with notice of nature of funds on deposit by insurance agent; Hamilton v. Dooly, 15 Utah, 303, 49 Pac. 776, arguendo; Sackett v. Rumbaugh, 45 Fed. 37, holding trustee has right in equity to have a trust fund restored and trust deed re-executed.

Distinguished in Smith v. American Nat. Bk., 89 Fed. 840, 32 C. C. A. 368, holding cestui que trust could not sue innocent purchaser at law for conversion of trust funds.

Title to deposit in fiduciary capacity. Note, 42 Am. Rep. 169.

Parties seeking specific performance are sometimes remitted to court of law, but not unless remedy will be as effectual and complete as in equity. Approved in Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Blair, 130 Fed. 976, granting specific performance where life policy provided that on assured's death settlement should be had by issuance of annuity policy; Plummer v. Connecticut etc. Ins. Co., 1 Holmes, 270, Fed. Cas. 11,232, allowing bill in equity where remedy at law involved multiplicity of suits and impracticable computations; Partee v. Thomas, 11 Fed. 773, holding equity had jurisdiction of bill by cestui que trust out of possession to enforce execution of trust; Gowdy v. Grenn, 69 Fed. 866, denying equitable relief sought by bill to restrain registering officer from discharging any of his duties; Bumgardner v. Leavitt, 35 W. Va. 204, 13 S. E. 70, holding equity properly enforced contract for sale of stock where remedy at law would have been inadequate.

Where trustee, guilty of improperly converting trust funds into realty, has died, equity cannot decree conveyance of such real estate when necessary residuary devisees are not before the court; but the legal representatives being present, the proper course is to give money judgment against them, embracing value of property.

Approved in Mooney v. Byrne, 163 N. Y. 96, 97, 57 N. E. 166, awarding judgment of redemption in money for redemption in land, land held by bona fide purchaser; McPike v. Wells, 54 Miss. 156, holding intestate not bound by decree in case to which he was not a party.

11 Wall. 238-243, 20 L. Ed. 114, THE FANNIE.

Steamer approaching schooner is bound to keep out of the way, and give latter unobstructed passage; and if schooner performs her duty of keeping her course, steamer is liable for collision.

Approved in The Greystoke Castle, 199 Fed. 525, holding steamer liable for overtaking and running down tug; The Philadelphia, 199 Fed. 1303, holding tug liable in damages for failing to reverse engine when collision imminent; The Anna W., 181 Fed. 607, 608, holding tug liable in damages where it failed to allow for tide swinging its tow; Brigham v. Luckenbach, 140 Fed. 333, holding tug liable for collision with steamer

caused by jamming of wheel where it would not have happened if proper lookout kept; The W. G. Mason, 131 Fed. 635, determining liability for stranding of tow in charge of two tugs; The Richmond, 114 Fed. 210, applying rule, sailing vessel keeping course with lights burning; The North Star, 108 Fed. 445, holding steamer "North Star" liable, steamer "Siemens" failing under circumstances demanding it to change course; Squires v. Parker, 101 Fed. 844, 42 C. C. A. 51, applying rule where sailing vessel kept course though signaled to change it; Vernon v. International S. S. Co., 79 Wash. 26, 139 Pac. 646, holding where steamers are about to cross in fog, both must stop to determine respective courses; City of Marinette v. Goodrich Transit Co., 153 Wis. 95, 140 N. W. 1095, holding where lights are missing on city bridge, city must show collision was not direct result thereof; The Lucille, 15 Wall. 679, 21 L. Ed. 248, holding steamer approaching schooner in nearly parallel line liable for loss by collision; The Golden Grove, 13 Fed. 688, holding steamer liable for collision with sailing vessel where they were attempting to cross each other's paths; The Pymouth, 26 Fed. 880, holding sailing boat at fault for changing its course; The Oregon, 27 Fed. 752, holding both vessels at fault, schooner not having exhibited torch; The Iron Chief, 63 Fed. 290, 11 C. C. A. 196, applying presumption that steamer is guilty of negligence in colliding with schooner; The Captain Weber, 89 Fed. 960, 32 C. C. A. 452, holding steamer at fault for collision with sloop; Bill v. Smith, 39 Conn. 211, holding propeller liable for damage caused to dredger at anchor; Lord v. Hazeltine, 67 Me. 403, holding evidence convincing that schooner kept her course; Mailler v. Express Propeller Line, 61 N. Y. 316, holding steamer propeller liable for collision.

