Collins, 4 Vt. 324, under facts similar to those in principal case; Brown v. Wright, 17 Vt. 99, 42 Am. Dec. 482, holding sale void where warrant of collector misrecited date of statute by virtue of which tax was levied; Nalle v. Fenwick, 4 Rand. 590, holding sale void in absence of proof of statutory notice; Jesse v. Preston, 5 Gratt. 129, under facts similar to those in principal case; Flanagan v. Grinnett, 10 Gratt. 426, where sale held void because of insufficiency of notice; Deguasie v. Harris, 16 W. Va. 353, construing strictly, statute making tax deed prima facie evidence of regularity of sale. See also notes, 17 Am. Dec. 507, and 19 Am. Rep. 150, on general subject. The principal case is cited approvingly, but without particular application of the rule to the point at issue in the following cases: Mutual, etc., Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S. 245, 23 L. 317; Sharpleigh v. Surdam, 1 Flipp. 481, F. C. 12,711; Bloom v. Burdick, 1 Hill, 142, 37 Am. Dec. 307; dissenting opinion, Register v. Bryan, 2 Hawks, 21; Hadley v. Tankersley, 8 Tex. 19; Allen v. Smith, 1 Leigh (Va.), 250. See also Mason v. Fearson, 9 How. 260, 13 L. 130, citing note to principal case, p. 81, on point that sale of more land than is necessary to satisfy debt is void.

Distinguished in Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. C. C. 552, F. C. 3,193, where debtor had previously waived objection to irregularity of proceedings; also in the following cases, under statutes providing that tax deeds should be prima facie evidence of regularity of proceedings: Merrick v. Hutt, 15 Ark. 338; Graves v. Bruen, 11 Ill. 437; Sibley v. Smith, 2 Mich. 496; Striker v. Kelley, 7 Hill, 25; Huey v. Van Wie, 23 Wis. 616.

Deed. If validity of, depends on matter in pais, party claiming under, must show performance, p. 79.

Cited and applied in Ransom v. Williams, 2 Wall. 319, 17 L. 805, holding void a sale of lands under execution, notice not having been given as required by statute; Bell v. Skillicorn, 6 N. Mex. 408, 28 Pac. 771, applying principle in holding that where defendant, in ejectment to recover mining claim, defends on ground that as owner of adjoining claim he followed lode whose apex was on his claim, he is bound to show facts giving him such right; Smith v. Pratt, 13 Ohio, 550, on point that where exercise of jurisdiction depends on existence of fact outside the record, such fact must be proven to exist.

Distinguished in Cocke v. Halsey, 16 Pet. 86, 10 L. 896, holding that where validity of deed depended upon recording by clerk of court, mere irregularity in appointment of clerk did not affect deed. Miscellaneous citations.— Cited in Bruce v. Schuyler, 4 Gilm. 276, 46 Am. Dec. 458, but application doubtful; also in Gibson v. Mason, 5 Nev. 303, as instance of exercise of power to collect taxes by summary process.

4 Wheat. 84, 85, 4 L. 520, THE EXPERIMENT.

Admiralty.- Depositions taken on further proof, in one prize cause, cannot be invoked into another, p. 84.

Cited in Stegner v. Blake, 36 Fed. 184, as instance where taking testimony de bene esse was allowed in admiralty cause.

4 Wheat. 85-98, 4 L. 520, WEIGHTMAN v. CALDWELL. Statute of frauds.- Question whether contract sufficiently performed to remove it from statute, is one for jury, p. 88.

Cited and applied in Ward v. Spelts, 39 Neb. 812, 58 N. W. 427, holding further, contract for sale of goods not wanting in mutuality because signed by vendor only. See also Shields v. Alston, 4 Ala. 255; Fagan v. Faulkner, 5 Ark. 165; Partridge v. Wilsey, 8 Iowa, 461, and Nichol v. Ridley, 5 Yerg. 65, 26 Am. Dec. 255, citing note to principal case as to what constitutes sufficient part performance to remove contract from statute.

Miscellaneous.- Cited in United States v. Cement, 27 Fed. Cas. 297, but not in point. Cited also in Johnson v. Watson, 1 Ga. 352, on point that statute of frauds has no application to contract that has been performed on both sides.

4 Wheat. 98-100, 4 L. 522, THE SIBYL.

Salvage.-Amount is discretionary, and will not be altered on appeal, except in case of gross error, p. 99.

