708
10. By the treaty with the Choctaw Indians,
made in 1830, lands were given to each head of a
family, according to the number of his family.
727
11. Where a patent was issued to a Choctaw
head of a family, the full title was conveyed to such
head of a family.
Idem,
727
12. A grantee from him would hold such title
free from any trust in favor of the children.
Idem,
727
13. The construction given by the representatives
of both parties to the treaty, and the grants issued
under it, could not be revoked, by mere legislative
act, founded on a different construction of a doubt-
ful article of the treaty.
27
1. When loss of trade, destruction of credit, and
failure of business prospects are consequential dam-
ages, which would result from a trespass, for which
compensation cannot be awarded at law, the rem-
edy is in equity and an injunction may be issued.
281
Watson v. Sutherland,
3. A proceeding by habeas corpus is a cause, as
that term is used in the 25th section of the judici-
ary act.
Idem,
Blue Jacket,
Yellow Beaver,
Wan-zop-e-ah,
580
entire stock in trade of a merchant.
2. So held in case of a levy of an execution on an
580
3. Federal courts and state courts act separately
and independently and in their respective spheres
of action, the process of the one cannot be enjoined
by the other.
768
4. Injunction of a state court is inoperative to
control, or in any manner to affect, the process or
proceedings in the circuit court.
933
5. Process of the circuit courts cannot be en-
joined by the state courts.
Idem,
933
4. Anyone having any legal interest in property
can insure it as his own and in his own name, with
out specifying the nature of his interest.
667
524
673 5. The insurance company cannot complain, that
674 the character of the interest was not incorporated
in the policy, unless, if described, it would have instructions, if oppressive to the respondent or
prevented them from making the insurance.
unreasonable, cannot control the officer.
Idem,
524
6. It is no defense to a policy, that the insur-
ance money was to be paid to a creditor of the per-
son insured.
Idem,
7. A capture within a policy of insurance is a
taking, by the enemy of vessel or cargo as prize, in
time of open war, or, by way of reprisal, with in-
tent to deprive the owner of it.
836
8. It also embraces the taking of a neutral ship
and cargo by a belligerent jure belli; also, the
taking forcibly by a friendly power, in time of
peace, and even by the government itself.
836
9. Every species of capture, whether lawful or
unlawful, and whether by friends or enemies, is a
loss within the policy.
836
10. The insurer is liable for loss by capture,
whether the property in the thing insured be
changed by the capture or not.
836
11. To bring the capture within the policy, it is
not necessary that the commission should issue
from a lawful government.
Idem,
836
12. Captures under the commission of the Con-
federate states were among those excepted out of
the policy by the warranty of the insured.
FORMER ADJUDICATION, 4–13, 22, 23, 25, 27,
28.
1. A judgment cannot be collaterally questioned.
Supervisors R. I. Co. v. U. S. ex rel.
419
2. Where one having a claim against the pro-
ceeds of a vessel sold in the admiralty court estab-
lishes the same judgment he has a precedence in
payment over one having a similar claim which he
has allowed to sleep until such judgment has been
obtained.
Woodworth v. Insurance Co.
517
3. Judgment of the supreme court of Louisiana
rendered some days after the passage of the ordi-
nance of secession of that state, is not, therefore,
3. Auction sales under a decretal order are under
the control of the court and subject to the power of
the court to set aside the sale or open it before it
has been confirmed.
Idem,
43
4. Such sales are usually conducted under the
advice of the solicitor of the complainant, but his
10. Purchaser at judicial sale does not acquire a
good title, unless the formalities prescribed by law
for the alienation of property were observed.
Gaines v. La Croix,
965
11. The recital of an order of the court in a re-
port of sale does not prove it.
Idem,
965
12. Where a purchaser knew of a later will of
the testator than the one under which he purchased
the property, he did it in bad faith, and must ac-
count for it to the real owner.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, PRACTICE ON, 21-24, 30.
COURT OF CLAIMS, 1-4.
CRIMINAL LAW, 7.
EQUITY, 1, 2, 5, 7, 9.
HABEAS CORPUS, 1, 2, 3.
JUDGMENTS, 1, 3.
JUDICIAL SALES, 3, 8, 10.
PRACTICE, 19, 20, 41, 45.
WAR, 34, 41.
1. GENERALLY.
2. AS TO AMOUNT.
3. OVER STATE JUDGMENTS.
4. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.
1. GENERALLY.
1. When the jurisdiction of a court of limited au
thority appears upon the face of its proceedings, its
action cannot be collaterally attacked for mere er-
ror or irregularity.
6. An execution tested after the death of defend-
ant therein is void.
Idem,
268
7. The death of a defendant before the test of an
execution, compels the plaintiff to sue out a writ of
326
562
30. Recitals of facts of family history in an an-scire facias.
clent deed may be proved as against persons who
are not parties to the deed, and who claim no right
under it.
EXCEPTIONS.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 13.
8. Where the proceedings are commenced by seiz-
ing property under a writ of attachment, the ex-
ecution is to be tested and issued as such writs are
on judgments obtained through the usual methods
of the common law.
