissal.

Miscellaneous.- Cited in the following cases, referring more specifically to same case in 5 Wheat. 277, 5 L. 87; Palmer v. Merrill, 6 Cush. 287, 52 Am. Dec. 785; James v. Newton, 142 Mass. 376, 56 Am. Rep. 698, 8 N. E. 126, and Morton v. Naylor, 1 Hill, 585. Cited erroneously in Hudson v. Weir, 29 Ala. 299.

1 Wheat. 238-261, 4 L. 80, L'INVINCIBLE.

Prize. Courts of capturing power have exclusive cognizance of prize questions, p. 254.

Cited to this point in Hallett v. Lamothe, 3 Murphy (N. C.), 297. Distinguished in The Estrella. 4 Wheat. 307, 4 L. 577, holding where capture is brought infra præsidia of a neutral power, that power has right to inquire if its neutrality has been violated: as also in The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 351, 5 L. 471: to the same effect, In re Fassett, 142 U. S. 485, 35 L. 1089, 12 S. Ct. 298.

ANN

Admiralty jurisdiction.- Every violent dispossession of property on the ocean is prima facie a maritime tort and a subject of admiralty jurisdiction, p. 257.

Cited and rule applied in N. J. Nav. Co. v. Bank, 6 How. 432, 12 L. 503, holding admiralty has jurisdiction of action against carrier for goods, where vessel was burned in port; In re Fassett, 142 U. S. 485, 35 L. 1089, 12 S. Ct. 298, holding subject-matter of the libel was a marine tort, cognizable by District Court; Sloop Martha Anne, Olcott, 21, F. C. 9,146, holding detention of vessel for executing such process, was a maritime tort. Cited in Schooner Tilton, 5 Mason, 471, F. C. 14,054, without particular application.

Admiralty.- Foreign privateer captured by American privateer and libelled for salvage, cannot be proceeded against by third persons for prior tortious acts, pp. 253, 254.

Miscellaneous citations.- Cited in Ship Adolph, 1 Curt. 89, F. C. 86, to point that foreign consul can petition court to have proceeds paid into registry where his countrymen were interested in property sold for salvage; Taylor v. Brigham, 3 Woods, 379, F. C. 13,781, to the point that owners of ship are liable for misconduct of master and crew.

1 Wheat. 261-278, 4 L. 86, THE EDWARD.

Admiralty practice.— The Circuit Court may on appeal allow an information to be amended, p. 264.

Cited as a precedent in following cases, affirming and following this rule: The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 397, 5 L. 645; Garland v. Davis. 4 How. 154, 11 L. 918; New Jersey L. N. Co. v. Bauk, 6 How. 434, 12 L. 504; Richmond v. Copper Co., 2 Low. 317, F. C. 11,800; Anonymous, 1 Gall. 22, F. C. 444; Folger v. Robert G. Shaw, 2 Wood. & M. 540, F. C. 4,899; Walsh v. United States, 3 Wood. & M. 348, F. C. 17,116; The Meteor, 17 Fed. Cas. 184, and United States v. Three Hundred and Ninety-six Barrels, 28 Fed. Cas. 122.

1 Wheat. 279-291, 4 L. 91, MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY v. WATTS.

Statutes.- Federal courts will conform their decisions to those of State courts on the local laws, p. 290.

Principle approved and followed in Derby v. Jacques, 1 Cliff. 439, F. C. 3,817, holding that a judgment in a writ of right recovered in State court after writ was abolished by statute not a bar to writ in Federal court; Mitchell v. Lippincott, 2 Woods, 473, F. C. 9,665. holding Federal court bound by later decisions of State courts; Prentice v. Zane, 19 Fed. Cas. 1271, following State court's construction of State statute; Bloodgood v. Grasey, 31 Ala. 589, holding decision of State court to be authoritative exposition of its statutes; Yonley v. Lavender, 27 Ark. 264, holding that one having judgment

ANN

in Federal court against administrator is remitted to court of probate to receive pro rata; Hiller v. Shattuck, 1 Flipp. 274, F. C. 6,504, conforming to local land law.

Insurance.— Virginia statute as to assessments in mutual insurance company construed.