Duties required of two or more vessels on navigable waters to avoid
injuring each other and their occupants. Note, 121 Am. St. Rep.
49.

Duty of steamer to keep out of way of sailing vessel. Note, 75 Am.
Dec. 603.

Want of proper lookout can make no difference when it in no way contributed to disaster.

Approved in The Pocomoke, 150 Fed. 197, holding launch not liable for daytime collision for failure to have lookout other than navigator; The Fannie Hayden, 137 Fed. 283, 284, schooner at fault where only two men on deck were furling sail, though privileged vessel had no proper lookout; The Nettie Quill, 124 Fed. 671, exonerating steamer towing barge, mate properly stationed as lookout and all precautions taken to avoid obstruction; The Annie Lindsley, 104 U. S. 191, 26 L. Ed. 719, where cause of collision was held to be fault of brig in starboarding

helm; The Nacoochee, 137 U. S. 341, 34 L. Ed. 691, 11 Sup. Ct. 126, where fog was too dense for lookout to have seen steamer first; The Blue Jacket, 144 U. S. 360, 36 L. Ed. 478, 12 Sup. Ct. 718, where collision was due to fault of sailing vessel and lookout on tug was of no avail; The Canima, 23 Blatchf. 166, 32 Fed. 304, holding absence of captain and crew from boat moored at pier did not contribute to collision; Higbee v. The Nipoti Accame, 12 Fed. Cas. 126, holding question of lookout immaterial in collision between two sailing vessels; The George Murray, 22 Fed. 122, holding that lookout could have been of no service on schooner and latter not liable; The Havana, 54 Fed. 413, holding want of competent lookout immaterial where schooner kept her course on clear day; Lord v. Hazeltine, 67 Me. 403, holding question of proper lookout immaterial; The Excelsior, 12 Fed. 201, holding absence of proper lookout on schooner contributed to loss by collision; M'Cabe v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 31 Fed. 240, holding that lookout forward might have prevented collision and schooner therefore at fault.

11 Wall. 244-256, 20 L. Ed. 86, LEVY v. STEWART.

Statutes of limitation exist in all the States, and are regarded as statutes of repose and presume claims extinguished if not litigated in proper forum within prescribed time.

Approved in American Tobacco Co. v. People's Tobacco Co., 204 Fed. 61, 122 C. C. A. 372, holding time for action on account of conspiracy under anti-trust law does not commerge to run until discovery of conspiracy; Lynchburg etc. Mill Co. v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 140 Fed. 724, conduct of insurance company inducing delay in bringing suit beyond time limit in policy for stated purpose of investigating claim suspends operation of time limit; In re Cornwall, 9 Blatchf. 127, Fed. Cas. 3250, holding one whose claim is barred by statute cannot petition to have his debtor declared bankrupt; Andrae v. Redfield, 12 Blatchf. 411, Fed. Cas. 367, where court of equity refused to annul statute on ground that it was waived; In re Eldridge, 2 Hughes, 257, Fed. Cas. 4331, holding Federal bankruptcy court will respect State statutes of limitation.

Statutes of limitation generally do not cease to run where a first suit is abated or discontinued and a second begun.

Approved in Harrison v. Meyer, 92 U. S. 115, 23 L. Ed. 607, prior suit filed and abandoned caused no interruption.

Proclamations of President marked beginning and end of the Civil War. Approved in United States v. One Thousand etc. Cotton, 27 Fed. Cas. 328, holding Congress and executive department determined when war was at end.

Statutes of limitation were suspended during time of Rebellion, and rule applies to actions founded on bills and notes.

Approved in Sunset Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pomona, 164 Fed. 576, holding telephone companies do not come under head of telegraph companies, so as to enjoy privileges of right of way over public lands, under Federal statute; Caperton v. Bowyer, 14 Wall. 236, 20 L. Ed. 884, action for false imprisonment limited by Virginia code to one year; Ross v. Jones, 22 Wall. 587, 22 L. Ed. 733, applying rule as to controversy between citizens of Confederate States; Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. Gordon, 28 Ark. 117, action on contract; Jones v. Johnson, 28 Ark. 233, suit in equity to recover land; Selden v. Preston, 11 Bush, 204, action on note between citizens of both sides in Civil War; Aby v. Brigham, 28 La. Ann. 841, action for money advanced and commissions; Ahnert v. Zann, 40 Wis. 629, holding rule applied as to citizens of Wisconsin and Louisiana so long only as States were in possession of hostile forces; Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 654, 37 L. Ed. 319, 13 Sup. Ct. 469, and Brockway v. Oswego, 40 Fed. 615, both arguendo.

