2. Amount in controversy; when aggregate of several demands sufficient. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction of a suit brought by several plain tiffs to enforce a vendor's lien equally securing notes aggregating more than $2,000 held by them and which neither can enforce in the absence of the other, even though the claim of each plaintiff is less than $2,000. Ib. 3. Diversity of citizenship; arrangement of parties by court. In determining whether diversity of citizenship exists to give jurisdiction it is the duty of the Circuit Court to arrange the parties with respect to the actual controversy looking beyond the formal arrangement made by the bill. Helm v. Zarecor, 32. 4. Diversity of citizenship; arrangement of parties in controversy over control of corporation. Where, as in this case, the controversy over the control of a corporation transcends the rivalry of those claiming to be members of its board of control and the corporation itself is a mere instrumentality or title holder, it is properly made a party defendant and should not be aligned as a party plaintiff merely because the plaintiffs belong to the same faction that claims the power to appoint the members of the board of control. Ib. See Supra, A 4. D. OF DISTRICT COURT. To issue ex parte injunction to restrain proceeding in state court. See Supra, A 17, 18; E. OF COURT OF CLAIMS. Of claims for seizures during Spanish-American war. Under the prohibitions of the Tucker Act, the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction of claims for seizures made in Santiago after its capitulation in violation of the President's proclamation of July 13, 1898, or of the laws of war. Herrera v. United States, 558. F. OF BANKRUPTCY COURTS. See BANKRUPTCY, 2, 3, 4. G. OF STATE COURTS. H. GENERALLY. See ACTIONS, 1, 2; CRIMINAL LAW, 1. LABOR. See PUBLIC WORKS, 2, 3. LACHES. Imputation to grantee of laches of grantor in respect of claim to property purchased by United States. Where the reference to the Court of Claims, as in this case, is not to determine whether the grantor of a claimant of a part interest in real estate purchased by the United States had a valid title at the time the United States took possession, but whether the claimant has acquired a valid title to the property, with provision that the United States may plead any defense, the conduct of claimant's grantor is to be considered; and if such grantor was guilty, as in this case, of gross laches, claimant cannot recover. Hussey v. United States, 88. Test of validity. See PARTNERSHIP, 7; LAND ENTRIES. See PUBLIC LANDS, 2-5. LAWS OF WAR: See WAR. LEGACIES. See ESTATES OF DECEDENTS; TAXES AND TAXATION, 19. LEGAL INSTRUMENTS. See STATES, 8. LEGISLATION. Legislation cannot be judged by theoretical standards but must be tested by the concrete conditions inducing it. Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 225. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 9; LOCAL LAW (FLA.); COURTS, 1; PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, 15; STATES, 1. LEGISLATIVE POWER. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 23; GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, 1-3; STATES, 1. LEVEES. See PUBLIC WORKS, 3, 4. Liability of parties fixed by. LEX LOCI. With rare exceptions, the liabilities of parties to each other are fixed by the law of the territorial jurisdiction within which the wrong is done and the parties are at the time of doing it. Cuba R. R. Co. v. Crosby, 473. LIBEL. 1. Excess without malice; liability for. In the absence of express malice or excess, publication of actual facts is not libellous, and in case of mere excess without express malice the only liability is for damages attributable to the excess; and refusal of the trial court to charge to this effect is error. Gandia v. Pettingill, 452. 2. What constitutes; quære as to. Quære: Whether attributing to a person conduct that is lawful can be libellous. Ib. LIBERTY OF CONTRACT. See STATES, 5. LIENS. See BANKRUPTCY, 14; CONSTITUTIONAL Law, 3. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4. LIVE-STOCK. See CATTLE QUARANTINE ACT. LOCAL LAW. Common-law countries; identity of statute law not presumed. While as between two common-law countries the common law may be presumed to be the same in one as in the other, a statute of one would not be presumed to be the statute of the other. Cuba R. R. Co. v. Crosby, 473. California. Penal Code, § 246, assaults by convicts (see Constitutional Law, 12). Finley v. California, 28. Cuba; analogy to common law not assumed. There is no general presumption that the law of Cuba as inherited from Spain and as since modified is the same as the common law. Cuba R. R. Co. v. Crosby, 473. District of Columbia. Statute of Frauds, Code, § 1117 (see Contracts, 10). Lenman v. Jones, 51. Rule in Shelley's case (see Estates of Decedents). Vogt v. Graff and Vogt, 404. Florida. Legislation; effect of variance between bill and act. Under the law of Florida, as declared by its highest court, where there is a variance between the title of a bill as enrolled and promulgated and the title of the act as shown by the journals, the latter will control. Peters v. Broward, 483. See COURTS, 1. Hawaii. Mode of reviewing decisions of Board of Land Commissioners (see Judgments and Decrees, 1). Lewers & Cooke v. Atcherly, 285. Illinois. Mob and riot act of 1887 (see Constitutional Law, 6). City of Chicago v. Sturges, 313. Judgment liens (see Bankruptcy, 14). Rock Island Plow Co. v. Reardon, 354. Kansas. Sales of black powder (see Constitutional Law, 18). Williams v. Walsh, 415. Massachusetts. Assignments of wages (see Constitutional Law, 8). Distribution of estates of ab Mutual Loan Co. v. Martell, 225. New York. Transfer tax law of 1896 (see Constitutional Law, 7). Keeney v. New York, 525. North Carolina. Oil inspection law of 1909 (see Taxes and Taxation, 3). Red "C" Oil Co. v. North Carolina, 380. Regulation of transportation of freight by common carriers (see Interstate Commerce, 19). Southern Ry. Co. v. Reid, 424. Washington. Liens on vessels for torts committed, Code, §§ 5953, 5954 (see Constitutional Law, 3). Martin v. West, 191. LOCAL OFFICERS. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 26. LOTTERIES. See CRIMINAL LAW, 4. MAIL SERVICE CONTRACTS. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. Safeguards of Fourth Amendment. Citizens are furnished the surest safeguards against malicious prosecutions by the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Morgan, 274. MANDAMUS. 1. Nature of writ and who entitled. But mandamus is not a writ of right. It issues to remedy a wrong, not to promote one, and will not be granted in aid of those who do not come into court with clean hands. Turner v. Fisher, 204. 2. To require Secretary of Interior to restore names to Indian enrollment. In the absence of other controlling facts, the Secretary of the Interior could have been required by mandamus to restore the names of those thus arbitrarily stricken off without notice. (Garfield v. Goldsby, 211 U. S. 249.) Ib. 3. Defense to writ to compel Secretary of Interior to restore names to Indian enrollment. Although the petition for the writ alleged that relators were freedmen duly enrolled and denied the truth of the testimony on which their names were stricken off, yet where the answer of the Secretary referred to that testimony and alleged, "on information and belief, |