v. Ott, 142 U. S. 628, 35 L. 1138, 12 S. Ct. 320, following Iowa decisions permitting partial assignments with preferences, under local statute; May v. Tenney, 148 U. S. 64, 37 L. 370, 13 S. Ct. 493, holding in accordance with Colorado law that chattel mortgage of stock of goods was not a general assignment, but void. Cited, obiter, in Bacon v. Northw. Life Ins. Co., 131 U. S. 265, 33 L. 131, 9 S. Ct. 790, ruling with Supreme Court of Michigan, that immaterial defects in advertisement of foreclosure sale would not defeat purchaser's title. Cited in dissenting opinion in Ottenberg v. Corner, 76 Fed. 269, 40 U. S. App. 320, 34 L. R. A. 624, majority sustaining validity of chattel mortgage made in Kansas, two hours before assignment for creditors.

Fraudulent conveyances.- Statute of Elizabeth on fraudulent conveyances was declaratory of the common law, p. 534.

Assignment for benefit of creditors.- Where a void assignment for benefit of creditors is corrected by a valid assignment, no creditor having acquired a lien on the property, the latter assignment is good, pp. 534-535.

Cited in Jones v. Guaranty, etc., Co., 101 U. S. 627, 25 L. 1035, holding mortgage for future advances validated by subsequent consideration; obiter in Rumery v. McCullogh, 54 Wis. 569, 12 N. W. 67, holding that partnership assignment with defective justification of sureties could be validated by subsequent assignment of one partner.

2 Black, 535-538, 17 L. 264, WRIGHT v. BALES.

Courts. State statutes respecting evidence in cases at common law, are obligatory upon the Federal courts; if a witness is competent under State law, he must be so deemed in Federal court sitting in the State, p. 537.

Cited and principle applied in Ryan v. Bindley, 1 Wall. 68, 17 L. 560, holding rejection of defendant as witness in Ohio case, reversible error; Conn. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Trust Co., 112 U. S. 255, 28 L. 710, 5 S. Ct. 122, holding New York statute prohibiting physicians from disclosing information acquired in professional capacity, binding on Federal court; Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U. s. 617, 39 L. 283, 15 S. Ct. 220, holding Massachusetts statute of limitations applicable to action for infringement of patent; Merrill v. Portland, 4 Cliff. 144, F. C. 9,470, refusing traveller damages against town for injury caused by awning, in accordance with Maine decisions; Gravelle v. Minn., etc., Ry. Co., 3 McCrary, 386, 16 Fed. 436, admitting deposition, admissible in State court as having been taken in prior action, in second suit, removed to Federal court.

Distinguished in Potter v. Nat. Bk., 102 U. S. 165, 26 L. 112, holding party interested in action against executor could, under provision of Federal statutes, testify as to conversation with deceased;

L

Loring v. Marsh, 2 Cliff. 319, F. C. 8,514, refusing to continue cause to await decision of State court on question of local law involved in prior suit between same parties; Union Pac. Ry. v. Yates, 79 Fed. 588, 49 U. S. App. 250, 40 L. R. A. 559, and n., holding Iowa decisions construing common-law rules of evidence not obligatory, and medical books inadmissible in damage suit.

2 Black, 539-541, 17 L. 349, OGILVIE v. KNOX INS. CO.

Appeal and error.— A decree in favor of corporate creditors directing distribution, before corporate funds were collected, among complainants and other creditors who became parties after amount due original complainants was ascertained, and appointing a master to state an account and report, is premature, and not final or appealable, pp. 540-541.

Cited and applied in Norton v. Hood, 12 Fed. 766, holding decree refusing to enjoin execution of process not appealable. Cited in Putnam v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 371, F. C. 11,481, as precedent for Federal jurisdiction in that case; note in 100 Am. Dec. 553, on power of courts to compel payment of subscriptions at suit of creditors of insolvent corporations.

Distinguished in Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 21, 24 L. 51, holding that an intervenor must establish that he has been recognized as a party before he can enforce his right to appeal; Cary v. Richardson, 35 La. Ann. 508, holding decree dissolving partnership, and ordering account, appealable.

2 Black, 541-544, 17 L. 281, CALLAN v. MAY.

Appeal and error.- An order directing process to issue to put a purchaser at a judicial sale in possession, is not a final, appealable order, p. 543.

Cited in Gunn v. Black, 60 Fed. 161, 19 U. S. App. 489, holding order directing commissioner to select lands to satisfy decree, and to report to court, not appealable.

Distinguished in Stroheim v. Deimel, 77 Fed. 804, 46 U. S. App. 639, holding order of discharge of imprisoned debtor, appealable.

Judicial sale. The remedy of a tenant in possession against an order directing process to issue against him in favor of a purchaser at a judicial sale, is not by appeal from the order, but by bill in equity to enjoin disturbance of his possession, p. 543.

