Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

66

[ocr errors]

Rule reaffirmed and followed in Feibelman v. Packard, 108 U. S. 15, 27 L. 634, 2 S. Ct. 138, Estis v. Trabue, 128 U. S. 230, 32 L. 438, 9 S. Ct. 60, and The Columbia, 67 Fed. 944, 29 U. S. App. 647, where rule is applied in admiralty to a decree limiting liability, all persons having claims for damages being treated as adversaries of owner; St. Louis Elevator Co. v. Nichols, 91 Fed. 833, where appeal was taken from deficiency decree against a mortgagor and his grantee who had assumed mortgage; Cameron v. Sheppard, 71 Ga. 782, holding appeal taken in name of certain defendants, and others not named, is defective and will be dismissed; Bonebrake v. Insurance Co., 8 Kan. App. 709, 41 Pac. 67, where, in case of a judgment against principal and sureties on bond, appeal was brought in name of sureties only, it was dismissed; Wolf v. Murphy, 21 Neb. 474, 82 N. W. 304, Hendrickson v. Sullivan, 28 Neb. 791, 44 N. W. 1135, and Curten v. Atkinson, 29 Neb. 620, 46 N. W. 94, all reaffirm the rule; Whitlock v. Willard, 18 Fla. 158, where court holds that if appeal is irregular for want of proper parties, the error may be corrected in appellate court by amendment. Cited, arguendo, in Bockes v. Hathorn, 78 N. Y. 226, no special application.

Distinguished in Baskett v. Haskill, 107 U. S. 608, 27 L. 502, 2 S. Ct. 417, holding an appeal will not be dismissed because of the omission of persons who were parties below, if such persons have no interest in maintaining or reversing the decree.

20 Wall. 159-165, 22 L. 250, INSURANCE CO. v. BARING

Trial. When there is no legal evidence of any kind to support theory of fact, embodied in a prayer for instructions, instruction should be refused, p. 161.

Reaffirmed in Thatcher v. Kaucher, 2 Colo. 703.

Maritime lien.- Advances made on credit of ship for necessary repairs or supplies in foreign port, create lien upon ship, p. 163.

Cited and relied on in The Cumberland, 30 Fed. 430, where bills contracted by master, although charterer and owner pro hac vice, were held a lien on vessel; The Main, 51 Fed. 958, 2 U. 8. App. 349, holding stevedore rendering service in loading vessel in other than home port, has maritime lien therefor.

Approved, arguendo, in The Guiding Star, 9 Fed. 525, and The Dora, 34 Fed. 349, both holding where funds are procured by the master for purpose of paying off a maritime lien, and are so applied, the lender acquires a lien of equal rank and standing to one extinguished.

Maritime lien.- It is prima facie presumption that repairs and supplies, for foreign vessel, were made and furnished on credit of vessel, unless it appear master had funds in his possession to be used for such purposes, and that materialmen knew this, p. 163.

Reaffirmed in The Metropolis, 9 Ben. 88, F. C. 9,503, where vessel was held liable for supplies, although they were in fact furnished charterers; The Suliote, 23 Fed. 923, where the latter part of rule was applied; Berwind v. Schultz, 25 Fed. 916, where it appeared that reasonable inquiry would have shown materialmen that master had funds with which to pay for supplies furnished.

Distinguished in Taylor v. Commonwealth, 23 Fed. Cas. 759, where repairs were made in home port.

Insurance. One having lien on vessel for supplies or repairs, has insurable interest in vessel, p. 163.

Cited and relied on in Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Parsons, 129 N. Y. 93, 29 N. E. 89, holding similarly; Tilley v. Conn. Fire Ins. Co., 86 Va. 813, 11 8. E. 120, any person who has any interest in property, legal or equitable, or who stands in such relation thereto that its destruction would entail pecuniary loss upon him, has an insurable interest therein. Approved, arguendo, in Hooper v. Robinson, 98 U. S. 538, 25 L. 221, and North British Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, 70 Fed. 435, 25 U. S. App. 443. Cited in The Fern Holme, 46 Fed. 122, no special application.

Miscellaneous.- Cited in United States v. Babcock, 3 Dill. 580, F. C. 14,486, not in point.

20 Wall. 165-171, 22 L. 252, ROACH v. SUMMERS.

Principal and surety.- Surety is not discharged by contract between principal and obligee, unless placed in a different position, p. 169.

