[ocr errors][ocr errors]

18. A party is not permitted to give secondary 38. What declarations fail to prove partnership.
evidence where it
presupposes better evidence

780 within his reach, which he fails to produce.

39. Parol' evidence is inadmissib e to show that Idem,

344 there was an antecedent parol agreement or under19. Parol' evidence to impeach a deed more than standing between the parties, different in a ma. forty years old, and which had never been ques- terial particular from that which the written contioned by the grantors, under which large and di- tract contains. versified interests had grown up, offered by one

Gavinzel v. Crump,

783 who claimed under a hostile title, held properly 40. Every admission of a party given in evidence, excluded.

is to be taken as an entirety of the fact whicb Idem,


makes for the one side, with the qualifications 20. In an action for damages for being dismissed which limit, modify or destroy its effect on the from employment, evidence of incapacity is admis- other side. sible on the defense.

Ins. Co. v. Newton,

702 Lyon v. Pollard,

361 41. Where the admission related to two particu21. Insufficient evidence of identity, what is. lars, the death of the insured and the manner of Hardy v. Harbin,


his death, and showed death of the insured only as 22. Evidence by comparison of handwritings is they showed that he had committed suicide, the very unreliable.

whole admission should be taken together.


703 23. In an action by husband and wife for person. 42. The preliminary proofs of death of the inal injury to the wife, evidence that the husband and sured are admissible as primi facie evidence of wife were not living together at the time of the in

the facts stated therein against the insured and on Jury, and had not been for some time, is inadmis- behalf of the company. sible on the defense.


793 Packet Co. v. Clough,


43. The way-bill of the goods is admissible in 24. What the captain of the boat on which the evidence to show the carrier's contract. Injury occurred, said of th transaction tw ays

Railroad Co. v. Pratt,

827 afterwards, was but a narrative of a past occur- 44. In an action to recover back a tax on certifirence, and not admissible as evidence for plaintiff. cates of a railroad company, as illegally exacted, the Idem,

400 annual reports of such company are admissible in Packet Co. r. Viles,

409 evidence. 25. What is not sufficient evidence of adverse

Bailey . R. R. Co.,

840 possession.

45. Oral evidence is admissible to prove a new Groshol: v. Ncroman,

471 agreement made subsequently to a written agree26. Under the Statute of Illinois, proof of the ment upon a new consideration. partnership or joint liability of either the plaintiff's

Grandin 1'. U. S.,

708 or defendants is unnecessary in the first instance. 46. An injury upon a railroad car, while the pasCooper v. Coates,

481 senger injured was in the exercise of ordinary 27. In assumpsit, any matter which shows that care, is prima facie evidence of the company's liathe plaintiff never had a cause of action may be bility. proved under the general issue.

Railroad Co. v. Pollard.

877 Chambcrs Co. v. Clews,

28. Where the plaintiff's produce the bonds and EXCEPTIONS.
coupons sued on, the execution of them not being
put' in issue, this establishes presumptively that


PRACTICE, 5, 6, 9. the plaintiffs are holders for value before maturity

1. to render an exception available in this court, without notice. Klem,


it must affirmatively appear that the ruling except 29. Persons of sound mind and discretion must

ed to affected, or might have affected the decision

of the case. in general be understood to intend, in the ordinary

Railroad Co. v. Smith,

513 transactions of life, that which is the necessary and unavoidable consequences of their acts.

2. If the exception is to the refusal of an interBank v. Jones,


rogatory, the record must show that the answer 30. Where, in replevin, the complaint alleges related to a material matter involved; or, if no

answer was given, the record must show the offer property and right of possession in the plaintiffs, and the answer traverses directly these allegations of the party to prove by the witness particular any evidence is admissible on the part of the de facts, and that such facts were material.


fendant, vbich goes to show that the plaintias
bave neither property nor right of possession. Evi.

lence of title in stranger is admissible.
Schulenberg v. Harriman,

551 1. The law of Louisiana requires an actual seiz.
31. Objections to the form and sufficiency of the ure of land on execution in the country parishes.
evidence offered to prove a record of a judgment of A sheriff's sale, without a valid seizure, confers
another State upon which the action is brought, no title.
are not well taken where the clerk duly certities

Watson v. Bondurant,

509 that the record is in due form.