Cited and rule applied in The Connemara, 108 U. S. 359, 27 L. 753, 2 S. Ct. 758, refusing to set aside decree awarding salvage to passenger on board saving vessel; Spreckels v. The Kenilworth, 14 Sawy. 386, 41 Fed. 525, affirming award to vessel for salvage service in extinguishing fire; The Cherokee, 31 Fed. 173, and The Elmbank, 62 Fed. 319, where amount of salvage held to be governed by circumstances; The R. R. Rhodes, 82 Fed. 753, holding further, that request for aid by master of stranded vessel does not reduce claim to one for services rendered under contract. Cited approvingly, in discussion of general subject, in Spear v. Place, 11 How. 528, 13 L. 799.

Distinguished in The Schooner Emulous, 1 Sumn. 215, F. C. 4,480, altering decree where allowance was clearly excessive.

Salvage money, while in possession of court, may be subjected to maritime claims or liens, p. 100.

Cited and rule applied in United States v. Mackoy, 2 Dill. 308, F. C. 15,696, holding that while fund arising from sale of property under condemnation proceedings is in District Court, Circuit Court cannot withdraw it or direct its distribution; China, etc., Ins. Co. v. Force, 142 N. Y. 98, 40 Am. St. Rep. 581, 36 N. E. 876, holding

that upon sale of wrecked vessel liens against her are transferred to proceeds of such sale.

Miscellaneous.- Cited also in Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Mackey, 157 U. S. 87, 39 L. 629, 15 S. Ct. 495, but application doubtful.

4 Wheat. 100-103, 4 L. 523, THE CALEDONIAN.

Prize.-Vessel which is liable to capture as enemy's property, or for sailing under enemy's license, or for trading with enemy, may be seized upon arrival in a port of the United States, and condemned as prize of war, p. 102.

Prize.-Any citizen may seize any property forfeited to the use of the government, either by municipal law, or as prize of war, and if the forfeiture is enforced by legal process, the seizure is to be considered as confirmed, p. 103.

No citations.

4 Wheat. 103, 104, 4 L. 525, THE LANGDON CHEVES.

Prize. The fact that a vessel is sent to an enemy's port for adjudication, and afterwards released, raises a violent presumption that she had an enemy's license, and if such presumption is not rebutted, condemnation will be decreed, p. 104.

No citations.

4 Wheat. 105-107, 4 L. 525, THE FRIENDSCHAFT.'

Prize.- Property of commercial house, established in enemy's country, is condemnable as prize, irrespective of personal domicile of partners, p. 107.

Affirmed in The Cheshire, 3 Wall. 233, 18 L. 176, a similar case. Cited and applied in Brown v. Hiatt, 1 Dill. 384, F. C. 2,011, construing nonintercourse act, and denying right of citizen of insurrectionary State to sue United States citizen in Federal courts, notwithstanding loyalty of former; The Commercen, 2 Gall. 266, F. C. 3,055, holding that neutral cannot lawfully transport provisions for army of one belligerent, although such army may be in neutral country; Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Ind. 160, 9 Am. Rep. 668, holding contract between citizen of rebellious State and citizen of loyal State void, irrespective of loyalty of former.

Miscellaneous.- Cited in United States v. Cement, 27 Fed. Cas. 298, but not in point.

4 Wheat. 108–121, 4 L. 526, UNITED STATES v. HOWLAND. Federal courts.- Equity jurisdiction of, is uniform throughout the various States, and is not subject to restraint by State legislation, p. 115.

