60, holding mortgagee could not have sale set aside upon offer of a larger bid.

Distinguished in Central Trust Co. v. Street Ry., 96 Iowa, 651, 65 N. W. 984, holding bidder at foreclosure sale could not object to resale, because of inadequacy of price.

Judicial sale will be set aside for gross inadequacy, shocking the conscience, unfairness practiced, or surprise, p. 192.

Reaffirmed in Schroeder v. Young, 161 U. S. 338, 40 L. 724, 16 S. Ct. 514. Approved in Detwiler v. Schultheis, 122 Ind. 166, 23 N. E. 712, upholding sufficiency of cross-complaint to quiet title; Power v. Larabee, 3 N. Dak. 508, 44 Am. St. Rep. 580, 57 N. W. 790, setting aside sale, where right of redemption was injuriously interfered with; Horse Springs Cattle Co. v. Schofield, 9 N. Mex. 142, 49 Pac. 956, setting aside receiver's sale, where purchaser enjoyed an unconscionable advantage through mistake; Young v. Schroeder, 10 Utah, 167, 37 Pac. 254, setting aside execution sale; Davenport v. Moore, 74 Fed. 953, arguendo.

Judicial sales.- Gross inadequacy requires very slight additional circumstances of unfairness, to constitute fraud, p. 192.

Reaffirmed in Branch v. Foust, 130 Ind. 544, 30 N. E. 633. Approved in Fletcher v. McGill, 110 Ind. 402, 10 N. E. 654, and Wright v. Dick, 116 Ind. 545, 19 N. E. 309, setting aside sheriff's sale; Detwiler v. Schultheis, 122 Ind. 165, 23 N. E. 712, upholding sufficiency of cross-complaint, to quiet title; Russell v. Pew, 12 Mont. 516, 31 Pac. 76, refusing to set sale aside; Warren v. Stinson, 6 N. Dak. 303, 305, 70 N. W. 282, 283, ignorance of facts, and inadequate price suffices to justify annulment of sale; Young v. Schroeder, 10 Utah, 168, 37 Pac. 254, setting aside execution sale; Parry v. Parry, 80 Wis. 131, 48 N. W. 657, setting aside sale.

Equity. Prayer of bill may sometimes be amended at hearing, to conform to proof, p. 195.

Approved in Mackintosh v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. 614, allowing supplemental bill to stand; Bass v. Feigenspan, 82 Fed. 261, refusing amendment to prayer after replication; Tennant v. Dunlop, 97 Va. 239, 33 S. E. 621, upholding change in prayer for relief; Detwiler v. Schultheis, 122 Ind. 166, 23 N. E. 712, arguendo.

Miscellaneous. Cited generally in Burgess v. Doble, 149 Mass. 258, 21 N. E. 438.

117 U. S. 197-198, 29 L. 888, AKERS v. AKERS.

Removal of suit cannot be had, unless diverse citizenship existed at its commencement, p. 198.

Reaffirmed in Stevens v. Nichols, 130 U. S. 232, 32 L. 915, 9 S. Ct. 519, Hone v. Dillon, 29 Fed. 466, Seddon v. Virginia, etc., Iron Co., 36 Fed. 8, 1 L. R. A. 109, Craswell v. Belanger, 56 Fed. 530, 15 U. S.

App. 104, Foster v. Paragould, etc., R. Co., 74 Fed. 273, Amy v. Manning, 144 Mass. 154, 10 N. E. 740, and Herndon v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 107 N. C. 193, 12 S. E. 241, 10 L. R. A. 54. Approved in Moore v. Edgerfield, 32 Fed. 500, excluding interest accumulated pending suit, in estimating amount in dispute; La Montagne v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co., 44 Fed. 647, holding filing of counterclaim in State, by non-resident defendant, does not preclude his right of removal; Burnham v. First Nat. Bank, 53 Fed. 165, 10 U. S. App. 485, holding case not removable, where substituted parties were citizens of separate States.

117 U. S. 199, 29 L. SS8, JOHNSON v. KEITH.

Appeal and error.- Judgment of reversal and new trial is not a final appealable judgment, p. 199.

Reaffirmed in Brown v. Baxter, 146 U. S. 620, 36 L. 1107, 13 S. Ct. 261, and Union, etc., Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 878, 40 L. 463, 16 S. Ct. 320. Approved in MacLeod v. Graven, 79 Fed. 84, 47 U. S. App. 573, holding writ of error does not lie to review judgment of Circuit Court of Appeals, which is not final.

117 U. S. 200-201, 29 L. 887, HARWOOD v. DICKERHOFF. Appeal and error.- Increase in amount of appeal bond for death of one of appellants, refused, p. 201.

Not cited.

117 U. S. 201-210, 29 L. 855, TUA v. CARRIERE.

Insolvency of attached debtor, in Louisiana, dissolves attachment not matured into judgment, p. 204.

Reaffirmed in Shwartz v. H. B. Claflin Co., 60 Fed. 685 13 G. S. App. 707.

