ATTACHMENT - continued.

por

property enough to pay his debts, and who invested a material tion of his assets in cotton and shipped it out of the state, was liable to attachment under this statute; that the plaintiff did not have to show the removal was made for a fraudulent purpose; and that the fact that the shipments of cotton out of the state were usual and customary with the defendant and with merchants generally, doing business in the state, constituted no defense to the attachment. Mack & Co. v. McDaniel, 198 4. ATTACHMENT - PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF CARRIER - VENDOR AND VENDEE.-Certain property, to be paid for in cash on delivery, was attached by the vendee's creditors while still in the possession of the carrier. Held, that such creditors could acquire no right in the property, or to the possession thereof, as against the vendor, without, at least, payment of the price and charges. Kelly and others v. Deming and others,

ATTORNEY. See Receiver, 6.

ATTORNEY'S FEES. See Injunction, 2.

ATTORNEY'S LIEN.

1. ATTORNEY'S LIEN

--

453

STATUTE CONSTRUED. Under a statute giving an attorney a lien upon "money in the hands of the adverse party in an action or proceeding in which the attorney was employed," it is doubtful whether an attorney can enforce a lien upon a judgment obtained by him for his client and against a third party. A judgment is not money in the defendant's hands belonging to the plaintiff. Patrick v. Leach, 635 2. SAME NO LIEN ON JUDGMENT AT COMMON LAW.- At common law an attorney has no lien for his disbursements or fees upon a judgment obtained by him. Id. 3. NOTICE-STATUTE CONSTRUED.-Under a statute giving an attorney's lien for a general balance for services, upon papers of his client which have come into his possession; upon money in his hands belonging to his client; and upon money in the hands of the adverse party in an action or proceeding in which the attorney is employed, "from the time of giving notice of the lien to that party," held, that the notice required to be given is personal notice and that it should be in writing.

AUDITOR. See Receiver, 5.

AVERMENTS. See Pleading, 2.

BAIL. See County, 2.

VOL. II-42

Id.

BANKRUPTCY. See Judgment, 1, 2.

A discharge in

1. BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE-ALIEN CREDITORS. bankruptcy under the United States bankrupt act is a bar to the claims of alien creditors suing in the courts of this country, in like manner as though they were citizens of the United States. Ruiz v. Eickerman, 259

2. ASSIGNMENT UNDER STATE LAW-BANKRUPT ACT.-An assignment for the benefit of creditors under state law is void as against an assignee in bankruptcy under act of congress, but is not void ab initio. It is subject to be avoided under proceedings taken under the bankrupt act. Ostrander v. Meunch, 267 3. SAME-SAME - DEMAND FOR ASSETS INJUNCTION.- Where an assignee in bankruptcy was appointed after an assignee under state law had taken possession of the estate, he was entitled upon demand to all the assets in the hands of the latter. It was not necessary to apply for an injunction to restrain the assignee under the state law from disposing of them. Id.

BANKS.

1. NATIONAL BANK-RIGHT TO SUE IN FEDERAL COURTS.- A bank organized under the national banking law is not authorized to sue outside of the district in which it is located, in a circuit court of the United States, independently of any question of citizenship. St. Louis National Bank v. Allen, 92

2. SAME JURISDICTION

·CITIZENSHIP.-For the purposes of the jurisdiction of the federal courts, a national bank is to be regarded as a citizen of the state in which it is established or located.

BILL OF LADING. See Common Carriers, 1, 2.

BILL OF REVIEW.

Id.

1. BILL OF REVIEW.- A bill of review upon newly discovered facts and evidence can only be filed within the period for taking an appeal and with the leave of the court. The Pacific Railroad (of Missouri) v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, C. K. Garrison et al., 227 2. ORIGINAL BILL TO IMPEACH A DECREE FOR FRAUD.-Courts of equity have undoubted jurisdiction to entertain bills to set aside judgments at law or decrees in chancery on the ground of fraud. The rules by which the sufficiency of such bills is to be determined are the same, whether the purpose be to set aside a judgment at law or a decree in chancery.

