such case other companies in the route are its gage by a sale of the land, this required the pres
agents, for whose faults it is responsible.

ence of the party holding the legal title, and
R. R. Co. v. Pratt,

827 where the cause was not removable as to him, it
9. The rules of one of the connecting roads, other could not be removed as to the party making the
than the contracting railroad, cannot influence or motion.
effect the contract, although part of the goods


were put on board on such connecting road.

11. An objection as to the removal of a case from

827 the State Court, made in the circuit court, after the
10. The new Company formed by the New York testimony was all taken, and the case was ready for
Act of consolidation of the New York Central and hearing, and nearly three years after the transfer
Hudson River Railroads, assumed all the obliga. was made, was too late.
tions of the old companies, except mortgages, to

French v. Hay,

the same extent as if such debts or liabilities had 12. Where the parties have stipulated that the
been incurred or contracted by such new corpora- cause was transferred from the State to the Circuit

Court in accordance with the statute, and that all
Bailey v. R. R. Co.,

840 the original files in the cause were destroyed by
11. The payment of a tax, levied upon one of the fire, and both the court and the parties accepted the
consolidated companies, before consolidation, un- transfer, it will be presumed that the files did con.
der the Internal Revenue Act, is one of the obliga- tain conclusive evidence of the existence of the
tions which the new Company assumed when the jurisdictional facts.
consolidation became complete.

R. R. Co. v. Ramsey,




SEE BONDS, 3, 4.

1. In an action on a bond given by defendant in

a replevin action, conditioned to return the prop-
CAPTURED AND ABANDONED PROPERTY, 1-4. erty replevied, if it was so adjudged, on recorers

hy plaintiff, the scizure by the marshal on a writ of

de retorno habendo, and tender of the property to

plaintiff, satisfied the bond and the judgment.

Douglas8 v. Douglass,


2. If the defendant injured the property or cul-
WAR, passim.

pably suffered it to become injured, while it was in

his possession, a remedy cannot be had in a suit on

the bond.

The debtors of a bank, when sued by a receiver, would have been the duty of the defendant to seek

3. If a writ de retorno habendo had issued, it
cannot inquire into the legality of his appoint the plaintiff and deliver the property to him if

he would receive it.
Cadle v. Baker,



4. Where logs cut from the lands of the State

without license, have been intermingled with the

logs cut from other lands, so as not to be distin-

guishable, the State is entitled, under the law of

Minnesota, to replevy an equal amount from tho

whole mass.

Schulenberg v. Harriman,

JURISDICTION, 11, 12-18.

5. In a suit on a replevin bond, the defendants

cannot avail themselves of the failure of the court
1. Where a cause is removed from a state court to render in the replevin suit the alternative judy.
to the Circuit Court of the United States, the state ment for the return of the property or for its value,
court can proceed no further in the suit.

even if that were an error.
Ins. Co. '. Dunn,

Sweeney v. Lomme,

2. After a trial by jury in the state court, if the
judgment thereon is vacated and a new trial' grant. RES JUDICATA.
ed, the cause may be removed to the Circuit Court.

1. One will be bound by a decree of the state
The judgment having been vacated, is not final

court if he was a party to the proceedings.
within the meaning of the Act.

Williams v. Bankhead,



2. A judgment is conclusive upon a corporation,
3 The Act allowing the removal is constitutional.

and upon its receivers, when they were parties and


contested the claim, and, subsequently, the at.or-
4. The Act of Congress of March 2, 1867, only ney for the receivers consented to its entry.
authorizes a removal from a State to a United

Habich v. Folger,

States court, where an application is made before

3. Where a point has been decided in a state
final judgment in the court of original jurisdiction, court, it is res judicata between the parties, and
where the suit is brought.

cannot be litigated anew on the same contract in &
Sterenson v. Williams,


Federal Court.
5. In determining whether a suit has been prop.

Tioga R. R. Co. 1. B. & C. R. R. CO. 331
erly removed from a state court to the U. S. Court 4. A decree of the District Court in a bankruptcy
the recitals of the clerk cannot be considered.

case is as conclusive as the decree of any other
Knapp v. R. R. Co.,


court of general jurisdiction, and cannot be im-
6. The Act of 1867, on the subject of the removal peached except in the court where it was entered,
of cases from the State to the Federal Courts, does

or by some direct proceeding in some other court of
not change the settled rula that determines who are

competent jurisdiction.
to be regarded as the plaintiff and the defendant.