Insolvency.- Cession of all property by surviving partners, though illegal as to deceased, yet when accepted and acted on by court, cannot be collaterally attacked by creditor, p. 208.

Reaffirmed in Geilinger v. Philippi, 133 U. S. 255, 33 L. 617, 10 S. Ct. 268.

Courts. Property being administered by one court, cannot be seized under process from another, p. 208.

Reaffirmed in Geilinger v. Philippi, 133 U. S. 257, 83 L. 617, 10 S. Ct. 269. Approved in Milliken v. Barrow, 55 Fed. 148, after surrender of property by insolvent, executory process cannot be issued by a Federal court.

Insolvency law of a State, in force when national bankrupt law passed, revives on latter's repeal, p. 210.

Approved in In re Gatwilling, 90 Fed. 476, holding voluntary assignments for creditors, voidable within four months; In re BrussRitter Co., 90 Fed. 652, holding bankrupt act suspends State insolvency laws.

117 U. S. 210-227, 29 L. 860, PATCH v. WHITE

Wills.- Latent ambiguity in will may be removed by extrinsic evidence, p. 217.

Reaffirmed in Decker v. Decker, 121 Ill. 350, 12 N. E. 754, and Webster v. Morris, 66 Wis. 380, 28 N. W. 357. Approved in Post v. Jackson, 70 Conn. 286, 39 Atl. 152, rejecting extrinsic evidence, where language of testator was not ambiguous; Seebrock v. Fedawa 33 Neb. 417, 29 Am. St. Rep. 491, 50 N. W. 271, holding error in description will not avoid will; dissenting opinion in Eckford v. Eckford, 91 Iowa, 65, 74, 58 N. W. 1096, 1099, 26 L. R. A. 374, 377, majority admitting extrinsic identification. See 50 Am. St. Rep. 285, 287, and 65 Am. St. Rep. 521, notes.

Wills. Latent ambiguity may arise where two persons or things answer the given description, or there is misdescription, p. 217.

Reaffirmed in Gilmer v. Stone, 120 U. S. 590, 30 L. 736, 7 & Ct. 690. Approved in Whitcomb v. Rodman, 156 Ill. 122, 47 Am. St. Rep. 183, 40 N. E. 554, 28 L. R. A. 151, holding that devise carried adjoining forties; Daugherty v. Rogers, 119 Ind. 259, 20 N. E. 781, 13 L. R. A. 851, and n., admitting extrinsic evidence; Stewart v. Stewart, 96 Iowa, 625, 65 N. W. 977, holding devise of land described as northeast quarter, passed southeast quarter; Oldham v. York, 99 Tenn. 77, 41 S. W. 335, holding metes and bounds control estimated acreage; dissenting opinion in Eckford v. Eckford, 91 Iowa, 64, 58 N. W. 1096, 26 L. R. A. 374, majority admitting extrinsic proof to show what quarter decedent owned. See 50 Am. St. Rep. 290, note.

Wills. If latent ambiguity consist in misdescription, court may strike it out, if remainder sufficient, p. 217.

Reaffirmed in Decker v. Decker, 121 Ill. 352, 12 N. E. 755, and Huffman v. Young, 170 Ill. 296, 49 N. E. 572. Cited in 50 Am. St. Rep. 284, note.

Evidence. Well-known map, to which all recorded conveyances refer, may be judicially noticed, p. 220.

Approved in Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 269, 19 S. Ct. 678, holding that Dermott map was the one intended to be annexed to act of 1797.

Wills.- Devise of lot 6, which testator did not own, held valid devise of lot 3, which he did own, p. 220.

Reaffirmed in Eckford v. Eckford, 91 Iowa, 58, 58 N. W. 1094. 26 L. E. A. 372 (see dissenting opinion in 91 Iowa, 69, 71, 58 N. W. 1097,

26 L. R. A. 375, 376), and Hawkins v. Young, 52 N. J. Eq. 510, 28 Atl 511. Approved in Estate of Callaghan, 119 Cal. 575, 576, 51 Pac. 861, 862, 39 L. R. A. 690, 691, holding parol evidence is inadmissible where there is no question of misdescription or identity. See 50 Am. St. Rep. 293, note.

Distinguished in Ehrman v. Hoskins, 67 Miss. 194, 19 Am. St. Rep. 298, 6 So. 777, holding parol evidence inadmissible to show wrong lot was described; Wildberger v. Cheek, 94 Va. 527, 27 S. E. 445, holding children omitted from the class specifically enumerated, did not take.

117 U. S. 228-232, 29 L. 858, BARNEY v. WINONA, ETC., R. R. Courts.- Opinion on matters obiter the issue, may be reconsidered on second appeal, p. 231.

Reaffirmed in Donnelly v. United States Cordage Co., 66 Fed. 615, Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Sanders, 46 Fed. 244, and Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Sanders, 47 Fed. 605. Approved in Thatcher v. Gottlieb, 59 Fed. 873, 19 U. S. App. 469, where facts are substantially the same, court is bound by former decision; Clark v. Hershy, 52 Ark. 480, 12 S. W. 1078, holding questions not presented on first appeal may be reviewed; dissenting opinion in Wright v. Carson Water Co., 23 Nev. 50, 42 Pac. 200, majority holding, where facts are not changed, court is bound by former decision.

