Bills and notes.- Action of debt will lie by payee or indorsee of bill of exchange, against acceptor, where it is expressed to be for value received, p. 389.

Cited and rule applied in Kirkman v. Hamilton, 6 Pet. 24, 8 L. 306, ruling similarly as to promissory note; Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mason, 263, 297, F. C. 2,121, holding such action to lie in favor of holder of dishonored bank note against stockholder of bank, under charter provision making stockholders personally liable; Frazer v. Carpenter, 2 McLean, 237, F. C. 5,069, under facts similar to principal case; Home v. Semple, 3 McLean, 150, F. C. 6,658, allowing action of debt by payee against drawer; Robinson v. Crenshaw, 2 Stew. & P. 296, 298, applying rule where note payable to bearer; Dunlop v. Buckingham, 16 Ill. 111, holding further that consideration need not be expressed on face of bill; Lambert v. Sandford, 2 Blackf. 140, 18 Am. Dec. 151, on point that acceptor is principal and not surety as to payee; National Exchange Bank v. Abell, 63 Me. 348, overruling general demurrer to declaration in debt containing count on promissory note; De Proux v. Sargent, 70 Me. 271, holding that count in debt on promissory note may be joined with count in debt on judgment; Penn v. Flack, 3 Gill & J. 375, under facts similar to principal case; Laflin, etc., Co. v. Sinsheimer, 48 Md. 418, 30 Am. Rep. 475, sustaining action by indorsee against acceptor; Beveridge v. Richmond, 14 Mo. App. 407, as to action against accommodation acceptor; Henschel v. Mahler, 3 Den. 431, under facts similar to those in principal case; so also in Anderson v. Crockett, 6 Yerg. 331, in action by indorsee against maker of promissory note; Planters' Bank v. Galloway, 11 Humph. 345, under facts similar to principal case; Regnault v. Hunter, 4 W. Va. 270, 271, ruling similarly under statute; Ela v. Express Co., 29 Wis. 618, 9 Am. Rep. 622, on point that privity of contract is not necessary to sustain action for money had and received. Cited approvingly in Diversy v. Moor, 22 Ill. 332, 74 Am. Dec. 157, and Callett v. Russell, 6 Leigh (Va.), 874, discussing general subject.

Distinguished in Gregory v. Thompson, 31 N. J. L. 169, denying right of plaintiff to maintain debt on collateral promise to pay debt of another. Denied in Kennedy v. Carpenter, 2 Whart. 350.

2 Wheat. 390-394, 4 L. 269, UNION BANK OF GEORGETOWN v. LAIRD.

Corporate stock.- Transfer of, can be made only in manner provided for by rules of corporation, p. 393.

The following citing cases show other applications of this rule: Brent v. Bank, 10 Pet. 614, 616, 9 L. 554, 555, holding that where bank charter provided that debts due corporation must be paid before transfer of stock, executor of deceased stockholder could not maintain suit in equity to compel transfer before such payment; Moores v. Piqua Bank, 111 U. S. 165, 28 L. 388, 4 S. Ct. 349, holding mere assignment of certificate of stock inoperative to pass

title where charter provided that all transfers should be made on books of corporation; In re Dunkerson, 4 Biss. 231, F. C. 4,156, holding bank not bound to transfer stock at instance of assignee, in manner other than that provided by charter; Knight v. Bank, 3 Cliff. 433, F. C. 7,885, holding valid, act of bank in refusing to transfer stock in mode in conflict with by-laws; Cronin v. Patrick County, 4 Hughes, 531, 89 Fed. 79, holding title to registered municipal bonds not complete until transferred on books of obligor; Cunningham v. Insurance Co., 4 Ala. 654, holding valid a by-law declaring that no stockholder shall be permitted to transfer his stock while he is in default; Jennings v. Bank, 79 Cal. 331, 12 Am. St. Rep. 151, 21 Pac. 855, holding invalid, transfer of stock not "made on books" as required by statute; Bank of Holly Springs v. Pinson, 58 Miss. 435, 38 Am. Rep. 332, holding provision in charter or bylaws furnishes constructive notice, although party be bona fide purchaser; Berich v. Mayre, 9 Nev. 316, holding transfer not in conformity to charter provision to be subject to equities against stock. holder; Mechanics' Bank v. Railroad Co., 13 N. Y. 626, holding bank not liable to transferee for damage resulting from dealing on faith of certificate not transferred in manner provided by charter; dissenting opinion, Bank of Attica v. Manufacturers', etc., Bank, 20 N. Y. 510, majority holding that delegation of general powers to directors of bank did not authorize by-law subjecting stock to general lien; Lyndonville v. Folsom, 7 N. Mex. 615, 38 Pac. 254, holding that stock cannot pass under general assignment without proper transfer on books of corporation; Morgan v. Bank, 8 Serg. & R. 87, 89, 11 Am. Dec. 577, 579, holding further that where stockholder is entitled to transfer he may maintain special action on case against bank for refusing such transfer; Lockwood v. Bank, 9 R. I. 331, 11 Am. Rep. 264, holding that power to regulate transfer of stock is sufficient to authorize by-law providing that transfer shall not pass legal title until made on books; Lippitt v. American, etc., Co., 15 R. I. 145, 2 Am. St. Rep. 888. 23 Atl. 112, holding equitable title acquired by irregular transfer, not attachable under State statute; Application of Murphy, etc., 51 Wis. 525, 8 N. W. 421, holding indorsement and delivery of shares inoperative to convey legal title to shares in manufacturing corporation. The following cases cite the rule approvingly, but do not specially apply it: Lowry v. Bank, Taney, 331, F. C. 8,581; Cronin v. Patrick County, 89 Fed. 82; Toole v. State, 88 Ala. 165, 7 So. 44; Fisher v. Bank, 5 Gray, 381; dissenting opinion, Leggett v. Bank, 24 N. Y. 287; De Voss v. Richmond, 18 Gratt. 351, 98 Am. Dec. 655; Michigan Trust Co. v. Bank, 111 Mich. 311, 69 N. W. 647.

