transcript filed and case docketed in Supreme Court at next succeed. ing term; Edmonson v. Bloomshire, 7 Wall. 310, 19 L. 92, reviewing cases, dismissing appeal for omission to file record in Supreme Court at term next succeeding its allowance; Monger v. Shirley, 131 U. S. App. cxx, 20 L. 635, dismissing appeal, where record failed to show its allowance, and there was no citation; West v. Irwin, 54 Fed. 420, 9 U. S. App. 547, holding where appeal void for want of citation, subsequent citation ineffectual; Cotter v. Alabama, etc., R. R., 61 Fed. 748 22 U. S. App. 372, under act of 1891, writs of error are sued out from Circuit Court of Appeals under same practice as if from Supreme Court.

Modified in United States v. Vigil, 10 Wall. 425, 19 L. 955, where delay in filing transcript, where appeal prayed for in open court when judgment rendered, due to clerk's neglect to enter proceedings in the minutes. Distinguished in Brown v. McConnell, 124 U. S. 492, 31 L. 497, 8 S. Ct. 561, holding signing of citation by proper judge or justice sufficient allowance of appeal, notwithstanding failure to require security at the time.

Appeal and error.- Mere presence of counsel in court when appeal allowed, without notice of motion or prayer for allowance, will probably not dispense with necessity for citation, p. 50.

Cited and principle applied in Alviso v. United States, 5 Wall. 824, 18 L. 492, dismissing appeal from Federal District Court in California for want of citation; Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U. S. 143, 29 L. 582, 6 S. Ct. 319, dismissing appeal for want of citation where taken after term at which decree rendered; Monger v. Shirley, 131 U. S. App. cxx, 20 L. 635, dismissing appeal where there was no citation; In the Matter, etc., of Gold Street v. Newton, 2 Dak. 40, 3 N. W. 312, holding service of notice of appeal could not be waived; Knight v. Weiskopf, 21 Fla. 163, dismissing writ of error for want of legal service of scire focias ad audiendum errores.

Public lands.- Appeals allowed under act to settle private land claims in California are subject to the general regulations of the Judiciary acts of 1789 and 1803, respecting appeals and writs of error, p. 51.

Cited and followed in Alviso v. United States, 5 Wall. 824, 18 L. 492, dismissing appeal from Federal District Court of California. Miscellaneous.-Cited, arguendo, in Turner v. Tapscott, 29 Ark. 819, and Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 625, 22 L. 441, on matters of appeal.

8 Wall. 51-83, 18 L. 137, THE BINGHAMTON BRIDGE.

Courts.- Supreme Court has jurisdiction of appeal from highest State court's judgment dismissing bill to enjoin acts, authorized by State law, alleged to impair obligation of a contract, p. 72.

ANN

Constitutional law. Act of incorporation is a contract between the State and the stockholders, protected from invasion by subsequent State legislation, p. 73.

Cited and principle applied in Pennsylvania College Cases, 13 Wall. 214, 20 L. 553, holding legislature cannot resume or diminish benefits granted corporation by its charter, except to extent reserved in act of incorporation; Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wall. 249, 21 L. 327, denying State's power to revoke provision in corporation's charter for immunity from taxation; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 689, 24 L. 561, reviewing cases, denying State's power to imposes larger tax on corporation than that limited in its charter; New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 663, 29 L. 521, 6 S. Ct. 259, reviewing cases, holding grant of exclusive privileges to gas company a restriction of State's power to grant same privileges to others; Sala v. New Orleans, 2 Woods, 194, F. C. 12,246, holding corporation charter, providing for sale of water-works to city, after limited time, constituted contract, which subsequent legis. lation could not impair; Louisiana State Lottery v. Fitzpatrick, 3 Woods, 242, F. C. 8,541, holding lottery company's charter a contract which State could not impair; Hewitt v. New York, etc., Rd., 12 Blatchf. 465, F. C. 6,443, reviewing cases, denying legislature the right to revoke exemption from taxation previously granted to railroad; Camblos v. Phila., etc., R. R., 4 Fed. Cas. 1106, collecting cases, holding all State laws incorporating private associations for public purposes are contracts; Santa Ana Water Co. v. San Buenaventura, 56 Fed. 350, holding municipality and State bound by former's contract made with legislature's permission, giving company uncontrolled power to fix rates; Pearsall v. Great Northern Ry., 73 Fed. 936, collecting cases (reversed in S. C., 161 U. S. 665, 40 L. 844, 16 S. Ct. 710), sustaining legislative grant to corporation of privilege of consolidating with competitors; Los Angeles City Water Co. v. Los Angeles, 88 Fed. 730, holding State and city bound to observe minimum of rates fixed in latter's contract with water company; Broadbent v. Tuskalosa Scientific, etc., Assn., 45 Ala. 172, Tuskaloosa Scientific, etc., Assn. v. Green, 48 Ala. 350, 351, and Kellum v. The State, 66 Ind. 597, collecting cases, denying legislature the power to repeal or impair corporation's previously granted right to conduct a lottery; Birmingham, etc., Street Ry. v. Birmingham Street Ry., 79 Ala. 470, 58 Am. Rep. 616, holding grant of exclusive franchise by municipal corporation having power to grant it is a binding contract; Western, etc., R. R. v. Georgia, 54 Ga. 431, and Georgia v. Western, etc., Rd., 66 Ga. 567, sustaining exemption from taxation beyond certain limit of lessees of railroad from State; Conery v. Water-Works Company, 41 La. Ann. 919, 7 So. 10, sustaining contract between city and corporation; Grand Lodge of Masons v. New Orleans, 44 La. Ann. 665, 11 So. 151, collecting VOL. VI -- 30

