COUNSEL. of this remuneration, and admitted the amount of debt due for such remuneration to be a certain sum, and promised to pay it: Held, that these facts did not constitute any obligation on the part of the defendant to pay. Kennedy vs. Broun, COUNSEL FEES. 357 1. Are recoverable upon a bond for payment of costs and damages. Corcoran vs. Judson, 251 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 1. Facts certified by are not traversable on certiorari. Commissioners of Worcester, 2. Nor will their proceedings be reversed for technical inaccuracy. Id. COURTS. See CORPORATIONS, 9-10. JUDGMENT, 4. I. Jurisdiction of Federal Courts. 1. An action was commenced in the Supreme Court of New York by A., a resident of that State, against B., a foreign corporation located in Massachusetts. The cause of action was a breach of implied contract, in neglecting to protest certain drafts forwarded to B. by C., a banking corporation located in the State of Ohio. The cause of action was assigned by the Ohio Bank to the plaintiff. The action was commenced by summons, which was served by publication, and a warrant of attachment was afterwards issued by which the defendants' property in New York was attached under the provisions of the code of procedure applicable to foreign corporations. The defendants entered an appearance in the State Court, and obtained an order removing the case to the U. S. Circuit Court under the 11th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. On an application to remand the case to the State Court for want of jurisdiction: Held, that the State proceeding is substantially one of foreign attachment, and that it is a "suit" within the meaning of the 11th section. Barney vs. The Globe Bank, 2. The validity of the removal is to be tested by the 12th section. The objection that the defendant is not an inhabitant nor found in the district at the time of serving the writ, cannot avail the plaintiff in a case where the defendant has appeared in the State Court and removed the cause to a Circuit Court of the United States. There is no distinction in principle between the case where the defendant, having removed the cause to the Circuit Court, moves to have it remanded for want of jurisdiction (Sayles vs. North Western Ins. Co., 2 Curtis C. C. 212), and the case where a plaintiff makes a similar application. Id. 3. A corporation is a "citizen" within the meaning of both these sections. Id: 4. That clause of the 11th section which provides that no District or Circuit Court shall have cognisance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such Court to recover said contents if no such assignment had been made,” has no application to a case like the present. This is not a suit to recover the "contents" of a chose in action within the meaning of the Act. Only those choses in action are included within the term "contents" which are founded on a contract containing within itself some promise or duty to be performed. When the suit is founded on a mere right of action to recover damages imposed by law for a delinquency, the clause has no application, and the assignee may bring an action in this Court if the other conditions required by the Judiciary Act exist. ld. 5. The attachment issued under the State process will hold the goods 221 COURTS. attached until the final judgment in this Court. The words "original process," as used in the 12th section, include any mesne process issuing out of the State Court by which the property is seized before the case is removed into this Court. Barney vs. The Globe Bank, 221 6. The Federal Courts have jurisdiction and power to issue the writ of mandamus to a municipal corporation to compel it to perform its duty, although such duty is created and enjoined by state law alone. United States ex rel. Learned vs. Burlington, II. Jurisdiction of State Courts. See DRAFT, 2, 3. 7. Where on a return to a writ of habeas corpus, a State Court is judicially apprised that the party is in custody under the authority of the United States, such Court can proceed no further. The prisoner is then within the dominion and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. re Jordan, 394 In 749 8. Under the second section of chapter 25 of the Laws of Congress of 1862, it is declared that "hereafter no person under the age of eighteen years shall be mustered into the United States service, and the oath of enlistment taken by the recruit shall be conclusive as to his age." The prisoner having been mustered into the United States service, and having, at the time of enlistment, made a declaration under oath that he was twenty-one years of age, and these facts having been stated in the return to the writ of habeas corpus by the party claiming to hold him in custody under color of the authority of the United States: Held, that the state Judge was "judicially apprised" that the prisoner was in custody under the authority of the United States, and that he was ousted of his jurisdiction. Id. 9. The case of Ableman vs. Booth, 21 How. U. S. 506, approved and followed. Id. 10. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction to review and correct the proceedings of inferior Courts, except where it is expressly excluded by statute, or in a case stated by the parties, wherein they agree to submit their disputes to auditors or referees without expressly reserving their right to a writ of error. Chase vs. Miller, 11. This Court has jurisdiction of a contested election, on certiorari, where it appears from the record that no facts were in dispute; hence the rulings of the Court below upon questions of law purely are reviewable here. Id. 12. This Court is as much bound to take cognisance of questions involving the constitutionality of the election laws, even though they may be raised in a contested election, as they are to pass upon the constitutionality of an Act of Assembly relating to any other subject, as long as the Legislature does not take away that jurisdiction. Id. 13. The 155th section of the Act of 2d July, 1839, giving to Courts of Quarter Sessions the same powers that are conferred on committees of the Legislature, to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers in contested elections, is only a grant of power for the specific purposes named, and does not make the decision of the Court below, like that of the Legislature, final and conclusive. Id. 14. Bills of exceptions are not allowed in the Courts of Quarter Sessions, therefore no question which arises outside of the record can be reviewed by this Court. Id. 15. A statute directing a Court to determine a case "at the next term," does not prohibit such Court to determine it after the expiration of the term, if the words of the statute are affirmative only. Such a statute is merely directory, and negative words are necessary to oust the jurisdiction of the Court when it has once attached. Stevenson vs. Lawrence, €146 409 COVENANT. See EASEMENT, 3. 1. FOR TITLE RUNNING WITH the Land, 193, 257 566 2. No covenant can be implied in conveyance of real estate in New 3. Covenant by executors against their own acts does not contain a 5. One who, in expectation of a reward, withholds from the owner, V. Murder. 6. A statute of New York of 1860 was held by the Court of Appeals, 7. The statute in regard to writs of error in criminal cases, only 8. Evidence in capital cases--exception to decisions and charge of the CUSTOM. See CONTRACT, 7. 1. The custom of the lake ports, that on the failure of the consignees 178 43 182 287 DAMAGES. 1. Person in possession of land under contract to purchase may main- DEBTOR. See CORPORATIONS, 8, 9. DEEDS OF TRUST. TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES, 2. 1. Cannot volunteer protection to claims of third persons with whom DECEDENT. 764 Lund vs. 125 1. Right to disposition of body of decedent after burial belongs to next 503 2. Where the domicil of testator and all his personal property are in 4. Sale of lands by administrators and guardians as against infant 118 . DEED. 1. President of corporation not liable on bond signed in his official 2. Deed absolute on its face will be held a mortgage, if it appear to be 3. Memorandum of alterations, &c., should be recorded, and the Judge 182 254 439 641, 705 1. Liability of owner for injuries by. Munn vs. Reed, 1. A domicil once acquired continues till a new one is gained. While 2. An inhabitant of A. on 30th March leaves that place with the inten- DRAFT. I Misspelling of Name. 735 1. One Spangler was properly enrolled among the militia, from whom DRAFT. 3. Where a draft was made under a law of Congress, but under the II. Tax by Municipal Corporation to exempt its Citizens. 4. Under the Act of Congress of March 3d, 1863, ch. 73, for enrolling See EMINENT DOMAIN, 1, 2. EASEMENT. See EJECTMENT, 1, 2. PARTY-WALL, 1. 1. RECIPROCAL, 2. Loss BY ABANDONMENT, 3. Where tenants in common lay out a lot as a street and covenant EJECTMENT. . 621 449 513 382 1. Cannot be maintained against a municipal corporation by proof of 2. Will not lie for an easement of flowing the land with water. Wilk- 3. Lease after lessor has conveyed all his interest may be foundation ELECTION DISTRICT. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 21. ELECTION OF REMEDIES. 1. Bank of Beloit vs. Beale, EMINENT DOMAIN. ' 1. It is provided by 5, c. 81, of R. S. of 1840, that in locating 2. The right of eminent domain confers upon the Legislature autho- VOL. XI.-50 506 247 564 658 |