Page images
PDF
EPUB

INDEX.

ACTION.

1. Under §§ 2942 and 2943 of the Code of Alabama, of 1876, which pro-
vide for the bringing of a suit for the recovery of personal chattels
in specie, and for the making of an affidavit by "the plaintiff, his
agent or attorney," that the property sued for belongs to the plaintiff,
and for the giving by the plaintiff of a bond for costs and damages,
as prerequisites to the making of an order for the seizure of the prop-
erty, an affidavit, in such a suit by the United States, in the Circuit
Court of the United States, made by a special agent of the General
Land Office, in which he 'swears, "to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief," that the property sued for belongs to the
United States, is sufficient. United States v. Bryant, 499.

2. Under § 1001 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, the United
States are not required to give the bonds provided for by the Code of
Alabama, as a condition precedent to the right to avail themselves of
said provisions of that Code. Id.

See LOCAL LAW, 2;

PARTIES;

REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 2.

AFFIDAVIT.

See ACTION, 1;

UNITED STATES.

ALABAMA.

See ACTION.

ALIENAGE.

See CONSUL.

AMENDMENT.

See PARTIES, 2;

WRIT OF ERROR.

VOL. CXI-51

ANNUITY.

See DEVISE, 1;
EQUITY, 1;

LIEN.

APPEAL.

A plaintiff demanding judgment on a note for $7,500, recovered only $702;
judgment being against him as to the remainder of the claim on mat-
ter of law. He appealed. The defendant took a cross-appeal. On
motion to dismiss the cross-appeal for want of jurisdiction, Held,
That it was incident to the plaintiff's appeal; and that appeal being
sustained in part and overruled in part the whole cause was remanded.
Walsh v. Mayer, 31.

See PRACTICE, 3.

BANK.

The rule that the relation between a bank and its general depositors is
that of debtor and creditor, which was laid down in Marine Bank v.
Fulton Bank, 2 Wall. 252, is affirmed 'and applied to deposits arising
from collections on behalf of another bank, a correspondent. Phaniz
Bank v. Risley, 125.

See CONFISCATION, 1;
CORPORATION;

INTERNAL REVENUE, 3;
NATIONAL BANK.

BANKRUPTCY.

1. One hypothecating, to secure a debt due from himself, securities which
had been pledged to him to secure the obligation of another, and
failing to return them when such obligation is discharged, does not
thereby create a debt by fraud, or in a fiduciary capacity, which is
exempted by § 5117 Rev. Stat. from the operation of a discharge in
bankruptcy. Hennequin v. Clews, 676.

2. A sale of real estate of a bankrupt by order of court free from the lien
of a mortgage creditor is invalid, as to the creditor and as to the
purpose of discharging his lien, unless he is made a party to the pro-
ceedings. Ray v. Norseworthy, 23 Wall. 128, affirmed. Factors &
Traders' Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 738.

3. In such case it is not sufficient to notify the person who holds the evi-
dences of his debt, and claims to be his agent, if the record repre-
sents that person as acting for another party, and makes no mention
of the mortgage creditor. Id.

4. The real estate of a bankrupt was sold by order of court free of en-
cumbrances and purchased by A. One of the mortgages on the
estate was given to secure four notes, of which at the time of the sale

A held two, and B held two. A and other mortgage creditors were
made parties to the proceedings, but B was not made party. C held
B's notes and claimed to represent him in the proceedings, but the
record only showed C as acting for D. B brought suit to foreclose
the mortgage as to his two notes, claiming that as to A's notes the
lien was cut off by the purchase of the equity, and as to the rest of
mortgage liens as well as to A's they were discharged by the sale.
Held (1) that B had the right to a decree of foreclosure. (2) That
this decree should be made for the benefit of all the mortgage credit-
ors in the order of their priority, including A. (3) That the expenses
of A for taxes, prior liens, improvements, &c., growing out of the
former sale should be first paid out of the proceeds of the new sale.
(4) That A should account for rents and profits if there were any. Id.
See EVIDENCE, 2;

[blocks in formation]

A writ of certiorari when applied for by a defendant is not a writ of
right but discretionary with the court. Ex parte Hitz, 776.

CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

If a treasury agent for the collection of cotton, who was convicted by a
military commission of defrauding the United States, and was sen-
tenced to pay a fine, and paid the fine and was then released, consents
after his release that the money may pass into the treasury, he cannot

maintain an action in the Court of Claims to recover it bacR E- AN
implied contract to refund it, either on the ground that the fine was
illegally imposed, or that it was paid under duress. Carver v. United
States, 609.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.

See VESSEL.

COMMON CARRIER.

See DAMAGES, 2;
INSURANCE, 7.

CONFISCATION.

1. A proceeding under the confiscation acts of August 6th, 1861, 12 Stat.
319, and July 17th, 1862, 12 Stat. 589, for the purpose of confiscating
a general deposit in a bank, which was directed against a specific lot
of money, and a condemnation and sale under such proceedings, and a
payment by the bank to the purchaser at the sale, are no defence to
the bank in a suit by an assignee of the depositor for valuable consid-
eration, claiming under an assignment made before the proceedings
in confiscation. Phenix Bank v. Risley, 125.

2. The confiscation act of August 6th, 1861, was directed to the confisca-
tion of specific property, used with the consent of the owner to aid
the insurrection, and had no reference to the guilt of the owner, and
could only apply to visible tangible property which had been so
used. Id.

3. The 37th Admiralty Rule, in force before the passage of the confiscation
acts provided a mode for attaching a debt in proceedings for its confis-
cation by giving notice to the debtor of the proceedings to charge the
debtor with the debt and require him to pay it to the marshal or into
court; and in the absence of such notice the District Court could ob-
tain no jurisdiction over the debt, and could make no condemnation
of it which would constitute a defence in an action by an assignee of
the debt for a valuable consideration made before the proceedings in
confiscation. Id.

CONFLICT OF LAW.

1. The decision of the highest court of a State, construing the Constitution
of the State is not binding upon this court as affecting the rights of
citizens of other States in litigation here, when it is in conflict with
previous decisions of this court, and when the rights which it affects
here were acquired before it was made. Carroll County v. Smith, 556.
2. Subject to the exclusive and paramount authority of the national gov-
ernment by its own judicial tribunals to determine whether persons
held in custody by authority of the courts of the United States, or by

commissioners of such courts, or by officers of the general govern-
ment acting under its laws, are so held in conformity with law, the
States have the right, by their own courts, or by the judges thereof,
to inquire into the grounds upon which any person, within their respec-
tive territorial limits, is restrained of his liberty, and to discharge
him, if it be ascertained that such restraint is illegal, and this not-
withstanding such illegality may arise from a violation of the Consti-
tution and laws of the United States. Robb v. Connolly, 624.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, B;

EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, 1, 2;

HABEAS CORPUS;

OFFICER OF THE COURT, 2, 3.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

A. OF THE UNITED STATES.

1. The constitutional grant of original jurisdiction to this court of all
cases affecting consuls, does not prevent Congress from conferring
original jurisdiction, in such cases, also, upon the subordinate courts
of the Union. Börs v. Preston, 252.

2. In view of the practical construction put upon the Constitution by
Congress and the courts in the statutes and decisions cited in the
opinion, the court is unwilling to say that it is not within the power
of Congress to grant to inferior courts of the United States jurisdic-
tion in cases where the Supreme Court has been vested by the Consti-
tution with original jurisdiction. Ames v. Kansas, 449.

3. A law authorizing the imposition of a tax or assessment upon property
according to its value does not infringe that provision of the Four-
teenth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that no State
shall deprive any person of property without due process of law,
if the owner has an opportunity to question the validity or the amount
of it, either before that amount is determined, or in subsequent pro-
ceeding for its collection. Hagar v. Reclamation District, 701.
4. When a contract is made with a municipal corporation upon the faith
that taxes will be levied, legislation repealing or modifying the taxing
power of the corporation, so as to deprive the holder of the contract
of all adequate and efficacious remedy, is within the inhibition of
the Constitution. Nelson v. St. Martin's Parish, 716.

5. On an appeal from a judgment ordering the issue of a mandamus to
compel the collection of a tax to pay a judgment recovered against a
municipal corporation, the appellate court may authorize an inquiry
whether the judgment was founded upon a contract or a tort, with a
view to determine the constitutional rights respecting it; but has no
authority to re-examine the validity of the contract or the propriety
of the original judgment, those questions having been finally adjudi-
cated. Id.

« PreviousContinue »