18. No actioncan be maintained against
an executor or administrator, founded
on a debt due from the estate of the
deceased, unless he has been duly
qualified by a probate tribunal in the
State or county where the suit is
brought.
Caldwell v. Harding, 501

19. An action at law will not lie in this
Court against an administrator ap-
pointed by a probate Court in Massa-
chusetts, but who had never taken
out letters of administration in New
York, to recover a debt due from the
deceased to the plaintiff.
id.

LIBEL.

See PLEADING, 9 to 15.
SLANDER.

LICENSE.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9. 1

LIEN.

1. To sustain a libel in rem against a
vessel owned in New York, for repairs
put upon her at Baltimore, the neces-
sity for the repairs and for a lien upon
the vessel to enable the master to
procure them, must be shown.
James Guy,

2.

3.

The

496

In the cases of Thomas v. Osborn, (19
How., 22,) and Pratt v. Reed, (Id.,
359,) the rule which requires evidence
of an apparent necessity, existing at
the time, for supplying, on the credit
of a vessel, supplies furnished to her
at a foreign port, in order to create a
lien on her in favor of a material man,
was not extended beyond its an-
cient strictness, as to the degree of
proof required. The Neversink, 539

4. Where the master of a steamer had
no funds to pay for coal, and her char-,
terers, who owned her pro hac vice,
resided in a foreign jurisdiction, and
the coal was a necessary supply, and
it was obtained by the master, and
credit therefor was, in fact, given to
the vessel and her charterers: Held,
that a lien was created on the vessel
therefor.
id.

5. The same thing was held in a case
where the material man resided at the
home port of the vessel and furnished
the coal at the foreign port, through
an agent there.
id.

6. The sufficiency of the proof of an
apparent necessity must, in every
such case, rest in the sound judgment
of the Court.
id.

7. General rules stated, for determining

1. The two years' limitation in regard
to the bringing of suits by or against
an assignee of a bankrupt, prescribed
in the 8th section of the Bankruptcy
Act of August 19th, 1841, (5 U. S.
Stat. at Large, 446,) applies only to
suits growing out of disputes in re-
spect to property and rights of prop-
erty of the bankrupt, which come to
the hands of the assignee, and to
which adverse claims existed while
in the hands of the bankrupt and be-
fore the assignment. In re Conant, 54

2. Such limitation has no reference to
suits growing out of the dealings of
the assignee with the estate after it
comes into his hands.
id.

3. By the decision of the Court of Ap-
peals of New York, in the case of Ol-
cott v. The Tioga R. R. Co., (20 N.
Y. R., 210,) it is the law of New York,
that, in a suit against a corporation,
the fact that the defendants were and
are a corporation created by another
State, and not under any law of New
York, is a legal answer to a plea of the
statute of limitations. Blossburg &
Corning R. R. Co., v. Tioga R. R. Co.,

7.

8.

9.

10.

to a plea of the statute of limitations
pleaded by a foreign corporation, is
to allege, in proper technical language,
and with the requisite certainty of
time and place, the fact that the de-
fendants were out of the State at the
time the cause of action accrued, and
continued out of the State down to
the time of the commencement of the
suit.
id.

An allegation, in the replication, that
they were out of the State when the
cause of action accrued, is, however, a
sufficient legal answer to the plea of
actio non accrevit injra sex annos. id.

An allegation, in the replication, that
they were and are a corporation exist-
ing under the laws of another State,
and that they were not and are not
a corporation existing under any law
of New York, is not a sufficient an-
swer to such plea, because it fails to
aver that the defendants were a for-
eign corporation before and at the
time the cause of action accrued, and
does not allege that they had never
been a corporation under the laws of
New York.
id.

Objections to the replication for not
alleging time and place, and for du-
plicity, can be taken only by special
demurrer.
id.

On demurrer by the defendants to
the plaintiff's surrejoinder, judgment
was given for the plaintiff, because
the defendants, in their rejoinder,
committed the first fault in plead-
ing.

M

MANIFEST.

See CRIMES, 11.

MARSHAL.

See HABEAS CORPUS, 1, 3, 4.

id.

MARTIAL LAW.

In re Egan,

319

4. Where a person was tried by a Mili-
tary Commission, in South Carolina,
in November, 1865, for a murder
committed in September, 1865, and
was convicted and sentenced to im-
prisonment for life in the Penitentiary
at Albany, New York, hostilities hav-
ing terminated and the rebel army
having surrendered to the authorities
of the United States some seven
months before the trial: Held, on a
habeas corpus, that the prisoner was
entitled to be discharged, on the
ground that the conviction was ille-
gal, for want of jurisdiction in the
tribunal.
id.

MASTER.

See SLAVE TRADE, 1, 2.

MISDEMEANOR.

See BAIL.

N

NATIONALITY.

See CITIZEN.

NAVY YARD.

1. Under the Act of the Legislature of
New York, of April 10th, 1850, (Sess.
Laws, 1850, chap. 283,) authorizing
the Commissioners of the Land Office
of the State to grant lands under the
waters of navigable rivers or lakes,
and providing that no such grant
shall be made to any person other
than the proprietor of the adjacent
lands, the grant must be confined to
a line starting at the intersection
with the shore, and extending at a

17. Disapprobation expressed by the
Court, as to the loose manner in
which the specifications of patents
id.
are very often drawn up.

18. Under the 11th section of the Act
of March 2d, 1861, (12 U. S. Stat. at
Large, 248,) a patent for a design for
a reel, consisting of the making of the
reel in the shape of a well known
mathematical figure, the reel itself,
as an article of manufacture, being
old, is not valid. Wooster v. Crane,
282

19. An intelligent mechanic is charge-
able with a knowledge of the state of
the art in relation to a subject on
which he is called to exercise his
skill. Treadwell v. Parrott,

369

20. What is the business of a mechanic,
as distinguished from that of an in-
id.
ventor, defined.

21. Under the 5th section of the Act of
August 29th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at
Large, 544,) a person who marks as
patented an unpatented article, is not
liable to the penalty therein pre-
scribed, unless he does so knowing
that he has no right to do so, and
with the intention of deceiving the
public. Walker v. Hawxhurst, 494

22. In an action for the penalty, the
question as to such intention is one
id.
for the jury.

See COSTS, 1 to 7.

INJUNCTION, 5.

PLEADING, 1, 2.
PRACTICE, 8, 9.

2. Invention.

See 9, 20, 40 to 42, 59, 70.

3. Infringement.

23. The charge of infringement will not
be avoided by making an unnecessary