equitable and maritime, as well as legal, de- | count by a circuit court of the United States, mands. United States v. Jones, 90; United under the Act of Feb. 22, 1875 (18 Stat. 333), is States v. Drew, prima facie evidence of the correctness of the items of that account, and, in the absence of clear and unequivocal proof of mistake on the part of the court, is conclusive. United States v. Jones, 1007 93 2. Public officers, upon the question of their compensation and the payment of money into the treasury, are not bound, in order to save their rights, to place themselves in antagonism to the accounting officers of the department, suffer themselves to be sued, and incur the odium, for the time, of being in default, but have the right to pay into the treasury the disputed moneys, and then seek the courts to adjust and determine their claims against their superior and sovereign. Such payment is not an estoppel against the claimant. United States v. Mosby, 625 3. The French and American Claims Commission possessed no authority to consider any claims against the government of either the United States or of France, except as held, both at the time of their presentation and of judg ment thereon, by citizens of the other country Burthe v. Denis, 3. A commissioner of the United States cir cuit court is entitled to the fee of $5 a day for hearing and deciding motions upon bail and the sufficiency thereof, and for the continuance of cases before him. ld. COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT. 1. A compromise made by a debtor firm with a creditor cannot be assailed on the ground that the agent of the firm in the compromise omitted to disclose the financial ability of a partner of the firm to pay the debts of the firm. Cleaveland v. Smith, 384 made by plaintiff as completed, and used it, 2. A defendant having accepted a ditch and made a settlement therefor, cannot, in an action to enforce a lien thereon for the sums due on such settlement, object that the ditch was made wider and deeper than agreed. Idaho & O. Land Imp. Co. v. Bradbury, 433 768 4. A French citizen having a claim against the United States having died, the French and American Claims Commission could only allow, under the treaty of 1880, the proportion of the claim going to such of his heirs and legatees as are citizens of France; and such Com- of a compromise with some of its creditors mission having allowed a part of such claim, the whole sum allowed must be paid to such at 60 cents on a dollar, executed to them an French heirs and legatees, and cannot be equal-tor to exceed 60 cents on a dollar in settleagreement not to pay voluntarily to any credi ly distributed to them and other heirs and legatees of the claimant who are citizens of the United States. Id. CLOUD ON TITLE. See also COURTS, 21. 3. Where an insolvent firm, in consideration ment, a payment of more then 60 per cent-to wit, 80 per cent to a creditor to settle a suit brought by him on a debt against the firm, in which there was no defense, which was about to be tried, and in which a judgment for the full amount would be recovered, and where the debt was secured by attachment,-was not a voluntary payment. Cleaveland v. Smith, 384 1. A person who has received a conveyance of the legal title to real estate from his debtor may institute other proceedings against that debtor in relation to the same property, to strengthen his title or establish his lien. Brad- COMPTROLLER OF CURRENCY. ley v. Claflin, 367 A deputy comptroller of the currency may exercise the powers and discharge the duties attached to the office of comptroller during a Vacancy of that office, or during the absence or inability of the comptroller. Keyser v. Hitz, 531 the residuary ownership of the land, subject to the usufruct of the purchaser under the confiscation proceedings; and a subsequent conveyance, by him and his wife, of all their right and title in and to said land, transferred the land as against his heirs. Illinois C. R. Co. v. Bosworth, 550 suit to which they were parties, without trial by jury, is due course of law, whether the contempt occurred in the course of a criminal proceeding or of a civil suit. Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County Dist. Ct. 801 8. If a carrier is deprived of the power of charging reasonable rates for the use of its property, and such deprivation takes place in CONFLICT OF LAWS. See also IN- the absence of a judicial investigation, it is deprived of the use of its property, and, in effect, of the property itself, without due process of law and in violation of the ConstiSt. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, Minn. R. R. & W tution of the United States. Chicago, M. & Com. 970 10. A law which allows a railroad commis sion to establish rates for railroads which are final, without issue made or inquiry bad as to their reasonableness, and forbids the courts to stay the hands of the commission if the rates established by it are unreasonable and unequal, conflicts with the Consitution of the United States, because it deprives the company of its right to a judicial investigation by due process of law, and substitutes therefor, as an absolute finality, the action of a railroad commission, which is not clothed with judicial functions and does not possess the machinery of a court of justice. Id. 11. The process of taxation does not require the same kind of notice as is required in a suit at law. It involves no violation of due process of law when it is executed according to customary forms and established usages. Bell's Gap. