INDEX.

ACCOMPLICE-

1. An accomplice in a crime is not disqualified from being a witness, but
his evidence is to be received with great caution, and, as a general
rule, especially in crimes involving great moral turpitude, is to be
wholly disregarded as unworthy of credit, unless corroborated by
credible testimony. United States v. Harries, 311.

2. The evidence of an accomplice in the crime charged, is to be received
with great caution, and, as a general rule, will be rejected, unless
corroborated, as to the material facts stated by him, by credible wit-
nesses. United States v. Smith, 323.

See INTERNAL REVENUE.

ACTION-

1. If, in a joint action of tort, a verdict is rendered against all the de-
fendants, when as to one there was no evidence, it is a verdict
against evidence, and may be set aside on that ground. United
States v. Chaffee, 147.

2. Where, in an action in tort against several defendants, they sever in
their pleas, and assert different defenses to the suit, if a verdict is
returned against all, and there is no testimony against one, the case
may be non prossed as to him, and judgment entered against the
others. Ib.

3. There are authorities that, where the plea is joint, this may be done,
but as to that point there is some conflict. If this was the only
ground of exception to this verdict, the court would overrule it, and
refuse a new trial, upon the agreement of the district attorney to
enter a nolle prosequi as to William M. Chaffee. Ib.

4. A right of action for a tort is not assignable by operation of law or
otherwise, and an action for damages resulting from a tort can only
be sustained by the person directly injured thereby, and not by one
alleging a collateral or resulting injury. Ware v. Brown, 267.

ACTION-Continued.

Adoption-Bankruptcy.

5. No right of action exists against a notary public for an alleged official
malfeasance, in corruptly and falsely certifying to the execution and
acknowledgment of an assignment of an interest in real estate in
favor of a purchaser under such fraudulent assignment, for damages
resulting from his defective title, arising from the malfeasance of the
notary public. Ib.

6. The redress for the malfeasance of the notary can only be obtained by
the person to whom the fraudulent assignment was made, and whose
title was thereby invalidated. Ib.

See STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

ADOPTION. See INTERNAL Revenue.

ADMIRALTY. See INSPECTION; SALVAGE; COMMON CARRIERS;
FERRY-BOATS; STEAMBOATS; LIEN; PARTIES; LOOK-OUT.

ADVANCES. See PURCHASER.

AGENCY. See POSSESSION.

AMENDMENT. See INTERNAL REVENUE.

APPEAL BOND. See SUIT.

APPEARANCE. See EQUITY (Injunction).

ASSIGNEE. See PARTIES; BANKRUPTCY.

ASSIGNMENT. See ACTION.

BANKRUPTCY-

DISCHARGE.

1. Payments of money to preferred creditors, or transfers or conveyances
of property, by one adjudicated a bankrupt on his own petition,
made before the passage of the bankrupt act of March 2, 1867, though
fraudulent, are not a bar to the discharge of the bankrupt. In the
matter of Hollenshade, 210.

2. Section 29 of the act, specifying what shall be a bar to a discharge,
clearly distinguishes between fraudulent acts committed before and
after the passage of the act. Ib.

3. As to fraudulent transfers prior to the passage of the act, section 35
shows it was not the intention of Congress they should, with one ex-
ception, constitute a bar to a discharge. That section provides that
all fraudulent transfers, etc., shall be void, and makes it the duty of
the assignee to sue for and recover, for the benefit of creditors, all
property of the bankrupt fraudulently assigned or conveyed. Ib.

Bankruptcy.

BANKRUPTCY-Continued.

4. Under section 29 of the bankrupt act, the failure of a merchant or
tradesman to keep proper books of accounts, is a bar to a discharge
in bankruptcy. In the matter of Jorey & Sons, 336.

FRAUD.

5. Where a member of an insolvent firm executed a note to a creditor,
payable one day after date, with a power of attorney to confess
judgment, the creditor knowing the insolvency of the firm, and of
the member of the firm giving the note and cognovit, and judgment
was entered on the note and the property of the debtor seized on
execution by the sheriff, and the debtor soon after applied for the
benefit of the bankrupt law, and an assignee was appointed: Held,
in an action of replevin brought by the assignee in bankruptcy
against the sheriff to recover possession of the property of the bank-
rupt, levied on to satisfy the execution:

1. That the giving of the note by the bankrupt firm, with a cognovit to
confess judgment, was a fraudulent preference of a creditor within
the meaning of section 35 of the bankrupt act.

2. That such preference being in fraud of the act, the note, warrant of
attorney, judgment, and execution were nullities, and that the title
to the property levied on, vested in the assignee in bankruptcy, who
had a right to its possession, to be disposed of for the equal benefit
of all the creditors. Haughey v. Albin, 244.

6. A payment by the maker of a promissory note to an indorser, the
maker knowing his insolvency at the time, and the indorser receiv-
ing such payment, having reasonable cause to believe the maker to
be insolvent, is a fraudulent preference of such indorser within the
meaning of section 35 of the bankrupt act; and the assignee in bank-
ruptcy may sue for and recover the amount so paid for the benefit
of all the creditors. Ahl v. Thorner, 287.

LIEN.

7. Where a chattel mortgage was given, to secure payment of a promis-
sory note, payable one day after date, and the mortgaged property,
being books, stationery, etc., remains in possession of the mortgagor,
who carries on his business as a retail bookseller, as before the mort-
gage, selling the stock mortgaged, and replacing it by the purchase
of other stock, until there can be no identification of the articles
specified in the mortgage, and the mortgagee assents, for years, to
this course, such mortgagee, when proceedings in bankruptcy are
commenced against the mortgagor, has no right, under the mortgage,
to the possession of the stock in his possession at the time of the
bankruptcy. In the matter of Manly, 261.

Beer-Character.

BANKRUPTCY-Continued.

8. Under the facts stated, the mortgagee has no lien on the stock, and can
only share pro rata with other creditors, in the proceeds of the sale
of the stock. Ib.

PROVING DEBT.

9. The clause of section 39 of the bankrupt act, providing that a creditor
of a bankrupt, who, knowing the insolvency of the debtor, receives
money or property from him in payment, "shall not be allowed to
prove his debt in bankrupty," does not apply, if the creditor, before
presenting his claim to the assignee in bankrupty, makes a full sur-
render of the money or property transferred to him. In the matter
of Reece & Brother, 359.

10. Section 23 of the bankrupt act, by clear implication, allows the cred-
itor to make such surrender, and on doing so, permits him to prove
his claim against the bankrupt's estate, and entitles him to his divi-
dends as a creditor.

Ib.

11. The clause above quoted from section 39 is limited in its operation to
cases where the assignee in bankruptcy is compelled to resort to legal
measures for the recovery of the property illegally transferred to the
creditor. Ib.

BEER. See INTERNAL REVENUE.

BOND. See INTERNAL REVENUE; SURETIES; DECLARATION; REVENUE;
POSTMASTER.

BONDED WAREHOUSE. See INTERNAL Revenue.

BUSINESS. See INTERNAL REVENUE.

CATTLE BROKER-

A farmer purchasing stock to consume the products of his farm,
though with the intention of selling it, is not a cattle broker within
the statute. United States v. Kenton, 97.

See INTERNAL REVENUE.

CERTIFICATE. See ACTION.

CHANCERY. See EQUITY.

CHARACTER-

Proof of the good character of the party charged with crime, if there is
doubt of his guilt upon the evidence, may afford good ground for a
presumption of innocence, but will not be available to overcome or
set aside satisfactory proof of criminality. United States v. Smith,

323.