Michaels v. Post,



5. Whenever a judgment or decree is procured
7. An action in a state court is not removable to

through fraud, or by collusion of the parties, for
the circuit court under the Act of 1867, upon the

the purpose of defrauding some third person, such
petition of two non-resident defendants, where an.
other defendant and the plaintiff were citizens of ceeding, the fraud or collusion by wbich the judg-

third person may, show, even in a collateral pro-
the State where the action was brought.

ment was obtained.
Vannerar v. Bryant,


8. After one trial, the right to a second must be
perfected before the transfer can be made. The ac

tion must, at the time of the application, be actual-
ly pending for trial.

1. On the mineral public lands, in the Pacific

470 States and Territories, the doctrines of the common
9. A motion of one defendant to transfer the law as to the rights of riparian proprietors to the
cause, as to himself, from the State to the Circuit lise of running waters, are applicable only to a
Court, cannot be granted unless there can be a final limited extent. Their prior appropriation, to the
determination of the case, so far as it concerns him, extent necessary, gives the better right.
without the presence of the other defendant as a

Atchison v. Peterson,


Basey v. Gallagher,

Gardner v. Brown,

520 2. What diminution will constitute an evasion of
10. Where the bill prayed a foreclosure of a mort. the rights of the first appropriator, will depend up-

on the question whether bis use and enjoyment of States where the case arises, but must hear and
the water to the extent of the original appropria determine for itself.
tion, has been impaired by the acts of the other

Pine Grove v. Talcott,


4. Where the Legislature affirmed the validity of

452 bonds, by an implication equivalent in effect to an
3. Whether upon a bill asserting that the prior express declaration, and when they were authorized
rights of the first appropriator have been invaded, and issued neither of the other departments of the
a court of equity will restrain the acts of the party government of the State lifted its voice against
complained of, will depend upon whether the in them, but the acquiescence in their validity was
jury alleged be irremediable; wheth an action at universal, this court will not follow subsequent
law would afford adequate remedy; whether tho state decisions declaring them invalid.
parties are able to pay the damages and other con-


siderations which govern a court of equity in is- 5. Where the courts of a State have decided that
suing injunctions.

a foreign corporation cannot avail itself of the Stat-

452 ute of Limitations of that State, its decision upon
4. By the Act of Congress of July 26, 1866, the the construction of the statute is binding upon this
customary law with respect to the use of water, court,
which has grown up among occupants of the public

Tioga R. R. Co. v. B. & C. R. R. CO., 331
land, is recognized as valid.

6. A statute which authorizes towns to contract

452 debts or other obligations payable in money, im-

plies the duty to levy taxes to pay them.

Savings and L. A 880. v. T'opeka,


7. If there is no power in the Legislature which

passes such a statute, to authorize the levy of taxes
1. Upon a sale of personal property, the price to

to pay the obligations, the statute is void, and so

are the bonds or other forms of contract based on
be fixed by arbitration, if the arbitration be ren-

the statute.
dered impossible by the act of the vendee, the
price must be fixed by the jury on a quantum vale-



8. A statute which authorizes a town to issue
Humaston v. Telegraph Co.,


its bonds in aid of the manufacturing enterprise of
2. Where the vendee agreed to pay for personal individuals, is void, and such bonds and the inter-
property, certain shares of stock which he failed to est coupons attached thereon, are void.
deliver, and is sued on the agreement, the value of


the stock, when the bargain was concluded and not

9. The States can create liens for building or fur-
at any other time, is the evidence of the price of nishing materials for building a ship, not amount.
the property.

ing to a regulation of commerce, and may enact

279 reasonable rules and regulations prescribing the

mode of their enforcement.

Edwards v. Elliott,


10. Where the constitutionality of a state Act au-

thorizing the issue of bonds, by a municipality, bas

been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State,

such decision is binding upon this court.
Salvage cannot be allowed on vessels captured as

Chambers Co. v. Clews,

prize of war.