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 892 12. Commitment for failure to pay a tax, not resorted to until other means of collection have failed, and then only upon a showing of property possessed, not accessible to levy, but enabling the owner to pay if he chooses, is not in conflict with the constitutional provision as to due process of law. Palmer v. McMahon, 772 2. The original United States Constitution, art. 3, §2, cl. 3, that the trial of all crimes, except cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, does not apply to state courts. Id. 3. A statute changing the provisions as to persons sentenced to death, by providing for their solitary confinement until execution, makes an additional punishment which constitutes the statute an ex post facto law, so far as it relates to crimes previously committed. Re Medley, 935 4. Any law which is passed after the commission of the offense for which the party is being tried is an ex post facto law, when it inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime at the time it was committed, or which alters the situation of the accused to his disadvantage. Id. 5. The new power of fixing any day and hour during a period of a week for the execution, given by an Act to the warden of the peniten- 14. The intention of U. S. Const. art. 4, § 2. tiary, being a departure from the law as it was to confer on the citizens of the several existed before, and with its secrecy causing in- States a general citizenship, and to communicreased mental anxiety to the prisoner, amounts cate all the privileges and immunities which to an increase of punishment and renders the the citizens of any State would be entitled to law ex post facto and void, so far as it relates under the like circumstances; and this includes to crimes committed before its passage. Id. the right to institute actions. Cole v. Cun6. A bill in chancery is one of the recogningham, nized processes of law for re-examining a judg ment and enjoining its execution, and is, in its form, due process of law. Freeland v. Wil liams, 193 7. A proceeding by which a fine and imprisonment are imposed upon parties for contempt in violating an injunction regularly issued in a 13. When the law provides for a mode of confirming or contesting assessment of taxes, with due notice to the person assessed, and for a review, the assessment does not deprive the owner of his property without due process of law. CONTEMPT. Id. 538 See also CONSTITUTIONAL 1. Under the Act of Congress of 1789, the question whether particular acts constitute a contempt is to be determined according to the rules and principles of the common law. Re CONTRACTS. Savin, 150 I. IN GENERAL; CONSTRUCTION; PERFORMANCE; RELIEF AGAINST. II. VALIDITY; RIGHT TO ENFORCE. III. IMPAIRING OBLIGATION. 2. Courts have power to punish in a summary manner the disobedience of any party to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the court. Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County Dist. Ct. 801 See 3. Attempting, while a witness is in the witness-room or in the hallway of the court-room, to deter him from testifying, by offering him money, is a misbehavior in the presence of the court, and punishable, without indictment, by fine and imprisonment, as a contempt. Re Savin, 150 4. Where the charge against a person is that he endeavored, by forbidden means, to influence or impede a witness from testifying, the offense charged is punishable by indict ment; yet the court may punish him for a contempt, if the offense was committed in its presence or so near as to obstruct the adminis. tration of justice. Id 7. Under the Revised Statutes, courts of the United States have power to proceed summarily for contempt. Re Savin, 150 8. The courts of the United States have power to punish for contempts of court committed in the presence of the said courts, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice. Id. 9. A federal court, immediately upon the commission in its presence of a contempt, may proceed upon its own knowledge of the facts and punish the offender, without further proof and without issue or trial in any form. Id. 10. The court, when in session, is present in every part of the place set apart for its own use and for the use of its officers, jurors, and witnesses; and misbehavior anywhere in such place is misbehavior in the presence of the court. Id. 11. The court is not bound to require service of interrogatories upon a person charged with contempt, so that in answering them he could purge himself of the contempt charged; but it can, in its discretion, adopt such mode of determining that question as it deems proper, provided due regard is had to the rules that obtain in the trial of matters of contempt. Id. 12. Although a person charged with contempt was entitled, of right, to purge himself, under oath, of the contempt, yet it is sufficient that he was informed of the nature of the charges against him by the testimony of a witness taken down by a sworn stenographer at the preliminary examination, and that he was present at the hearing of the contempt, was represented by counsel, testified under oath in his own behalf, and had full opportunity to make his defense. ld. also ASSIGNMENT, 2, 3; CONFLICT OF LAWS, 2; CORPORATIONS, 3, 4, 12, 13; OFFICERS, 3; STATE, 8. I. IN GENERAL; CONSTRUCTION; PERFORMANCE; RELIEF AGAINST. 