Distinguished in the following cases, holding rule inapplicable where transfer is of equitable interest only: Black v. Zacharie, 3 How. 513, 11 L. 704; Leyson v. Davis, 170 U. S. 40, 42 L. 941, 18 S. Ct. 501; United States v. Cutts, 1 Sumn. 148, F. C. 14,912; Bruce v.

48

Smith, 44 Ind. 5; Broadway Bank v. McElrath, 13 N. J. Eq. 27; so also transfer, although not operative as to corporation, is good as between parties; St. Louis, etc., Ins. Co. v. Goodfellow, 9 Mo. (154) 155; Commercial Bank v. Kortright, 22 Wend. 353, 34 Am. Dec. 319; New York, etc., Ry. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 80; Noyes v. Spaulding, 27 Vt. 426. Distinguished also in Johnson v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 76, 79, 80, F. C. 7,393, holding that bank cannot refuse to execute bona fide transfer of stock on request of assignee; Northrup v. Curtis, 5 Conn. 252, under facts; Baltimore, etc., Co. v. Sewell, 35 Md. 253, 6 Am. Rep. 406, sustaining right of assignees to demand transfer of stock assigned before incorporation; Merchants' Bank v. Richards, 6 Mo. App. 462, holding that where form of transfer is not provided in charter nor by general laws, delivery of certificate is sufficient; Hill v. Bank, 45 N. H. 309, under facts; Conant v. Seneca County Bank, 1 Ohio St. 306, holding an equitable interest passes, although no transfer on corporate books; Įreland v. Globe, etc., Co., 38 Atl. 118, as inapplicable to question at issue.

Lien of corporation on its shares for debt due from holder is superior to lien acquired from such holder by third person, p. 394.

This rule is cited and applied in Hammond v. Hastings, 134 U. S. 403, 404, 33 L. 962, 963, 10 S. Ct. 728, holding sale to bona fide purchaser inoperative to discharge such lien; Knight v. Bank, 3 Cliff. 439, F. C. 7,885, holding that bona fide assignee of such stock takes it subject to all equities existing against assignor; In re Peebles, 2 Hughes, 397, F. C. 10,902, 13 Bank. Reg. 152, holding that lien is general and exists although debt otherwise specially secured; In re Morrison, 10 Bank. Reg. 105, 17 Feä. Cas. 831, sustaining lien of bank on stock as security for note, although note indorsed by third party; Cunningham v. Insurance Co., 4 Ala. 657, denying right of owner to have transfer of stock made until debt paid; Mobile Ins. Co. v. Cullom, 49 Ala. 562, holding that such lien is general and not confined to debt contracted for stock; Van Sands v. Bank, 26 Conn. 154, on point that priority of time makes superiority of lien; Savings Inst. v. Bank, 89 Me. 504, 36 Atl. 996, denying right of assignee to demand transfer until debt of stockholder paid; Farmers' Bank v. Iglehart, 6 Gill, 56, holding equitable assignment of such stock to be subject to equities in favor of bank; dissenting opinion, Bank of Attica v. Manufacturers', etc., Bank, 20 N. Y. 510, 511; Hampton, etc., R. R. Co. v. Bank, 48 S. C. 134, 26 S. E. 243, on point that corporate stock is not negotiable and assignee takes it subject to all equities; Petersburg, etc., Co. v. Lumsden, 75 Va. 340, but holding such lien to extend only to debts due on stock. And see note, 5 Dill. 88, F. C. 7,393.

Distinguished in Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 309, 7 L. 157, holding stock held in trust, not subject to lien for debt due from trustee personally; Farmers' Bank Case, 2 Bland Ch. 397, holding that where bank refuses to sell stock to satisfy lien against estate, executor may file bill in equity to compel it to do so; Driscoll v.

Bradley, etc., Co., 59 N. Y. 101, 108, holding stock not subject to lien where not so provided in charter or by-laws.

Lien of corporation on its shares for debt due from owner, is not waived by acceptance of other security, p. 394.