2. Where the sheriff's return is incomplete and Marwell u. Steicart,

564 presents no record evidence of the sheriff's acts, it 32. In an action on policy of insurance, evidence is traversable, and it may be shown that no actual to show that the applicant made true answers to seizure of the property in dispute was ever made by the questions, different from those inserted in the the sherifr. application by the agent, is admissible.


609 Life Ins. Co. v. Mahone,

33. Evidence to show that, prior to the applica-
tion, a physician bad given an opinion that the ap- SEE ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS, passim.
plicant was unfit for insurance, is not admissible.


34. Evidence of the health of the insured prior to

1. To make a false representation the subject of the insurauce, where there is no issue in regard to

an indictment or of an action, two things are necit, is inadmissible.

essary, viz. : that it should be a statement likely to Idem,

693 impose upon one exercising common prudence and 35. The opinion of an agent, based upon past caution, and that it should be the statement of an occurrences, cannot be received as an admission by existing fact. his principals. This is doubly true when the agent

Sawyer v. Prickett,

105 was not a party to those occurrences.

2. A promissory statement is not, ordinarily, the Ilem,

593 subject either of an indictment or of an action. 36. Extrinsic evidence to contradict a record, by


10. showing that the appearance by the attorney there.

in stated was unauthorized, is not admissible under
a plea of nul tiel records

SEE EQUITY, 1, 13.
Hill v. Mendenhall,


37. Declarations of one partner to prove partner-
ship, are not admissible against the other partners,

until a prima facie case of partnership is estab- 1. An agreement that an attorney should prose-
lished brother evidence.

cute a government claini, and receive for his com. Pleasants 1. Fant,

780 pensation 25 per cent. of the sum allowed in pav: of Congress of Feb.
was insured, is destroyed, is a total loss.

[ocr errors]

ment n the claim, does not give such attorney a 5. A bill to reform a policy of insurance cannot
lien upon the fund appropriated by Congress to pay be sustained, after a loss, on the sole ground of us.
the claim.

Burke v. Child,

Hearne V. Marine Ins. Co.,

2. For breach of such agreement, the remedy is 6. Nor will this court, if it declines to reform the
at law, not in equity, and there is no jurisdiction in contract, decree the return of the premium.
equity, to sustain a bill to enjoin the claimant from Idem,

withdrawing such 25 per cent. from the Treasury. 7. Where the case is one of mere deviation, the

023 law annuls the contract as to the future, and for.
3. Under the Act of February 26, 1853, all traus. feits the premium to the underwriter, and equity in
fers of any part of any claim against the United such case follows the law.
States, or of any interest therein are void, unless


executed in the presence of at least two attesting 8. A policy not in accordance with the prelimi.
witnesses after the allowance of such claim,

nary agreement of insurance, may he reformed,

623 after an action at law thereon has been defeated.
Equitable Ins. Co. v. Hearne,


9. Under the charter of an insurance company,

which provides that every contract. bargain, agrec-

ment and policy shall be in writing or in print,

and be under the seal of the corporation, a contract

to issue a policy as an executory agreement to in-
A deed, executed by the husband alone with.

sure is binding without a written memorial of it.
out the wife, is not void because the land therein

Ins. Co. v. Colt,

described was a part of the grantor's homestead, un- 10. Credit allowed for the payment of the pre-
less such land was actually used. or manifestly in- mium which the agents were authorized by general
tended to be used as part of the home of the family.

usage to give, did not impair the preliminary con-
A secret intention of the seller, not made known, tract.
cannot affect a purchaser.


Grosholz v. Newman,


11. The contract being, valid, can be enforced in

a court of equity and having been enforced by

the procurement of a policy, an action can be

maintained upon the instrument; or the court, in

enforcing the execution of the contract, may enter

a decree for the amount of the insurance.
1. A voluntary post-nuptial settlement, If it be


reasonable, and not disproportionate to the hus- 12. Insurance agents may, after a loss, ill up a
band's means, and clear of any intent actual or con. policy, which they had, previous to the loss,
structive to defraud creditors, will be upheld. stipulated to deliver.
Kehr v. Smith,


2. It will be held to be in bad faith towards ex- 13. Where the policy, filled up after the loss,
isting creditors if it is out of all proportion to the was by express stipulation to be held by the agents
means of the husband, considering his state and in their safe for the assured, no actual manual
condition, and seriously impairs his ability to re- transfer was essential to perfect the latter's title.
spond to the demands of his creditors.



