F. C. 3,416, under facts; Smith v. Averill, 7 Blatchf. 33, F. C. 13,007, holding that where judgment given for claimant of property seized, it is no defense to an action against officer, where property not returned to claimant, that certificate of probable cause was made; Senior v. Pierce, 31 Fed. 627, holding that where jurisdiction of State court is exclusive Federal court cannot disturb property in hands of State officers; so also in In re Hall, etc., Co., 73 Fed. 528; Ex parte Hill, In re Willis v. Confederate States, 38 Ala. 435, 438, and in Ex parte Hill, In re Armstead v. Confederate States, 38 Ala. 461, 462, asserting right of State court to order release of person held under "second conscript law," he having furnished substitute under first conscript law (but see dissenting opinion in latter case, pp. 483, 484). Limited in Crawford v. Waterson, 5 Fla. 474, holding that where jurisdiction of Federal courts is not exclusive, State court may give redress. Distinguished also in Mock v. Kennedy, 11 La. Ann. 526, 66 Am. Dec. 204; Heyman v. Covell, 44 Mich. 335, 38 Am. Rep. 275, 6 N. W. 848, and Bruen v. Ogden, 11 N. J. L. 376, 382, 384, 20 Am. Dec. 597, 603, 605, all holding that State court may enjoin United States marshal from seizing property of one person under execution issued against another; Stoughton v. Mott, 13 Vt. 182, holding that while proceedings are pending in Federal court, State court has jurisdiction of suit against officer for wrongful taking.

Federal courts.- Judgments of, in actions within jurisdiction, are not subject to collateral impeachment, p. 10.

Cited and applied in New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Ansonia, etc., Co., 91 U. S. 661, 33 L. 339, 13 Bank. Reg. 390, as to decree under bankruptcy act; McGuire v. Winslow, 23 Blatchf. 427, 26 Fed. 305, denying right of owner of goods to maintain trover against officer, Circuit Court having held goods subject to seizure under revenue laws; Bailey v. Sundberg, 43 Fed. 82, ruling similarly as to decree in proceedings against vessel for damages caused by collision; Cucullu v. Insurance Co., 6 Mart. (La.) (N. S.) 14, holding decree in admiralty conclusive, as to legality of seizure, in action on marine insurance contract; Kittredge v. Emerson, 15 N. H. 269, applying principle to judgments rendered in State courts.

Seizure. Where officer making, refuses to institute proceedings to determine forfeiture, court may compel him to do so or abandon seizure, p. 10.

This rule is cited and applied in The Nuestra Senora de Regla, 108 U. S. 103, 27 L. 666, where, on restitution of goods, court awarded damages against officer for unreasonable delay in instituting proceedings.

Seizure. If seizure be adjudged wrongful, and without probable cause, party injured may proceed, at his election, to recover damages by suit at common law in State court or in the instance court of admiralty, p. 12.

2 Wheat. 13-18, 4 L. 172, GREENLEAF v. COOK.

Sale. Failure of consideration, through defect of title, must be total in order to constitute defense to action on note given for purchase price, p. 16.

Cited and principle applied in Elminger v. Drew, 4 McLean, 392, F. C. 4,416, where note given for certain barrels of fish, and there was no averment that barrels were worthless, although contents so proven; Zimpelman v. Hipwell, 54 Fed. 853, 2 U. S. App. 568, defendant having failed to sustain allegations that title had wholly failed or that he was liable to be evicted by superior title; Long v. Allen, 2 Fla. 409, 50 Am. Dec. 283, where vendor held under patent from United States and vendee alleged outstanding title in another; Reddick v. Mickler, 23 Fla. 337, 2 So. 699, applying rule where failure consisted in land conveyed falling short of quantity described in deed; so also in Mickler v. Reddick, 38 Fla. 348, 21 So. 288, to same effect; Howard v. Witham, 2 Me. 393, where vendor represented title to be in fee-simple, when in fact it was but an estate for life; Hoy v. Taliaferro, 8 Smedes & M. 740, 741, holding further, actual eviction necessary to total failure of consideration; followed in Copeland v. Loan, 10 Mo. 268, under facts similar to those in principal case; Fletcher v. Chase, 16 N. H. 41, applying principle where note in hands of person to whom transferred by vendor as collateral security; Allen v. Bank, 20 N. J. L. 625, holding that vendee cannot avoid payment of note on ground that vendor has failed to convey certain easement as promised by agent; Pino v. Beckwith, 1 N. Mex. 27, allowing recovery by vendee of purchase price paid, vendor having failed to make title, and vendee, at time of action brought, having tendered possession to vendor; Washburn v. Picot, 3 Dev. 391, sustaining right to recover on note where failure of consideration only partial; Walker v. Smith, 2 Vt. 543, on point that defendant in action on note, not having rescinded purchase, could not prove fraud on part of vendor; Hadlocks v. Williams, 10 Vt. 572. holding vendee relieved from payment of notes where failure of consideration total and possession never transferred under contract; Norton v. Rooker, 1 Pinn. 208, on point that claim for unliquidated damages cannot be set off in action on note. Cited, but without particular application of the principle in Wanger v. Truly, 17 How. 585, 15 L. 217.