action against persons procuring wrongful attachment; Arnett v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 64 Mo. App. 374, Bloss v. Plymale, 3 W. Va. 408, 100 Am. Dec. 757, reviewing cases, and Ellis v. Esson, 50 Wis. 151, 36 Am. Rep. 836, 6 N. W. 522, holding covenant not to sue one of several trespassers, in absence of complete satisfaction, no discharge of the others; Russell v. McCall, 141 N. Y. 451, 38 Am. St. Rep. 814, 36 N. E. 502, holding judgment against constructive trustee for misappropriation, no bar to action against co-trustees de son tort; Turner v. Brock, 6 Heisk. 53, holding prior unsatisfied judgment against another person no bar to action against person in whose hands converted property found; Griffie v. McClung, 5 W. Va. 134, holding judgment against co-trespasser no bar to suit against another.

Cited also in The Kalorama, 10 Wall. 218, 19 L. 945, holding assertion of maritime lien in admiralty, not barred by pending action in State court for sum due; Gunther v. Lee, 45 Md. 67, 24 Am. Rep. 505, holding release to one co-trespasser inured to others' benefit, though mere judgment would not have barred action against them; arguendo, in Savage v. Stevens, 128 Mass. 255, holding, however, satisfaction of judgment against one trespasser barred action against his co-trespasser. See also note to 11 Am. Dec. 146, 25 Am. Dec. 544, and n., 38 Am. Dec. 512, and n., good discussion, collecting cases; in notes to 54 Am. Dec. 205, 206, and 82 Am. Dec. 597. Distinguished in Chils v. Gronlund, 41 Fed. 505, holding but one Judgment recoverable against joint tortfeasors in same action.

Trespass.- Persons engaged in committing the same trespass, are joint and several trespassers; not joint trespassers exclusively, p. 11. Cited and principle applied in The Beaconsfield, 158 U. 8. 307, 39 L. 995, 15 S. Ct. 862, holding whole value of cargo recoverable from one of two colliding vessels; Barnes v. Viall, 6 Fed. 671, collecting cases, holding attorney and his client who procured plaintiff's false imprisonment, jointly and severally liable therefor; Albright v. McTighe, 49 Fed. 820, holding co-tortfeasors jointly and severally liable.

Judgment.-Satisfaction accepted in full for injury done, precludes plaintiff from second recovery for same damages, though he may have obtained two or more judgments for the same tort, pp. 11, 17.

Cited and principle applied in Jennings v. Dolan, 29 Fed. 862, holding several judgments recoverable though but one satisfaction allowed against infringers of patent; Babcock, etc., Co. v. Pioneer Iron Works, 34 Fed. 341, holding settlement and satisfaction by one joint infringer of a patent discharged the other; Albright v. McTighe, 49 Fed. 820, holding tortfeasors jointly and severally liable in action for malicious prosecution though but one satisfaction allowable except for costs; Donaldson v. Carmichael, 102 Ga. 43. 29

ANN

S. E. 137, holding receipt for money from one of two joint wrongdoers discharges both; Berkley v. Wilson, 87 Md. 222, 223, 224, 39 Atl. 504, reviewing cases, holding judgment against one co-tortfeasor and tender of amount thereof barred recovery from the others. Cited, arguendo, in Stimpson v. Poole, 141 Mass. 505, 6 N. E. 707, holding settlement with indorser by insolvent maker's assignee, who sold indorser's security, barred recovery of sum indorser paid payee; Miller v. Beck, Iowa, - 79 N. W. 345, holding satisfaction was bar to action against another of such attachment creditors. See also note to 11 Am. St. Rep. 907, 908.

Distinguished in Torrey v. Schneider, 74 Tex. 121, 11 S. W. 1070, holding satisfaction of judgment against subsequent creditor, no bar to recovery from prior creditor, each having procured illegal attachment. Modified in City Nat. Bank v. Colgin, Tex.-, 51 S. W. 857, holding release of claim for damages against officer by operation of statute, no release of parties procuring wrongful attachment; Arnett v. Missouri Pac. Ry., 64 Mo. App. 374, and Bloss v. Plymale, 3 W. Va. 408, 100 Am. Dec. 717, reviewing cases, holding release of one must be under seal to discharge all the co-trespassers.