Public lands.—“Granted lands” and “indemnity lands,” in railroad grant, defined and explained, p. 232.

Approved in Wisconsin R. R. v. Price County, 133 U. S. 513, 33 L. 695, 10 S. Ct. 347, United States v. Missouri, etc., Ry., 141 U. S. 875, 35 L. 771, 12 S. Ct. 19, and New Orleans, etc., Ry. v. Parker, 143 U. S. 58, 36 L. 70, 12 S. Ct. 369, all holding title to indemnity lands does not pass until their selection is approved by secretary of interior; Wisconsin, etc., R. Co. v. Forsythe, 43 Fed. 888, until indemnity lands are selected, title remains in United States; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Amacker, 53 Fed. 54, holding party was entitled to perfect his title; United States v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 67 Fed. 952, 967, 32 U. S. App. 272, holding lands pre-empted at time map of location is filed are exempted from grant; St. Paul, etc., Ry. v. Sage, 71 Fed. 46, 50, 36 U. S. App. 340, holding act, in absence of filing of map, did not withdraw lands; Southern Pac. R. R. v. Wood, 124 Cal. 488, 57 Pac. 393, holding filing of map did not perfect title to indemnity lands; Jackson v. La Moure County, 1 N. Dak. 239, 240, 46 N. W. 450, indemnity lands are not taxable until their selection is approved by secretary of interior; Northern Pac. R. R. v. Barnes, 2 N. Dak. 365, 51 N. W. 403, arguendo.

Public lands.- Act of 1865, granting lands to Minnesota, reserved the "granted not the "indemnity" lands, p. 232.

Reaffirmed in St. Paul, etc., Ry. v. Greenalgh, 139 U. S. 21, 35 L 73, 11 S. Ct. 396.

117 U. S. 233-235, 29 L. 890, COFFEY v. UNITED STATES. Courts.- Practice in suits in rem, in Federal courts, was not changed by process act of 1872, p. 235.

Approved in United States v. Molloy, 31 Fed. 23, holding endant, under Federal statutes, was not entitled to a new trial; United States v. Fifty Boxes, 92 Fed. 602, holding R. S., § 914, does not require Federal court to follow State statute as to manner taking depositions in proceedings in rem.

117 U. S. 236-241, 29 L. 888, PHELPS v. OAKS.

Courts.-R. S., § 914, establishing State practice in Federal courts, does not require them to renounce a jurisdiction lawfully attaching under act of Congress, p. 239.

Reaffirmed in O'Connell v. Reed, 56 Fed. 534. Approved in Southern Pac. Co. v. Denton, 146 U. S. 209, 36 L. 945, 13 S. Ct. 47, and Mexican Central Ry. v. Pinkney, 149 U. S. 206, 37 L. 704, 13 S. Ct. 864, both holding Texas statute giving to special appearance the effect of a general appearance, is not binding on Federal courts; Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U. S. 615, 39 L. 282, 15 S. Ct. 219, holding statutes of limitation of several States apply to actions at law for infringement of patent; In re Rugheimer, 36 Fed. 373, holding institution of condemnation proceedings by petition of agent of United States, was proper; Nat. Cash-Register Co. v. Leland, 77 Fed. 243, holding act of 1892 merely provided an additional mode of taking depositions; Chappell v. United States, 81 Fed. 767, holding question of damages was properly submitted to jury.

Courts.- Admission of landlord as defendant in ejectment against tenant was proper under Missouri practice, but this need not divest Circuit Court's jurisdiction from diverse citizenship of original defendants, p. 241.

Reaffirmed in Hardenbergh v. Ray, 151 U. S. 118, 38 L. 95, 14 S. Ct. 806. Approved in Baltimore, etc., Loan Assn. v. Alderson, 90 Fed. 147, 61 U. S. App. 645, upholding appointment of receiver for property outside of jurisdiction; Rock Island Nat. Bank v. Thompson, 173 Ill. 600, 64 Am. St. Rep. 141, 50 N. E. 1091, holding lien of Federal judgment is co-extensive with its territorial jurisdiction; Bland v. Fluman, 29 Fed. 673, holding parties could intervene regardless of citizenship; Jarboe v. Temple, 38 Fed. 217, holding subsequent transfer of cause of action will not divest jurisdiction; Burnham v. First Nat. Bank, 53 Fed. 166, holding citizenship of substituted parties cannot give right of removal; Minneapolis v. Reum, 56 Fed. 581, State statute giving elective franchise does not affect status of allen; Wetherby v. Stinson, 62 Fed. 176, holding defendant, by disclaiming, was not dismissed from case; Wheeling Bridge, etc., Ry. v. Cochran, 68 Fed. 144, holding Federal courts should follow State prac tice; Society of Shakers v. Watson, 68 Fed. 736, holding subsequent