313 14. Where written proposals for insurance were
3. A wife may incumber ber individual property prepared by the company's agent, the proposals,
to secure her husband's debts, by an instrument in both questions and answers, are the act of the
writing. by which she expressly charges her sepa- company, which they cannot set up as a warranty
rate property for the payment of such debts. by the assured.
Stephen v. Beall,

Life Ins. Co. v. Mahone,


15. And this is especially so, when true answers

were in fact made by the applicant and the agent

substituted for them others, thus misrepresenting
SEE LANDS, 8-11.

the applicant as well as deceiving his own princi-



1. This court will not Issue an injunction to re-

16. Nor does it make any difference that the an-
strain collecting state and county taxes on public swers, as written by the agent were subsequently

read to the applicant and signed by him.
lands, where patents for the lands have been issued


before the suit was brought, and the United States
bas no interest in the land which would forbid their and the policy is made and accepted upon, the ex.

17. Where the application for insurance states.
being taxed.
Hunnerrell v. Cass County,


press condition and agreement, that the statements
2. The prohibition in the Judiciary Act, against | in all respects true, this stipulation is made as to

and declarations contained in said application are
courts of the United States enjoining proceedings all statements whether material or not, and a
in State Courts, has no application where the case
has been removed from the State court into the

false answer to an inquiry whether the applicant
Circuit Court.

has made any other application to have his life in-
French t. Hay,


sured, and whether he is married or single, will
avoid the policy.
Jeffries v. Life Ins. 00.,



EVIDENCE, 32-34, 41, 42.

1. Where a bill of goods was furnished upon a
1. In an action on an accident insurance policy, draft

written order, and a bill at once mailed to, and a

was drawn upon the defendants for the
containing a condition that the insurers would not

amount, which they refused to accept, this consti.
be liable for a death by an accident caused by a

tuted a demand of payment and the account draws
violation of law, a recovery cannot be had in

a State where horse-racing is a misdemeanor, for
death by accident while engaged in a horse-race.

Cooper v. Coates,


2. A sale of goods withc . a term of credit given
Ins. Co. v. Sear'er,

2. Such death of the insured was caused by a vio.

is liquidated when contracted. and after the ac-

count is presented and impliedly admitted, the de
lation of the law, although his opponent disre-
garded the rules of the course, and intentionally

fendants are in default and chargeable with inter-

sought to run him off the track.




3. Accrued interest constitutes part of a debt
3. It is not necessary to a total loss that there
should be an absoluto destruction of the thing in provable against the estate of a bankrupt, and is a

part of a deot which may be used to uphold in.
sured so that nothing of it can be delivered at the

voluptary proceedings.
point of destination.

Sloan l'. Leivis.

Ine. Co. v. Fogarty,

4. A destruction, so that, while some of its com

porunca he the character or descrierana bythenichini 28.115che, which presides that twento per cent."
may ,

ditional compensation sball be paid to certain gor-

216 eroment employees, was not repealed nor the right


[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

of recovery barred, by the Appropriation Act of court for further proceedings as the case may re-
July 12. 1870.


Twenty Per Cent. Cases,


2. Neither a sexton at the Arlington Cemetery. 15. Where a federal question has been raised and
nor a plate printer working under a contract, is in- has been decided against the plaintiff in error in a
cluded in such Resolution.

state court, the jurisdiction of this court attaches

339 and the case must be heard on the merits, althougla

the state court also placed its decision on another

ground which is not a federal question.


R. R. Co. v. Maryland,

16. Both parties in this court are entitled to be

heard on the federal question and on the sufficiency

of any other point decided, to affirm the judgment,

If the federal question was erroneously decided.



17. Where the only question made and decided in
1. Where interest is allowed by the decree, it a state court against plaintiff in error was the suf-
must be included with the principal in order to deficiency of the acts of the President to inaugurate
termine what the sum or value in dispute was at a war which would render invalid the contract in
the time of the appeal ; and if with such interest suit, this court has jurisdiction of the case.


Matthelos v. Mestea,
the amount of the decree is over $2,000, this court
has jurisdiction.

