Page images
PDF
EPUB

Cited in Higueras v. United States, 5 Wall. 836, 18 L. 471, to the point that monuments, when certain, control courses and distances; McNeel v. Herold, 11 Gratt. 315, as to description in entry upon public lands.

4 Cr. 177–179, 2 L. 585, VIERS V. MONTGOMERY.

Equity jurisdiction.- Equity will not interfere between a donee of land by deed and a devisee under a will of the donor, in absence of fraud, p. 178.

Cited in Boyd v. Anderson, 1 Overt. 443, as to conveyance of land containing invalid warranty.

4 Cr. 179–180, 2 L. 587, DIGGS v. WOLCOTT.

Injunction.- A United States court cannot enjoin proceedings in a State court, p. 179.

This case has been recognized as an authority of considerable importance, as the citing cases indicate. It is cited and the prin. ciple is applied in Peck v. Jenness, 7 How. 625, 12 L. 846, holding that attachment on mesne process of State court could not be defeated by subsequent decree of bankruptcy rendered by District Court; Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wall. 195, 18 L. 776, as to validity of State court to enjoin proceedings in United States court; United States v. Keokuk, 6 Wall. 517, 18 L. 934, on same point; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 719, 20 L. 672, affirming the rule; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 341, 24 L. 644, applying the rule in a case respecting foreclosure proceedings; dissenting opinion, Providence, etc., S. S. Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 607, 27 L. 1048, 3 S. Ct. 620, majority holding that proceedings in District Court relating to liability of shipowners for damage to goods, take precedence over proceedings in State courts; In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 220, 31 L. 409, 8 S. Ct. 492, holding injunction cannot issue from Circuit Court to restrain removal of municipal officer; The Celestine, 1 Biss. 12, F. C. 2,541, where domestic vessel seized under State statute; Amory v. Amory, 3 Biss. 271, F. C. 334, holding that United States courts cannot impeach decree of State court having jurisdiction; Ruggles v. Simonton, 3 Biss. 330, F. C. 12,120, as to sale of property under decree of State court; City Bank of New York v. Skelton, 2 Blatchf. 28, F. C. 2,740, following and applying the doctrine; Dennistoun v. Draper, 4 Blatchf. 339, F. C. 3,804, holding further as to removal of causes from State courts; Evans v. Peck, 2 Flipp, 271, 274, F. C. 4,566, denying power of Federal court to enjoin action of trespass in State court; Perry Mfg. Co. v. Brown, 2 Wood. & M. 469, F. C. 11,015, holding construction of State statutes by State courts conclusive; Sumner v. Marcy, 3 Wood. & M. 119, F. C. 13,609, under facts similar to principal case; Hutchinson v. Green, 2 McCrary, 476, 6 Fed. 838, as to disposition of property under control of State court; Yick Wo v. Crowley, 11 Sawy. 423, 425, 26 Fed. 208, 209, as to service of warrant issued by Police Court; Clark v. Binnringer. 3 Bank. Reg. 130; S. C., 38 How. Pr. 345, as to proceedings for dissolution of partnership; Wagner v. Drake, 31 Fed. 851, extending prohibition to injunctions issued to parties before State courts; Tefft v. Sternberg, 40 Fed. 4, as to disposition of property held under mesne process of State court; Dillon v. Kansas City, etc., Ry. Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 111, applying the rule; Whitney v. Wilder, 54 Fed. 555, 13 U. S. App. 180, as to acts of administrator in distributing funds; Reinach v. Atlantic, etc., Ry. Co., 58 Fed. 44, as to acts of receiver appointed by State court; Worthy v. Lyon, 18 Ala. 787, holding that one State court will not interfere with proceedings in another of co-ordinate jurisdiction; Ex parte Hill, 38 Ala. 462, but bolding that State court could determine question of fact in case of arrest by marshal of Confederate States under conscript laws; City of Opelika v. Daniel, 59 Ala. 215, as to interference by one State with proceedings in another; Strozier v. Howes, 30 Ga. 580, as to inability of State court to enjoin proceedings in Federal courts; Munson v. Harroun, 34 Ill. 423, 85 Am. Dec. 317, on same point; Ex parte Holman, 28 Iowa, 106, 4 Am. Rep. 169, as to habeas corpus to procure release of prisoner held under order of Federal court; Goodrich v. Hunton, 29 La. Ann. 376, holding that suit pending in State court to enjoin execution of judgment of same court cannot be removed to Federal court; Watson v. Bondurant, 30 La. Ann. (pt. 1), 8, as to auxiliary proceeding in State court; discussed and principle applied in Brown v. Wallace, 4 Gill & J. 496, 2 Bland Ch. 603, as to courts of concurrent jurisdiction in same State; Hill Mfg. Co. v. Providence, etc., S. S. Co., 113 Mass. 500, 18 Am. Rep. 532, holding proceedings in State court against shipowner for loss of goods, not affected by subsequent proceeding in Federal court; Stone v. Sargent, 129 Mass. 507, holding State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over bill of exceptions from order of superior judge removing cause to Federal court; Carroll v. The Bank, Harr. Ch. (Mich.) 204, as to proceedings in courts of sister States; Rushworth v. The Judges, 58 N. J. L. 101, 32 Atl. 745, holding further as to appellate jurisdiction of Federal courts; Mead v. Merritt, 2 Paige, 404, as to proceedings in courts of sister States; also in Boyd v. Hawkins, 2 Dev. Eq. 337, on same point; Chapin v. James, 11 R. I. 89, 23 Am. Rep. 415, as to process of Federal courts; Lockwood v. Nye, 2 Swan, 521, 58 Am. Dec. 76, as to attachment issued by court of sister State. Approved in Dorr's Admr. v. Rohr, 82 Va. 370, 3 Am. St. Rep. 114; Edwards, etc., Co. v. Sprague, 76 Me. 62; note to Smith v. Schroed, 2 McCrary, 444; Kittredge v. Emerson, 15 N. H. 269, 270, discussing general subject.