Judgment.- Principle that no man shall be twice vexed for same cause of action applies to case of a second suit against the same trespasser, p. 16.

Cited in Child v. Boston, etc., Iron Works, 19 Fed. 260, holding unsatisfied judgment for profits against infringer of patent, barred another action for damages for same infringements.

Judgment alone, for property converted, without full satisfaction, cannot operate to vest title thereto in defendant, p. 17.

Cited and principle applied in Union Pac. Ry. v. Schiff, 78 Fed. 220, holding title not vested by judgment against him, in pledgee who wrongfully re-hypothecated securities; Ledbetter v. Embree, 12 Ind. App. 619, 40 N. E. 928, collecting cases, holding title to property wrongfully converted, does not vest in tortfeasor until satisfaction of judgment for compensation; United Soc. of Shakers v. Underwood, 11 Bush. (Ky.) 270, 271, 21 Am. Rep. 216, 217, reviewing cases, holding wrongfully converted property does not vest in tortfeasor when judgment for value thereof obtained against him; Miller v. Hyde, 161 Mass. 474, 42 Am. St. Rep. 425, 37 N. E. 761, 25 L. R. A. 44, collecting cases, and Singer, etc., Co. v. Skillman, 52 N. J. L. 264, 19 Atl. 260, holding plaintiff's title to chattel, not transferred by entry of judgment in trover in his favor; Turner v. Brock, 6 Heisk. 53, and Moore v. King, 4 Tex. Cr. App. 402, 23 S. W. 486, holding plaintiff's title to property converted, not divested by judgment for value thereof. Cited also in Peerce v. Kitzmiller, 19 W. Va. 577, upon question whether judgments are property. See also discussion in note to 11 Am. Dec. 524, and 17 Am. Dec. 218, and n., collecting cases; 42 Am. St. Rep. 430, and n., and good discussion in

note on page 434; Gilman v. Township of Gilby, N. D.-, 80 N. W. 891, holding like cited case.

Distinguished in Meixell v. Kirkpatrick, 29 Kan. 684, release of claim against one joint judgment debtor does not discharge the other.

Denied in Miller v. Hyde, 161 Mass. 479, 37 N. E. 765, 25 L. R. A. 47, dissenting opinion, majority sustaining doctrine as stated, supra.

Judgment.- Parties who wrongfully procured attachment of plain tiff's property, gave sheriff indemnity bond, were notified of suit against sheriff for damages resulting from illegal attachment and defended same, were concluded by judgment therein, pp. 18-19.

Cited and principle applied in Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 672, 18 L. 430, holding party in fault who knew suit was pending, concluded by judgment against city for damages occasioned by defective street; Smeltzer v. White, 92 U. S. 294, 23 L. 509, collecting cases, holding judgment against validity of county warrants conclusive against assignor, who guaranteed them, in suit by assignee; Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 41 Fed. 357, and Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 57 Fed. 985, 18 U. S. App. 349, holding principals concluded by judgment against their agents for infringing patent; Johnson v. Richmond Beach Improvement Co., 63 Fed. 496, holding judgment of foreclosure against community property bound wife, though separated from her husband and not actually served; Theller v. Hershey, 89 Fed. 576, holding party agreeing to share expenses of action for infringement is privy thereto; Kirksey v. Friend, 48 Ala. 284. holding bill maintainable against indemnitors to enforce payment of rebel court's judgment against insolvent sheriff for wrongful levy: Viele v. Germania Ins. Co., 26 Iowa, 46, 96 Am. Dec. 94, several insurance companies becoming liable on one policy, and all joining in defending suits against each, judgment in one concluded all; Schmidt v. Louisville, etc., Ry., 99 Ky. 153, 155, 35 S. W. 138, 139, reviewing cases, holding judgment bound one who actually defended, though not a nominal party; McKinzie v. Baltimore, etc.. Rd., 28 Md. 174, holding principal estopped by judgment against his agent in prior action which principal assisted in defending; Chesapeake etc., Canal Co. v. County Commissioners, 57 Md. 225, 40 Am. Rep. 438, holding judgment against commissioners for damages caused by defect in public road over company's bridge concluded company; Richard v. Farrar, 116 Mass. 221, holding one who agreed to pay deficiency, concluded by judgment in foreclosure suit, which he knew was pending; Landis v. Hamilton, 77 Mo. 565, holding citizens who instigated proceedings by city, to condemn land for a street, concluded from asserting a prior dedication thereof; Port Jervis v. First Nat. Bank, 96 N. Y. 559, holding corporation concluded by judgment against city for damages caused by excavation made by corporation in street; Pacific Mfg. Co. v.

ANN