Equity. Rule that testimony of more than one witness is necessary to prove facts which verified answer negatives, does not apply to so much of answer as is not responsive to bill, p. 170.

Not cited.

20 Wall. 171-178, 22 L. 273, BANK v. COOPER.

Bankruptcy. After assignee, aided by creditor, has twice contested a claim before District Court, and it has twice been decided valid, bill will not be sustained in Circuit Court to reverse the order allowing such claim, p. 175.

Cited, arguendo, in In re Murray, 14 Blatchf. 44, F. C. 9,953, and In re Beck, 31 Fed. 555, both holding application for review in Circuit Court must be made without unreasonable delay; Dewey v. Moyer, 72 N. Y. 79.

Distinguished in In re Joseph, 2 Woods, 393, F. C. 7,532, holding a creditor, whose opposition to claim of another creditor has been overruled by District Court, may, when such claim is allowed, take question to Circuit Court for review.

Judgments.- Court of equity will never interfere with judgment of another court, because it is alleged to have been merely erroneous, p. 176.

20 Wall. 179-189, 22 L. 339, TWENTY PER CENT. CASES.

Statutes will not be construed as retroactive, unless it clearly ap pear from language employed that such was intent of legislature, p. 187.

Cited and relied on in Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U. S. 559, 28 L. 778, 5 S. Ct. 266, in construing act relating to Chinese emigration; Central Trust Co. v. Sheffield Co., 60 Fed. 16, in construing act relating to manner in which property shall be sold under orders and decrees of Federal courts; McClellan v. Pyeatt, 66 Fed. 846, 32 U. S. App. 104, holding act of Congress, putting in force in Indian Territory the statute of frauds, had no retroactive effect; Wrightman v. Boone County, 88 Fed. 436, 60 U. S. App. 102, reaffirms the rule; Potter v. Rio Arriba Co., 4 N. Mex. 326, 327 (650662), 17 Pac. 613, 614, in construing statute passed for purpose of restricting ownership of lands in territories to American citizens.

Distinguished in Southern Wire Co. v. St. Louis Bridge Co., 38 Mo. App. 198, and Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald Co., 41 Neb. 462, 59 N. W. 862, holding provision in interstate commerce act, prohibiting discrimination, is applicable to contracts made prior to its enactment; Judkins v. Taffe, 21 Or. 91, 27 Pac. 222, holding statutes which merely change the remedy or course and form of procedure, are retrospective.

United States. Neither a sexton at Arlington cemetery nor a plate printer working under contract, is entitled to 20 per cent. additional compensation allowed certain classes of government employees in Washington, by joint resolution of Congress of February 28, 1867, p. 189.

Miscellaneous. Cited in United States v. Gleeson, 124 U. S. 260, 31 L. 423, 8 8. Ct. 504, as instance of appeal from pro forma judgment in Court of Claims.

20 Wall. 189-201, 22 L. 342, PAHLMAN v. THE COLLECTOR.

Internal revenue. Methods by which assessor is to determine true producing capacity of a distillery, in imposing taxes on distilled spirits, under the act of July 20, 1868, discussed, p. 199.

Referred to, arguendo, in United States v. Three Tons of Coal, 6 Biss. 401, F. C. 16,515, United States v. Halloran, 14 Blatchf. 3, F. C. 15,286, and United States v. Myers, 3 Hughes, 245, F. C. 15,846, without special application of any point.

20 Wall. 201-226, 22 L. 259, THE LOTTAWANNA.

Admiralty.- Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to dismiss appeal from District Court, in admirality, because of irregularities in taking appeal, and at same time affirm its decision, p. 217.

Maritime liens.- Parties who furnish supplies or make repairs in home port acquire no lien on vessel, p. 218.

Cited and relied on in The Kate Hinchman, 6 Biss. 369, F. C. 7,620, holding lien of material and supply men in home port subordinate to other liens, although they are given a prior lien by State statute; Warren v. Kelley, 80 Me. 524, 15 Atl. 50, holding a State statute giving lien for supplies furnished in home port, and authorizing proceedings in rem for enforcement of same, unconstitutional. Approved, arguendo, in The Champion, 1 Brown, 527, F. C. 2,583. Cited in The Illinois, 2 Flipp. 432, F. C. 7,005, where court held supply liens, under State statutes, belong to same class as maritime liens for supplies; The C. Vanderbilt, 86 Fed. 789, no special application; dissenting opinion in Atlantic Works v. Tug Glide, 157 Mass. 530, 33 N. E. 165, and Petrel v. Dumont, 28 Ohio St. 610, 22 Am. Rep. 399, as authority for holding a contract to repair a domestic vessel is a maritime contract.

