SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
There having been an Associate Justice of this Court appointed since the commencement of this term, It is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of said Court among the Circuits, agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and that such allotment be entered of record, viz. :
For the First Circuit, HORACE GRAY, Associate Justice. For the Second Circuit, SAMUEL BLATCHFORD, Associate Justice. For the Third Circuit, JOSEPH P. BRADLEY, Associate Justice. For the Fourth Circuit, MORRISON R. WAITE, Chief Justice. For the Fifth Circuit, LUCIUS Q. C. LAMAR, Associate Justice. For the Sixth Circuit, STANLEY MATTHEWS, Associate Justice. For the Seventh Circuit, JOHN M. HARLAN, Associate Justice. For the Eighth Circuit, SAMUEL F. MILLER, Associate Justice. For the Ninth Circuit, STEPHEN J. FIELD, Associate Justice. January 23, 1888.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
It is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Associate Justices of this Court among the Circuits, agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and that such allotment be entered of record, viz. :
For the First Circuit, HORACE GRAY, Associate Justice.
For the Second Circuit, SAMUEL BLATCHFORD, Associate Justice. For the Third Circuit, JOSEPH P. BRADLEY, Associate Justice. For the Fourth Circuit, JOHN M. HARLAN, Associate Justice. For the Fifth Circuit, LUCIUS Q. C. LAMAR, Associate Justice. For the Sixth Circuit, STANLEY MATTHEWS, Associate Justice. For the Seventh Circuit, JOHN M. HARLAN, Associate Justice. For the Eighth Circuit, SAMUEL F. MILLER, Associate Justice. For the Ninth Circuit, STEPHEN J. FIELD, Associate Justice.
See CORPORATION, 2; EQUITY.
See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, 2, 3.
See CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, 8, 9.
1. In this case it was held, on the facts, that the plaintiff in a suit in equity had not established his right to a decree that he is entitled to the one half of the attorney's fees in an award against Mexico by the joint United States and Mexican commission, which fees had been collected by the defendant. Porter v. White, 235.
2. The plaintiff failed to establish any equitable lien on the award, by showing a distinct appropriation of a part of it in his favor, or any agreement for his payment out of it. Ib.
BAIL BOND.
See INTEREST, 1; JURISDICTION, B, 5.
An assignee in bankruptcy appeared in a suit of equity which had been commenced by a bank against the bankrupt before his bankruptcy, to obtain a decree for the sale of securities pledged to the bank as col-
lateral, and defended upon the ground of usury and usurious payments of interest. More than five years after the appointment of the assignee the bank filed a supplemental bill, setting up a former adjudication between the bankrupt and the bank made after the commencement of the suit, but before the bankruptcy upon the matter so set up in de- fence by the assignee. Held, that the supplemental bill set up no new cause of action, but only matters operating as an estoppel which were not subject to the limitation prescribed by Rev. Stat. § 5057. Jenkins v. International Bank, 484.
See JURISDICTION, B, 6, 7, 8.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
1. In order to make a claim against the United States one arising out of a treaty within the meaning of Rev. Stat. § 1066, excluding it from the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, the right itself, which the petition makes to be the foundation of the claim, must derive its life and exist- ence from some treaty stipulation. United States v. Weld, 51.
2. A claim against the United States made under the provisions of the act of June 5, 1882, 22 Stat. 98, c. 195, "reëstablishing the Court of Com- missioners of Alabama Claims and for the distribution of unappropri- ated moneys of the Geneva Award," is not a claim growing out of the treaty of Washington within the sense of the word "treaty," as used in Rev. Stat. § 1066. Ib.
3. The payment of the expenses of the Geneva Arbitration has not been charged by Congress upon the fund received under the award made there. Ib.
4. A statute entitled "An act referring to the Court of Claims," etc., "for examination and report," and enacting that "the claims" "be, and the same are hereby, referred to the Court of Claims for adjudication according to law, on the proofs heretofore presented, and such other proofs as may be adduced, and report the same to Congress" confers upon that court full jurisdiction to proceed to final judginent, as in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction. United States v. Irwin, 125. 5. A statute conferring upon the Court of Claims power to consider and render judgment for claims "for property claimed to have been taken and impressed into the service of the United States in the year 1857 by orders of Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston in command of the Utah expedition, as well as for property alleged to have been sold to the government" does not authorize that court to consider and give judg- ment for losses consequent upon the refusal of Colonel Johnston to
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել » |