by former judgment not adjudicating title now set up; Connoly v. Hammond, 58 Tex. 21, holding plaintiffs may assert new title acquired after institution of suit; Western, etc., Co. v. Virginia, etc., Co., 10 W. Va. 286, 293, holding judgment on same matters in dispute between parties bar to further suits thereon. See valuable note in 85 Am. Dec. 210.

4 Wall. 404-408, 18 L. 395, UNITED STATES v. HATHAWAY.

Customs duties.- Staves for pipes, hogsheads and other casks, grown in Canada are so far manufactured as not to be admitted free of duty under reciprocity treaty with Great Britain admitting unmanufactured timber, p. 408.

Cited and followed in United States v. Quimby, 4 Wall. 409, 18 L. 397, holding split white-ash timber not exempted from duty by reciprocity treaty; Stockwell v. United States, 3 Cliff. 289, F. C. 13,466, holding shingles not unmanufactured timber under reciprocity treaty; Attorney-General v. Lorman, 59 Mich. 164, 60 Am. Rep. 290, 26 N. W. 313, holding business of preparing natural ice within statute authorizing formation of manufacturing corporations.

Miscellaneous.- Apparently miscited in Connolly v. Hammond, 51 Tex. 649, on practice in action to try title to real property.

4 Wall. 408-409, 18 L. 397, UNITED STATES v. QUIMBY. Customs duties.- Split white-ash timber, grown in Canada, is not admissible into United States under reciprocity treaty with Great Britain admitting unmanufactured timber free of duty, p. 409.

Cited and followed in Stockwell v. United States, 3 Cliff. 290, F. C. 13,466, holding shingles so far manufactured as to be dutiable under reciprocity treaty.

4 Wall. 409-411, 18 L. 432, GILMAN v. LOCKWOOD.

Insolvency.—State legislatures may pass insolvent law where there is no conflicting act of Congress, and such law does not impair obligation of contracts, p. 410.

Cited and followed in Butler v. Goreley, 146 U. S. 313, 36 L. 986, 13 S. Ct. 88, holding constitutional State insolvency law of Massachusetts; Second, etc., Bank v. Schranck, 97 Wis. 264, 73 N. W. 36, 39 L. R. A. 575, holding insolvency law directed only at remedy, but actually impairing obligation of contract, unconstitutional.

Distinguished in Denny v. Bennett, 128 U. S. 497, 32 L. 494, 9 S. Ct. 137, holding Minnesota statute providing for creditors' assignment on attachment not repugnant to Federal Constitution.

Insolvency.- Certificates of discharge granted under State insolvency laws cannot be pleaded in bar against citizen of another State in Federal courts or other State courts, unless plaintiff be shown

to have proved debt against defendant in defendant's State in insolvency, or to have been party to proceeding, p. 411.

Cited and followed in Phoenix, etc., Bank v. Batcheller, 151 Mass. 591, 24 N. E. 918, 8 L. R. A. 646, and n., holding suit by non-resident of State, not barred by discharge under State insolvency law; Second, etc., Bank v. Schranck, 97 Wis. 273, 73 N. W. 39, 39 L. R. A. 578, holding discharge under State insolvent law does not release contracts with non-residents. See valuable note in 23 Am. Dec.

351, 15 Am. St. Rep. 212. Approved in Mississippi, etc., Co. v. Ranlett, 19 Fed. 196, holding debtor's property not removed beyond reach of non-resident creditor by State insolvency laws.

Insolvency. State insolvency laws have no extra-territorial operation, and cannot discharge contracts of citizen of other State, and no court has jurisdiction under such laws over contracts of citizens of different States, unless they voluntarily become parties to proceeding, p. 411.

Cited and followed in Brown v. Smart, 145 U. S. 457, 36 L. 775, 12 S. Ct. 959, holding contracts with citizen of different State not discharged by State insolvent laws; Letchford v. Couvillon, 20 Fed. 609, holding alien living in State bound by State insolvency laws; Easterly v. Goodwin, 35 Conn. 284, 95 Am. Dec. 238, holding contracts with citizen of different State not discharged by State insolvent law; Fogler v. Clark, 80 Me. 240, 14 Atl. 10, holding creditor proving debt against insolvent estate, estopped from denying con stitutionality of law; Pullen v. Hillman, 84 Me. 131, 30 Am. St. Rep. 341, 24 Atl. 795, holding State law gives no jurisdiction to discharge contracts with citizen of other States; Burpee v. Sparhawk, 108 Mass. 114, 11 Am. Rep. 323, holding citizen of different State proving debt in insolvency proceedings, cannot impeach law; Wendell v. Lebon, 30 Minn. 239, 15 N. W. 112, holding creditor voluntarily becoming party to proceedings under law, cannot claim exemption from law; Perley v. Mason, 64 N. H. 8, 3 Atl. 631, holding objection to jurisdiction waived by non-resident voluntarily becoming party to proceeding; Stirn v. McQuade, 66 N. H. 404, 49 Am. St. Rep. 623, 22 Atl. 452, holding State insolvent laws ineffective in different State against citizens of that State. See valuable note in 11 Am. Dec. 484, 15 Am. St. Rep. 218. Approved in Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 115, 33 L. 542, 10 S. Ct. 272, holding State insolvent laws bind citizens at time of contract and persons admitting jurisdiction; Orr v. Lisso, 33 La. Ann. 477, 479, holding foreign creditors bound by contracts with citizens during existence of State insolvency laws; Bergner, etc., Co. v. Dreyfus, 172 Mass. 160, 161, 162, 70 Am. St. Rep. 256, note, 51 N. E. 534;, dissenting opinion, majority holding foreign corporation having main establishment in State unaffected by State insolvent law; Moore v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 55 Mich. 93, 20 N. W. 806, holding State courts may subject property of nonresident to payment of citizen creditors.

Distinguished in Elton v. O'Connor, 6 N. Dak. 19, 68 N. W. 90, 33 L. R. A. 530, holding creditor's objection to law not waived by proving debt existing before law; Cross v. Brown, 19 R. I. 231, 83 Atl. 151, holding debt due non-resident attachable by garnishment. Miscellaneous.-Miscited in Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 429, 10 Pac. 776, to proposition that land patent, when issued, relates back to original entry.

4 Wall. 411-431, 18 L. 397, THE MOSES TAYLOR.

Courts.- State County Court being highest State court having cognizance of an appeal under $200, error lay from that court to the Federal Supreme Court, p. 426.

Admiralty.- Contract for transportation from Panama to San Francisco is a maritime contract within the admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction of the Federal courts, p. 427.

Cited and followed in Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 28, 20 L. 98, holding contract of marine insurance is maritime contract; The Hammonia, 10 Ben. 514, F. C. 6,006, holding Admiralty Court had jurisdiction of suit on contract of transportation; Haslett v. The Enterprise, 11 Fed. Cas. 783, holding admiralty has jurisdiction of suit for repairs on vessel used as transport; The Willamette Valley, 71 Fed. 714, holding contract for transportation maritime contract, though involving passage on land; Berwin v. The Matanzas, 19 La. Ann. 387, holding contract of affreightment within exclusive jurisdiction of Federal courts; Baird v. Daly, 57 N. Y. 246, 15 Am. Rep. 491, holding contract of towage maritime contract; Phelps v. The City of Panama, 1 Wash. Ter. 535, holding action in rem may be brought on contract of passage. Approved in The Sailor Prince, 1 Ben. 468, F. C. 12,219, holding Admiralty Court has no jurisdiction to enforce claim of mortgage of vessel; The Selt, 3 Biss. 347, 349, F. C. 12,649, holding contracts for repairs at home port contracts in admiralty; The Island City, 1 Low. 377, F. C. 7,109, holding State may give liens for building, repairing or supplying domestic vessels; The Arkansas, 5 McCrary, 373, 17 Fed. 389, holding tort committed by vessels in flood water, not within admiralty jurisdiction; Foster v. The Richard Busteed, 100 Mass. 410, 1 Am. Rep. 125, holding enforcement of llen given by statute for repairs belongs to State courts.

Distinguished in Tugboat E. P. Dorr v. Waldron, 62 Ill. 226, 14 Am. Rep. 89, holding no maritime lien arises for supplies furnished at home port of vessel.

Shipping.There is no distinction in principle between a contract for transportation of passengers and of goods, same liability attaching upon their execution, both to owner and ship, and both being subject of admiralty jurisdiction, p. 427.

VOL VI-39

Cited and followed in The Missouri, 3 Ben. 514, 517, F. C. 9,652, holding jurisdiction of admiralty sustained by nature of thing provided against.

Admiralty.— Action against steamer by name, under California statute, where the vessel itself is seized and impleaded as defendant, and judged and sentenced accordingly is suit in admiralty, p. 427.