United States v. Howland is a leading case upon this point, and

66

its citations accordingly show many other applications of the principle; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 658, 8 L. 536, holding that State statutes regulating proceedings on injunctions are of no force in Federal courts; Livingston v. Story, 9 Pet. 656, 657, 9 L. 264, applying rule to proceedings in District Court in State where equitable claims are not cognizable; Russell v. Southard, 12 How. 148, 13 L. 931, holding evidence admissible to show that deed absolute on its face is in fact mortgage, although rule otherwise in State where land situated; Neves v. Scott, 13 How. 272, 14 L. 142, holding that where Federal court has jurisdiction it may establish a trust, although contrary to decision of court in State where cause arose; Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How. 565, 15 L. 998, holding further as to what constitute cases in equity; " Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 591, 16 L. 229, ruling similarly in suit to enforce payment of alimony (but see dissenting opinion, p. 604, 16 L. 233, denying equitable jurisdiction of Federal courts in matters of divorce and alimony); Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 430, 19 L. 262, sustaining jurisdiction of Circuit Court in equity proceeding against administrator, although under State probate system such proceeding was not maintainable in State court; Watts v. Camors, 115 U. S. 362, 29 L. 409, 6 S. Ct. 95, holding that in exercise of admiralty jurisdiction Federal courts are not bound by State laws; Kirby v. Railroad Co., 120 U. S. 137, 30 L. 572, 7 S. Ct. 434, holding that where relief is asked in Federal courts on ground of fraud, time will not begin to run against defendant until discovery of fraud, notwithstanding State statute to the contrary; Shuford v. Cain, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 305, F. C. 12,823, refusing to follow practice in State where cause arose as to joining of legal and equitable causes in same proceeding; Baker v. Biddle, 1 Bald. 411, 416, F. C. 764, applying rule in proceedings for discovery; Bains v. Schooner James and Catherine, 1 Bald. 558, F. C. 756, applying principle in holding admiralty jurisdiction to be uniform throughout the various States; Allen v. Blunt, 1 Blatchf. 486, F. C. 215, as to practice in proceedings for injunction to restrain infringement of patent; Blanchard v. Sprague, 1 Cliff. 291, F. C. 1,516, holding that Federal courts are not governed by State laws as to admissibility of evidence; Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. 472, F. C. 3,416, holding equitable jurisdiction of Circuit Court not affected by State statute giving plaintiff complete remedy at law; Lamb v. Starr, Deady, 363, F. C. 8,021, refusing to recognize State laws regulating pleading; Howards v. Selden, 4 Hughes, 310, 5 Fed. 473, holding plaintiff's right to bring action on bond in Federal courts not affected by State statute of limitations; Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason, 270, F. C. 1,174, sustaining jurisdiction of Circuit Court in action between citizens of different States to set aside conveyance, although such action not maintainable in State where cause arose; Pratt v. Northam, 5 Mason, 105 F. C. 11,376, holding that Federal court may entertain suit in equity by legatee to recover legacy,

although State statute provides for action at law on administrator's bond; Byrd v. Badger, McAll. 444, F. C. 2,266, holding jurisdiction of Circuit Court to entertain creditor's bill, not affected by State statute providing other remedy; Johnston v. Roe, 1 McCrary, 165, 1 Fed. 695, holding that State statute of limitations cannot bar equitable action in Federal court; Nickerson v. Railroad Co., 1 McCrary, 384, 30 Fed. 86, holding that Federal equity jurisdiction cannot be extended by State statute allowing equitable proceeding in certain cases; Northern, etc., R. R. Co. v. St. Paul, etc., R. R. Co., 2 McCrary, 265, 4 Fed. 692, as to practice in injunction proceedings; Strettel v. Ballou, 3 McCrary, 47, 9 Fed. 257, refusing to follow State statute providing that person holding mere possessory interest may maintain bill in equity for partition.

Other citing cases affirming and relying upon this principle are the following: Edwards v. Davenport, 4 McCrary, 43, 20 Fed. 762, denying authority of decision of State Supreme Court respecting validity of contract entered into by person of unsound mind; Goldsmith v. Gilliland, 10 Sawy. 608, 609, 22 Fed. 866, holding that person having mere possessory interest in land cannot maintain suit to determine adverse claim, in' United States court, notwithstanding State statute; Fletcher v. Morey, 2 Story, 567, F. C. 4,804, as to rules governing equitable liens; Mayer v. Foulkrod, 4 Wash. 356, F. C. 9,341, holding equitable jurisdiction of Federal courts over suit by legatee not ousted by State statute providing for action at law; Orendorf v. Budlong, 12 Fed. 26, as to proceeding to set aside deed on ground of fraud; Gamewell, etc., Co. v. Mayor, 31 Fed. 313, as to rules of pleading; Mann v. Appel, 31 Fed. 380, holding that jurisdiction of Federal court to entertain creditor's bill is not affected by State statute providing other remedy; Ball v. Tompkins, 41 Fed. 489, as to actions for recovery of legacies; American Assn. v. Eastern Kentucky Co., 68 Fed. 722, holding that Federal court cannot entertain suit for partition where plaintiff's title is denied, although State statute provides that equity may take cognizance of questions of title in such suit; Western Assurance Co. v. Ward, 75 Fed. 342, 41 U. S. App. 443, as to proceedings in suit to reform contract; Burdon, etc., Co. v. Ferris, etc., Co., 78 Fed. 422, as to proceeding to establish equitable lien; Taylor v. Clark, 89 Fed. 8, refusing to entertain suit to quiet title to land in possession of defendant, although such suit authorized by State statute; Dupuy v. Bemiss, 2 La. Ann. 512, holding jurisdiction of Federal court over succession property not ousted by fact that succession is under administration of court of probate; Bell v. Railroad Co., 34 La. Ann. 794, holding that jurisdiction of Federal courts to appoint receiver for railroad is not affected by State statute regulating such proceedings; Brown v. Circuit Judge, 75 Mich. 278, 13 Am. St. Rep. 440, 42 N. W. 828, holding further as to what constitute cases in equity; " McPike v. Wells, 54 Miss. 145, asserting jurisdiction of Federal court to

66