nt a multiplicity of suits.--Whitaker & Ray | the interest of each and obtain partition, and D. v. Roberts (C. C.) 882.

2. Laches and stale demands.

whose interest is admitted by the pleadings, cannot be deprived of the right to file a crossbill therein at any time it may become neces*Laches is not a matter of time merely, but sary to protect his interest in the property by E inequity, and delay will not bar a suit in a settlement between his co-tenants.-Ulman v. uity before it would be barred at law by lim-Jaeger's Adm'r (C. C.) 1011; Ross v. Ulman, ation unless the delay has been prejudicial to Id. e defendant.-Brissell v. Knapp (C. C.) 809. *A delay of two years in bringing suit to cover mining stock alleged to have been fraudently acquired by defendant held not to conitute such laches as would bar the suit beuse of an increase in the value of the stock ot shown to have been due to any action or penditure of defendant.-Brissel v. Knapp (C. -) 809.

3. Pleading.

*New parties may be brought in by a crossbill which seeks affirmative relief and is not merely defensive when they are necessary to the granting of such relief.-Ulman v. Jaeger's Adm'r (C. C.) 1011; Ross v. Ulman, Id. § 4. Bill of review.

*Fraud in obtaining a decree cannot be made the basis of a bill of review, but only of an original bill to impeach the decree for fraud; the radical difference between the two kinds of bills being that a bill of review is a continuation of the original litigation, whereas a bill to impeach a decree for fraud is new and independent litigation.-Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. McSherry Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 524.

*A bill by a bondholder against a city to en-
rce its statutory duty to collect and apply a
pecial assessment on the bonds held not multi
rious because it also sought to enforce the
ty's general liability for payment of the bonds
san incidental or supplemental remedy.-
lmsted v. City of Superior (C. C.) 172.
*In a suit in equity for an accounting by an
gent, the objection that equity is without juris- See "Appeal and Error."
ction because of the adequacy of the remedy
law can only be interposed in the earlier
ages, and will not be considered after the case
at issue and has been heard by a master.-
uirk v. Quirk (C. C.) 199.

ERROR, WRIT OF.

ESCROWS.

Contract in escrow construed, and held not Where suits by railroad companies to restrain to impose upon the bank the duty of distribute enforcement of a state statute fixing freight ing a stock in escrow among the several coates, on the ground that it was confiscatory owners or delivering to each a separate certifnd unconstitutional, were pending in a federal icate for shares to which he might be entitled. ourt at the time of the enactment of a second-Christian v. First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 705. catute fixing passenger rates, the question of e constitutionality of such act may properly e raised and determined in the pending suits supplemental bills.-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. Hadley (C. C.) 220.

ESTABLISHMENT.

Of railroads, see "Street Railroads," § 1.
Of trusts, see "Trusts," § 2.

ESTATES.

ESTOPPEL.

Conveyances," § 1.

A bill which seeks to enjoin the Attorney Genal of a state from taking steps to enforce ate statutes, fixing railroad rates, is not mulfarious because it also joins the members of Estates for years, see "Landlord and Tenant." e State Railroad and Warehouse Commission defendants, and asks an injunction restraing them from enforcing an order made by em under legislative authority also affecting To maintain creditor's suit, see "Fraudulent tes.-Perkins v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (C. ) 445; Kennedy v. Great Northern Ry. Co., ; Woodward v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Livingston v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., Brewster v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. b., Id.; Shillaber v. Minneapolis & St. L. y. Co., Id.; Humbird v. Chicago Great Westn Ry. Co., Id.; Barrows v. Minneapolis, St. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., Id.; Carle v. Chicago, I. & P. Ry. Co., Id.; James v. Great Northn Ry. Co., Id.

Under the general rules of equity pleading d practice, new parties cannot be introduced to a cause by cross-bill.-Newton v. Gage (C. 5598; Northern Counties Inv. Trust, Limd, Id.

§ 1. Equitable estoppel.

*The failure of a mortgagee to inform a subsequent purchaser of the property of his mortgage, which was duly recorded, held, under the evidence, not to create an equitable estoppel which prevented him from enforcing the same. Clark v. Lyster (C. C. A.) 513.

A trustee in bankruptcy of a corporation, and by sworn answers affirmed the validity and who intervened in suits against the company good faith of certain of its transactions, is estopped to shift his ground in a subsequent suit, begun after the dismissal of the prior ones, and attack the validity of the same transactions.Canton Roll & Machine Co. v. Rolling Mill Co. of America (C. C.) 321; Sturgis v. Same, Id. *Point annotated. See syllabus.

A tenant in common, who has been impleadin a suit between the co-tenants to establish

FINDINGS.

On reference, see "Reference," § 1.

*Judiciary Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 8, 18 Stat. 472 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 573], relating to local suits to enforce liens, etc., does

Review on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap- not enlarge the right of an individual to sue, peal and Error," § 6.

FORECLOSURE.

Of lien, see "Mechanics' Liens," $ 3.
Of mortgage, see "Mortgages," § 2.

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

See "Corporations," § 5.

Construction of contract between domestic cor-
poration and foreign corporation, see "Con-
tracts," § 2.

Impairing obligation of license or privilege to,
see "Constitutional Law," § 4.
Jurisdiction of United States Court of creditors'
suit against foreign corporation pending peti-
tion in bankruptcy, see "Bankruptcy," 9.
Laws interfering with use of property of as
denying due process of law, see "Constitu-
tional Law," § 6.

Laws relating to suits by as denying equal
protection of law, see "Constitutional Law,"
§ 5.

FORFEITURES.

Construction of statutes, see "Statutes," § 2.

FORNICATION.

See "Prostitution."