18. Where the state court decided that a contract
The Rio Grande v. Otis,

60 for the building of a schooner was not a maritime
2. The ruling of a state court, that notes on contract, and that the law of the State giving a lien
which a judgment was rendered were given for a for its building does not conflict with the Federal
loan of Confederate money, and that the transac- Constitution or laws, it is sufficient to give this
tions which resulted in the acquisition of the notes court jurisdiction.
were had between enemies during the late civil war,

Eduaris v. Elliott,

in violation of the Proclamation of the President 19. An authorized appearance by an attorney is
forbidding commercial intercourse with the enemy, as effective to give jurisdiction as an actual service
is not the subject oť review by this court.

of summons.
Sterensen 1. Williams.

Hill v. Mendenhall,

3. There can be no jurisdiction in equity to en- 20. A record which 'shows such appearance
force the payment of corporation bonds until the will bind the party until it is proven that the at-
remedy at law has been exausted.

torney acted without authority.
Heine i. Lerce Comrs.


4. Where jurisdiction has attached everything 21. Where the action was commenced by attach-
done within the power of that jurisdiction, when ment and service had by publication, but after-
collaterally questioned, is to be held conclusive of wards the defendant voluntarily appeared and went
the rights of the parties unless impeached for fraud to trial, the court had jurisdiction of the person of
Nash v. Williams,


the defendant.
5. Where the cause of action is vested in a trus-

Jarwell r. Stewart,

tee and the action is brought by him, his citizenship 22. Although a suit may involve the construc-
and not that of those who are beneficially inter- tion of a contract as well as of a patent, that will
ested, determines the question of jurisdiction. not oust the court of its jurisdiction. If a patent
Knapp v. R. Ř. Co.,

328 is involved it carries with it the whole case.
6. This court has no jurisdiction to review the Littlefield v. Perry,

judgment of the circuit court imposing a fine for 23. When in a state court a right or immunity is

set up under a judgment of a court of the United
Vein Orleans v. Steampship Co.,


States, and a decision is against such right or im-
7. Contempt of court is a criminal offense. This munity. this court may review such decision, under
court has jurisdiction of a criminal case only upon the Act of February 5th. 1867.
a certificate of division.

Dupasseur v. Rochereau.



24. In such a case it due validity and effect has
8. The Act of the Territorial Legislature of Utah, not been given to the federal judgment, and if
conferring on the probate courts in that Terri. such right or immunity claimed has been thereby
tory a general jurisdiction in civil and criminal lost, this court will reverse the judgment of the
cases and both in chancery and at common law, is state court.
inconsistent with the organic Act, and is, therefore,



25. If jurisdiction of the case was acquired only
Perris v. Higley,


by reason of the citizenship of the parties, and the
9. Where a party submits the decision of his state law alone was administered, then only such
claim to a state court, he cannot, in this court, ob- validity and effect can be claimed for the judgment
ject that the state court had no jurisdiction. as would be due to a judgment of the state courts
Mays 1. Fritton,

389 under like circumstances.
10. Where the case was disposed of in the state


court without reaching a federal question, this 26. A court of equity has not jurisdiction to
court has no jurisdiction.

avoid a will or to set aside the probate thereof, on
Basse v. Broiensville,

420 the ground of fraud. mistake or forgery.
11. The Act of 1867 is, and has been since its en-

Kieley v. McGlynn,

actment, the sole law governing the removal of 27. To give this court jurisdiction to re-examine
causes from state courts to this court for review. a state judgment, it must appear that a federal
Murdock v. Memphis,

429 question "was necessarily involved in the decision"
12. It is essential to the jurisdiction of this court of the state court.
over judgments or decrees of a state court, that a

Edwards v. Elliott,

federal question was decided by the state court

Moore v. Mississippi,

against the right claimed by plaintiff in error; or 28. Where the alleged unconstitutionality of a
that such a decision was necessary to the judgment railroad charter was set up as a defense in a state
or decree rendered in the case.

court to an action by the State, the state court was

429 | bound to pass upon it; and having decided against
13. If such federą! question was rightly decided the exemption thus claimed, this court is author-
the judgment must affirmed. If it was erro- ized to review the decision.
neously decided, then this court must further in-

R. R. Co. v. Maryland,

quire whether there is any other matter or issue ad- 29. Where the question for decision in the state
judged by the state court, sufficiently broad to court was not whether, if the bankrupt had title,
maintain the judgment. If this be found to be the it would pass to his assignee by the operation of
case, the judgment must be affirmed, without ex- the Bankrupt Act, but whether he had title at all,
amination into the soundness of the decision of the decision of that question by the state court does
such other matter or issue.