The general rule is apparently denied in Whittaker v. The J. A. Travis, 29 Fed. Cas. 1118.

Judicial sales.- Notice must be given owner of proceedings to divest him of property, otherwise decree will not bind him, p. 222. Cited in Ray v. Norseworthy, 23 Wall. 136, 23 L. 118, holding a judicial sale of mortgaged property, made without notice to mortgagee, may be set aside; Murphy v. Factors' Co., 33 La. Ann. 461, ́ holding similarly; Daily v. Doe, 3 Fed. 918, seizure and possession of vessel by marshal, under process of court, is notice to all persons interested, of pendency of proceedings, and of their right to inter vene and protect their interests.

Parties. Defense may be made to a suit in rem by any person who has an interest in the thing seized, p. 222.

Distinguished in The R. W. Skillinger, 1 Flipp. 439, F. C. 12,181, where it was not shown that claimant in admiralty proceedings had an interest in boat seized.

Admiralty.-Funds in hands of Court of Admiralty, arising from sale of a vessel, belong to owner of vessel, after maritime liens against same have been discharged; they cannot be subjected to payment of other claims against owner's consent, p. 222.

Cited and relied on in The Balize, 52 Fed. 415, holding, after maritime liens have been satisfied, surplus funds arising from sale of vessel sold to discharge such liens, should be paid to owner; The Willamette Valley, 76 Fed. 842, 845, 846, 847, where holder of

Judgment rendered in State court, who has issued process of execution against a vessel which has been seized under maritime liens, was held to have no lien for the satisfaction of his judgment upon the surplus arising from a sale of the vessel to pay such maritime liens; The Lydia A. Harvey, 84 Fed. 1001, as against the owner petitioning for payment of residue of proceeds to him, the court cannot distribute the same in payment of claims not maritime liens. Cited in The Wyoming, 37 Fed. 543, 544, holding the surplus, after payment of maritime lien claims, cannot be awarded as against mortgagees to a general creditor; The Alice Strong, 57 Fed. 251, without special application.

Attachment.- Property in hands of Court of Admiralty is not subject to garnishment by creditors of owners, under judgment rendered in State court, even though such creditors have a decree in personam in admiralty against such owners, p. 223.

Rule reaffirmed in In re Forsyth. 78 Fed. 302.

Distinguished in The Olivia A. Carrigan, 7 Fed. 511, holding service of monition by United States marshal for seamen's wages, upon parties owing freight moneys, does not place the fund beyond the reach of an attachment subsequently issued from State Court, in action brought by another against owner of vessel.

Admiralty. Where appeal is taken from decree of District Court in proceeding in rem. to Circuit Court, property or proceeds follow cause into Circuit Court subject to liens attaching in lower court, p. 225.

Cited in The Thomas Fletcher, 24 Fed. 482, holding admiralty causes do not come up to Circuit Court as court of error, but of appeal.

Miscellaneous.- Cited incidentally in Braithwait v. Jordan, 5 N. Dak. 247, 65 N. W. 719, 31 L. R. A. 258.

20 Wall. 226-251, 22 L. 254, CORNETT ▼. WILLIAMS.

Witnesses. Under act of July 2, 1864, parties to civil actions in Federal courts are placed upon an equal footing as witnesses with other witnesses, p. 244.

Depositions.-Where witness has given one deposition in action at law he is not thereby precluded from giving another, p. 244.

64

Replevin.- When property is replevied as provided in Texas sequestration act," on the giving of replevin bond, it passes from possession of marshal into possession of party giving bond, p. 245.

Evidence.- Where secondary evidence is admissible, a party must offer the best he is able to produce, in this case copy of certified copy held admissible, p. 246.

Approved in Johnson v. Arnwine, 42 N. J. L. 458, 36 Am. Rep. 532, holding further as to what must be shown before secondary evidence

« ForrigeFortsett »