7. If the insured was so insane as to be incapable of making an intelligent statement, this would of itself excuse that condition of the policy.
442 8. Where the liability of four insurance companies depended upon the same evidence and was founded upon the same policy, and their defense rested on the same issues, the action may be joint by consent. Idem, 442 9. The judgment of the court, which is against the defendants jointly for the full amount of the pol- icy, is erroneous, but may be against each for one fourth thereof. Idem, 442
10. In a clause in a policy of insurance which ex- cludes from the premises gunpowder, saltpeter and other articles in the same class, held, that the words "in quantities exceeding one barrel at any one time are applicable alike to all the articles which are specified in the clause.
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Slaughter, 444 11. Insurance companies should declare their ex- emptions from liability in policies, in terms which cannot admit of controversy.
Idem, 12. The disability to sue imposed by the war relieves the assured wholly from the consequences of failing to bring suit within twelve months after the loss as required by his policy.
13. As between a common carrier of goods and an insurer of them, the liability to the owner for their loss or destruction is primarily upon the carrier, while the liability of the insurer is only secondary. Hall v. R. R. Co., 594 14. An insurer, who has paid a loss, may recover
Louisiana in which both parties were citizens of | was made and decided, of which this court has cog- Louisiana. nizance by writ of error or appeal.
484 34. Where the judgment of a state court might have been based either upon a state law repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States, or upon some other independent valid ground, this court will not take jurisdiction of the case.
635 35. Avowed present disloyalty to the Government is a sufficient cause for the discharge of a juror, ir- respective of his refusal to take the test oath; and where it did not appear that he was discharged for the latter cause, this court refused to take jurisdic- tion of the case. Idem,
635 36. This court cannot take jurisdiction of a writ of a state judgment in an action to recover the amount of a deposit in confederate treasury notes; the judgment of the state court being against the right to recover.
West Tenn. Bk. v. Citizens' Bk., 514 37. When the averments of citizenship in bills are not sufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction, the bills will be dismissed.
42. A decision of a state court that a contract, of which the consideration was confederate money, was void, does not of itself raise a federal question of which this court has jurisdiction, when made upon the general principles of public policy.
46. Municipal bonds and coupons are not within the jurisdictional prohibition of sec. 11 of the Judi- ciary Act, forbidding an action by an assignee when the action could not be maintained by the assignor. Lexington v. Butler, 809
47. Such prohibition does not apply to cases re- moved into the circuit court from a state court. Idem, 809
48. The District Court, sitting as a court of admi- ralty, has jurisdiction of cases arising under the Act of 1851 and may administer the law, as provided in the 4th section. Idem, 809 49. The proper course of proceeding in such a case pointed out.
535 50. Where the decision of the state court was gov- erned by the settled principles of the jurisprudence of the State, this court cannot review the state judgment.
Palmer v. Marston, Sevier v. Haskell,
56. Absolute suspension of the right to sue, and prohibition to exercise it, exist during war, by the law of nations, but the restoration of peace re- moves the disability and opens the doors of the courts.
57. A Statute of Wisconsin requiring that an ac- tion for the death of a person in that State caused by a negligent or wrongful act, shall be brought in a court of that State, does not prevent a non-resident plaintiff from removing the action to a Federal Court and maintaining it there under the Act of Congress of Mar. 2, 1867.
58. The Act of Mar. 2, 1867, amending that of July 27, 1866, for the removal of causes from a State court to a Federal Court, in which there is a contro- versy between the citizens of a State in which the suit is brought and the citizen of another State, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of $500 exclusive of costs, upon petition of the non- resident party, is constitutional and valid. Idem.
SEE APPEAL AND ERROR, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 16, 20, 21, Æ. JURISDICTION, 34.
QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT, 3-9, 11. Courts cannot assume, in their instructions to 757 juries, that facts are established, unless they are ad- 43. But when the court expressly rests its decis-mitted or the evidence respecting them is not con- ion of the same question wholly on a state consti- troverted. tutional provision, this court has jurisdiction of the question whether that provision is in conflict with the Constitution of the U. S.
2. But the lien is not good as against a bona fide | confirmee so far as the legal title is concerned, and purchaser, without notice. those equitably entitled to rights in the land under the title confirmed must go into equity, where their rights can be settled and decreed."
SEE COVENANT, 1-3. EJECTMENT, 1, 3, 4. PREEMPTION, 1-3. TREATIES, 2.
20. But inchoate rights confirmed by Congress. are valid only from their confirmation, and the elder confirmée has a better right than the junior, without reference to the date of the orgin of their respective claims. 838
21. After the passage of the Act of 1812 the claim of the Village of Carondelet was still indefinite and unenforceable, until made definite by the survey therein provided. Idem,
838 22. The survey made in 1817, and retraced in 1834, is binding upon the village and estops it from claiming any land beyond the lines thus established. Idem,
23. The Cerre claim, confirmed after such surveys of 1817 and 1834, was subject to, and cannot prevail against the title of the village. 838 24. In Pa. after a survey made and returned into office, a second survey without an order of the Board of Property is void. 867
Improvement Co. v. Munson,
25. Where a mortgagor of government land had no title, the subsequent sale by the government conveyed a good title to the purchasers, clear of the mortgage.
26. An agreement, to prevent competition in bid- ding at the government sale, is an objection to the sale, that can only be taken by the government it- self. Idem,
LEGAL TENDER ACTS. SEE DECREES & JUDGMENTS, 3, 4. PAYMENT, 1.
74 2. Parties may waive a maritime lien, and resort to common law remedies in the state court. 74 3. Judgments recovered in the Federal Courts are liens in all cases where they are so by the laws of the States. Baker v. Morton, 262 4. A lien of a judgment is not valid, on lands ob- tained by duress, as against the real owner. 262 5. If the credit, for coal furnished a vessel in a foreign port, was given to the vessel, there is a lien, and the burden of displacing it is on the claimant. The Patapsco v. Boyce, 696
« ForrigeFortsett » |