Quailfled and explained in Baldy v. Hunter, 171 U. S. 402, 18 S. Ct. 895, holding, under circumstances of case, investment by guardian in Confederate currency not unlawful; Hyatt v. McBurney, 18 S. C. 221, holding executor legal owner, with full power to receive Confederate money in payment of notes. Limited in Rodgers v. Bass, 46 Tex. 518, holding agent authorized to receive payment of note in Confederate money, his principal being resident of Confederacy.

22 Wall. 208-215, 22 L. 727, SWEENEY v. LOMME.

Practice. Supreme Court will adopt ruling of State court on question as to whether obligee in bond, or real party in interest, is proper plaintiff in action on bond, p. 213.

Followed in Parrott v. Scott, 6 Mont. 344, 12 Pac. 765, allowing action by real party in interest without assignment from sheriff; generally in Wise v. Jefferis, 51 Fed. 644, 7 U. 8. App. 275, replevin against sheriff.

Replevin.- Judgment in replevin in State court is not void because it is not alternative judgment for value or return of property, p. 213.

Applied in Robbins v. Foster, 20 Mo. App. 523, holding judgment ID replevin, for return of property only, not subject to collateral attack.

Distinguished in New England, etc., Co. v. Bryant, 64 Minn. 259, 66 N. W. 975, holding sureties on bond not liable where judg ment was for value only.

Replevin.- Surety on replevin bond is liable if property was not returned in accordance with judgment establishing one of the conditions of his undertaking, pp. 213, 214.

Approved in Lee v. Grimes, 4 Colo. 188, holding sureties concluded by judgment in replevin suit.

Replevin.-Where one fails in replevin suit and does not return property, his sureties on replevin bond cannot claim that plaintiff in suit on bond can only recover value of interest of attachment debtor in property; nor is it necessary that execution first issue to retake property, p. 214.

Certiorari Where, on appeal to Supreme Court of territory, no Judgment is found in record of lower court, court may, at the argument, give parties time to perfect record by certiorari, p. 215.

Taxation. There is no presumption in favor of relinquishment of taxing power; reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of State, and language claimed to exempt property from taxation must leave no room for controversy, p. 226.

Cited and applied in Central R. R., etc., Co. v. Georgia, 92 U. S. 675, 23 L. 761, and St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Berry, 41 Ark. 517, reviewing authorities, where consolidation did not extend exemp tion to corporation not possessing immunity; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 686, 40 L. 854, 16 S. Ct. 717, reviewing authorities, holding railroad not authorized to purchase competing line; Dauphin, etc., Ry. Co. v. Kennerly, 74 Ala. 589, holding company not exempt from taxation; Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Bourbon County, 82 Ky. 502, exemption from State taxation held not to affect taxation by county; Bangor v. Masonic Lodge, 73 Me. 433, 40 Am. Rep. 370, holding Masonic lodge not exempt as charitable institution; Yazoo, etc., Ry. Co. v. Thomas, 65 Miss. 562, where, though exempt after completion, railroad was not so during construction; Boody v. Watson, 63 N. H. 321, statute authorizing exemption for ten years, held not to authorize exemption for second period; Dow v. Railroad, 67 N. H. 48, 36 Atl. 534, reviewing authorities, and applying principle to repealing power; Judge v. Spencer, 15 Utah, 249, 48 Pac. 1100, holding mortgages not exempt.

Taxation. Act granting railroad immunity from taxation for certain period, after which it should "be subject to taxation," etc., did not exempt from any tax whatever, after expiration of that period, pp. 227, 228.

Approved in dissenting opinion in Savannah v. Jesup, 106 U. 8. 571, 27 L. 278, 1 S. Ct. 518, majority holding statutes exempted railroad from municipal tax.

Distinguished in Savannah v. Jesup, 106 U. S. 569, 27 L. 278, 1 S. Ct. 517, holding property of railroad exempt from municipal tax.

Taxation.- Where, in amendment to charter of railroad company, special provision is made for ascertaining tax due State, silence on subject of taxation for other purposes cannot be construed as waiver of State's rights in that regard, pp. 228, 229.

