1. On the authority of Ex parte Mirzan, 119 U. S. 584, the court denies a
petition for leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In re
Huntington, 63.
2. In the courts of the United States the return to a writ of habeas corpus
is deemed to inport verity until impeached. Crowley v. Christensen,
86.
3. Civil Courts may inquire, under a writ of habeas corpus, into the juris-
diction of the court over the party condemned, but cannot inquire into
or correct errors in its proceedings. In re Grimley, 147.
4. The petitioners, being indicted in a Circuit Court of the United States
and taken into custody, applied to this court for a writ of habeas corpus
without first invoking the action of the Circuit Court upon the suffi-
ciency of the indictment. Held, that this court would not interfere.
In re Lancaster, 393.
1. The court adheres to the views of the law expressed in its opinion deliv-
ered at the former trial of this case, (Rector v. Gibbon, 111 U. S. 276,)
and finds that the decree below was made in accordance with them.
Lawrence v. Rector, 139.
2. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, having reference to the
doubt as to title, and to the evident good faith of the parties, the true
measure of liability is the actual receipts from the property, and not
its rental value; and in that respect the decree below is held to have
been erroneous. Ib.
See ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, 4, 5.
A provision in a policy of fire insurance, that "in case differences shall arise
touching any loss or damage, after proof thereof has been received in
due form, the matter shall, at the written request of either party, be
submitted to impartial arbitrators, whose award in writing shall be
binding on the parties as to the amount of such loss or damage, but
shall not decide the liability of the company under this policy," cannot
be pleaded in bar of an action on the policy, unless the policy further
provides that no such action shall be brought until after an award.
Hamilton v. Home Ins. Co., 370.
The question of interest is always one of local law. Massachusetts Benefit
Association v. Miles, 689.
1. The due and regular assessment of a distiller's tax by an internal reve-
nue collector, properly certified, is a sufficient defence to the collector
in an action on the case against him by the distiller to recover the
value of property, seized and sold for the payment of the tax, upou
the ground that, in a subsequent action by the United States against
the distiller and the sureties on his bond, to recover the uncollected
portion of the same tax, its assessment was adjudged to have been
invalid: and this defence may be set up under the general issue with-
out pleading it specially in justification. Harding v. Woodcock, 43.
2. Under the statute of the State of New York of April 23, 1866, pro-
viding for assessing and taxing stockholders in national banks upon
the value of their shares, and making it "the duty of every such
bank" "to retain so much of any dividend or dividends belonging to
such stockholder as shall be necessary to pay any taxes assessed in
pursuance of such act," the plaintiff in error having declared divi-
dends, retained therefrom the taxes thereon assessed and due to the
State. Held, that the several sums so retained were part of "the
earnings, income, or gains of the bank," upon which an internal reve-
nue tax was imposed by c. 173, § 120 of the act of June 30, 1864, as
amended by the act of July 13, 1866, 14 Stat. 98, 138, c. 184. Cen-
tral Bank v. United States, 355.
3. If a national bank, in good faith, but by mistake, declares a dividend
or makes an addition to its surplus or contingent funds, when it is not
in a condition to do so, the dividend or addition is subject to taxation,
and the mistake cannot be corrected by the courts in an action brought
to recover the tax. Ib.
JURISDICTION.
A. GENERALLY.
If a law conferring jurisdiction is repealed without any reservation as to
pending cases, all such cases fall with the law. Gurnee v. Patrick
County, 141.
B. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COUrt.
1. A judgment in a Circuit Court of the United States on a general
demurrer to the declaration in an action removed from a State Court,
that the demurrer be sustained, and, as the record showed that the
court had no jurisdiction, that the cause be remanded to the State
Court, is not a judgment to which a writ of error from this court can
be maintained. Gurnee v. Patrick County, 141.
2. In a collision case in admiralty the valuation of the sunken vessel and
effects was $6057, for which amount the District Court gave judgment.
The Circuit Court, on appeal, awarded one-half the valuation, viz.:
$3028.50. Held, that this court had no jurisdiction on appeal. Steam-
ship Haverton, 145.
3. This case is rightfully brought here by appeal, and not by writ of error.
In re Morrissey, 157.
4. In order to enable this court to entertain jurisdiction of a writ of error
to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon the ground
that the validity of an authority exercised under the United States
was drawn in question in the case, the validity of the authority must
have been denied directly and not incidentally. United States v. Lynch,
5. Domicil generally determines the particular territorial jurisprudence to
which the individual is subjected. Grover & Baker Sewing Machine
6. Where, in an action pending in a state court, two grounds of defence
are interposed, each broad enough to defeat a recovery, and only one
of them involves a federal question, and judgment passes for the
defendant, the record must show, in order to justify a writ of error
from this court, that the judgment was rested upon the disposition of
the federal question and if this does not affirmatively appear, the
writ of error will be dismissed unless the defence which does not
involve a federal question is so palpably unfounded, that it cannot be
presumed to have been entertained by the state court. Johnson v.
Risk, 300.
7. In this case the record contained the pleadings and a motion for a new
trial, which motion was authenticated by the trial judge and set forth
at length all the proceedings at the trial, including the evidence, the
exceptions to testimony, the instructions to the jury, the exceptions to
those instructions, a bill of exceptions in due form, properly certified
by the presiding judge, the verdict, and the judgment on the verdict.