Limited in Peden v. Moore, 1 Stew. & P. 81, 21 Am. Dec. 656, holding that where subject-matter of sale is personalty, defendant may in action on note claim deduction for injury sustained. Distinguished in Wheat v. Dotson, 12 Ark. 709, holding contra, where there was partial failure of quantity or quality of subject-matter. Questioned in Earle v. Earle, 16 N. J. L. 281. Distinguished in Washabaugh v. Hall, 4 S. Dak. 173, 56 N. W. 83, where price paid upon express condition that it should be repaid unless title perfected within time limited.

Sale - Defect of title.- Where vendee, having knowledge of incumbrance, gives note for purchase price, such defect is no legal bar to action on note, p. 17.

Cited and principle applied in Strong v. Waddell, 56 Ala. 473, denying right of purchaser in possession, to set up outstanding title, in bar to bill to enforce vendor's lien; Tobin v. Bell, 61 Ala. 129, where deed contained no warranty of title, and caveat emptor held to apply; Findley v. Cooley, 1 Blackf. 264, on point that vendee cannot avoid payment of note on ground that conveyance was made to defeat creditors; Green v. Finucane, 5 How. (Miss.) 546, refusing to enjoin collection of notes given for purchase price, where vendee knew that vendor had only equitable title and it appeared that vendor could later convey legal title; Hassams v. Dompier, 28 Vt. 33, where record of mortgage held to have given vendee constructive notice of incumbrance. Approved in Decker v. Schulze, 11 Wash. 60, 48 Am. St. Rep. 867, 39 Pac. 265, discussing general subject of defect of title.

Sale

Partial defect in title or deed is examinable only by court of equity, p. 17.

Cited and applied in Parham v. Randolph, 4 How. (Miss.) 453, 35 Am. Dec. 408, rescinding contract for sale of land on ground of fraud, after judgment in law on notes given to secure purchase money.

2 Wheat. 18-24, 4 L. 174, OTIS v. WALTER.

Embargo.- Officer seizing for violation of embargo law is protected, if his purpose is bona fide, and he need not show probable cause, p. 21.

Embargo.- Vessel cannot be seized for violation of embargo law after reaching terminus of her voyage, p. 23.

No citations.

2 Wheat. 25-31, 4 L. 175, McIVER v. RAGAN.

Statute of limitations, purpose of, is not punishment of those who neglect to assert rights, but protection of those who have remained in possession under color of title supposed to be good, p. 29.

Cited and applied in Armstrong v. Morrill, 14 Wall. 146, 20 L. 772, holding that forfeiture to State for default of real owner in payment of taxes, breaks continuity of adverse possession, and adverse possession subsequent to restitution cannot be tacked to prior possession; Mitchell v. Wilson, 3 Cr. C. C. 248, F. C. 9,672, holding possession of slave for twenty years, prima facie evidence of title in plaintiff in replevin; Roberts v. Pillow, Hemp. 634, F. C. 11,909, holding color of title under void deed admissible in evidence of adverse possession; English v. Register, 7 Ga. 390, holding that posses

sion under disclaimer of title is not adverse as regards one having perfect paper title; Hickman v. Gaither, 2 Yerg. 204, on point that claim by entry will be barred by adverse possession under color of title for statutory period. Approved in Spaulding v. Grigg, 4 Ga. 87, discussing general subject.