Appeal and error.- The allocatur of a judge of the Supreme Court, allowing an appeal, is not conclusive of the validity of the appeal, pp. 543–544.

Cited and principle applied in Attorney-General v. Barbour, 121 Mass. 573, dismissing appeal, allowed by a single justice, because taken after statutory time; Capehart v. Logan, 20 Minn. 448, holding

District Court, on appeal, has jurisdiction to dismiss appeal allowed by probate judge. Cited and applied by analogy, in United States v. Emholt, 105 U. S. 416, 26 L. 1078, dismissing hearing on certificate of division of opinion between trial district judge and circuit justice on appeal. Cited, ex exemplo, in Northwestern, etc., Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 154 U. S. 588, 20 L. 463, 14 S. Ct. 1168, holding writ of error to State court must be allowed either by justice of Supreme Court or by judge of the State court.

2 Black, 544-545, 17 L. 333, WRIGHT v. SILL.

Supreme Court.- Questions repeatedly before the court, and uniformly decided in the same way, will not be re-examined, whatever differences of opinion may have existed originally in the Supreme Court, pp. 544-545.

Cited and principle followed in Hombs v. Corbin, 34 Mo. App. 397, sustaining opinion rendered on first appeal, though overruled by State Supreme Court; Cherry v. K. C., etc., Ry., 61 Mo. App. 308, holding questions determined on first appeal res judicata; N. P. Ry. v. Barnes, 2 N. Dak. 339, 51 N. W. 393, refusing to re-examine question of power to classify corporations for taxation, and to ac cept percentage of receipts in lieu of taxes; dissenting opinion, State v. Aiken, 42 S. C. 255, 20 S. E. 234, 26 L. R. A. 360, majority overruling State decisions on State dispensary acts.

2 Black, 545-553, 17 L. 333, PARKER v. WINNIPISEOGEE, ETC., CO.

Equity. Federal courts in equity have no jurisdiction where complainant has remedy at law, as the respondent has a constitutional right to a jury trial; and the objection will be enforced, when noticed, by the court, sua sponte, pp. 550-551.

Cited and principle applied in Wright v. Ellison, 1 Wall. 22, 17 L. 557, refusing one who recovered a fund an equitable lien thereon, for his services; Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 621, 20 L. 502, applying same principle in courts of District of Columbia; Killian v. Ebbinghaus, 110 U. S. 573, 574, 28 L. 248, 4 S. Ct. 235, dismissing bill to establish trust in land amounting to a suit in ejectment; Fussell v. Gregg, 113 U. S. 555, 28 L. 995, 5 S. Ct. 634, refusing owner of equitable title equitable relief in obtaining possession and requiring that legal title be acquired, and legal remedy sought; Berry v. Ginaca, 5 Fed. 482, dismissing bill to establish vendor's lien against purchasers at an execution sale on judgments against vendees; Curry v. McCauley, 11 Fed. 370, F. C. 3,496a, dismissing bill for rents and profits of premises occupied by respondent, though action at law barred; Hausmeister v. Porter, 10 Sawy. 282, 21 Fed. 356, refusing to enjoin application of treasury fund to other purposes than payment of bonds, where mandamus would lie to pay bonds;

Walker v. Brown, 58 Fed. 25, dismissing bill to subject bonds, left as security for creditor's future debts, in hands of debtor, to creditor's debt, for want of equity; Youngblood v. Youngblood, 54 Ala. 488, refusing a debtor equitable relief for overpayments induced through fraud; Wood v. Bangs, 1 Dak. 189, 46 N. W. 589, refusing to enjoin collection of county warrants issued by commissioners to contractors, for work done, where decision in letting of contract was appealable at law; State v. Crawford, 28 Kan. 739, 42 Am. Rep. 191, refusing to enjoin continuance of saloon, unlawful under statute; Jones v. Newhall, 115 Mass. 252, 15 Am. Rep. 105, refusing specific performance where action for purchase money would furnish adequate remedy; Teft v. Stewart, 31 Mich. 372, holding bill praying substantially for damages for fraudulent combination to procure complainant's land, stated case at law, not in equity; Allen v. Pullman's, etc., Car Co., 139 U. S. 662, 35 L. 305, 11 S. Ct. 683, refusing to enjoin collection of unconstitutional taxes; Mirkil v. Morgan, 134 Pa. St. 155, 19 Atl. 628, refusing to enjoin percolation into plaintiff's cellar of water from defendant's premises, occasioned by natural causes; Graveley v. Graveley, 84 Va. 150, 4 S. E. 220, holding bill in equity, showing case at law, should be dismissed, though no appearance entered for defendant; Smith v. Cinn., etc., R. R., 22 Fed. Cas. 484, dismissing bill in equity praying for discovery, and for damages for breach of contract.

