An indictment which charges in the first count that the defendants con-
spired to intimidate A B, a citizen of African descent, in the exer-
cise of his right to vote for a member of Congress of the United
States, and that in the execution of that conspiracy they beat,
bruised, wounded, and otherwise maltreated him; and in the second
count that they did this on account of his race, color, and previous
condition of servitude, by going in disguise and assaulting him on
the public highway and on his own premises, contains a sufficient de-
scription of an offence embraced within the provisions of §§ 5508,
5530 Rev. Stat. Ex parte Yarbrough, 651.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 4, 5.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 5.
A policy of insurance against loss by fire contained a clause to the
effect that in case of loss the assured should submit to an examination
under oath by the agent of the insurer, and that fraud or false swear-
ing should forfeit the policy. The assured, after loss, submitted to
such examination, and made false answers under oath respecting the
purchase and payment of the goods assured. Although it appeared
that the statements were not made for the purpose of deceiving the
insurer, but for the purpose of covering up some false statements
previously made to other parties: Held, That the motive which
prompted them was immaterial, since the questions related to the
ownership and value of the goods, and were material, and that the
attempted fraud was a breach of the condition of the policy and a
bar to recovery.
Claflin v. Commonwealth Insurance Company, 81.
1. Under the act of July 1st, 1862, 12 Stat. 492-3, and the acts in addition
to it, a land-grant railroad plaintiff in error received from the United
States subsidy bonds, which were made by statute a lien upon its
road: Held, That, in a suit to collect an internal revenue tax on the
undivided net earnings of the road, carried to a fund or to construc-
tion account, the railroad company was not entitled to have the in-
terest upon these bonds deducted from its net earnings before
settling the amount to be subject to the tax; but that the amount of
that interest, if earned and carried to a fund or charged to construc-
tion, was taxable. Sioux City & Pacific Railroad v. United States, 205.
2. The Secretary of the Treasury, under authority derived from the act of
May 27th, 1872, 17 Stat. 162, abated taxes on spirit in a bonded
warehouse destroyed by fire. The commissioner of internal revenue
notified the principal and sureties of the distillery warehouse bond of
this decision: Held, That this was a virtual cancellation of the bond.
United States v. Alexander, 325.
![[ocr errors]](https://books.google.am/books/content?id=VeEGAAAAYAAJ&hl=hy&output=html_text&pg=PA764&img=1&zoom=3&q=suit&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U2D5Gmj4txSQMqOCjutgnYtrInILA&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=348,685,7,6)
See LIMITATIONS, STATUTES OF, 1, 2.
See CLAIMS CONVENTION WITH MEXICO, 3.
1. A plaintiff obtained a verdict against the United States in the court
below, subject to the opinion of the court on a case to be made, and
then rested nearly thirty years before entry of judgment: Held, That
under these circumstances interest should run only from the entry
of the judgment. Redfield v. Ystalyfera Iron Co., 174.
2. Interest is recoverable of right when it is reserved in the contract; but
when it is given as damages, it is within the discretion of the court
to allow or disallow it, and it will not be allowed if the plaintiff has
been guilty of laches in unreasonably delaying the prosecution of his
claim.
8. When, in Colorado, the agent of an absent defendant, upon whom
process had been duly served, appeared and consented to the entry
of a judgment against the defendant before the time for filing answer
had expired, and no fraud was shown: Held, On an attempt to attack
the judgment collaterally by reason of entry before the time for an-
swering had expired, that the court would make all necessary pre
sumptions to sustain it. White v. Crow, 183.
4. A judgment duly recovered is not affected, nor the right to take out
execution upon it impaired, by an application made to the court to
set it aside, and "continued until the next term, without prejudice
to either party." Freeman v. Dawson, 264.
See EVIDENCE, 2, 3, 4;
GUARDIAN AND WARD, 2;
JURISDICTION, A, 8.
1. It was decided in Morsell v. First National Bank, 91 U. S. 357, that in
the District of Columbia, following the laws of Maryland, judgments
at law were not liens upon the interest of judgment-debtors who had
previously conveyed lands to a trustee in trust for the payment of a
debt secured thereby. It is now decided that the creditor of such
judgment debtor, by filing his bill in equity to take an account of
the debt secured by the trust deed, and to have the premises sold
subject thereto and the proceeds of the sale applied to the satisfac-
tion of the judgment, may obtain a priority of lien upon the equita-
ble interest of the judgment debtor in the property, subject to the
payment of the debt. Freedman's Saving and Trust Co. v. Earle, 710.
2. The doctrine of equitable assets considered and the English and Amer-
ican cases reviewed. Id.
JUDICIAL SALE.
See DEED, 2.
A, JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
1. When it appears that an exception to the rejection of evidence was
taken after the trial was over, and at the time when the bill of excep-
tions was tendered for signature, it does not constitute a proper sub-
ject for assignment of error. United States v. Carey, 51.