Distinguished in Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 268, 38 L. 985, 14 S. Ct. 1022, as to admiralty proceeding to enforce maritime lien, District Court having exclusive jurisdiction; Perry v. Sharpe, 8 Fed. 23, holding that injunction prayed for before removal from

State court may be granted in Federal court; Texas, etc., Ry. Oo.
v. Kuteman, 54 Fed. 551, 13 U. S. App. 99, holding that Federal
court niay enjoin prosecution in State courts of multiplicity of
suits not actually begun; Fisher v. Lord, 9 Fed. Cas. 135, where
parties subject to jurisdiction of Federal courts; Irving v. Hughes,
13 Fed. Cas. 13, and Yeadon v. Bank, 30 Fed. Cas. 797, holding that
while Federal court cannot enjoin proceedings in State court it
may enjoin party from suing contrary to bankrupt act of con-
gress; Gay v. Brierfield, etc., Co., 94 Ala. 311, 33 Am. St. Rep. 129,
11 So. 356, holding that pendency of suit in Federal court against
insolvent corporation does not oust jurisdiction of State court to
entertain bill by creditors not parties to former suit in Federal
court

[ocr errors]

4.Cr. 180-181, 2 L. 588, WOOD V. LIDE.

Writ of error.- If writ be served before return day it may be returned after, even at subsequent term, p. 181.

This rule has been directly applied in Pickett's Heirs v. Legerwood,
7 Pet. 147, 8 L. 639, and Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall. 103, 18 L. 49.
See also note, 1 Blackf. 6, on general subject. While approving
the principle, the following cases have dismissed appeals where
the record did not show proper survice and return: Villabolos v.
United States, 6 How. 90, 12 L. 356; Buford v. Hickman, Hemp.
234, F. C. 2,114a; State v. Kennedy, 18 N. J. L. 24, 25; and State
v. Commissioners, etc., 37 N. J. L. 395. See also McCoy v. Lemons,
Hemp. 216, F. C. 8,730a, where appearance held to be waiver of
service.

Overruled in Grigsby V. Purcell, 99 U. S. 507, 25 L. 354.
Writ of error.- Service of, is the lodging a copy for the adverse
party with clerk of court rendering the judgment, p. 181.

4 Cr. 185–202, 2 L. 591, FITZSIMMONS v. NEWPORT INS. CO.

Marine insurance — Forfeiture.- Mere intention to enter block-
aded port is not breach of blockade; there must be an actual at-
tempt to enter, kuowing the fact of blockade, p. 200.

Cited generally in note to Olivera v. Insurance Co., 3 Wheat. 197,
4 L. 368, on general subject, and in The Delta, Blatchf. Pr. 134, 135,
F. C. 3,777, collecting authorities. See also United States v. Tropic
Wind, 28 Fed. Cas. 219.

Rule limited in The Empress, Blatchf. Pr. 178, 179, F. C. 4,477,
and The Nyade, Newb. 372, F. C. 7,046, where intention coupled
with knowledge of facts held to be sufficient. In United States v.
Packages, 27 Fed. Cas. 286, the principal case has been cited as
holding that mere sailing with intent to enter blockaded port con-
stitutes breach of blockade.

1

Admiralty.- Sentence of a foreign Court of Admiralty is conclusive evidence with respect to what it professes to decide, p. 198.

Affirmed in Croudson v. Leonard, 4 Cr. 435, 2 L. 670. Cited and principle applied in Pinson v. Ivey, 1 Yerg. 350, as to adjudication regarding title to land. See 'note, 75 Am. Dec. 724, on general subject of effect of judgments in rem.

· Admiralty.- A ship warranted to be American is impliedly warranted to conduct as American, and knowingly attempting to enter blockaded port forfeits that character, p. 198.

4 Cr. 202–208, 2 L, 596, MARSHALL V. DELAWARE INS. CO.

Marine insurance - Abandonment.— The State of the loss at the time of the offer to abandon fixes the right to abandon, p. 206.

