Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Keogh v. Orient Insurance Co....639 Oulton v. Savings and Loan So

Lammers v. Nissen...
Lane v. United States..
Leavenworth v. Kinney.
Lee County v. Clews..
Levy v. Dangel....

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

INDEX.

ADMIRALTY.

1. When a vessel, libelled for sinuggling and for violations of the Chinese
Exclusion Act, is discharged on giving the bond required by law, it
may be again libelled in another district for similar offences, alleged
to have been committed prior to the offences charged in the first libel;
but if both suits proceed to judgment, there can be but one forfeiture
of the vessel. The Haytian Republic, 118.

2. On the 31st day of July, 1891, proceedings were commenced in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York for the voluntary dissolution
of a Steam Tow Boat Company, a corporation organized under the
laws of that State, and an order was made on that day restraining
creditors from bringing action and requiring all to show cause, on
the 16th day of November, 1891, before a referee, why the prayer of
the petitioner should not be granted. An order was made at the
same time for the appointment of a receiver, which required him to
give bonds before entering on the duties of his office. On the 1st
of August, 1891, in the forenoon of that day, these orders were entered
and the papers filed in the office of the clerk of the court. On the
afternoon of the same day, which was Saturday, and on Monday,
August 3, libels in admiralty were filed in the District Court of the
United States for the Eastern District of New York to enforce mari-
time liens against six of the vessels of said Tow Boat Company's
fleet. On the 1st of August the marshals for the district seized and
took into custody three of the six, and on the 3d of August did like-
wise with the other three. On the 4th of August the receiver filed
his official bond, duly approved, and entered upon the discharge of
his duties. On the same day he went to take possession of the six
vessels and found them in the custody of the marshal. Thereupon,
on his motion, process issued against the several libellants, to bring
them before the Supreme Court of the State, where, after hearing,
they were enjoined from taking any further proceedings on their
libels. This judgment of the Supreme Court being affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, and the judgment of the latter court being remitted
to the Supreme Court and entered there as its judgment, the libellants
sued out a writ of error to this court. Held, that the state court had
no jurisdiction in personam over the libellants as holders of maritime

683

« ForrigeFortsett »