Connecticut.

Judicial Code....
§ 24.

§ 24 (2)
$57.
$ 78.

$ 145.

162.

234....
237.....371, 607, 610,

615, 617-621
§ 238....166, 171, 189, 191
$242.
581, 584

$244.

248

Georgia.

Judicial Code (cont.)

§ 250..
$ 250 (3)
250 (5)

250 (6)

251.

265.

.175, 182

$269. .135, 139 Judiciary Act, 1789........ 195 Safety Appliance Act... 188,

251, 252 252

§ 1.

(B.) STATUTES OF THE STATES AND TERRITORIES.
New York (cont.)

$6.

7.

Kansas.

1915, Laws, c. 292, pt.
IV, §§ 19-29..

118

Gen. Stats. 1918, § 1190 125

PAGE

.139, 584
81

Constitution...

69

1913, Laws, p. 123....64, 65

.64, 66
64, 68

Constitution.....

Louisiana.

550

.166, 170

550

152

494, 496
534

New Jersey.

Constitution, 1898, Arts.
235, 236.

1904, Act No. 45.

Maryland.

1918, Acts, c. 85... Code Pub. Gen. Laws, Art. 56, § 143... Minnesota.

New York.

435

125

125

1917, Laws, c. 463..326, 334
$§ 1-3.
.326, 335
§§ 4-5.
327

51

51

1853, Act Mar. 14..... 408
1913, P. L., c. 57. . . . .
408

Constitution.. .123, 230
383
Constitution, 1777.
Constitution, 1846, Art.

VIII, §1..
1851, Laws, c. 255.
1853, Laws, c. 462....47,

.47, 50
48
49

CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AT

OCTOBER TERM, 1920.

PIEDMONT & GEORGES CREEK COAL COMPANY v. SEABOARD FISHERIES COMPANY, CLAIMANT, &c.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.

No. 58. Argued March 16, 17, 1920.-Decided October 11, 1920.

An oil company, owner of a fleet of fishing steamers and also of oil factories where the catch was delivered and the vessels coaled, having mortgaged this property and being without money or credit, made an agreement with a coal dealer to furnish the coal necessary for the season's operations, both parties understanding that the coal would be used by the factories as well as by the vessels, that the greater part would be used by the vessels, that the law would afford a lien on the vessels for the purchase price and that the coal dealer would thus have security. The coal was billed and delivered directly to the oil company, title passing with delivery; it was then stored by that company in its factories, and afterwards appropriated by it mainly to the vessels but partly to the factories, as occasion arose; and there was no understanding when the contract was made or at times of delivery that any part of it was for any particular vessel or for the vessels then composing the fleet. In libels of some of the vessels involving the coal dealer's rights as against a purchaser under the prior mortgage, held: (1) That the coal dealer had no maritime