fined is directed to pay debts, legacies, or a sum in gross, he takes a fee:

Id.

This last rule, though founded on inference, is as technical and rigid. in its application as that to which it is an exception; for Courts will not inquire into the relative value of the land and the charge, nor decide on the probability of the devisee being called on to pay the charge: Id.

Where a testator gives one piece of land to his son, with the privilege of doing therewith as he pleases, and makes another devise to the same son, without using those or any similar words, it does not follow that there was no actual intent to give a fee in the last-mentioned land: Id.

A Court may look beyond the face of the will, to explain an ambiguity as to the person or property to which it applies, but never for the purpose of enlarging or diminishing the estate devised: Id.

California Land Claims-Fraudulent Certificate-Presumption of Fraud in other Title Papers.-In a California land case, the production of a fraudulent and false certificate of approval, signed by the Governor and Secretary who signed the grant, and proved by the same witnesses in the same way that the grant was proved, affords (in the absence of explanatory evidence) strong ground for believing all the title papers to be fabricated: United States vs. Galbraith.

Where the date of a grant has been altered, while it was in the hands of the claimants, and is produced to the Court without evidence, to show how the alteration came to be made, this Court cannot confirm the title: Id.

The case of United States vs. West's Heirs reviewed, the facts stated from the original record, and all its features shown to be strikingly different from this case: Id.

The fact that an espediente is found among those indexed by Hartnell in 1847-8, is no evidence that it was made at the time of its date : Id.

Agent-Concealed Principal-Title to Goods as between the Real and Apparent Owner, and Purchaser from the latter-Burden of Proof.— A person residing in California employed an agent to contract for and superintend the building of a ship at New York. The agent was furnished with funds for the purpose, and specially directed by the principal to give himself out as the true owner, and to conceal the interest of the

principal. Accordingly, the agent made all contracts in his own name, and had the vessel registered as his own property. After she was finished, he sold her, and put the price in his pocket:-Held, That the principal's right in the vessel was gone, unless he could prove that the vendee had notice of his right before payment of the purchase-money: Calais Steamboat Company vs. Scudder, Administrator of Van Pelt.

As between the principal and agent themselves, the legal title of the latter could not avail him, except as a lien for his services and money advanced; but the rule is different as respects a third person who has bought in good faith and for a valuable consideration: Id.

When a question arises between two innocent parties, which of them shall suffer by the misconduct of another, the loss must fall upon him who has enabled the wrong to be committed, and not on him who had no means of knowing that it was a wrong: Id.

If the equitable owner of a thing has permitted another to hold the legal title, accompanied with the usual documentary evidence of it, with full possession and with declarations of ownership corresponding to the legal title, he cannot set up his equity against a bonâ fide purchaser, who had no notice of it: Id.

Secret instructions from the equitable to the legal owner, which produced no change in the apparent relation of the latter to the thing, will not affect the right of the purchaser: Id.

The burden of proof rests upon the equitable owner, to show that the purchaser had notice of his rights in due time: Id.

Where the purchase has been made for a full price and on fair conditions, without special advantage to the vendee, the proofs to impeach it ought to be more full and direct, more unequivocal and certain, than would be required in the case of a hard or unequal bargain: Id.

California Mining Rights-Registry-Discovery-Title-Claims under Mexican Grants-Act of 1851.-A mining right or privilege under the Mexican ordinances relating to that subject, is a title to land within the meaning of the Act of 1851, and therefore the Board of Land Commissioners had jurisdiction to investigate a claim to such right: United States vs. Castillero.

The ordinances made and established by the King of Spain at Madrid in 1783, prescribe the mode of acquiring titles to mines, and were in force throughout the Republic of Mexico at the date of the American conquest of California: Id.

A strict compliance with the terms and conditions of those ordinances is required by the ordinances themselves, and is shown to be necessary on general principles by all the writers on the subject: Id.

Registry is the basis of title to a mine, and no mine can be lawfully worked until it is registered; nor can any title thereto be acquired either by the discoverer or by any other person without a registry: Id.

Registry consists of an entry in a book kept by the proper public authority: Id.

Title to a mine is vested by the adjudication or decree of the proper tribunal in a case duly presented for decision, and by the registry of the adjudication, together with the proceedings on which it is founded: Id.

The mere fact of discovery without such adjudication and registry, gives no title to the discoverer, though it is also true that without proof of discovery there can be no adjudication in his favor: Id.

To complete the adjudication and carry it into effect, the boundaries must be fixed; else the title or claim, like other indefinite interests in lands, will be void for uncertainty; and this rule applies to mines situate on public as well as to those on private lands: Id.