Idem,
326
9. In Iowa, public buildings and all other public
property of a county are exempt from execution.
Riggs v. Johnson County,
10. Public property of a county in the state of
Iowa is exempt from execution, and the property
of the citizen can in no case be taken to pay the
debt of the municipality.
781
11. When issued by a circuit court in such a case,
the writ of mandamus is a writ authorized by the
14th section of the judiciary act, and becomes a
substitute for the ordinary process of execution to
enforce the judgment.
14. The Civil Code of Procedure requiring the
appraisal, and sale at two thirds of the appraised
value, was the mode of proceeding to which the
APPEAL AND ERROR, PRACTICE ON, 11, 19, marshal should have conformed in making the sale.
20, 62.
EJECTMENT, 1.
NEGLIGENCE, 6.
The decision of the supreme court of a state,
iformity with the opinion of this court twice
unced on the same title, will not be opened
econsidered.
Minn. Mining Co. v. Nat. Mining Co. 42
A party waives his right to have the question
Lud litigated in a court of chancery, when he
reviously presented it, as a defense to an ac-
at law.
69
When the question of fraud had been submitted
e jury, and determined against the complain-
a ejectment he cannot raise the same question
in chancery.
Idem,
69
A decree making void an agreement and a
nent only operates between the parties to the
n, and does not make the agreement and judg-
void as to other parties.
Graham v. Railroad Co.
247
Such decree is not a bar to the assertion of a
under the agreement and judgment, as
st other parties, in another action.
Idem,
247
In order that a judgment may constitute a bar
other suit, it must be rendered in a proceed
etween the same parties or their privies, and
oint of controversy must be the same, in both
and must be determined on its merits.
Hughes v. United States,
303
If the first suit was dismissed for defect of
lings or parties, or a misconception of the form
oceeding, or the want of jurisdiction, or was
sed of on any ground which did not go to the
ts of the action, the judgment rendered will
e no bar to another suit.
Idem,
303
In Illinois, every judgment in ejectment is
usive as to the title established in such action.
Barrows v. Kindred,
The judgment has the same effect upon the
es, and those in privity with them, as a judg-
I in a common-law action.
'The secret deliberations or the jury, or
nds of their proceedings while engaged in mak-
See BILLS AND NOTES, 1, 2.
EQUITY, 6, 7, 8.
FORECLOSURE, 1.
FORMER ADJUDICATION, 2, 3, 20, 62.
LANDS, 38.
PARTNERSHIP, 5.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, 7.
1. Where the debtor had devested himself of all
his property in his endeavors to adjust his debts,
by an assignment for the benefit of his creditors,
and there was no concealment of any of his assets,
or attempted appropriation of any part of them
for his own benefit, or the benefit of his family, a
creditor's bill to set aside the assignment for fraud
was properly dismissed.
2. The law will not permit a debtor, in failing
circumstances, to sell his land, convey it by deed
without reservations, and yet secretly reserve to
himself the right to occupy it for a limited time, for
his own benefit.
3. Reserving the possession for one year free of
rent, as part of the consideration for the property,
was the creation of a secret trust for the benefit of
the grantor, to the extent of the interest reserved,
and rendered the conveyance fraudulent as to cred
itors, and void.
4. When the fact of fraud is established in a suit
at law, the buyer loses the property without ref-
erence to the amount or application of what he
has paid.
786
5. When the proceeding is in chancery, the juris-
diction exercised is more flexible and tolerant.
6. Where the facts disclosed create a strong
doubt of the integrity of the transaction between
vendor and vendee, they throw on the vendee the
proof to sustain it.
duty of making a full explanation, and the burden of
Idem,
786
7. Upon a question of fraud or mistake this court
will not go behind the finding of the court below.
U. S. v. Adams,
792
8. A release obtained by fraud from one who was
only interested in a share of the profits of contract,
has no effect upon another's interest.
Blue Jacket,
Yellow Beaver,
Wan-zop-e-ah,
Idem,
9. The taxes assessed by the laws of the state of
New York upon the three Indian reservations (Buf-
falo Creek, Allegany, and Cattaraugus), are ille-
gal, and void, as in conflict with the tribal rights of
the Seneca Nation as guaranteed to it by treaties
with the United States.
708
10. By the treaty with the Choctaw Indians,
made in 1830, lands were given to each head of a
family, according to the number of his family.
Wilson v. Wall,
727
11. Where a patent was issued to a Choctaw
head of a family, the full title was conveyed to such
head of a family.
Idem,
727
12. A grantee from him would hold such title
free from any trust in favor of the children.
Idem,
727
13. The construction given by the representatives
of both parties to the treaty, and the grants Issued
under it, could not be revoked, by mere legislative
act, founded on a different construction of a doubt-
ful article of the treaty.
Idem,
27
4. Anyone having any legal interest in property
can insure it as his own and in his own name, with
out specifying the nature of his interest.
667
524
673 5. The insurance company cannot complain, that
674 the character of the interest was not incorporated
|