Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

¡removed, and an administrator de bonis non appointed in his place,
the administrator de bonis non is not entitled to demand of the ad-
ministrator so removed the proceeds of a claim against the United
States due the intestate and collected by the former administrator;
and cannot maintain suit against a surety of the former administrator
to recover damages for failure by the former administrator to pay
such sum to the administrator de bonis non. United States v. Walker,

258.

2. A decree by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, directing
an administrator who has been removed to pay over to an adminis-
trator de bonis non appointed in his place a sum collected by the
former from the United States for a claim due to the intestate, is void
for want of jurisdiction, and furnishes no ground for maintaining
an action against a surety of the former administrator for failure of
that administrator to comply with the decree. Id.

66

ADMIRALTY.

See CONTRACT, 1, 2;
JURISDICTION, C.

AGREEMENT.

See CONTRACT.

ALABAMA CLAIMS.

An agreement, made a fortnight before the Treaty of Washington of
1871, and by which the owners of a ship and cargo taken by the
armed rebel cruiser, the Florida, employed a person, whether an at-
torney at law or not, to use his best efforts to collect their "claim
arising out of the capture," and authorized him to employ such attor-
neys as he might think fit to prosecute it, and promised to pay him
a compensation equal to twenty-five per cent. of whatever sum shall
be collected on the said claim," applies to a sum awarded to them
by the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims, established by the
act of June 23d, 1874, c. 459; and is not affected by § 18 of that act,
providing that that court should allow, out of the amount awarded
on any claim, reasonable compensation to the counsellor and attorney
for the claimant, and issue a warrant therefor, and that all other liens
or assignments, either absolute or conditional, for past or future
services about any claim, made or to be made before judgment in
that court, should be void. Bachman v. Lawson, 659.

AMENDMENT.

See APPEAL, 2;

RECEIVER, (3).

APPOINTMENT.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 12.

AMUSEMENT, PLACES OF.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 4, 5, 6.

APPEAL.

1. The authority conferred by R. S. § 1000 to take the security on an ap-
peal cannot be delegated; and if the security is not given until after
the term is over, citation must issue and be served. 'Haskins v. St. L.,
&c., Railway Co., 106.

2. A brought suit against B upon bonds aggregating $24,000, on which
over $5,000 interest was claimed as overdue. Before trial A, by leave
of court, amended so as to include only 90 of the coupons originally
sued on. He took judgment for less than $5,000. Held, that this
court had no jurisdiction in error over the judgment. Opelika City
v. Daniel, 108.

3. The decree of the Circuit Court was entered May 24th, 1880. June 26th,
a cross-appeal to this court, returnable at its October term following,
was allowed. The bond thereon was filed in the Circuit Court July
5th, but the appellants in it did not docket it, or enter their appear-
ance on it, in this court, until Sept. 27th, 1883. Held, That it must be
dismissed. The Tornado, 110.

4. When it was within the discretion of the court below to grant or to re-
fuse leave to file a cross-bill, the refusal to grant such leave is no
ground of appeal. Indiana Southern R. Co. v. Liverpool, L. & G. Ins.
Co. 168.

5. A person not a party in a suit cannot take an appeal in it. Guion v.
Liverpool, London & G, Ins. Co., 173.

6. Stockholders in a corporation filed a bill praying to have proceedings
at a meeting of stockholders in the corporation and proceedings of
the board of directors, under a supposed authority derived therefrom,
set aside as fraudulent and void, and a receiver appointed. The
court below made a decree setting aside the proceedings and ap-
pointed a receiver, and added to the decree a clause reserving to itself
such further directions respecting costs, &c., as might be necessary
to carry the decrees into execution. An appeal being taken, a motion
was made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the decree ap-
pealed from was not a final decree. Held, That the decree appealed
from was final as to all the relief prayed for in the bill. Winthrop
Iron Co. v. Meeker, 180.

7. When a claim presented for proof in bankruptcy as a debt against the
bankrupt's estate is rejected by the district court, an appeal from the
decision to the circuit court is incomplete and invalid, if the appellant
fails to give to the assignee the notice thereof which the statute re-

quires, within ten days after the decision-even though such notice
may have been given to the objecting creditor. Ex parte Mead, 230.
8. It is within the discretion of a circuit court of the United States, sit-
ting in the State of Texas, if a plaintiff appears in open court and re-
mits a part of the verdict in his favor, to make the proper reduction
and enter judgment accordingly. If by such remission the judgment
be reduced to $5,000 or less, errors in the record will be shut out rom
re-examination, in cases where the jurisdiction of this court depends
upon a larger amount being involved in the controversy. Alabama
Gold Life Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 232.

[blocks in formation]

A district court of the United States sitting in bankruptcy has jurisdic-
tion to order the seizure and detention of goods, the property of the

bankrupt, although in possession of another under claim of title. The
officer, in a subsequent action against him for obedience to that order,
may justify by proof that the title to the property at the time of
seizure was in the bankrupt. If the local State laws are in conflict
with this right, they will not be regarded as having any application
to it. Sharpe v. Doyle, 102 U. S. 686, approved and followed. Fei
belman v. Packard, 421.

[blocks in formation]

CASES LIMITED, QUESTIONED OR OVERRULED.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 24, 25;
WASHINGTON CITY, 5.

CIVIL RIGHTS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

Debts due from the United States are not local assets at the seat of

government only.

Wyman v. Halstead, 654.

See DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 4;

POWER OF ATTORNEY.

COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS.

See WRIT, 2, 3.

COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

See INTERNAL REVENUE, 1, 2;

LIMITATIONS, 1, 2.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.

See CUSTOMS DUTIES, 4;

LIMITATIONS, 4, 5.

COLORADO.

See PLEADING, 3.

COMMON CARRIER.

1. Proceedings in the district court of the United States under the act of
1851, 9 Stat. 635, to limit the liability of ship owners for loss or
damage to goods, supersede all other actions and suits for the same
loss or damage in the State or federal courts, upon the matter being
properly pleaded therein. Providence & N. Y. Steamship Co. v. Hill
Manufacturing Co., 578.
2. The effect of such proceedings in superseding other actions and suits
does not depend upon the award of an injunction by the district
court, but upon the object and intrinsic character of the proceedings
themselves, and the express language of the act of Congress. Id.
3. The power of Congress to pass the act of 1851, and of this court to
prescribe the rules adopted in December term, 1871, for regulating
proceedings under the act, reaffirmed. Id.

4. Loss and damage by fire on board of a ship are within the relief of the
3d, as well as the 1st, section of the act. Id.

5. Goods transported by steamer from Providence to New York were in-
jured by fire on board the vessel at her dock in the latter place, and
suits for damage were commenced against the owners of the steamer
in New York and Boston; thereupon proceedings were instituted by
such owners in the District Court of the United States for New York,
under the act of 1851, to limit their liability: Held, That said pro-
ceedings, properly pleaded and verified, superseded the actions in
other courts, and that it was error to proceed further therein.

CONFLICT OF LAW.

Id.

[blocks in formation]

1. The first and second sections of the Civil Rights Act passed March 1st,
1875, are unconstitutional enactments, as applied to the several States,
not being authorized either by the XIIIth or XIVth Amendments of
the Constitution. Civil Rights Cases, 3.

2. The XIVth Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, and the

« AnteriorContinuar »