Purchase-Money-Equitable Lien-Married Woman-Fraud.-Purchase-money is treated by Courts of Equity as a lien on the land sold where the purchaser has taken no separate security, and this is on the principle that one who gets the estate of another should not in conscience be allowed to keep it without paying for it: Chilton vs. Braiden's Administratrix.

This rule applies with as much force to the case of a purchase by a married woman as to any other case: Id.

The disabilities imposed upon married women are intended for their protection, and the law will not allow them to be used as the means of committing fraud: Id.

Federal Courts-Lien of their Judgments-Revisory Power of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court of the United States to revise the proceedings of a Circuit Court in a case brought up on a certificate of division is strictly confined to the questions stated in the certificate: Ward et al. vs. Chamberlain et al.

Judgments and decrees rendered in the Courts of the United States are liens upon the defendant's real estate in all cases where similar judgments or decrees of the State Courts are made liens by the law of the State: Id.

A decree for the payment of money in an admiralty suit in personam stands in this respect upon the same footing as a decree in equity: Id. Judgments and decrees in equity, rendered by the State Courts of Ohio, are, by the laws of that State, liens upon lands; therefore,

Where one party filed his libel against another in the Federal District Court for Ohio, claiming damages by a collision of two vessels on the Lake, and got a decree in personam for money as compensation, the decree is a lien on the respondent's land: Id.

That lien gives the libellant a right to levy on the lands to which it attaches, and consequently such interest in the lands as will enable him to sustain a bill of discovery against the respondent and any third person who sets up an unfounded claim under a different lien: Id.

On such a bill, the respondent, if he makes out his case, is entitled to a decree which will remove the cloud from his title, but the Court cannot proceed further, and in the same case order the land to be sold for the payment of the debt found due by the original decree: Id.

Stare Decisis. A question repeatedly argued and decided must be considered as no longer open for discussion, whatever differences of opinion may once have existed on the subject in this Court: Wright et al. vs. Sill.

Rights under State Laws-Jurisdiction of Federal Courts.—A controversy in which no right is claimed under the Constitution or laws of the United States, but which turns entirely upon the validity or interpretation of State Laws, is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the State Courts, and this Court has no appellate power over thier judgment: Congdon et al., and Tennessee Mining Company vs. Goodman and Bledsoe.

Res Adjudicata-Jurisdiction of Tribunal.-A controversy once decided by a competent tribunal, cannot be re-examined by another court of concurrent jurisdiction, in a suit between the same parties or their privies Lessee of Parrish vs. Ferris et al.

The Statute of Ohio authorizes any person in possession of real property to institute a suit against any one who claims an estate or interest therein, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse estate or interest: Id.

The judgment of a Court, in proceedings under this statute, determines the merits of the plaintiff's title, as well as that of the defendant; and is conclusive whether adverse to one or the other: Id.

Inventor-Agreement to Perfect an Invention.-Parties engaging the

services of an inventor, under an agreement that he shall devote his ingenuity to the perfecting of a machine for their benefit, can lay no claim to improvements conceived by him after the expiration of such agreement: Appleton vs. Bacon & North.

Mortgage-Equity-Fraudulent Agreement-Statute of Frauds.--The owner of mortgaged land made "a friendly arrangement" with the mortgagee to buy it in, ostensibly for his own use, but with the understanding that he was to hold it for the use of the mortgagor, as if no sale had been made. This was done to defeat the claim of a third party; and with that view the mortgagor confirmed the sale. The mortgagee and purchaser afterwards claimed the land as his own. Held, That the mortgagor cannot sustain a bill in equity to restrain the mortgagee from selling the land, and to enforce the understanding made before the sale: Randall vs. Howard.

Neither party can enforce against the other a contract made between themselves to injure a third person, in fraud of the law: Id.

Nor will the character of such agreement be changed by showing that the claim of the third party, whose rights were to be affected by it, was also fraudulent: Id.

Where it appears on the face of a bill, that an agreement concerning an interest in lands set up by complainant is in parol, the defence of the Statute of Frauds may be taken advantage of on demarrer: Id.

Mortgage by Corporation-Seal-Authority of Officers-Directors and Stockholders-Legal and Equitable Mortgage.-An instrument purporting to be a mortgage, made by a corporation, is not a legal mortgage, and a bill to foreclose it as such cannot be sustained unless it be sealed with the corporate seal of the mortgagor: Koehler vs. The Black River Falls Iron Company.

The mere fact that such a mortgage-deed has the corporate seal attached to it, does not make it the act of the corporation if the seal was not affixed by a person duly authorized: Id.

The presumption is, that the seal was rightfully affixed to a deed, or other instrument, on which it appears; but that presumption is not conclusive, and may be repelled by parol evidence: Id.

Where it is proved that the officers who executed a mortgage did not seal it then nor afterwards; that the officer who had the seal in his custody never affixed it nor authorized another to do so, and that the