Statutes of limitations.- Courts can make no exceptions to, p. 30. This rule, for which the principal case is a leading authority, has been applied in the following citing cases: Bank of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How. 529, 13 L. 245, construing statute limiting time for bringing action on judgments obtained in other States, and applying rule, although person sued became citizen of State same day as suit brought; French v. Spencer, 21 How. 238, 16 L. 99, construing bounty-land act, containing no prohibition as to sale of land granted under it; United States v. Maillard, 4 Ben. 465, F. C. 15,709, enforcing statute of limitations containing no exception as to cases tainted with fraud; The Sam Slick, 2 Curt. 485, F. C. 12,282, holding that where statute provided that lien on vessel should be lost on entry in any port outside of commonwealth, entry of such port in distress worked loss of lien; United States v. Brown, 2 Low. 269, F. C. 14,665, as to statute of limitations containing no exception as to persons without limits of country; Weeks v. Vassault, 3 Sawy. 217, F. C. 9,393, holding pendency of administration on estate does not constitute disability in heir to sue, in absence of express provision in statute; Norton v. De la Villebeuve, 1 Woods, 164, F. C. 10,350, holding that ignorance of rights at time such rights accrued, does not remove bar raised by statute of limitations; Amy v. Watertown, 22 Fed. Rep. 420, holding statute not suspended because failure to sue was caused by fraud of defendant; Copp v. Railway Co., 50 Fed. 165, holding that where congress creates new right of action and prescribes no period of limitations, State statutes apply; Morgan v. Des Moines, 54 Fed. 460, denying infants' rights beyond statute of limitations where such rights not granted by statute itself; Madden v. Lancaster, 65 Fed. 195, 27 U. S. App. 528, refusing to entertain objection that period of limitations prescribed by statute is unreasonably short; Shreve v. Cheeseman, 69 Fed. 789, 32 U. S. App. 676, construing statute, providing for taxing costs; Pearsall v. Railway Co., 73 Fed. 940, holding right of consolidation granted in railroad charters to be vested right, and where charter reserved to state, right to amend "in any manner not impairing vested rights," such right of consolidation was not excepted; dissenting opinion, Stryker v. Commissioners, 77 Fed. 582, 40 U. S. App. 583, on point that where charter contains unrestricted right of taxation, city may levy special tax for purpose of satisfying judgment; Boyd Paving Co. v. Ward, 85 Fed. 35, 55 U. S. App. 742, applying principle in construing clause of State constitution restricting use of powers by certain classes of cities; Savings, etc., Co. v. Bear Valley, etc.,

Co., 89 Fed. 40, holding courts cannot extend life of lien beyond statutory period; United States v. American L. Co., 80 Fed. 320, refusing to make an exception to the running of the statute, where the steps taken to procure service of process in a suit commenced, were bona fide but misguided.

Followed also in Bennett v. Worthington, 24 Ark. 493, holding that closing of courts during war does not suspend running of statute of limitations, unless expressly so provided; Tynan v. Walker, 35 Cal. 640, 95 Am. Dec. 157, construing strictly, statute of limitations, and holding further, that statute will not be held to imply existence of person against whom it may run; so also in Adams v. Davis, 47 Ga. 341; Baker v. Brown, 18 Ill. 92, holding that death of debtor cannot arrest statute of limitations; Hibernian Banking Assn. v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 157 Ill. 538, 41 N. E. 923, construing section of statute of limitations relative to departure of debtor from State; Smith v. Stewart, 21 La. Ann. 77, 78, holding that existence of war will not suspend operation of statute of limitations, unless expressly so provided; Coffin v. Rich, 45 Me. 512, 71 Am. Dec. 563, construing statute changing existing liabilities of individual members of corporations, holding courts bound by such statute, except where vested rights impaired; Erickson v. Johnson, 22 Minn. 383, holding period of five years, provided in statute, during which judgment lien must be enforced, not extended by death of judgment creditor; Robertson v. Alford, 13 Smedes & M. 512, where statute of limitations held not suspended by injunction, restraining creditor from enforcing claim; Kilpatrick v. Bryne, 25 Miss. 582, where judgment lien declared lost at end of period of limitation, although execution levied during such period, but no sale made under it; Dozier v. Ellis, 28 Miss. 736, holding that where statute prescribed period within which action must be brought to recover money paid, such period commences to run before time of discovery of fraud; so also in Rogers v. Brown, 61 Mo. 194, and Garrett v. Conklin, 52 Mo. App. 659, to same effect; Toombs v. Hornbuckle, 3 Mont. 196, construing statute limiting time for bringing appeals in certain cases; Freeholders v. Veghte, 44 N. J. L. 513, holding that fraudulent concealment of cause of action cannot affect operation of statute of limitations; Randall v. Railroad Co., 107 N. C. 754, 12 S. E. 607, construing statute declaring presumptions of negligence in certain cases of injury to property; Matterson v. Dederkey, 12 R. I. 71, construing statute regulating capacity of married woman to sue in absence of husband from State; Patton v. McClure, Mart. & Y. 345, construing statute providing, in general terms, that certain contracts shall be in writing; Cocke v. McGinnis, Mart. & Y. 365, 17 Am. Dec. 812, holding that where cases of fraud not excepted from operation of statute of frauds, courts cannot make exception; Bowen v. Kirkland, 44 S. W. 192, refusing to engraft an exception upon the law of limitations as to administrators; Bickle v. Chrisman, 76 Va. 685, 688, holding