Cited in Railroad Commission Cases, 116 U. S. 327, 29 L. 643, 6 S. Ct. 342, reviewing authorities, authority granted company to fix rates did not deprive State of right to pass on their reasonableness.

Distinguished in Pingree v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 118 Mich. 329, 76 N. W. 640, reviewing authorities, and holding State had conferred contract right on company to fix tolls.

Taxation. Provision in charter of railroad company requiring president to make sworn statement of cash value of its property, held not to deprive State of right to change manner of assessment. p. 230.

1

Followed in Moore v. Holliday, 4 Dill. 53, F. C. 9,765, to same effect; State Board v. Morris, etc., R. Co., 49 N. J. L. 222, 7 Atl 840, States not concluded by similar provision.

Taxation.- Legislature having provided method of assessment of State tax, by company's charter, it must be followed until another be appointed, p. 230.

Courts. Decision of highest court of State, as to whether or not method pursued in assessment and collection of taxes is in conformity with law of State, is controlling in Federal courts, p. 231.

Approved and principle applied in Hawes v. Contra Costa W. Co., 5 Sawy. 289, F. C. 6,235, citing cases, adopting decision of State court as to water company's obligation to furnish free water to municipality; Reclamation District v. Hagar, 6 Sawy. 570, 4 Fed. 369, collecting authorities, following State court's construction of statutes as to assessment of district; Daniels v. Case, 45 Fed. 845, following State court's ruling as to validity of tax deed; Van Matre v. Sankey, 148 Ill. 552, 39 Am. St. Rep. 201, 36 N. E. 631, 23 L. R. A. 670, collecting authorities, and holding binding the construction of local statutes by court of another State; Perry v. Wheeler, 12 Bush, 552, reviewing authorities, and following decision of board of reference of Episcopal church, as to matters within its jurisdiction; Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N. Y. 236, 28 Am. Rep. 143, holding decree of divorce, by another State court. binding, the parties having been citizens.

22 Wall. 231-238, 22 L. 799, FRENCH v. HAY.

Contracts - Judgments.— Where party executed assignment of certain judgments, in consideration of $5,000, and a power of attorney to dispose of same, transaction was at most an executory agreement to assign, and transmission of title and payment were intended to be contemporaneous, p. 236.

Distinguished in Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 U. S. 267, 34 L. 929, 11 S. Ct. 319, where transaction was held to be sale, with reservation of security.

Contracts. Rule that in equity time is generally not considered as of essence of the contract, is inapplicable in case of offer that requires acceptance to make a contract, p. 236.

Equity. Bill alleging assignment of judgments, and that assignor has wrongfully collected same and now holds money for use of complainant, shows a complete remedy at law; bill not being for discovery, aid of equity is not needed, p. 237.

Judgment. Since no one but owner of judgments may cause valid acknowledgments of satisfaction to be made, satisfaction caused to be entered by owner's assignor does not affect former's rights p. 238.

Cited in Hay v. Washington, etc., R. R., 4 Hughes, 329, F. C. 6,255a, satisfaction of judgment made without consideration is nudum pactum.

Miscellaneous.- Miscited in Hardraker v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 165, 19 S. Ct. 126, Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Scott, 4 Woods, 388, 13 Fed. 795, and Loomis v. Carrington, 18 Fed. 99.

22 Wall. 238-250, 22 L. 854, FRENCH ▼. HAY.

Removal of cause.- Objection that removal of cause to Federal court was not in compliance with statute, when not made until all evidence has been taken, and nearly three years elapsed, comes too late, pp. 244, 245.

Cited and applied in Martin v. Baltimore & O. B. R., 151 U. S. 688, 689, 38 L. 317, 14 8. Ct. 539, affirming 8. C., 35 Fed. 173, reviewing authorities, objection to time of filing petition deemed waived if first raised in Supreme Court; Newman v. Schwerin, 61 Fed. 871, 22 U. 8. App. 393, and First Nat. Bank v. Society, 80 Fed. 582, 42 U. 8. App. 517, collecting cases, holding objection to time of filing petition walved, when first raised in Court of Ap peals; arguendo, in Deford v. Mehaffy, 13 Fed. 488, holding bond given on removal subject to amendment; Whelan v. New York, etc., R. Co., 35 Fed. 863, 1 L. R. A. 74, and n., refusing trial upon allegations of petition for removal as to local prejudice; Powers v. Chesapeake, etc., Ry. Co., 65 Fed. 134, 135, where plaintiff, having dismissed as to resident defendants, was estopped to object to time of filing petition.