Distinguished in Mutual Ass. Soc. v. Faxon, 6 Wheat. 606, 5 L 342, a case under the same statute.

1 Wheat. 292–298, 4 L. 94, WALDEN v. GRATZ.

Statute of limitations as to adverse possession once started does not stop by reason of subsequent disabilities, p. 296.

Rule applied in Harris v. McGovern, 99 U. S. 168, 25 L. 319, affirming 2 Sawy. 518, F. C. 6,125; McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U. s. 623, 28 L. 270, 4 S. Ct. 143; Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 657, 37 L. 320, 13 S. Ct. 470, and Doe ex dem. Caldwell v. Thorp, 8 Ala. 258, 260, all holding similarly; Wyn v. Lee, 5 Ga. 227, holding removal of defendant from State does not stop statute; Kendal v. Slaughter, 1 A. K. Marsh. 380, construing act giving feme covert three years after disability removed, not to apply unless she were covert when right accrued; dissenting opinion, South v. Thomas, 7 T. B. Mon. 73, 86, 87, majority holding on casting descent upon minors, statute ceases running; De Mill v. Moffat, 49 Mich. 130, 13 N. W. 389, holding statute in ejectment not arrested by devolution of estate; Gilman v. Cutts, 23 N. H. 382, holding, under statute, statute ceases to run during absence from the State; De Kay v. Darrah, 14 N. J. L. 294, holding death does not suspend the statute; Clarke v. Cross, 2 R. I. 449, holding disabilities must exist at commencement of the adverse possession; Faysoux v. Prather, 1 Nott & McC. 300, 302, 9 Am. Dec. 694, 696, holding subsequent disability does not stop statute; McAuliff v. Parker, 10 Wash. 146, 38 Pac. 746, holding subsequent death of party will not stop statute.

Adverse possession.-Under champerty act of Kentucky, deed will pass title to land notwithstanding, adverse possession, p. 296.

Cited to this point in Conn's Heirs v. Manifee, 2 A. K. Marsh. 398, 12 Am. Dec. 420, holding same under similar facts; Aldridge v. Kincaid, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 394, holding after-acquired title inures to the use of vendee; Jackson v. Winn, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 326, holding legislature has power to change mode of conveyancing land.

Statute of limitations.- Kentucky statute is similar to the English, and adverse possession under survey previous to grant may be connected with subsequent possession, p. 296.

1 Wheat. 298-300, 4 L. 95, THE HARRISON.

Admiralty practice. If national character of property is ambiguous, and no claim is made, final condemnation is postponed for

year and a day, when property will be condemned to the captors if no claimant appears, p. 299.

Cited in Read v. Martin, 9 Port. 185, holding one interested may come within a year from time of decree rendered in admiralty by default, and be admitted to defend on condition.

Distinguished in The Falcon, Blatchf. Pr. 54, F. C. 4,616, where there was no ambiguity as to nationality of vessel.

Prize.- Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction in prize cases, and claim cannot be interposed there for the first time, p. 300. Cited and followed in The William Bagaley, 5 Wall. 412, 18 L. 591. Miscellaneous citations.- Cited incidentally, dissenting opinion, Ferris v. Coover, 11 Cal. 182.

1 Wheat. 300-304, 4 L. 96, HARDEN v. FISHER

Practice. Where findings of special verdict are insufficient, appellate court is unable to give judgment for either party, p. 304. Rule applied in Saltonstall v. Birtwell, 150 U. S. 420, 37 L. 1129, 14 S. Ct. 170.

Treaty. To avail themselves of protection of treaty provisions, parties must show that title to land was in them or their ancestors at time treaty was made, p. 301.

Rule applied in Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheat. 464, 4 L. 616, holding party's title confirmed free from taint of alienage; Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. 496, 6 L. 144, holding alien mortgagee may maintain bill for sale of land; Orser v. Hoag, 3 Hill, 85, holding no claim to lands can be established in virtue of a treaty where claimant's ancestor died before treaty was signed; Munro v. Merchant, 28 N. Y. 36, holding an ante-natus could inherit from an alien father by virtue of treaties. Cited, arguendo, in Pollard v. Kibbe, 14 Pet. 413, 10 L. 519.