2. When a judgment below is for an amount sufficient to give jurisdiction
above, but it appears affirmatively on the record that after deducting
from it an amount not in contest below, there remains less than the
jurisdictional sum, this court has no jurisdiction. Jenness v. Citizens'
National Bank, 52.
3. Where the federal question insisted on in this court, respecting a con-
tract between a State and a corporation in the grant of franchises by
the former to the latter, was not raised at the trial in the State court,
or where it does not appear unmistakably that the State court either
knew or ought to have known prior to its judgment that the judg
ment, when rendered, would necessarily involve that question, this
court cannot take jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of review-
ing the judgment of the State court. It is not sufficient that the
question was raised after judgment, on a motion for a rehearing.
Brown Y. Colorado, 105 U. S. 95, cited and approved. Susquehanna
Boom Company v. West Branch Boom Company, 57.
4. It appearing on examination of the record after argument that the
jurisdiction of the court over the cause is in doubt, the court of its
own motion took notice of the question and ordered it argued.
Claflin v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 81.
5. When the record discloses two defences to an action brought in a State
court, one presenting a federal question, and one presenting no fed-
eral question, either of which if sustained, was a complete defence to
the suit, and that the State court gave judgment in favor of the de-
fendant on both, and the cause is brought here by writ of error, this
court will affirm the judgment below without considering the federal
question. Jenkins v. Loewenthal, 222.
6. When the value of the matter in dispute in this court is less than five
thousand dollars, the court is without jurisdiction of the cause,
although an amount more than five thousand dollars may have been
involved below. Hilton v. Dickinson, 108 U. S. 165, approved and
followed. Dows v. Johnson, 223.
7. When the plaintiff below in open court, by permission of court, remits
all of the verdict in excess of five thousand dollars, and judgment is
entered for that sum and costs, the writ of error will be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. First National Bank of Omaha v. Reddick, 224.
8. An act which directs the Court of Claims to reopen and readjudicate
a claim, and, in case it finds a further amount due, that the same shall
be a part of the original judgment, confers no right of appeal from
the final action of the court under it; and if the time for the right
of appeal from the original judgment has expired before appeal from
such final action is claimed and taken, the appeal will be dismissed.
United States v. Grant, 225.
9. From a decree of the Circuit Court, awarding à fund of $6,000 to one
claiming under a distinct title, the grantee in a deed of trust to secure
debts to various other persons, exceeding that amount in all, but of
less than $5,000 each, may appeal to this court. Freeman v. Dawson,
264.
10. The relief sought for in equity was partition of real estate in defend-
ant's possession with denial of plaintiff's title, accounting, and recov-
ery of rents in arrear. The record did not show affirmatively that
the amount in controversy exceeded $5,000. On a motion to dismiss
the appeal for want of jurisdiction, the court received affidavits as to
the value of the property, and finding it established at over $5,000,
retained jurisdiction of the cause. Whiteside v. Haselton, 296.
11. This court cannot take jurisdiction of a certificate of division in opin-
ion in proceedings under writ of habeas corpus, until entry of final
judgment, Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 U. S.-approved and followed.
Ex parte Clodomiro Cota, 385.
12. When the pleadings plainly show that a sum below the jurisdictional
amount is in controversy, the court cannot accept a stipulation of the
parties that judgment may be entered for a sum in excess of that
amount. Webster v. Buffalo Insurance Company, 386.
13. Distinct judgments in favor of or against distinct parties, though
in the same record, cannot be joined to give this court jurisdiction.
Tupper v. Wise, 398.
14. When an amended complaint demands a sum different from that de-
manded in the original, the amended and not the original complaint
is to be looked to in determining the question of jurisdiction.
v. Bullitt County, 558.
15. When a defendant in a suit pending in a State court pleads a provision
of the State constitution as a defence, a judgment there overruling
the plea presents no federal question to give jurisdiction to this court.
Mitchell v. Clark, 633.
16. This court has no general authority to review on error or appeal the
judgments of Circuit Courts in cases within their criminal jurisdic-
tion. Ex parte Yarbrough, 651.
17. When a prisoner is held under sentence of a court of the United States
in a matter wholly beyond the jurisdiction of that court, it is within
the authority of the Supreme Court, when the matter is properly
brought to its attention, to inquire into it, and to discharge the
prisoner if it be found that the matter was not within the jurisdiction
of the court below. Id.
18. Errors of law committed by a Circuit Court which passed sentence
upon a prisoner, cannot be inquired into in a proceeding on an appli-
cation for habeas corpus to test the jurisdiction of the court which
passed sentence. Id.
19. This court has no jurisdiction to review a judgment of a Circuit Court
rendered in a proceeding upon an appeal from an order of a District
Court rejecting the claim of a supposed creditor against the estate of
a bankrupt.
Wiswall v. Campbell, 93 U. S. 347, affirmed. Leggett v.
|