Appearance. Defendant having filed answer, verified by himself, and signed by his attorney, this was an appearance, and placed him within jurisdiction of the court, p. 245.

Judgments.- Final decree of State court, affirmed upon appeal, held conclusive of rights of parties as to everything covered by it, and unaffected by action of State or Federal court in subsequent progress of case, p. 245.

Cited in Rodgers v. Pitt, 96 Fed. 670, holding, in case of concur rent jurisdiction, court first acquiring complete jurisdiction entitled to proceed.

Equity. Where final decree, covering entire original case, subsisted, further relief sought could be reached, if at all, only by supplemental bill; it was gross error to allow amendment, p. 246.

Equity.- Amendment of a bill gives defendant right to answer, as if he had not answered before, p. 246.

Approved in Blythe v. Hinckley, 84 Fed. 244, vacating decree taken pro confesso, where bill was subsequently amended.

Equity.— Amended bill is esteemed part of original bill and continuation of the suit; but one record is made, p. 246.

Approved in Excelsior, etc., Co. v. Brown, 74 Fed. 324, 42 U. S. App. 55, reviewing cases, holding Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of bill as amended; Blythe v. Hinckley, 84 Fed. 244, vacating decree, taken pro confesso, where bill was subsequently amended.

Equity.- Amendment is sometimes of such character as to be regarded as independent graft upon original case and beginning of new lis pendens, p. 246.

Equity. Unless waived, new process is necessary, upon supplemental bill and bill of revivor, but not upon amended bill as to defendants already before court; they are bound to take notice of filing of amended bills, as of any other proceedings in the case pp. 246-247.

22 Wall. 250-253, 22 L. 857, FRENCH v. HAY.

Removal of causes.- Bill to enjoin proceedings in State court, after transfer of cause to Circuit Court, is auxiliary and dependent in its character, p. 252.

Cited in Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 498, 26 L. 498, restraining proceedings under judgment rendered after transfer.

Removal of causes.- Where cause is properly transferred from State to Federal court, decree previously rendered in State court vacated and bill dismissed, a party to the cause may be enjoined from proceeding under said decree, though beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal court, pp. 252, 253.

Approved and applied in Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 498, 26 L. 498, restraining proceedings under judgment rendered after the transfer; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Ford, 35 Fed. 173, Abeel v. Culberson, 56 Fed. 333, and President, etc. v. Merritt, 59 Fed. 7, enjoining further proceedings in State court, after removal; Wadley v. Blount, 65 Fed. 676, collecting authorities, and restraining prosecution of indictment; Central Trust Co. v. Western, etc., R. Co., 89 Fed. 29, restraining proceeding in State court to nullify decree of Federal court; Pickett v. Ferguson, 45 Ark. 189, 55 Am. Rep. 549, restraining party from prosecuting suit in another State; dissenting opinion in Johnson v. Brewers' Fire Ins. Co., 51 Wis. 585, 9 N. W. 661, majority holding judgment, rendered after improper refusal to transfer, valid, unless set aside aside or reversed.

Distinguished in Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 270, 38 L. 985, 14 S. Ct. 1022, reviewing authorities, and holding State court had no Jurisdiction to enjoin certain libellants; Wagner v. Drake, 31 Fed. 852, Frishman v. Insurance Co., 41 Fed. 449, and Sinclair v. Pierce, 50 Fed. 852, refusing to enjoin, where jurisdiction of Federal court was doubtful; Cœur D'Alene Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Spalding, 93 Fed. 282. refusing to enjoin State court, record not having been filled in Circuit Court; White v. Hold, 20 W. Va. 814, awarding mandamus to compel judge to proceed with case, removal having been