Distinguished in Harrison v. Myer, 92 U. S. 115, 23 L. Ed. 607, holding rule did not apply as to citizens of same State, under control of United States, during war; Mayo v. Cartwright, 30 Ark. 414, holding exception did not extend to interrupt adverse possession, as against trustee of personal trust; McKinzie v. Hill, 51 Mo. 307, 11 Am. Rep. 453, holding Rebellion did not stop running of statute as to action on note between residents of same county in Missouri.

Absence as suspending statute of limitations. Note, 13 Am. Dec. 370, 372.

State decisions not founded upon any express enactment are not obligatory upon Federal courts when reasons assigned are not satisfactory. Approved in Murray v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 92 Fed. 871, 35 C. C. A. 62, holding State decisions not binding as to construction of statute of limitations, according to rules of common law.

Questions of State law as to which State court decisions must be followed in actions originating in, or removed to, Federal courts. Note, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 423.

Where debt has not been confiscated during war, right to sue revives with peace restored, and both remedy and right are returned to creditor.

Approved in Hubbard v. Matthews, 54 N. Y. 49, 13 Am. Rep. 565, holding dissolution of partnership by force of war did not change prior contract of indorsement by firm.

11 Wall. 256-259, 20 L. Ed. 79, GARNETT v. UNITED STATES.

Supreme Court can only examine proceedings of District Court of District of Columbia after revision by Supreme Court of District, and then only in connection with action of higher court.

Approved in McVeigh v. United States, 11 Wall. 266, 20 L. Ed. 81, Tyler v. Defrees, 11 Wall. 344, 20 L. Ed. 163, and The Confiscation Cases, 1 Woods, 225, 229, Fed. Cas. 3097, all applying rule in actions under confiscation acts.

11 Wall. 259–268, 20 L. Ed. 80, McVEIGH v. UNITED STATES.

After decree pro confesso, defendant occupies same relation to record as defendant against whom judgment by default is taken.

Approved in Estate of Davis, 151 Cal. 328, 86 Pac. 187, holding after person is determined not to be an heir, no prejudice results from dismissal of petition for distribution; Walter Cabinet Co. v. Russell, 250 Ill. 421, 95 N. E. 464, holding where defendant sets off commission for sales, plaintiff can be compelled to produce only the books containing defendant's entries.

Distinguished in Lawson v. Black Diamond Coal Min. Co., 44 Wash. 32, 86 Pac. 1121, holding statute striking complaint from files for failure to answer interrogatories does not intend judgment for defendant; Trough v. Trough, 59 W. Va. 469, 115 Am. St. Rep. 940, 8 Ann. Cas. 837, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1185, 53 S. E. 632, holding court cannot refuse defendant in divorce, right to defend on account of failure to pay alimony pendente lite.

Constitutionality of statutes authorizing judgment without notice.
Note, 48 Am. Dec. 270.

Alien enemy assailed in the courts is entitled to all defenses, and may sue out writ of error in action for forfeiture of his goods under confiscation acts.

Approved in Watts, Watts & Co. v. Unione Austriaea Di Navigazione, 224 Fed. 193, holding it discretionary with Federal court as to whether it will hear suit between citizens of two nations at war; Barber v. International Co., 74 Conn. 658, 92 Am. St. Rep. 250, 51 Atl. 859, denying authority empowering receivers to employ counsel to represent company defendant, receiver plaintiff; Keele v. Keele, 118 Mo. App. 275, 94 S. W. 780, heir whose application to be heard in opposition to allowance of claim against decedent's estate may, under Rev. Stats. 1899, § 214, move to vacate order allowing claim; Scott v. Day-Bristol etc. Min. Co., 37 Nev. 304, 142 Pac. 626, holding legislature cannot refuse right to foreign corporation to defend taking of its property, even though it has not performed prescribed conditions; Compagnie Universelle de Telegraphic