Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86, 99; Thompson v. St. Nicholas Nat. Bank, 146 U. S. 240.

Questions of fact will not be reviewed on a writ of error from this court to the highest court of a State. WatersPierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86, 99; Eagan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188; Clipper M. Co. v. Eli M. Co., 194 U. S. 220; Kerfoot v. Farmers' Bank, 218 U. S. 281, 288.

MR. JUSTICE LAMAR delivered the opinion of the court.

Miller, the plaintiff in error, was the attorney of Helmick in an action against Porter. The judgment obtained in that suit was assigned by Helmick to the First National Bank of Fayette, Idaho, which executed an instrument reciting that it would hold any money collected subject to the order of Helmick. At the time of making the assignment Helmick gave verbal instructions to pay part of the money when collected to Lauer. The bank placed the judgment in the hands of Miller, who collected the money, and, claiming to act as attorney for Helmick, paid over the proceeds to the Moss Mercantile Company, which asserted that the cause of action had been transferred to it prior to the rendition of the judgment. The bank thereupon brought suit against Miller for the recovery of the money thus collected by him and paid over to a third party. The defendant answered, denying that the bank had title; alleging that it had paid no consideration for the transfer; that it was intended to defraud creditors; setting up that Helmick had revoked the assignment and had given Miller a release. There was, however, no claim that the charter of the bank prevented it from taking the transfer or prosecuting the suit.

There were several trials of the case, and ultimately, with the consent of Helmick and Lauer, the bank assigned the judgment to King. He was substituted as plaintiff, and recovered a judgment against Miller. The case was

taken to the Supreme Court, where it was contended that a national bank could not act as trustee of an express trust so as to be able to institute and maintain a suit under the statute of Oregon, which provides that the trustee of an express trust may sue without joining the person for whose interest the action is prosecuted. The judgment was affirmed, and no Federal question is presented in the writ of error here except on the theory that, under Revised Statutes, § 5136, a national bank could not act as trustee of an express trust, and that therefore the suit was absolutely void, and could not proceed to judgment in the name of the substituted plaintiff.

A national bank cannot act as a technical trustee and hold land for the benefit of third persons. It cannot, for example, act as trustee under a railroad mortgage, nor take title to property to be held for the life of the grantor, with remainder to his children. Every such transaction would be voidable at the instance of the Government. Kerfoot v. Farmers' Bank, 218 U. S. 281. But under Re- + vised Statutes, § 5136, "it may exercise all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on banking," and it may therefore act as a fiduciary and occupy a trust relation in matters connected with that business. It may do those acts and occupy those relations which are usual or necessary in making collections of commercial paper and other evidences of debt. It is both usual and proper for the legal title to negotiable instruments to be vested in a bank by mere endorsement for purposes of collection, holding the proceeds as the endorser directs. There is no difference in law if the title is conveyed by a lengthier and more formal instrument. In both cases the bank takes the legal title for the purpose of demand and collection. In a proper case, there is no reason why it might not go further and institute suit thereon in its own name for the recovery of what may be due. If the transfer was made, or the suit was being maintained, for purposes not

authorized by the charter of the bank, and if the defendant was in a position where his rights were prejudiced thereby, it would be incumbent on him to raise that defense at the outset of the litigation, or as soon as he learned that fact.

In this case the assignment was made in order that the bank might collect the money, pay part to Lauer, and, in effect, hold the balance on deposit to the credit of Helmick. The judgment was not transferred to the bank for the mere purpose of enabling it to bring suit in its own name. At the time of the transfer no suit was contemplated, and, indeed, none was necessary, because the money was immediately paid by Porter. Suit only became necessary when the amount collected by Miller was later improperly paid over by him to the Moss Mercantile Company. There was nothing in this transaction which was so disconnected with the banking business as to make it in violation of Rev. Stat. § 5136, even if the defendant could raise such question. Kerfoot v. Bank, 218 U. S. 281. The laws of Oregon permitted an action to be maintained by the bank in its own name. There is no Federal question before us which authorizes a reversal, and the judgment is

Affirmed.

Statement of the Case.

223 U.S.

UNITED STATES v. NORD DEUTSCHER LLOYD.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 611. Argued January 12, 1912.—Decided February 19, 1912.

The object of § 19 of the Immigration Act of 1907, prohibiting the owners of vessels from making any charge or receiving any security for return passage of aliens brought to this country, was to carry out a policy of preventing the transportation of aliens within the excluded class by rendering it unprofitable instead of profitable for the vessel-owner.

While a statute has no extra-territorial force, and one cannot be indicted here for what he does in a foreign country, the making of a contract in a foreign country may, as in this case, create a condition operative in this country, under which acts of omission or commission can be punished here. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, distinguished.

A vessel-owner taking security in a foreign country for the return passage of aliens brought to a port of the United States violates § 19 of the Immigration Act of 1907, and the retention of the money in the United States for the return passage is an offense at the place where it is retained.

185 Fed. Rep. 158, reversed.

WRIT of error to review a judgment sustaining an indictment charging the defendant with taking security and making charge for the return passage of aliens unlawfully brought into the United States and ordered to be returned in pursuance of the Immigration Act of February 20, 1907.

The indictment charges that the Nord Deutscher Lloyd, a German corporation, operated a line of steamers between Bremen and New York, maintaining an office and place of business in both cities. On November 25, 1910, in Bremen, it sold tickets to two aliens entitling them to passage to New York and return. Before their embarkation the defendant collected from them 150 rubles for the return passage money in steerage. On arrival in New

223 U.S.

Statement of the Case.

York the aliens were ordered to be deported to Germany as likely to become public charges, because of senility and inability to make a living. On December 16, 1910, after the unlawful bringing into this country of said aliens, and while they were liable to deportation on the vessel by which they came, the said 150 rubles were still held and retained in possession of the defendant up to (April 3, 1911) the date of filing the indictment, "the defendant so holding and retaining the same and making charge thereof for the return of such aliens, and being taken and continuously held by the said defendant, as security from the said aliens, for the payment of such charge for their return passage to Germany aforesaid, in violation and evasion of § 19 of the Immigration Laws of the United States, approved February 20, 1907. The defendant by the means aforesaid, at and within the Southern District of New York, on December 16, 1910, unlawfully and wilfully did make charge for the return of aliens, so as aforesaid brought into this country in violation of law, and take security from them and keep and hold the same for the payment of such charge, then and there well knowing that such aliens had been brought to this country in violation of law."

The court sustained the demurrer on the ground that the money was paid and received in Germany, and that the facts did not amount to a violation of § 19, which provides "That all aliens brought to this country in violation of law shall, if practicable, be immediately sent back to the country whence they respectively came on the vessels bringing them. The cost of their maintenance while on land, as well as the expense of the return of such aliens, shall be borne by the owner or owners of the vessels on which they respectively came." And . . If such

owner shall refuse

to pay the cost of their maintenance while on land, or shall make any charge for the return of such alien, or shall take security from him for the

VOL. CCXXIII-33