1. Where the terms of a contract were: "These goods to be exactly the same quality as we make for the De Witt Wire Cloth Company and as per sample bbls. delivered,❞—the goods that were in fact made for the lastnamed company, not what were agreed to be made, were the standard. De Witt v. Berry, 896 242 9. If a contract be unreasonable and uncon- | form his part of the fraudulent agreement with scionable, but not void for fraud, a court of the grantor. Dent v. Ferguson, law will give to the party who sues for its breach damages, not according to its letter, but only such as he is equitably entitled to. Hume v. United States, 18. A contract with a broker to purchase for defendant "cotton futures" on a margin, by which the purchase or delivery of actual cotton was never contemplated by either party, but the settlement was to be made between the parties by one party paying to the other the difference between the contract price and the market price of said cotton futures, according to the fluctuations in the market,-is a wagering contract and void. Embrey v. Jemison, 172 393 10. Where claimant made a written contract with the United States to furnish to a government hospital a quantity of shucks at the rate of 60 cents per pound, based on proposals made by the secretary of the interior, when shucks were only of the market value of from 6 mills to 14 cents per pound, and those furnished by 19. That a person executed a note given on claimant were only of the latter value, in an action for the price of the shucks delivered, the all the facts, is of no moment. The defense be an illegal consideration, with full knowledge of market value only can be recovered. Id. makes is not allowed for his sake, but to main11. Where water furnished by a water com-tain the policy of the law. pany for a city was unfit for use and inadequate for protection from fire, the city had a right, after the company had had reasonable time to comply with its contract to supply pure and sufficient water, to treat the contract as terminated, and to invoke the aid of a court of equity to enforce its rescission. Farmers Loan & T Co. v. Galesburg, 573 12. Ignorance of a fact extrinsic and not essential to a contract, but which, if known, might have influenced the actions of a party to the contract, is not such a mistake as will authorize equitable relief. Cleaveland v. Smith, 384 ld. action on a note the consideration of which is 20. The original payee cannot maintain an money advanced by him upon or in execution of a contract of wager, he being a party to that making of it in the name of or on behalf of one contract, or having directly participated in the of the parties. Id. 21. When a broker is privy to the unlawful design of the parties, and brings them together for the very purpose of entering into an illegal agreement, he is particeps criminis, and cannot recover for services rendered or losses incurred by himself in forwarding the transaction. Id. 22. Wherever two or more persons are engaged in a fraudulent transaction to injure another, neither law nor equity will interfere to relieve either of those persons against the other, from the consequences of his own misconduct. Dent v. Ferguson, 242 II. VALIDITY; RIGHT TO ENFORCE. 13. A contract fair and honest in itself, and untainted with actual fraud, entered into by a subscriber for stock with other subscribers, to the effect that they will purchase the same and pay to him the amount paid by him, if at a time specified he chooses to sell the same, is not 23. Where losses have been made in an illegal contrary to public policy, and can be enforced transaction, a person who lends money to the against the party to it. Morgan v. Struthers, loser with which to pay the debt can recover 132 the loan, notwithstanding his knowledge of the 14. A contract by which defendants, for a fact that the money was to be so used. Armvaluable consideration, agreed not to sell a cer- strong v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, tain medicinal preparation within the territory which it was covenanted complainants should occupy exclusively, or sell to others for sale there, or promote such sales, is valid. Fowle v. Park, 67 15. Such a contract relating to a compound involving a secret in its preparation, based upon a valuable consideration, and limited as to the space within which, though unlimited as to the time for which, the restraint is to operate, is reasonable and enforceable. Id. 16. Where one has and transfers property in the secret process of manufacturing an article he has discovered, he and his grantees can claim relief as against breaches of trust in respect to it. Fowle v. Park, 67 17. An agreement between grantor and grantee, made upon the conveyance of property, and which reserves to the grantor the enjoy ment of the rents and profits of the property conveyed, to which the creditors of the grantor have a right of immediate appropriation to their debts, and which involves a secret trust for a return to the grantor of property of which such creditors have the immediate right of sale,will not be enforced; but the parties will be left in the position where they have placed themselves, although the grantee refuses to per 747 24. A new contract founded on a new and independent consideration, if fair and lawful, although in relation to property respecting which there had been unlawful or fraudulent transactions between the parties, will be dealt with by the courts on its own merits; and if the new consideration be valid and adequate, it will be enforced. Dent v. Ferguson, 242 25. An obligation will be enforced, though indirectly connected with an illegal