not present a question of which this court can take

429 jurisdiction.
14. But if it be found that the federal question

Srott v. Kelly,

must control the whole case, or that there has 30. Consent of parties cannot give the courts ut
been no decision by the state court of any other the United States jurisdiction, but the parties may
matter which is sufficient of itself to maintain the admit the existence of facts which show jurisdle-
judgment, then this court will reverse ne judgment tion, and the courts may act judicially upon such
and render such judgment as the state court should'an admission.
have rendered. or will remand the case to that

Railway Co. v. Ramsey,



[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

31. Where the record shows jurisdiction, an ad set aside, the United States held the land as If no
judication of bankruptcy can only be assailed by a entry had been made, and could grant it again.
direct proceeding in a competent court.

McCarthy v. Mann,

Sloan 1. Leuis,

832 2. Where the Act of Congress declared that a
32. Where the court has jurisdiction in per- patent should issue to the person who made the en-
sonam, it has power to require the defendant to do try and that the title should inure to the benefit of
or to refrain from doing anything beyond the his grantees, by his grantees are meant those claim-
limits of its territorial jurisdiction, which it mighting title under him, and an equity vested in each
require to be done or omitted within the limits of them by the Act, and on the issuing of the pateat
of such territory.

the legal title vested in them.
French v. Hay,


33. Whether a state court acted within its juris- 3. The words "or his legal representatives," in
diction or not, is a question exclusively for the a patent for land, embraced the representatives of
state tribunals.

the original grantee of the land by contract, such as
Mech. de Tr. Bank v. Union Bank, 871 assignees or grantees, as well as their representa.

tivas by operation of law.

Carpenter v. Rannels,

4. It is a fundamental nrinciple in the land sys.

tem of this country, that private entries are never

permitted until after the lands have been exposed

to public auction, at the price for which they are

aftörwards subject to entry.
PRACTICE, 23, 24.

Eldred i. Serton,

1. Without a written agreement to walve a Jurg,

5. Congress did not intend to change this system
and in the absence of the defendant's counsel, the in the new policy adopted by it, to aid States by
court cannot try the case without a jury.

grants of land to build railroads.

Morgan v. Gay,



6. Under the Act of the 3d of March, 1863, by
2. A request to charge the jury, which did not
correctly describe or erroneously construed the in-

which the Solicitors of the Treasury is authorized
vention of plaintiff, and which erroneously as-

to sell, with the approval of the Secretary of the
sumed the law of the case, was properly refused.

Treasury, certain lands of the U. S., bis approval
Klein v. Russell,


is a condition precedent without which the solicitor
3. Where the charge already given has fully has no authority whatever to sell.

U. 8. v. Jonas,

covered the ground, and is in accordance with the
request to charge, the request was properly refused.

7. The purchaser may require written evidence


of this approval or he may refuse to accept the
4. If there be no evidence to support the theory


of fact assumed in a prayer for instruction to a
jury, the court should reject it.

8. The United States may maintain an action to
Ins. Co. v. Baring,


recover logs sold by Indians from their reservation
5. Where the instructions given to the jury cov-

to a third person, where the logs were not cut for
ered the whole case it is not the duty of the judge

the improvement of the land.

to give others suggested by either party.

U. 8. v. Cook,
Burton v. Driggs,


9. The timber while standing is a part of the
6. Where the evidence is pot suficient to justify realty and can only be sold when the land could be.
a jury in finding a verdict for plaintiff, and the

It cannot be rightfully severed except to improve

the land. When rightfully severed, it is no longer
court can see that if a verdict for plaintiff should
be rendered, it ought to be set aside as being un-

a part of the land, and there is no restriction upon

its sale.
warranted by the testimony, the court may instruct


the jury to find for defendant.
Pleusants v. Fant,

10. The Indians having only a right of occupancy

in the lands, the presumption is against their au-

thority to cut and sell the timber. Every pur.

chaser from them is charged with notice of this

1. Where premises leased are sold at sheriff's 11. To maintain his title under his purchase
sale, on a judgment against the owner, the sheriff's it is incumbent on the purchaser to show that the
deed conveys the reversion, and the rent follows it

timber was rightfully severed from the land.
as an incident.