Id.

3. SAME DILIGENCE.- No relief will be granted if the complainant had knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, and in the exercise of due diligence might have made them known to the court pending the original suit.

Id.

BILL OF REVIEW - continued.

4. SAME-SAME. Nor will relief be granted if the complainant might by the use of due diligence have ascertained the facts and pleaded them in the original suit. Id. 5. SAME ESSENTIAL ALLEGATION. The bill must allege that the facts constituting the fraud were unknown to the complainant pending the original suit, and could not by reasonable diligence have been ascertained by him and brought to the notice of the court. Id. 6. CORPORATION - STOCKHOLDERS-DUTY OF LATTER TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR INTERESTS.- Where the stockholders in a corporation are dissatisfied with the action of the officers of the corporation in the conduct of a suit in equity, upon the ground that such officers are acting in bad faith and not protecting the interests of the stockholders, it is not enough for such stockholders to request the board of directors to remove such officers and appoint others in their places who will attend to the interests of the corporation. It is their duty, especially if such request is disregarded, to apply to the court for leave to intervene and protect their interests, and failing to do so, they are bound by the decree. Id.

7. STOCKHOLDERS LACHES.-Where the stockholders in a railway corporation, having knowledge that their officers were not defending in good faith a foreclosure suit pending against the corporation, and having an opportunity to move in the original suit before decree or to file a bill immediately upon the rendition of the decree, failed to do either for a period of four years, during which the decree had been fully executed, the property sold and the sale confirmed, and the property conveyed by the purchaser to a new corporation which had issued new stock and executed negotiable bonds for large sums secured by mortgage on the property, and sold them in the market: Held, that such stockholders were guilty of laches. Id. 8. BILL OF REVIEW-FAILURE OF COMPLAINANT TO APPEAR IN ORIGINAL SUIT.- Where, upon the trial of a proceeding in equity for the infringement of a patent, the plaintiffs fail to appear, and the court examines the pleadings, exhibits and proofs, and orders a decree for the defendant, and afterwards the plaintiffs file a bill for review disclosing no error upon the record and setting up no new matter, a demurrer to such a bill for review will be sustained. Irwin v. Mey

rose, 9. SAME

244

FAILURE TO TAKE TESTIMONY UNDER EQUITY BILL.When a complainant in a bill in equity fails to take testimony within the three months' time prescribed by the 69th rule, and fails to obtain leave of court for further time to do so, the court will proceed to hear and determine the case as made upon the pleadings, proceedings and exhibits, and take such action with regard to the issues presented as the circumstances of the case may require.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. See Reward, 1, 2.

Id.

BONDS. See Equity, 1. Election Precinct, 3, 4. County, 2. Injunction,
2, 3. Constitutionality, 1, 2, 3.

1. SEWING MACHINE AGENT'S BONDS-CONSTRUCTION OF CONTEM-
PORANEOUS WRITINGS.- Where there is nothing in the bond or con-
tract of agency to show that the two instruments were to be taken as
part of the same transaction, and both instruments can stand together
and have full effect, parol proof cannot be introduced to limit the
liability of the sureties in the bonds to transactions growing out of the
agent's employment under the particular contract alone. Singer Man-
ufacturing Company v. Hester and others,
417
2. RELEASE OF BOND BY AGENT.-The expression of opinion by an
agent of the plaintiffs that the execution of a new agreement between
the principal and agent, by which the character of the employment
was changed, released the sureties, did not amount to a contract of
release, in the absence of any authority to make such a contract. Id.
3. MUNICIPAL BONDS SPECIAL TAX-GENERAL FUNDS - GENERAL
REVENUES. A county court, authorized to levy for county purposes
a tax of not more than one-half of one per cent. upon the assessed
value of the taxable property of the county for each year, subscribed
for stock of a railroad corporation and issued bonds in payment there-
for pursuant to a law which authorized a levy of a special tax "not to
exceed one-twentieth of one per cent. upon the assessed value of the
taxable property for each year," to pay for the same. Held, that if
the levy of one-twentieth of one per cent. was insufficient, the holders
of such bonds were entitled to be paid the balance out of the general
funds of the county, but not out of the general revenues. United
States v. County of Clark, 96 U. S. 211. United States v. County of
Knox,

