JURISDICTION (continued). I. OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED States. (a) It Has jurisdiction 1. Under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, when the record shows no other reason why the highest court of a State sustained a demurrer to a ples of tender in Legal Tender notes of the United States, of the amount due on a promissory note, than the fact that it was so made. Dooley v. Smith, 604. (b) It has Nor jurisdiction 2. Where the judgment of a State court might have been based either upon a State law repugnant to the Constitution or laws of the United States. or upon some other independent ground, and it appears that the court did, in fact, base it upon the latter ground; and so, also, where it does not appear on which of the two grounds the judgment was, in fact, based, if the independent ground was a good and valid one of itself to support the judgment. Klinger v. State of Missouri, 257; West Tennessee Bank v. Citizens' Bank, 432. 8. Nor of a writ of error to a joint judgment against several where there has been no summons and severance, or other equivalent proceeding. Hampton v. Rouse, 187. 4. Nor (as not being a "final judgment") of a decree of the highest court of a State affirming an order of an inferior court, by which a motion to set aside a sheriff's return to an execution was allowed and an alias execution awarded. Wells v. McGregor, 188. 5. Nor of writs of error from this court not tested by the Chief Justice. Ib. 6. Nor of a division of opinion under the Judiciary Act of 1802 on a motion to quash an indictment. United States v. Avery, 251. 7. Nor of writs of error taken to the action of an inferior court in granting or refusing a new trial. Insurance Company v. Barton, 603. II. OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. (a) They HAVE jurisdiction 8. Of a suit by a person as administrator, who, being a citizen of the State where his decedent lived, took out letters of administration there, and then removing to and becoming a citizen of another State sues a person, the citizen of the State where he previously lived and took out the letters Rice v. Houston, 66. (b) They have NOT jurisdiction 9. Of bills in equity against collectors and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the pleadings not showing the citizenship required by the Judiciary Act; and the bills having been all filed subsequently to the 13th July, 1866. Mason v. Rollins, 602. III. OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 10. These courts, sitting in admiralty, have jurisdiction of cases arising under the act of March 3d, 1851, limiting the liability of ship-owners. Norwich Company v. Wright, 104. JURY. See Court and Jury; Practice, 1, 8, 9; Utah. LAND DEPARTMENT. 1. Although the action of the Land Department in issuing a patent is LAND DEPARTMENT (continued). conclusive in all courts, and in all proceedings where by the rules of law the legal title must prevail, yet after the title has passed from the government to individuals, courts of equity may examine whether the land office has been imposed on by fraud, false swearing, mistake, or otherwise, and whether the party vested with the legal title does not thus hold but in trust for another. If the claimant has established his right to the land to the satisfaction of the land department on a true construction of acts of Congress, but the patent has issued, owing to a wrong construction of them, to another person, equity will correct the mistake. Johnson v. Towsley, 72. 2. It will equally relieve in a similar case where no patent has actually issued. Samson v. Smiley, 91. LANDLORD AND TENANT. In the District of Columbia a landlord has a tacit lien for his rent on the chattels of his tenant on the demised premises, from the time the chattels are placed therein until the expiration of three months after the rent becomes due; which lien has priority over a mortgage on the chattels given after they are placed on the premises. Webb v. Sharp, 14. LEGAL TENDER. See Pleading, 5. A tender of what are known as "Legal Tender Notes of the United States," in payment of a note payable in dollars, and made before the passage of the Legal Tender acts, is a good tender. Dooley v. Smith, 604. LIEN. The lien for supplies furnished to a ship in a foreign port and necessary to enable her to complete her voyage and actually so used by her constitute a lien of so high a character, that when once inferred, it is only to be removed by proof which actually displaces it. The principle applied in a case calculated to test it. The Patapsco, 829. LIFE INSURANCE. See Agency; Evidence, 3. In an action on a policy of life insurance, where the defence set up is previous serious personal injury to the assured, not truly represented, the question of such injury is not to be determined exclusively by the impressions of the matter at the time. Its more or less prominent influence on the health, strength, and longevity of the party is to be taken into account, and the jury are to decide from these and the nature of the injury whether it was so serious as to make its non-disclosure avoid the policy. The criteria of such injury considered. Insurance Company v. Wilkinson, 222. LIS PENDENS. 1. What characteristics are requisite in the suit set up to defeat the second suit. Watson v. Jones, 679. 2. Proceedings of an appellate court, part of proceedings in primary court set up as defence. Ib. 8. But where a trust is involved in the second suit, none having been in LIS PENDENS (continued). the suit set up as a defence, the second suit may be sustained to declare, define, and protect the trust, though the first suit be still pending. Ib. - LOOKOUTS." See Evidence, 7. On crowded waters and powerful vessels, bound to sleepless vigilance and indefatigable care. The Ariadne, 475. MANDAMUS. 