FRANCHISES.

Of lotteries, see "Lotteries," § 1.

Of telephone companies, see "Telegraphs and
Telephones," § 1.

FRAUD.

See "Fraudulent Conveyances."

Affecting right of bankrupt to discharge, see "Bankruptcy," § 13.

As ground for bill of review, see "Equity," § 4. In arbitration, see "Arbitration and Award," § 3.

In sale of goods to bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 4.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.

By bankrupt, see "Bankruptcy," § 4.

1. Remedies of creditors and purchas

ers.

The assignee of a complainant in a creditors' suit held estopped to further maintain it on the ground that he participated in the transactions the validity of which was attacked.--Canton Roll & Machine Co. v. Rolling Mill Co. of America (C. C.) 321; Sturgis v. Same, Id.

and confers no right on a simple contract creditor to maintain a creditor's suit in a federal court to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance of property.-Canton Roll & Machine Co. v. Rolling Mill Co. of America (C. C.) 321; Sturgis v. Same, Id.

§ 1. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and relief.

Where an agent of a railroad company has been adjudged guilty of a crime and imprisoned by a state court for selling tickets at a rate in excess of that fixed by a state statute, the enforcement of which has been enjoined by a federal court pending suits to test its constitutionality, that court is authorized by Rev. St. *Point annotated. See syllabus.

upplemental pleading in suit to restrain enforcement of state statutes fixing freight rates, see "Equity," § 3.

elief against particular acts or proceedings. ee "Waste."

§ 1.

losing of inlet, see "Navigable Waters," § 1.
ollection of taxes, see "Taxation," § 2.
nforcement of railroad rates, see "Carriers,"
fringement of patents, see "Patents," § 5.
afringement of trade-name, see "Trade-Marks
and Trade-Names," §§ 2, 3.
iolation of anti-trust law, see "Monopolies,"
§ 1.

1. Subjects of protection and relief.
*A street railroad company, whose right to oc-
apy a city street is being contested by the city,
hich is by statute vested with the control over
streets, cannot maintain a suit in equity to
join another company from occupying such
reet to which suit the city is not a party.-
acoma Ry. & Power Co. v. Pacific Traction Co.
C. C.) 259.

*The general rule that a court of equity will
ot restrain the enforcement of an ordinance
other legislative act until it has been fully
▪mpleted held not to apply to an ordinance
hich has been finally passed by a city council
nd approved by the mayor, and nothing re-
ains to render it immediately effective except
publication. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co. v. City
Minneapolis (C. C.) 989.

2. Actions for injunctions. A telephone company having refused to fursh a city information required by an ordince from which the city expected to fix teleone rates under its charter authority, the lephone company held not entitled to complain equity that the rates fixed without such inrmation were void.-Home Telephone & Teleaph Co. v. City of Los Angeles (C. C.) 554. 3. Preliminary and interlocutory injunctions.

A preliminary injunction to restrain the enorcement of an order of the Interstate Comerce Commission pending a hearing on the erits refused.-Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. terstate Commerce Commission (C. C.) 512. *A preliminary injunction will not be granted suit of stockholders in railroad companies - restrain the enforcement of state enactments ing rates which have been accepted and put to operation by the companies.-Perkins V. orthern Pac. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 445: Kennedy v. reat Northern Ry. Co., Id.; Woodward v. hicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Id.; Livingston v. hicago & N. W. Ry. Co., Id.; Brewster v. hicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., Id.; Shilber v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co., Id.: umbird v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., 1.; Barrows v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. y. Co., Id.; Carle v. Chicago, R. I. & P. y. Co., Id.; James v. Great Northern Ry. D., Id.

Complainant held not entitled to a prelimiry injunction to restrain defendant from resing to renew a contract for the publication

*Rates fixed by statute are prima facie reasonable, and when, on application for a preliminary injunction, complainant showed a state of facts which presents a reasonable probability in connection with the opposing evidence that the rates may be adjudged invalid on final hearing, preliminary injunction against the enforcement of rate legislation will be issued on terms.Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Alabama (C. C.) 792.

*To warrant the granting of a preliminary injunction, complainant must generally present a clear title and set forth acts done or threatened which will seriously or irreparably injure his rights under such title unless restrained. It is not sufficient that such an order will do. no harm.-Weir v. Winnett (C. C.) 823.

*A complainant held not entitled to a preliminary injunction to prevent threatened injury on the facts shown.-Weir v. Winnett (C. C.) 824.

*A stockholder held on the allegations of his bill to have such a special interest in the subject-matter of the litigation as to entitle him to apply for a preliminary injunction to protect such interest from irreparable injury.-Bigelow V. Calumet & Hecla Min. Co. (C. C.) 869.

A bill of a stockholder and the supporting affidavits held to make a sufficient showing to entitle him to a preliminary injunction to prevent an election of directors by votes controlled by another corporation pending a hearing on the merits.-Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Min. Co. (C. C.) 869.

A temporary restraining order will not be granted ex parte to restrain the putting into effect of a railroad rate established by a state commission under authority given by the Constitution and laws of the state after due notice and a hearing, when the commission's order by its terms was not to take effect for nearly three months after its adoption, and no application for a restraining order was made until within two days of the expiration of such time.-Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. McLendon (C. C.) 974.

*Right to preliminary injunction where answer not only puts in issue all the material averments of the bill, but fully negatives its. equity, discussed.-City of Sacramento v. Southern Pac. Co. (C. C.) 1022.

§ 4. Violation and punishment.

*The fact that a defendant's first name was. stated incorrectly in the pleadings, decree, and an injunction order does not relieve him from liability for contempt for violation of such or*Point annotated. See syllabus.