11. The Pennsylvania Act of May, 1868, does not
U. 8. v. Farragut,

879 impair any obligation of the State not to impose a

tax upon the Erie Railway Company, created by

the several Acts in relation to that Company.
A return to a simmons by the sheriff, that he has

Erie Ry. Co. v. Pa.,

served the defendant personally therewith, is suf-

12. An Act, general in its language as to a sub-
ficient without stating that the service was 'made in ject is valid, although special legislation is for-
his county.

bidden in the State Constitution.
Knowles v. Logansport Gas-Light Co., 70

Ritchie v. Franklin Co.,


1. Specific performance is never decreed, where 1. Under sec. 11 of the Act of June 1, 1872, the
the party can be otherwise fully compensated. supersedieas bond may be executed and a supersc-
Memphis v. Brown,

264 deas obtained within sixty days after the rendition
2. To justify a decree for the specific perform of the judgment, and later, with the permission of
ance, by vendor, of a parol contract for the sale of the designated judge.
real estate, the contract sought to be enforced, and

Telegraph Co. v. Eyser,
its performance on the part of the vendee, must

Commissioners v. Gorman,

be clearly proved.

2. The writ of error may be served at any time
Rogers Locomotive,'etc., Co. v. Helm, 563 before, or simultaneously with, the filing of the
... The agreed price, a description of the real es- bond.
tate agreed to be sold and payment of such price, Telegraph Co. v. Eyser,

must be shown.

3. Where a judgment has been stayed by super-

563 sedeas before it has been enforced by execution, no

new supersedeas is necessary.
Commissioners v. Gorman,

Under the Stamp Act, the amount of stamps to 4. A supersedeas stays proceedings only from the
be put upon a deed, is according to the amount of filing of the bond. It prevents further proceeding
dollars of its consideration, whether the consider- under an execution which has been issued, but
ation is to be paid in gold, or in currency.

does not interfere with what has already been done.
Hallv. Jordan,



5. Where the bond was fled too late to prevent

the removal of defendant from his office in pur.
SEE ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS, 2-4. suance of the authority of the judgment, this court

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 4, 5, 7, 14, 21, 22. cannot order him to be restored.
CONTRACTS, 10, 11, 15.



JURISDICTIOX, 9, 10, 12-18, 23-25, 27-29, 33.



1. A construction of a state statute by the Su-

preme Court of the State is authoritative in this


Aicardi v. Alabama,


2. A statute which authorizes gaming, should be 1. The appropriate remedy against a municipality
construed strictly.

for neglect to collect the tax to pay a judgment

215 | against it, is a writ of mandamus commanding the
3. Where the question before this court belongs municipality to levy and collect the tax. A new
to the domain of general jurisprudence, this court writ may issue as often as the occasion requires.
is not bound by the judgment of the courts of the Rees v. Watertown,


2. Where the writ of mandamus is unavaiiing for tiller, when sued for it, can set up the defense that
such purpose, this court has no authority to ap- the tax was illegally assessed.
point its own officer to levy and collect the tax.



72 21. Where the State has power to impose a tax,
3. The Internal Revenue Act of July 13, 1866, the extent and the proportion to which it is im.
authorizes the levy and collection of a tax upon the posed belongs to the judgment and discretion of
accumulated earnings of a savings bank, carried to the State only. It is beyond the examination of
the contingent fund.

this court.
Sarings Bank v. United States.

Erie_Ry. Co. v. Pa.,

4. An action of debt is maintainable in the cir- 22. The Erie Railway Co. is liable to the tax in-
cuit court by the United States for the recovery of posed by the Pennsylvania Act of May, 1868.
the taxes.




23. The term "capital,” employed by a banker in
5. No other assessment than that made by the the business of banking,'in the 110th section of the
statute was necessary to determine the extent of Revenue Act of July 13, 1866, does not include
the bank's liability.

moneys borrowed by him from time to time tem-

80 porarily, in the ordinary course of his business, and
6. The Legislature of a State can provide for the such moners are not liable to taxation as capital.
taxation of the owners of shares of the capital

Bailey 1. Clark,

stock or a national bank, at the place within the 24. The contingent right of pre-emption in lands
State, where the bank was located, without regard granted to the Pacific Railroad Company. does not
to their
places of residence.

constitute an exemption of those lands from state
T'appan v. Merchant's National Bank, 189 taxation.
7. The power of taxation by any State is limited

Union & P. R. R. Co. v. McShane, 717
to persons, property or business within its jurisdic 25. But the lands on which the costs of survey

have not been paid, and for which the United

189 States has not issued a patent to the company, are
8. Personal property, in the absence of a statute exempt from state taxation.
to the contrary, follows the person of the owner,


and has its situs at his domicil. But, for the pur- 26. But where the government has issued the
poses of taxation, it may be separated from him, patent, the lands are taxable, whether payment of
and he may be taxed on its account at the place these costs have been made to the United States or
where it is actually located.