Distinguished in Sullivan v. Portland, etc., R. R., 94 U. S. 811, 24 L. 326, refusing holders of certificate of preferred stock of an insolvent corporation relief, because of laches; Oelrichs v. Spain, 15 Wall. 228, 21 L. 44, taking equitable jurisdiction where an equitable proceeding would be necessary to settle rights to proceeds of an action at law; Tyler v. Magwire, 17 Wall. 285, 21 L. 584, holding that after cause is remanded to State court for final judgment, State court cannot deny jurisdiction of Supreme Court, because action properly triable at law; Sill v. Solberg, 10 Biss. 255, 6 Fed. 470, sustaining bill in equity against indorser, on fraudulent appropriation of bankrupt's assets to discharge note; Culver v. Rodgers, 33 Ohio St. 544, holding objection, that action to enjoin continued trespasses was not one for equitable relief came too late, where first raised in Supreme Court after trial in two lower courts; Phipps v. Kelly, 12 Or. 216, 6 Pac. 709, retaining equitable jurisdiction to charge wife with family expenses, where subsequent legislation created legal liability in married women.

Misunderstood in Lehigh Zinc, etc., Co. v. Trotter, 43 N. J. Eq. 204, 10 Atl. 614, retaining jurisdiction where objection to nature of relief was not raised until after testimony on the merits.

Nuisance.-Equity will relieve against a nuisance only in cases of necessity where complainant's right is clear; mere diminution of the value of property is not sufficient, especially where the injunction will work great injury, pp. 552–553.

Cited and principle applied in Sellers v. Parvis, etc., Co., 30 Fed. 166, refusing to enjoin operation of fertilizing works at instance of adjoining farmer; Tuttle v. Church, 53 Fed. 427, refusing to enjoin operation of fish-oil factory; Ladd v. Oxnard, 75 Fed. 732, allowing respondent in copyright case to give a bond, instead of granting an injunction; Morrison v. Latimer, 51 Ga. 523, refusing injunction where displacement of owner's soil by adjacent proprietor's excavations, and injury, were not clearly shown; Lexington, etc., Nat. Bk. v. Guynn, 6 Bush, 490, refusing to order removal of house built across alley-way; Mirkil v. Morgan, 134 Pa. St. 155, 19 Atl. 628, holding plaintiff not entitled to injunction and damages for percolation of water from defendant's premises; McCormick v. District of Columbia, 4 Mackey, 396, 54 Am. Rep. 285, refusing to enjoin telegraph poles and wires as a nuisance.

Distinguished in Peterson v. Santa Rosa, 119 Cal. 391, 51 Pac. 559, enjoining pollution of stream by municipality to injury of riparian owner; Carpenter v. Gold, 88 Va. 553, 14 S. E. 330, holding complainant entitled to equitable relief for diversion of stream, depriving him of access to his land.

Nuisance.- Equity will not relieve against a nuisance, where there is no allegation of danger of irreparable injury, of protracted litigation, or of a multiplicity of suits; but will leave a party to his remedy at law, p. 553.

Cited and principle applied in Fussell v. Gregg, 113 U. S. 555, 28 L. 995, 5 S. Ct. 634, holding owner of equitable title not entitled to equitable relief, but bound to acquire legal title and to seek possession through court of law; Wright v. Ellison, 1 Wall. 22, 17 L. 557, refusing one recovering fund equitable lien thereon, for services; Sellers v. Parvis, etc., Co., 30 Fed. 165, refusing to enjoin operation of fertilizing works; Ladd v. Oxnard, 75 Fed. 732, allowing respondent in copyright case to give a bond in place of issuing an injunction, where damage to complainant not irreparable; Nashville, etc., Ry. v. McConnell, 82 Fed. 69, enjoining ticket scalpers from dealing in exposition tickets, where remedy at law involved multiplicity of suits; Kenney v. Gas Consumers, etc., Co., 142 Mass. 419, 8 N. E. 139, refusing to enjoin gas company's digging up of streets, where injury to complainant could be compensated by damages. Cited in elaborate note in 81 Am. Dec. 587, on point that court of equity will enjoin public nuisance at suit of individual, specially damaged.

Distinguished in Peterson v. Santa Rosa, 119 Cal. 391, 51 Pac. 559, enjoining pollution of stream by municipality to injury of riparian owner; Campbell v. Seaman, 63 N. Y. 582, 20 Am. Rep. 576, enjoining brick-burning process, damaging adjacent lands; Lockwood Co. v. Lawrence, 77 Me. 312, 52 Am. Rep. 771, enjoining riparian owners from discharging refuse into stream; Carpenter v. Gold, 88 Va. 553, 14 S. E. 330, holding complainant, deprived of