Butt v. Ellett,

2. Where a tenant sold crops covered by a mort: register and receiver, sanctioned by the commis-

12. The issue of a patent upon the award of the
gage clause in the lease, to a vendee who bad fuulsioner of the General Land Office, is final and con-
notice of such clause, the crops went into his hands

clusive as between the United States and several
impressed with the lien thereof, and when he sold claimants, and passes the title to the patentee.
them, he took the proceeds in trust for the pur-

Warren v. Van Brunt,

chaser of said premises at the sheriff's sale, and 13. If the defeated party had any remedy, there.
became liable to him for the amount.

after, it was by a proceeding in the court against


the patentee or those claiming under him.
3. A state statute which provides that where


property of a tenant is seized and sold under execu- 14. Where one claimed the right to enter the
tion, the rent due for a period not exceeding, one whole of a tract, and upon that claim the parties
year shall be paid first out of the proceeds of the went to a hearing, he cannot afterwards claim that
sale, applies to a seizure and sale by an assignee his entry was jointly with another.
in bankruptcy and he must pay such rent before


distributing the proceeds to creditors.

15. An entry cannot be made under the pre-emd-
Longstreth v. Pennock.


tion laws by one in trust for another, and a court
4. When a state statute confers upon the landlord

of equity can not decree that it was so made.
a lien upon the crops upon the demised premises


in any year for the rent of that year, but gives no 16. The Act of June 3, 1856 and the Act of May
specific lien upon other property of the tenant, 5, 1864, granting lands to Wisconsin to aid in
prior to the levy of a distress warrant by the land. | building railroads, are grants in presenti and pass
jord, he has no lien on property of the tenant on the title to the odd sections designated to be after.
the premises except the crops.

wards located; when located the title acquires pre-
Morgan v. Campbell,

796 cision and becomes attached to the land
5. Where the distress warrant was levied by the

Schulenberg v. Harriman,

fandlord on property other than crops, after pro-

Schou 1. Harriman,

ceedings in bankruptcy had been commenced against 17. The lands granted do not revert to the United
the tenant, the assignee in bankruptcy subsequently States, although the road was not constructed with-
appointed will hold property against the landlord in the period prescribed. no action having been

7963 taken, either by legislation or injudicial proceeding

to enforce the forfeiture of the grants.



18. The provision in the Act of 1856, that all

lands remaining unsold after ten years shall revert

to the United States if the road be not then com.
TAXES AND Tax SALES, 24-26, 29-32.

pleted, is a condition subsequent.
1. Where an entry for land was void and was




[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]

19. No one

take advantage of the non- 32. But where the claimant presented before the
performance of a condition subsequent annexed to Board, besides the original title, evidences of de-
an estate in fee, but the grantor or his heirs or rivative title, and the commissioners decided upon
successors, and if they do not assert their right to both, the confirmation operates as a grant to the
enforce a forfeiture on that ground, the title re- claimant, although his name was omitted in the
mains unimpaired in the grantee. The rule equally form of confirmation.


obtains where the grant upon condition proceeds
from the government.

556 | LEGACY.
20. Where the title is in the State, timber cut
upon the land belongs to the State, and can be pur- See WILLS, 2, 3.
sued wherever it is carried. All the remedies are

open to the owner which the law affords in other
cases of the wrongful removal or conversion of per- SEE CONFISCATION, 3.
sonal property.

MARITIME LAW, 3, 5, 10.


21. The Act of Congress of May 15, 1836, grant-

ing lands to Iowa for railroad purposes authorized

a sale of 120 sections in advance of the construc-

1. Maritime liens upon the property sold by the
tion of any part of toe road to be constructed and

order of the admiralty court follow the proceeds,
the purchasers thereof took a good title, althougi

but the court cannot decree that third persons who
no part of the road was constructed when their

could not have proceeded against the property in
sale was made. The conditions, as to completion

i'em, may recover a proportion of the proceeds to
of the road imposed by the State were conditions

satisfy their claims.

Wilson 2. Bell,

Railroad Co. 1. Courtright,


2. No lien on, or right of preference in, such
22. There was no restriction upon the State as

proceeds can be acquired by virtue of the proceed-
to the place where the 120 sections should be se-

ings under the state garnishee process, or by execu-
lected, except that they should be within twenty

tion or attachment.
miles of the road.