1. The Circuit Courts of the United States have no power to issue writs of, to State courts by way of original proceeding merely. Bath County v. Amy, 244; Watson v. Jones, 679. 2. To the Secretary of the Treasury to deliver a warrant under the act of July 27th, 1861, to refund expenses incurred by any State in raising troops to suppress the rebellion, refused in a particular case, as not made in time. Commonwealth v. Boutwell, 526. MANDATORY AND DIRECTORY. See Tax Sales. Requirements of statutes, when the former and when the latter. French v. Edwards, 506. MARGINAL MEMORANDUM. MARSHAL'S BOND. See Bill of Lading. When alleged payments, or set-offs claimed, are admissible under the act of March 3d, 1797. Halliburton v. United States, 63. MATERIAL-MEN. See Lien. MEXICO. See Departmental Assemblies, The. MINNESOTA. The effect of its statute of March 12th, 1862, declaring that tax-deeds, &c., should be prima facie evidence of a good title in the grantee, was but to shift the burden of proof of performance of all the requirements prescribed by law for the sale of the land from the party claiming under the deed to the party attacking it. Williams v. Kirtland, 306. MISTAKE OF LAW. What constitutes as distinguished from a mistake of fact. Railroad Company v. Soutter, 517. MUNICIPAL BONDS. See Estoppel, 2. NEGLIGENCE. See Railway Corporations; Receiver of Public Moneys. NEGOTIABLE PAPER. When an indorser of a matured note, not knowing whether demand has or has not been made of the maker, writes to the holder, stating that the maker is unable to pay, and promising, himself, to pay, such indorser will be held to have waived proof of demand and notice, and will be liable as indorser, although without reference to his letter no demand of payment was made or notice of dishonor given. Yeager v. Farrell, 6. NEW TRIAL. See Court of Claims, 4; Final Disposition; Jurisdiction, 7 NEW YORK CODE OF PROCEDURE. 1. Assignee of bond and mortgage held as collateral security, may, under 111th and 113th sections of, sue without making assignor a party. Chew v. Brumagen, 497. 2. And if on such suit the debtor seeks to recoup and judgment goes for less than the amount of the original debt, assignor cannot sue for any balance, being concluded by the former proceeding. Ib. OREGON. The act of 27th September, 1850, called the Donation Act of, construed in connection with the act of May 20th, 1836, authorizing the issue of patents for land in the name of deceased parties. Lamb v. Davenport, 419. PANEL, CHALLENGE TO. See Practice, 8, 9. PARDON. See Captured and Abandoned Property, 2, 3. 1. Granted on conditions, blots out the offence if proof is made of compliance with the conditions. United States v. Klein, 128. 2. The President's proclamation of 25th December, 1868, granting unconditionally and without reservation full pardon and amnesty to every person who had participated in the rebellion, dispenses with "proof that the claimant had never given aid or comfort to the rebellion" in a proceeding to recover captured and abandoned property under the act of 12th March, 1863, which act makes such proof a prerequisite to recovery. Armstrong v. United States, 154; Pargoud v. Same, 156. 3. But it was limited to persons "who participated in the late insurrection or rebellion," and to the offence of "treason against the United States, or adhering to their enemies during the late civil war." Gay's Gold, 358. 4. The proviso (sometimes called "the Drake Amendment") in the appropriation act of July 12th, 1870, in substance that an acceptance of a pardon without a disclaimer shall be conclusive evidence of the acts pardoned, but shall be null and void as evidence of rights conferred by it, is unconstitutional and void. United States v. Klein, 128. PAROL EVIDENCE. When allowable to explain written contracts. 363. PATENT. See Appeal; Land Department. Robinson v. United States, 1. In ejectment in Federal courts, conclusive evidence of legal title in the patentee. Its effect not impaired by counter occupation previous to its issue, under State laws. Gibson v. Chouteau, 92. 2. In a suit at law where a patent of prior date is offered in evidence as covering the plaintiff's invention, it is no ground for rejecting the prior patent that it does not profess to do the same things that the second patent does. If what it performs is essentially the same, and its structure and action suggest to the mind of an ordinarily skilful mechanic its adaptation to the same use as the second patent, by the same means, this adaptation is not a new invention, and is not patentable. Tucker v. Spalding, 453. PILOTAGE. 1. The statutes of the several States regulating the subject of, are to be 2. The half pilotage given by statute is a compensation, not a penalty. Ib. 1. Though statutes oblige receivers of public money to pay over when 2. Where a plea relies on a statute authority as a defence, it must allege 8. Where a declaration charges a defendant with overflowing the plain- 5. A plea which states that the sum due on a promissory note is a certain PRACTICE. See Bill of Exceptions; Charge, Judge's; Court and Jury, 1; I. IN THE SUPREME COURT. (a) In cases generally. 1. Under the act of March 3d, 1835, authorizing the trial of facts by the 2. Where in a case tried under that act the record presents a judgment 8. The court approves the practice of entering decrees in form before 4. Plaintiff in error cannot take advantage of exceptions in his own favor. (b) In admiralty. 5. It will reverse in admiralty appeals where, after examination, its con- 6. It will not issue commissions in them to take new testimony except |