9. Shares of stock in a national bank are person- 27. The Secretary of the Treasury. in paying a
al property, and the law which creates them may judgment of the Court of Claims, cannot deduct
separate them from the person of their owner for from it the amount due to the government for an
the purposes of taxation, and give them a situs of internal revenue tax on the property for whicb
their own.

such judgment was rendered.

U. $. v. O'Grady,

10. The State within which a national bank is 28. Where the depositors in a savings bank con.
situated has jurisdiction for the purposes of tax-tracted not for a rate of interest upon their de-
ation, of all the shareholders of the bank, both posits, but for a share of the profits, although the
resident and non-resident, and of all its shares, and profits were derived from interest, yet the portion
may legislate accordingly.

divided to each was a dividend, and liable to a

189 tax, under the Act of 1864, as amended in 1866.
11. The power to levy and collect taxes does not

Cary v. Savings Union.

belong to a court of equity.

29. Where the United States granted lands to a
Heine 0. Levee Comrs.

223 State to aid in the construction of railroads and
12. Taxes are not liens unless declared so by the State accepted the grant, it cannot tax the land
the Legislature.

while the title remained in the United States, nor

223 while it held them as the trustee of the United
13. Unless exempted in terms which amount to States.
a contract not to tax, the property, privileges and Tucker v. Ferguson,

franchise of a corporation are as much the legiti. 30. But when the State proceeding in the execu-
mate subjects of state taxation as any other prop- tion of the trust, had transferred its entire title to
erty of its citizens.

a railroad company, and the company had per-
North Mo. R. R. Co. v. Maguire, 287 fected their title and acquired the right to sell the
14. The taxing power of the State is never pre- lands, they were subject to state taxation.
sumed to be relinquished, and it exists unless the


intention to relinquish it is declared in clear and 31. A state Act which imposes a tax with refer-
unambiguous terms.

ence to the railroad itself, does not im ose a tax

287 upon the lands owned by the company not used nor
15. Under the Act of Congress of July 20, 1866, necessary in operating the road.
the assessor and his assistant, in estimating the


capacity of a distillery, for the purpose of taxation, 32. A provision in a state Act exempting the
may fix, as the true fermenting. period, another lands specified from local taxation for three years,
than that wbich the distiller in his notice to the where there was no consideration, was the promise
assessor, required by the 6th section, has stated ne of a gratuity spontaneously made, which might be
would use for fermentation, and which he actually kept, changed or recalled at pleasure.
did use.


Pahlman v. Raster,

342 33. The taxing power may be restrained by con-
16. Under the Act of 1864, as amended in 1867. tract in special cases for the public good.
respecting taxes on incomes, it was intended to tax


dividends arising from the earnings of corporations 34. Where the contract exists it is to be rigidly
for the year 1869.

scrutinized, and never permitted to extend, either
stockdale v. Ins. Co.,

348 in scope or duration, beyond what the terms of
17. Section 17 of the Act of 1870, construing the concession clearly require.
certain sections of the Law of 1864, to extend the


tax to the year 1870, was within the power of 35. Certificates issued by a railroad company to
Congress and is valid.

its stockholders declaring that such stockholders

348 are entitled to 80 per cent. of the capital stock
18. The right of taxation can only be used in held by them, with dividends thereon, are dividends
aid of a public object, and cannot be exercised in of scrip within the meaning of the Internal Revenue
aid of private enterprises.

Act levying a tax on dividends, and liable to sucb
Savings and L. A880. v. Topeka,

455 | tax.
19. Where a distiller, without any fault of his

Bailey v. R. R. Co.,

own, but by omission of the government, was pre- 36. It is too late to object that the notice of the
vented from operating his distillery for the hrst assessment was irregular, after an appeal.
four day for which he was taxed, and his distillery


was inactive from an accident and in charge of a 37. Where, by the charter of a railroad company,
government officer, for four other days, he cannot exemption from taxation was given until the road
be charged with the capacity-tax during those was in operation two years, after such two years
eight days.

such road was liable to county and municipal taxa-
Clinkenbeard v. U. s.,

477 tion.
20. Such assessment was not res judicata and

Bailey v. Maguire,

conclusive because not appealed from, and the dis- 38. An intention of the State to surrender the

power of taxation, will not be imputed to it un- tally tainted with usury, and the prior one were less the language employed leaves no other alterna- free from it but given up and canceled, and the lat tive.

ter one thereafter be adjudged void, the prior one Idem,

850 will be revived, and may be enforced as if the latTERRITORIES.

ter one had not been given.