-

625
4. MANDAMUS-OFFICE OF THE WRIT.- The command of the writ of
mandamus cannot require an officer to do more than he is authorized
by law to do.
Id.
5. COUNTY COURT-HOUSE BONDS - WHEN INVALID-STATUTE OF
NEBRASKA.- Certain county court-house bonds, issued by a county
in the state of Nebraska, held invalid: (1) because there was no
statutory authority to vote for such bonds; (2) because no bonds had
ever been voted by the county for any such purpose; (3) because none
of such bonds, or the proceeds thereof, were ever used to build a court-
house or were ever used for any other purpose by the county; (4) and
because such bonds contained no recitals showing that the same had
been issued conformably to law. Lewis v. Board of County Com-
missioners of Sherman County,
464
6. STATUTE-POWER TO "BORROW MONEY "-POWER TO ISSUE
BONDS. A law authorizing the electors of a county to empower the
commissioners of a county to "borrow money” for the erection of a
court-house, does not authorize them to empower such commissioners
to issue bonds for that purpose.

Id.

BONDS-continued.

7. SAME-SAME-SAME.-The authority to issue bonds as an evidence of indebtedness might perhaps follow as an incident of the right to borrow money, but in that case the amount of money borrowed should equal the amount for which the bonds call. Id. 8. COUNTY BRIDGE BONDS-WHEN VALID - NEBRASKA.- Certain county bridge bonds, issued by a county in the state of Nebraska, reciting that they were issued conformably to law, held valid in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, in open market, when the bridges were built in the county, by direction of the county, for the county, and were paid for by such bonds or their proceeds, although such bonds were not in fact authorized by a vote of the people, as the law required. Id. 9. PRECINCT BONDS LIABILITY OF PRECINCT-STATUTE OF NEBRASKA.- A statute of the state of Nebraska provided, inter alia, that "any precinct, in any organized county in this state, shall have the privilege of voting to aid works of internal improvement, and be entitled to all the privileges conferred upon counties and cities by the provisions of this act, and in such case the [county] commissioners shall issue special bonds for such precinct, and a tax to pay the same shall be levied upon the property within the bounds of such precinct. Such precinct bonds shall be the same as other bonds, but shall contain a statement showing the special nature of such bonds." Held, that a precinct issuing bonds under the terms of this statute was not thereby impliedly created a body corporate in order to insure the collection of the coupons attached to such bonds. Jordan v. Cass County, 3 Dillon, 185. Blair v. West Point Precinct, 459 10. SAME NOTICE — Reference to STATUTE.— Held, further, that the mere fact that the bonds did not show upon their face that they were issued on behalf of the precinct was immaterial, when such fact appeared in the statute referred to upon the face of the bonds.

Id.

11. SAME LIABILITY OF COUNTY - STATUTE OF NEBRASKA.- Held, further, that such bonds, when issued by the proper officers of the county, were, in legal effect, bonds of the county, although voted by the inhabitants of the precinct, and to be paid by a tax to be levied upon the property within the precinct.

12. SAME

1d.

COLLECTION OF COUPONS-MANDAMUS.— Held, further, in an action on the coupons attached to such bonds, that suit should be brought against the county, and that the judgment, when recovered, should be enforced by mandamus against the officers of the county, commanding them to levy and collect upon the property within the bounds of the precinct the sum required for the payment of the judg ment. Id. 13. MUNICIPAL BONDS ISSUED "STATUTE OF MISSOURI.- Municipal bonds are not duly issued," under the laws of Missouri, unless the same have been duly registered in the office of the state auditor. Douglass v. Lincoln County, in the State of Missouri,

449