transaction, if it is supported by an independent consideration, so that the plaintiff does not require the aid of the illegal transaction to make out his case. Armstrong v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 747 26. If a person conveys his property for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding his creditors, and for several years acquiesces and concurs in the devices, collusive suits, and impositions upon the court in furtherance of this purpose, without taking a single step to annul said conveyance or to stop such proceedings, a court of equity will not aid him or his heirs to recover the property from the grantee or his heirs after the fraud is accomplished. Dent v. Ferguson, 242 27. A public agent cannot bind his principal under powers that have been taken away, by simply antedating his contracts. Under such circumstances a false date is equivalent to a | tion published by him, in order to maintain an false signature; and the public, in the absence of any ratification of its own, is no more estopped by the one than it would be by the other. Coler v. Cleburne, 146 III. IMPAIRING OBLIGATION. 28. Before an Act withdrawing lands from sale can be held to impair any vested right of an applicant for purchase, he must have done everything required by law to secure such right. Until then no contract right of the applicant is violated by such legislation. Camp bell v. Wade, 240 31. The Constitution of West Virginia of 1872, in its provision that the property of a citizen shall not be sold on a judgment for an act done during the late civil war, does not violate the obligation of a contract, where the judgment was founded on a tort committed as an act of public war. Id. 32. The provision in the statute that a railroad company organized thereunder may charge for transportation such reasonable rates as may from time to time be fixed by the corporation or prescribed by law, and a provision that no company shall demand an unreasonable price, do not constitute such a contract with the corporation as to the fixing of rates that the Legislature is deprived of power to regulate those charges. Minneapolis E. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 985 33. Whatever belongs merely to the remedy may be altered according to the will of the State, provided the alteration does not impair the obligation of the contract. Hill v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. 994 34. A statute providing that the liability of a stockholder may be enforced by notice and monition in the action in which judgment is rendered against the corporation, giving him an opportunity to make defense, while under the law previously the remedy against him was by suit in equity,-does not violate the obligation of his contract. id. 35. It is entirely competent for the Legislature to give the creditors of a company, a new or additional remedy by which the undertaking of a stockholder to pay his subscription can be enforced in their behalf,-such remedy not increasing the debtor's liability. COPYRIGHT. ld. action against his vendor for an infringement of the copyright. It is not enough that the vendor has given such notice in the edition he published while it was his copyright. Id. 3. A right of action for infringement of copyright, as well as the copyright itself, and the means of securing such right of action, are Id. only those prescribed by Congress. CORPORATIONS. I. FRANCHISES; CHARTERS. II. CONSOLIDATION; REORGANIZATION. III. POWERS AND LIABILITIES. IV. STOCK AND STOCKHOLDERS. V. DISSOLUTION; RIGHTS OF CREDITORS. See also BANKS AND BANKING, 9-11, 13-16, 18, 20, 22; CARRIERS, 6; CONTRACTS, 32, 35; FRAUD AND FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES, 1; JUDGMENT, 13, 17-19; LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, 7; MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 2; TAXES, 18. I. FRANCHISES; CHARTERS. 1. The granting of a corporate right or privilege rests entirely in the discretion of the State, and, when granted, may be accompanied with such conditions as its Legislature may judge most befitting to its interests and policy. Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 1025 2. Exemption from future general legislation, either by a constitutional provision or by an Act of the Legislature, does not exist unless it is given expressly, or unless it follows by an implication equally clear with express words. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, Minn. R. R. & W. Com. 970; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Miller, 267 4. The charter of the Minneapolis & Cedar Valley Railroad Company, $ 9, giving power to the directors of that company to make rules as to rates of toll, does not constitute an irrepealable contract with that company that it scribe its rates of toll, free from all control by shall have the right for all future time to prethe Legislature of the State. ld. 5. The condition is implied in every grant of corporate existence, that the corporation shall be subject to such reasonable regulations, in respect to the general conduct of its affairs, as the Legislature may from time to time prescribe, which do not materially interfere with or obstruct the substantial enjoyment of the privileges the State has granted, and serve only to secure the ends for which the corporation was created. Hill v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. 994 II. CONSOLIDATION; REORGANIZATION. 6. Under the Missouri Act of 1870 authorizing the consolidation of two or more railroad |