Cited in Trotter v. Crockett, 2 Port. 412, on point that creditor may lawfully take and hold several securities for same debt; so also in Cocke v. Chaney, 14 Ala. 66; Kenton Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 84 Ky. 438, 440, 441, 442, 1 S. W. 718, 719, 720, holding lien not waived by acceptance of mortgage as security for same debt; Reese v. Bank, 14 Md. 281, 74 Am. Dec. 538, holding lien not waived by provision in certificate that stockholder is entitled to transfer of stock on surrender of such certificate; Wiggin v. Insurance Co., 18 Pick. 157, 29 Am. Dec. 582, holding that court of law will not oblige creditor to marshal claims; Breedlove v. Stump, 3 Yerg. 277, ou point that security held by indorser of note is not waived by demand for other security. See also note, 32 Am. St. Rep. 727, on point that recovery on one security cannot impair right to recover on another unless first recovery has been productive of satisfaction of principal debt.

Miscellaneous citations.- Cited in Watkins v. Worthington, 2 Bland Ch. 529, and Van Sands v. Bank, 26 Conn. 154, but application doubtful.

2 Wheat. 395, 4 L. 271, UNITED STATES v. BARKER.

Circuit Court.— Jurisdiction of, is final, in civil cause carried to that court from District Court by writ of error, p. 395.

Rule affirmed in Sarchet v. United States, 12 Pet. 144, 9 L. 1033, dismissing appeal from judgment in action on bond. Approved in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 621, 10 L. 623, discussing jurisdiction of Federal courts generally.

Costs.- United States are not liable to judgment for, p. 395.

The following citing cases affirm and apply this rule: Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 272, 40 L. 966, 16 S. Ct. 761, where judgment rendered against Federal officers in action of trespass to try title brought by State; United States v. Verdier, 164 U. S. 219, 41 L. 409, 17 S. Ct. 44, holding that in actions in Court of Claims, interest prior to judgment cannot be allowed to claimants against United States; Carlisle v. Cooper, 64 Fed. 474, 26 U. S. App. 240, reversing decree for costs in District Court in proceedings for condemnation of lands; Governor v. Powell, 23 Ala. 582, applying rule in case of summary proceedings on behalf of State in State court; Bicknell v. Amador County, 30 Cal. 239, holding county not liable for costs in action by clerk to recover fees; Rawley v. Vigo County, 2 Blackf. 356, holding county not bound to pay fees of officer in case of prosecution on behalf of State, and in which prosecution fails; State v. Succession of Taylor, 33 La. Ann. 1272, holding that defendant in suit brought by State in its own courts cannot require State as plaintiff to furnish security for costs; Finney v. Sullivan County, 48 Mo.

352, holding county not liable in action to recover witness fees. where witness summoned by State and county not party; dissenting opinion, Bush v. Geisy, 16 Or. 361, 19 Pac. 126, majority holding that statute providing that costs shall be awarded the prevailing party included the State as well as individuals; United States v. Stevens, 8 Utah, 4, 28 Pac. 870, holding United States not liable to costs on dismissal of action on official bond; Wisconsin v. Doty, 1 Pinn. 405, holding territory to be subject to immediate control of Federal government, and so not liable to costs on failure of action brought in its behalf. And see note, 16 Am. Dec. 407, on general subject. Cited approvingly in dicta in Hathaway v. Roach, 2 Wood. & M. 68, F. C. 6,213; Curtis v. Banker, 136 Mass. 360; note, 1 Blackf. 97. Distinguished in United States v. Davis, 54 Fed. 153, 155, 12 U. S. App. 47, under statute providing for recovery of costs in proceedings to revise decision of general appraisers.

2 Wheat. 396-426, 4 L. 271, THELUSSON v. SMITH.

Priority of United States.- United States has preference over all other creditors of insolvent debtor, p. 424.

Cited and applied in United States v. Duncan, 4 McLean, 622, F. C. 15,003, holding that rule requiring marshalling of claims is not enforceable as against United States. Approved in United States v. Duncan, 12 Ill. 535, 542, 543, discussing general subject.

Limited in Postmaster-General v. Robbins, 1 Ware, 169, F. C. 11,314, holding that such right cannot operate to impair dower right of deceased insolvent's widow; State v. Harris, 2 Bailey L. 600, holding rule to be statutory, and denying right of State to such priority in absence of statute.

Priority of United States.- Mere inability of debtor of United States to pay all his debts gives no right of preference to United States, unless it is accompanied by assignment of all property for benefit of creditors, p. 424.

Cited and rule applied in United States v. McLellan, 3 Sumn. 352, F. C. 15,698, where assignment to one or more of several creditors of property sufficient to satisfy amounts due them, and not for benefit of all creditors, held not to create United States right to priority; Dudley's Case, 7 Fed. Cas. 1154, 1155, sustaining execution on property of debtor issued before final decree of bankruptcy passed; United States v. Crookshank, 1 Edw. Ch. 237, holding that such priority relates to living debtors only, and cannot extend to property already vested in heirs. Cited approvingly in discussion of general subject in Ex parte Hull, 12 Fed. Cas. 857. See also note, 4 Wheat. 120, 4 L. 530.

Priority of United States may be defeated by bona fide convey. ance of property by debtor to third person, or seizure under execù tion, before such right accrues, p. 426.

Cited and rule applied in Conard v. Insurance Co., 1 Pet. 441, 442,