Cited and relied upon in Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 531, 21 L. 371, holding State courts not authorized by legislature to exercise jurisdiction in admiralty proceedings; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 556, 22 L. 492, holding State courts have no jurisdiction to enforce maritime lien by proceeding in rem; The Missouri, 3 Ben. 514, F. C. 9,652, holding that ship is proceeded against sustains admiralty jurisdiction; The Fred M. Lawrence, 94 Fed. 1018, holding vessel is defendant in admiralty suit in rem; Knapp, etc., C. v. McCaffrey, 178 Ill. 121, 69 Am. St. Rep. 299, 52 N. E. 902, holding admiralty has no jurisdiction of suit in personam against owners of raft; Southern, etc., Co. v. The J. D. Perry, 23 La. Ann. 40, 8 Am. Rep. 587, holding provisional seizure of vessel and prayer for enforcement of lien, action in rem; Warehouse, etc., Co. v. Galvin, 96 Wis. 528, 65 Am. St. Rep. 58, 71 N. W. 805, holding suit in replevin by shipper against owner of vessel, not suit in admiralty. Approved in Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 453, 22 L. 369, holding jurisdiction of Federal courts unaffected by State legislation; Norton v. Switzer, 93 U. S. 366, 23 L. 907, holding States may create liens for repairs on domestic vessel; The Circassian, 11 Blatchf. 478, F. C. 2,726, holding lien under twelfth rule of admiralty unenforceable for supplies furnished before passage of act; The Island City, 1 Low. 377, F. C. 7,109, holding legislature may create liens for repairs on vessel; Daily v. Doe, 3 Fed. 916, holding seizure of vessel by court officer, gives admiralty court jurisdiction; The Petrel v. Dumont, 28 Ohio St. 612, 22 Am. Rep. 401, holding subject-matter of con. tract determines whether contract is maritime; Albany, etc., Ins. Co. v. Whitney, 70 Pa. St. 252.

Judicial sale.- Under common-law process, property is reached only through personal defendant, and only to the extent of his title, and purchaser under sale on judgment takes only such title as defendant had, p. 427.

Cited and followed in The Sailor Prince, 1 Ben. 468, F. C. 12,219, holding under sale of vessel in State court purchaser takes only debtor's interest.

Admiralty.- California statute authorizing actions in rem against vessels for causes of action, cognizable in admiralty, invests State courts with admiralty jurisdiction, and is void, p. 427.

Cited and followed in The Surplus, etc., of the Edith, 5 Ben. 439, F. C. 4,282, holding void proceedings in rem against vessel for re pairs under New York statute.

Approved in Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 533, 21 L. 372, holding State court has jurisdiction in action in personam against owner of vessel; In re The Edith, 11 Blatchf. 453, 456, 465, 466, F. C. 4,283, holding New York statute, giving remedy for enforcement of maritime lien, void.

Distinguished in Leon v. Galceran, 11 Wall. 191, 20 L. 75, holding State courts have jurisdiction in suits in personam against owner of vessel.

Courts.- Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases in which United States are parties, civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and cases against consuls and vice-consuls, p. 430.

In the Federal courts the following citing cases affirm and rely upon this principle: The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 562, 568, 570, 18 L. 453, 455, 456, holding jurisdiction of Federal District Courts in admiralty cases, exclusive; The Belfast, 7 Wall. 644, 19 L. 272, holding jurisdiction to enforce maritime lien exclusive in District Courts; Steamboat Co. v. Chase, 16 Wall. 531, 21 L. 371, holding jurisdiction to enforce maritime liens by proceedings in rem exclusive in Admiralty Court; The Lottawanna, 20 Wall. 218, 22 L. 262, holding State courts cannot enforce maritime lien under statute by proceeding in rem; Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 453, 22 L. 369, holding Federal jurisdiction unaffected by State legislation; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 556, 22 L. 492, holding State legislatures confer no jurisdiction on State courts in admiralty proceedings; Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 18, 23 L. 527, holding Circuit Court has jurisdiction of suit between citizens of different States on removal from State court; Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 137, 23 L. 838, holding assignee in bankruptcy may sue in State courts; Norton v. Switzer, 93 U. S. 366, 23 L. 907, holding jurisdiction to enforce maritime lien by proceeding in rem, exclusive in District Courts; The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 12, 37 L. 347, 13 S. Ct. 500, holding lien for repairs to vessel in foreign port exclusively within Federal court jurisdiction; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 276, 38 L. 988, 14 S. Ct. 1025, holding enforcement of maritime liens within exclusive jurisdiction of Federal courts; The Glide, 167 U. S. 616, 617, 624, 42 L. 299, 300, 302, 17 S. Ct. 933, 934, 937, holding jurisdiction for enforcement of Hen for repairs on vessel, exclusively in Federal courts; Scott's case, 1 Abb. 340, F. C. 12,522, holding admiralty jurisdiction of District Courts, exclusive of jurisdiction of State courts under statutes; United States v. Athens Armory, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 139, 35 Ga. 353, F. C. 14,473, holding District Courts have exclusive jurisdiction of condemnation of land by proceeding in rem; In re Edith, 5 Ben. 439, F. C. 4,282, holding State statute conferring admiralty jurisdiction unconstitutional; Cardle v. Tracy, 11 Blatchf. 114, F. C. 2,279, holding suits against corporations arise under Constitution, over which Congress may give exclusive jurisdic