4. A vendor's lien may be revived under the same LANDS, 23, 24.

circumstances. In the same suit, wherein there is WAR, 1.

a failure to recover upon the void security by reaTREASURY NOTES.

son of the usury, the valid one, on account of which

it was given, may be enforced. SEE BILLS AND NOTES, 4-7, 14.



The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo had no rela-
tion to property included in the State of Texas. SEE SALES, 1, 2.
Basse v. Brownsville,

420 1. On sale of real estate by contract, the title

remains in the vendor, and the possession passes to TRIALS.

the vendee, and an equitable interest vests in the SEE APPEAL AND ERROR, 2.

vendee to the extent of the payments made by him. Jennison 1'. Leonard,


2. When the contract price is fully paid, the en

tire title is equitably vested in the vendee, and he SEE JURISDICTION, 5.

may compel a conveyance of the legal title by the 1. Where a person executed a deed of lands to a

vendor, his heirs or assigns. The vendor is a trustee in trust for the payment of the grantor's

trustee of the legal title for the vendee to the exnote, to a bank, and by instrument under seal gave tent of his payment. his direction to the trustee to sell, and to pay the


539 proceeds to the bank, no interest in these lands or

2. Whatever puts an end to the equitable interest in the proceeds of their sale passed by his will or of the vendee-as notice, an agreement of the parby inheritance to his devisees or heirs.

ties, a surrender, an abandonment-places the Zant:inger v. Gunton,


vendor where he was before the contract was made. 2. It is no objection to such an arrangement that


539 the bank could not purchase or hold real estate, as 4. It does not alter the effect of a surrender or by it the legal title did not pass to the bank, its abandonment that the contract contains no clause only interest being a right to the proceeds.

of re-entry, or that the vendor has sought to enIdem,


force payment of the amounts which became due 3. Where one signed and sealed a deed to a trustee

to him before the surrender and abandonment. in trust for his wife, and acknowledged it and


539 put it on record, and kept the deed in his possession and declared openly and repeatedly to his wife, VOTERS. and to her brothers and sisters, that it was a completed provision for her, and that she was perfect- SEE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 15-19. ly protected by it, as matter of law the deed was sufficiently delivered and it is the duty of the WAR. court to establish the trust. Adams V. Adams,

504 SEE COURTS, 2. 4. The title vested in the trustee, subject to a

PRACTICE, 16. disclaimer on his part. Sụch disclaimer will not,

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. however, defeat the conveyance as a transfer of 1. Government had the same power and rights in the equitable interest to a third person.

territory held by it by conquest in insurrectionary Idem,

504 States, as if the territory had belonged to a foreign 5. A trust cannot fail for want of a trustee, or country, and had been subjected in a foreign war. by the refusal of all the trustees to accept the

Neo Orleans v. Steamship Co.,

334 trust. The court of chancery will appoint new

2. In such cases the conquering power has a trustees.

right to displace the pre-existing authority, and to Idem,

504 assume the exercise of all the powers and functions 6. Where one conveyed certain lands to trustees of government. for certain purposes, the deed to become void by


35+ its terms if a certain railroad was not completed 3. The appointment, by the commanding general, within one year from its date; in an action of of Mayor and of Boards of Finances and of Street ejectment, by the grantors against persons in pos- | Landings of New Orleans, was valid; and they were session, began more than eight years after said clothed with the powers and duties which pertained year when the deed was to become void, a recon- to their respective positions, and could make a veyance of the premises by the trustees to the valld contract for the use of a portion of the water. grantor will be presumed in equity and at law. front of the city for ten years, although the millFrench 1. Eduards,

534 tary jurisdiction terminated sooner. A subsequent 7. The trustees being bound to reconvey, it is military order could not devest rights under the to be presumed they discharged that duty, rather contract. than that they violated it, and it is not necessary


354 that the presumption should rest upon proof that 4. In war the public property of an enemy, capthe conveyance had been executed. It is made be- tured on land becomes, for the time being at least, cause right and justice require it.

the property of the conqueror.