3. A ship’is not discharged from a bottomry lien,
23. The acceptance by the United States of the

unless the bord is actually paid. What is not pay-
deed of Virginia ceding the Northwest Territory,

imposed upon the United States the duty of per-

Belle of the Sea v. Johnson,

forming the condition and giving the protection

4. A person having a lien upon property does not
to the persons and property of the French and

lose it by taking a bill of sale of the same property,
Canadian inhabitants, stipulated in such deed.

the bill of sale being voidable, and there being no
Langdeau v. Hanes,


evidence of intent to abandon the lien.
24. A confirmation by Congress of the decision

Avery v. Hackley,

of the commissioners appointed to decide such

5. Material men, furnishing repairs and supplies
claims, allowing a claim to such land, was the ful.

to a vessel in her home port do not acquire thereby
fillment of the condition stipulated in the deed of
cession, and gave full assurance of the validity | law, as received in the United States.

any lien upon the vessel by the general maritime
of the title.

Rodd v. Heartt,



6. Liens granted by the laws of a State in favor
2-). A legislative confirmation of the claim to
land is a recognition of
the validity of such claim, sel in her home port in said State are valid, al-

of material men for furnishing necessaries to a ves-
and operates as effectually as a grant, or quit claim
from the government, and a subsequent patent is though the contract to furnish the same is a mari:

time contract and can only be enforced by proceed-
only documentary evidence of that title. If the

ings in rem in the District Court of the United
claim be to quantity and not to a specific tract ca-

pable of identification, a segregation by survey will


be required, and the confiirmation will then imme-

7. To create for future services of a contractor a
diately attach the title to the land segregated.

lien upon particular funds of his employer, there

20. An adverse possession of the premises by the ployer to apply them in payment of such services,

must not only be the express promise of the em-
defendant, under claim and color of title made in

upon which the contractor relies, but there must be
good faith, with payment of the taxes assessed

some act of appropriation of the fund on the part
thereon, after the title of the heirs was perfected by of the employer.
congressional confirmation and before the patent is.

Dillon v. Barnard,

sued, continued for the period prescribed by the 8. By the Joint Resolution of Jan. 21, 1843, the
Statute of Limitations of the State was a bar to Legislature of Pennsylvania intended to give to an
any recovery by the heirs upon the patent.

unpaid contractor a priority of lien on the proper-

600 ty of a railroad company, over a mortgage made
27. Every confirmation of a Mexicaa land claim after the debt to the contractor was incurred.
is limited by the extent of the claim made.

A con-
For v. Seal,

firmation of a claim to part of a grant does not in-

9. The contractor's lien continues a prior incum-
volve a recognition of the validity of the whole brance so long as the debt it was given to secure

remains unsatisfied. A judgment does not extin-

If the lien of the judgment expires that
Brown v. Brackett,

guish it.

of the debt remains.
28. It has been the uniform policy of the govero-

ment since the inauguration of our land system in 10. A sale under a decree to foreclose a subse-
1790, to reserve salt-springs from sale, for the use quent mortgage does not devest the contractor's
of the future States, and the same policy was ex-lien, and he need not look to the proceeds of the
tended to the territory embraced by the States of sale for payment.
Kansas apd Nebraska.


Morton v. Nebraska,


29.. Patent for lands which have been previously
granted, reserved from sale or appropriated, are SEE BANKRUPTCY, 19 20.



30. Where grantees of land are tenants in com-

1. A Statute of Limitations begins to run as
mon, one of them can convey his portion or interest against a foreign corporation, from the time it was
without affecting the rights of his co-tenants, and

a person within the State upon whom process to
the deed by one joint tenant of the entire premises

commence a suit may be served.
held by several, has no effect upon the interest of

Erpress Co. v. Ware,

bis co-tenants,

2. A State Statute of Limitations is not a bar to
Stephen v. Bcall,


action upon coupons detached from bonds
31. A Spanish claim to land, if confirmed by the

and transferred to parties other than the holders
commissioners, has the effect of a confirmation to

of the bonds (which bonds had been canceled),
the legal representatives of the person to whom the

when it would not be a bar to an action on the
original concession was made, where the commis-bonds themselves had they not been canceled.
sioners passed upon nothing but the merits of the

Clark v. Iowa City,

original concession.

3. The statute of a State which extends the same
Connoyer 1. Srhacfjer,


limitation to actions on all written contracts, sealed



« ForrigeFortsett »