This proceeding was in accordance with the practice authorized by the
Statutes of Montana. Held, that it was sufficient for the purposes of
review here. Kerr v. Clampitt, 95 U. S. 188, distinguished from this
Montana Railway Co. v. Warren, 348.
8. In this court inquiry is limited to matters presented to and considered
by the court below, unless the record presents a question not passed
upon by that court, which is vital, either to the jurisdiction, or to the
foundation of right, and not simply one of procedure. Ib.
9. Facts contested in a trial before a jury must be taken in this court to
be as determined by the verdict. Bank of British North America v.
Cooper, 473.
10. The allowance of an amendment to an application for the removal of
a cause from a State Court, if allowable at all, is a matter of discre-
tion, to which error cannot be assigned. Ayers v. Watson, 584.
11. A writ of error does not lie for granting or refusing a new trial. Ib.
12. When an instruction asked for has been substantially given, with
proper qualifications, it is no error to refuse it. Ib.
13. When a case is heard, on stipulation of the parties, by the court with-
out the intervention of a jury, and its special findings cover all the
disputed questions of fact, and there is in the record no bill of excep-
tions taken to rulings in the progress of the trial, the correctness of
the findings on the evidence is not open for consideration here.
Preston v. Prather, 604.
14. This court has jurisdiction over a judgment entered in a Federal Court
in Pennsylvania in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant on
the verdict, when interest on the verdict antecedent to the judgment
appealed from is included in such judgment, and the amount, with
the added interest, exceeds $5000. Mass. Benefit Ass'n v. Miles, 689.
See HABEAS CORPUS, 4;
JURISDICTIONAL VALUE;
PRACTICE, 5.
EXCEPTION, 2;
JURISDICTION, C, 5;
C. JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. Where jurisdiction has been obtained by service of garnishee process in
a proceeding in rem, the court has power to proceed notwithstanding
defect in service on the person. Fitzgerald and Mallory Construction
Co. v. Fitzgerald, 98.
2. In such case, objection to jurisdiction over the person, to be availing,
must not be raised in connection with denial of jurisdiction over the
subject matter. Ib.
3. The defendant below having denied the power of the court to proceed
at all, and upon decision against it having joined issue and gone to
trial on the merits, as jurisdiction existed over the subject matter, it
was properly maintained over the person, even though the service on
the person might have been set aside. Ib.
4. A bill filed by a defendant, on leave, in order to a complete decree upon
the whole matter in dispute, is properly styled a cross-bill; and where
on the bill of the original complainant possession of property has been
taken by a Circuit Court of the United States, the jurisdiction of the
court in passing upon such a cross-bill in the disposition of the prop-
erty does not depend upon the citizenship of the parties. Morgan's
Co. v. Texas Central Railway Co., 171.
5. Upon a bill in equity by creditors of an insolvent corporation, whose
claims amounted to more than $2000, against the corporation and
stockholders therein, to compel sums, due from them to the corpora-
tion for unpaid subscriptions to stock to be paid in and administered
as a trust fund, and distributed among all creditors of the corporation
who should come in and contribute to the expense of the suit, the Cir-
cuit Court referred the case to a master to receive proofs of claims,
and, upon the return of his report, adjudged that claims severally
less than $5000, but together exceeding that sum, were just debts of
the corporation, and that, in order to pay them, the stockholders
should pay the amount of their subscriptions to a receiver. Stock-
holders so charged with more than $5000 each appealed to this court.
Held, that the sums in dispute were sufficient to give the Circuit Court
jurisdiction of the case, and this court jurisdiction of the appeal.
Handley v. Stutz, 366.
6. The provision in the act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. c. 373, § 1, pp. 552,
553, that no Circuit or District Court shall "have cognizance of any
suit, except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the contents of
any promissory note or other chose in action, in favor of any assignee,
or of any subsequent holder, if such instrument be payable to bearer,
and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been
prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment
or transfer had been made," does not apply to an action of trespass
brought by an assignee of the claim, to recover damages for cutting
down and removing timber from the land of the assignor. Ambler v.
Eppinger, 480.
D. JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COUrts of the UNITED STATES.
See JURISDICTION, C, 6.
E. JURISDICTION OF STATE Courts.
See CONFLICT OF LAWS.
1. When the demand in controversy is not for money, but the nature of
the action requires the value of the thing demanded to be stated in
the pleadings, affidavits will not be received here to vary the value as
appearing in the face of the record. Red, River Cattle Co. v. Need-
ham, 632.
2. The filing of affidavits as to value will not ordinarily be permitted
where evidence of value has been adduced below on both sides, and
the proofs have been transmitted, either with or without the announce-
ment of a definite conclusion deduced therefrom. Ib.
3. Where a writ of error is brought, or an appeal taken, without question
as to the value, and the latter is nowhere disclosed by the record, affi-
davits may be received to establish the jurisdictional amount, and
counter affidavits may be allowed if the existence of such value is
denied in good faith. Ib.
4. If there be a real controversy as to the value of the demand in contro-
versy, it should be settled below in the first instance, and on due notice;
not here upon ex parte opinions. Ib.
5. The value of the property in dispute in this case was alleged in the
petition, but was not an issuable fact. The Circuit Court allowed
|