No judicial proIdem,

534 ceeding is necessary to pass the title. 8. Where there was no understanding or agree

Titus v. United States,

400 ment between the purchaser at a public sale, and 5. This well settled principle in the law of war is the trustee making the sale, and no collusion be applicable to the late civil war. At the close of tween them, and no fraud in fact, and the duties that war the title to all captured property of the of the trustee bave since ended, and the sale has Confederate Government became absolute in the been confirmed by the court, the circumstance United States. that years afterwards the trustee bought the prop


400 erty from the purchaser in good faith and for a 6. The U. S. Government has power to impose a fair price paid to him, does not vitiate and annul condition requiring the payment of four cents per the public sale.

pound for a permit to purchase cotton in, and Stephen v. Beall,

786 transport it from, the insurrectionary States durUSURY.

ing the war.
Hamilton v. Dillin,

28 1. Usury, as a defense, must be specially pleaded 7. By the Act of July 13, 1861. the Presideut or set up in the answer to entitle it to considera- was authorized in his discretion to license and pertion.

mit commercial intercourse with any such part of R. R. Co. v. Car. Nat. Bk.,

196 such States, to be carried on only in pursuance of 2. In a State, where there is a statute making rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary usury penal, but not declaring the contract void, of the Treasury. a usurious bond and mortgage may be enforced for


528 the amount actually due.

8. The "condition of hostility' remained imBurnhisel 1. Firman,

760 pressed upon the territory of the States declared 3. If a security founded upon a prior one be fa- to be in insurrection until it was authoritatively


removed by the Proslamation of the President at


the close of the war.

3. A bequest in the form of a direction to pay at
Hamilton v. Dillix,

528 a future period, vests in interest immediately if
9. The Act of July 2, 1864, recognized and con- the payment be postponed for the convenience of
firmed the regulations of the Secretary of the the estate or to let in some other interest.
Treasury, on this subject.



528 4. A devise of lands to be sold after the termina-
10. The power of the government to impose such tion of a life estate given by the will, the proceeds
conditions upon commercial intercourse with an to be distributed thereafter to certain persons, is
enemy in time of war, as it sees fit, is undoubted. a bequest to those persons and vests at the death

528 of the testator.
11. During the late civil war all contracts of the Idem,

inhabitants of the loyal with the inhabitants of the 5. Construction of a will of real estate, directed
disloyal States were illegal and void. This princi- to be sold and divided after the expiration of a
ple applied to a purchase of cotton.

life estate.
Mitchell v. U. S.,


12. Contracts between the inhabitants of the reb-
el States, not in aid of the rebellion, were valid. WITNESSES.

13. All the enactments of the de facto Legisla- SEE EVIDENCE, 10.
tures in the insurrectionary States during the war, 1. Where, by the Statutes of the State, the wife
which were not hostile to the Union, or the au- is a competent witness for herself, she is a compe-
thority of the General Government, and which were tent witness in an action brought by her husband
not in conflict with the Constitution of the United and herself, to recover damages for her personal
States or of the States, have the same validity as injury.
if they had been enactments of legitimate Legis-

Packet Co. v. Clough,


2. The purpose of the Act of Congress, R. S.,
U. S. 1. Ing. Co.,

816 sec. 858, making the parties in actions competent
14. The commanding general of the army which witnesses, was to put them upon a footing of
captured New Orleans and held it in May, 1862, equality with other witnesses, all to be admissi-
had authority after the capture of the city to es- ble to testify for themselves and compellable to
tablish a court and appoint a judge with power to testify for others, and the deposition of one parts
try and adjudicate civil causes.

may be taken in behalf of another.
Nech. and Tr. Bk. v. Union Bk.,

Teras v. Chiles,

15. Property of persons domiciled or residing 3. In the courts of tbe United States parties to
within the enemy's lines is enemy property, and a suit are, by Acts of Congress. "admissible to
liable to capture as prize of war, without regard to testify for themselves and compellable to testify
their sentiments of loyalty or disloyalty to the for the others," and their depositions taken de bene
United States Government.

e88e are admissible.
U. S. y. Farragut,

R. R. Co. v. Pollard,



1. A writ of assistance may be issued, to place

a purchaser of mortgaged premises under a decreo
1. Where real estate is directed by will to be con- of foreclosure, in possession, after deed, as against
verted into money, it is in equity regarded as parties who are bound by the decree, and who re-
money, although it was not to be sold until after fuse to surrender possession.

Terrell v. Allison,

the termination of two life estates.
Cropley v. Cooper,

109 2. Such purchaser is not entitled to a writ of as-
2. Where a bequest is directed to be paid when sistance to obtain possession of the premises, as
the legatee uttains to a certain age, the interest of against the owner of the mortgaged premises or
the fund te we paid to him in the mean time, the those claiming under him, who are not parties to
legacy vesna To. Interest at the death of the testa- the decree.



9161 - VW

« ForrigeFortsett »