This rule has been applied in Bradlie v. Insurance Co., 12 Pet. 397, 9 L. 1132, where value of vessel at place where repairs must be made, held to govern right; Orient Ins. Co. V. Adams, 123 U. S. 75, 31 L. 67, 8 S. Ct. 72, where abandonment in good faith held not affected by change in circumstances rendering repairs less expen. sive; Peele v. Insurance Co., 3 Mason, 37, F. C. 10,905, holding further, act of underwriter in taking possession constituted acceptance of abandonment; Humphreys v. Insurance Co., 3 Mason, 436, F. C. 6,871, holding that where abandonment not made when right accrued, but vessel repaired, owner could not afterwards abandon; Fuller v. Insurance Co., 31 Me. 327, as to repair of vessel by purchaser after abandonment; Dorr v. Insurance Co., 4 Mass. 229, and note to same case, p. 232, on general subject; Radcliff v. Coster, 1 Hoff. Ch. 103, holding offer must be based upon information of facts sufficient to warrant abandonment; Montgomery v. Insurance Co., 4 Binn. 470, but holding that where assured does not abandon he may recover to extent of loss. See also note to Beale v. Pettit, 1 Wash. 244, F. C. 1,158, on general subject.

Marine insurance.-In case of capture, right to abandon ceases with final decree of restitution, p. 208.

Cited in Olivera v. Union Ins. Co., 3 Wheat. 195, 4 L. 368, and principle applied where vessel detained in blockaded port; Adams v. Insurance Co., 3 Binn. 293, where offer made after decree, but before actual restitution. Cited also in Peele v. Insurance Co., 3 Mason, 65, 67, F. C. 10,905, in discussion of general subject

4 Or. 209–215, 2 L. 598, MCILVAINE V. COX'S LESSEE.

[See 2 Cr. 280, 2 L. 279.] Sovereignty. – The several States of the Union became entitled on July 4, 1776, to the rights and powers of sovereign States, so far is respects their internal regulations, p. 212.

Rule applied in dissenting opinion, Scheible v. Bacho, 41 Ala. 454, majority holding governments of Confederate States were governments de facto, and that validity of contracts made under them must be tested by Constitution as then existing; dissenting opinion, McElvain v. Mudd, 44 Ala. 70, majority holding that emancipation proclamation did not of itself determine status of slaves, and thus did not invalidate contracts relating to them; Commonwealth v. Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co., 62 Pa. St. 292, 1 Am. Rep. 403, holding constitutional, act taxing tonnage of railroads; Sporrer v. Eifler, 1 Heisk. 637, sustaining power of State to provide rules of evidence for its own courts. And see Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 502, 15 L. 741, where subject discussed generally.

Citizenship.– Where State of New Jersey, by act of 1776, asserted its right to allegiance of all persons born, and at that time residing within the State, the act of such person in afterwards leaving and adhering to the crown did not render him an alien, p. 214.

Principle applied by following citing cases: Dissenting opinion, Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 265, 7 L. 674, majority holding that marriage of woman to alien does not destroy her allegiance; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 577, 15 L. 772, as to effect of Declaration of Independence; Jones v. McMasters, 20 How. 20, 15 L. 810, where burden of proof held to be on party asserting change of allegiance; White V. Burnley, 20 How. 250, 15 L. 890, as to citizenship of person forced to leave Texas prior to independence, and holding further as to effect of intention; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U. S. 163, 36 L. 110, 12 S. Ct. 382, holding that declaration of intention by father during son's minority fixes status of latter; Cornwall v. Hoyt, 7 Conn. 427, holding abandonment of country and adhering to public enemy, on part of husband, restores wife to capacity as feme sole; Brooks v. Clay, 3 A. K. Marsh. 550, 1 Litt (Ky.) 266, where expatri. tation held not to work forfeiture of property already acquired; Trimbles v. Harrison, 1 B. Mon. 143, where fact of remaining in country after treaty of peace, held prima facie an election of allegiance; dissenting opinion, State ex rel. Thayer v. Boyd, 31 Neb. 750, 48 N. W. 759, majority holding that act of congress admitting territory into Union does not ipso facto render inhabitants citizens (see 143 U. S. 163, 36 L. 110, 12 S. Ct. 382, supra); Munro v. Merchant, 28 N. Y. 34, holding son, born of alien parents during temporary residence, to be alien if he adopts foreign residence of parents; Dupont v. Pepper, Harper's Eq. 18, citing to point that marriage with officer of foreign government does not divest wife of citizenship; Kilpatrick v. Sisneros, 23 Tex. 125, holding status of residents of Texas fixed by act declaring independence; dissenting opinion.. Read v. Read, 5 Call (Va.), 198, majority holding that British subject born before Revolution, could not, before treaty of peace, inherit lands in this country. See also note to Jackson v. Clarke, 3 Wbeat 12, 4 L, 322

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »