affiant must swear he is justly entitled to recover, with reference to all defendants.

Service of process constituting due process of law. Note, 50. L. R. A. 600.

Writ of attachment being in due form and appearing to have been regularly served on the property, court obtained full jurisdiction over the

case.

Approved in Bank of Colfax v. Richardson, 34 Or. 531, 75 Am. St. Rep. 674, 54 Pac. 363, holding officer's return attached by "posting copy" in conspicuous place sufficiently supporting judgment on collateral attack; dissenting opinion in Bray v. McClury, 55 Mo. 139, majority holding judgment void, where affidavit stated nonresidence of defendant on belief.

Distinguished in Nachtrieb v. Stoner, 1 Colo. 430, holding sale void where writ of attachment was irregular on its face.

If party voluntarily leaves his country or residence, for purpose of engaging in hostilities against former, he cannot complain of legal proceedings, regularly prosecuted against him as absentee, on ground of his inability to return or hold communication with the place.

Approved in Montgomery v. Samory, 99 U. S. 489, 25 L. Ed. 377, refusing to disturb title of purchaser at foreclosure sale; Jenkins v. Hannan, 26 Fed. 664, refusing to set aside judgment obtained, on publication of summons, against one having left State in rebel army; Harper v. Ely, 56 Ill. 183, holding valid a foreclosure sale, as against grantee of such party; Seymour v. Bailey, 66 Ill. 296, 297, Hall v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 68 Ill. 361, and Foreman v. Carter, 9 Kan. 680, all refusing relief against foreclosure on property of nonresident enemy; Deitrich v. Lang, 11 Kan. 644, holding valid a title acquired by foreclosure on property of alien enemy; Thomas v. Mahone, 9 Bush, 123, sustaining judgment to sell land of Confederate soldier, on service by publication; Dorsey v. Thompson, 37 Md. 44, holding notice by publication valid, though defendant was in Confederate service and could not receive it; Dorsey v. Dorsey, 37 Md. 80, 11 Am. Rep. 534, refusing to disturb decrees against Confederate soldiers as absentees; De Jarnett v. De Giverville, 56 Mo. 447, refusing such a one relief against sale under trust deed; Dorr v. Gibboney, 3 Hughes, 389, Fed. Cas. 4006, holding void a publication of notice, in Virginia, as against citizen of New York, during war.

Distinguished in Pennywit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 626, 22 Am. Rep. 357, holding court of seceding State had no jurisdiction to give judgment against resident of loyal State; Walker v. Beauchler, 27 Gratt. 521,

relieving against sale under trust deed, where debtor was within Confederate lines.

Criticised in McVeigh v. Bank, 26 Gratt. 811, where notice of dishonor left at house of party, in Federal lines, while party was in Confederate lines, not sufficient; Haymond v. Camden, 22 W. Va. 194, 199, 202, holding void judicial proceedings within Union lines, by publication, against parties within Confederate lines; McVeigh v. Bank of Old Dominion, 26 Gratt. 846, holding insufficient a notice of dishonor left at house of party, within Federal lines, party himself being within rebel lines.

Suits by and against alien enemies. Note, 96 Am. Dec. 631, 632.
Alien enemies as litigants. Note, 5 B. R. C. 596.

11 Wall. 591-609, 20 L. Ed. 220, REED v. UNITED STATES.

Where general owner retains possession, command and navigation of vessel, and contracts for specified voyage, the arrangement is mere affreightment sounding in contract, and charterer or freighter is not responsible as owner.

Approved in New Orleans-Belize etc. S. S. Co. v. United States, 239 U. S. 206, 60 L. Ed. 230, 36 Sup. Ct. 78, holding United States not responsible for injuries occurring to vessel chartered for military transportation; United States v. Hooslef, 237 U. S. 16, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 286, 59 L. Ed. 820, 35 Sup. Ct. 459, refusing to allow tax on charter-parties; Jebsen v. A Cargo of Hemp, 228 Fed. 146, holding charter giving charterer right to sublet, and reserving a lien to owner on any freight, gave owner lien on freight received under subletting contract; Pacific Improvement Co. v. Shubach-Hamilton S. S. Co., 214 Fed. 859, construing charter-party as contract of affreightment making owner liable for loss resulting from too early an entry into Bering Sea; Gibson v. Manetto Co., 194 Fed. 333, 114 C. C. A. 291, holding vessel chartered at monthly rental was demised so as to render charterer liable for injury; Grimberg v. Columbia Packers' Assn., 47 Or. 262, 263, 114 Am. St. Rep. 927, 8 Ann. Cas. 491, 83 Pac. 196, construing charter of vessel as one of affreightment merely; The T. A. Goddard, 12 Fed. 178, holding vessel liable in rem for injury to cargo; The Craigallion, 20 Fed. 750, where ship chartered by month was liable for negligent injury to cargo; The Nicaragua, 71 Fed. 726, holding general owners liable for captain's failure to procure proper papers; Bramble v. Culmer, 78 Fed. 502, 24 C. C. A. 182, holding appointment of pilot by charterers did not itself make them responsible as owners.

Distinguished in Hahlo v. Benedict, 216 Fed. 305, 132 C. C. A. 447, holding where master was under orders of charterer, he was his agent, so as to render charterer liable for negligently running vessel ashore.

Courts are not inclined to regard contract of affreightment as a demise of the ship if end in view can be accomplished without transfer of vessel to charterer.

Approved in Swift v. Tatner, 89 Ga. 667, 32 Am. St. Rep. 106, 15 S. E. 844, holding, where that intention was not manifested by charterparty, contract was not one of demise.

Where vessel is demised or let to hire, and owner parts with possession, command and navigation, hirer becomes owner during term of contract, may appoint master and crew, and is responsible for their acts.

Approved in Clyde Commercial S. S. Co. v. West India S. S. Co., 169 Fed. 277, 94 C. C. A. 551, holding vessel held in quarantine is "within restraint of prince and peoples' so as to warrant time allowance on charter-party; The Santona, 152 Fed. 518, holding charterer cannot deduct from hire time spent in quarantine, where contract is silent thereon; Hills v. Leeds, 149 Fed. 880, construing charter for yacht for portion of year, hirer to control and pay captain as a letting of ship; The Del Norte, 119 Fed. 119, 55 C. C. A. 220, holding neither vessel nor master liable for wrongful acts of master and steward; The Del Norte, 111 Fed. 544, holding vessel demised, vessel not liable to charterer for malfeasance of steward; American Steel Barge Co. v. Cargo of Coal, 107 Fed. 967, holding under charter ship demised, charterer in possession and control as owner; Auten v. Bennett, 183 N. Y. 501, 76 N. E. 610, where, under charter, owner agreed to deliver vessel at certain port, and charterer was to have control of vessel, there was lease of vessel though owner paid wages; United States v. Shea, 152 U. S. 186, 38 L. Ed. 406, 14 Sup. Ct. 521, holding government liable for rent while vessel was laid up for repairs.

Demise of vessel by charter-party. Note, 5 Ann. Cas. 623.

Prima facie evidence of ownership of ship from register. Note, 24 E. R. C. 215.

Jurisdiction of Court of Claims does not extend to torts.

Approved in Morgan v. United States, 14 Wall. 534, 20 L. Ed. 739, where claimants could not recover for being compelled to put to sea by quartermaster; Reybold v. United States, 15 Wall. 207, 21 L. Ed. 58, where, master having proceeded at quartermaster's suggestion, claimants could not recover.

Where owners were employed, under threat of impressment, to transport military supplies from one port to another, at stipulated per diem compensation, retaining possession and command of vessel, the relation of United States to venture was that of charterer for hire and shipper of cargo, not liable for sea risks.

Approved in Shaw v. United States, 93 U. S. 239, 240, 23 L. Ed. 881, holding that such vessel was not in service of United States.

Which of two or more is master of person conceded to be servant of one. Note, 37 L. R. A. 57.

Authority of master to sell ship. Note, 24 E. R. C. 319.

11 Wall. 610-616, 20 L. Ed. 223, DUNPHY v. KLEINSMITH.

Territorial legislature has no power to pass law in contravention of Constitution of United States or which deprives Supreme or District Courts of territory of chancery as well as common-law jurisdiction.

Approved in Cast v. Cast, 1 Utah, 118, holding that territorial legislature could not confer divorce jurisdiction on probate courts; Enright v. Grant, 5 Utah, 340, 15 Pac. 270, holding supplementary proceedings not exclusive of equitable remedy by creditors' bill; Brereton v. Miller, 7 Utah, 430, 27 Pac. 82, holding that local statute as to foreclosure could not curtail jurisdiction conferred by organic act; Stevens v. Baker, 1 Wash. Ter. 322, holding invalid an act abolishing distinction between action at law and in equity; dissenting opinion in Territory of Arizona v. Duffield, 1 Ariz. 70, 25 Pac. 479, majority holding indictment bad, as containing two distinct charges; Campbell v. Shivers, 1 Ariz. 169, 25 Pac. 543, arguendo.

Distinguished in Salisbury v. Sands, 2 Dill. 273, Fed. Cas. 12,251, holding that territorial legislature might provide for constructive service in foreclosure suit; Palmer v. Cowdery, 2 Colo. 3, holding that manner of serving process and publishing notice of suit is to be regulated by law of territory.

Suit, in territorial court, in nature of creditor's bill, to reach property fraudulently conveyed, being clear case of equity, a trial by jury, verdict for damages and judgment on verdict as mere conclusion of law from facts found, held error.

Approved in Lee v. Thompson, 3 Woods, 174, Fed. Cas. 8202, where judgment upon verdict, in Court of Admiralty, was held error; Creighton v. Hershfield, 1 Mont. 648, holding void a deficiency judgment in equitable foreclosure.

Disapproved in Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 653, 21 L. Ed. 967, holding that forms and procedures in territorial courts are matters for regulation by assemblies; Creighton v. Hershfield, 2 Mont. 387 (overruling 1 Mont. 648), holding that court might render deficiency judgment in foreclosure proceeding.

Distinguished in Palmer v. Cowdery, 2 Colo. 3. holding law of territory regulates service of process and publication.

Criticised in Palmer v. Cowdery, 2 Colo. 7, holding that law of territory regulates publication of notice of suit.

Suit by creditor, on behalf of himself and other creditors, to reach property fraudulently transferred by debtor, in territory where both systems prevail, is one for chancery and not common-law jurisdiction.

Approved in Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 467, Fed. Cas. 9112, sustaining bill by certain creditors on their own behalf; Mann v. Appel, 31 Fed. 383, overruling demurrer to bill of this nature; Paddock-Hawley Iron Co. v. McDonald, 61 Mo. App. 567, sustaining creditors' bill to reach property in hands of trustee.

Action by general creditor against third party for fraud in disposing of debtor's property or preventing collection of claim. Note, 47 L. R. A. 435, 437.

Whether creditor of fraudulent vendor may maintain action against vendee converting or disposing of property fraudulently transferred. Note, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 548.

In chancery courts, the judge or chancellor is responsible for the decree; if questions be submitted to jury, its verdict is merely advisory.

Approved in Lee v. Thompson, 3 Woods, 174, Fed. Cas. 8202, where judgment on verdict in Admiralty Court was held error; The Empire, 19 Fed. 560, setting aside verdict of jury in admiralty case; The City of Toledo, 73 Fed. 225, holding that jury in admiralty cases, provided for in Revised Statutes, section 566, is merely advisory; Evans v. Nealis, 87 Ind. 268, holding that in equity case judge might make findings regardless of verdict; Ketcham v. Brazil Block Coal Co., 88 Ind. 527, holding that instructions to jury, in equity case, are no ground for new trial; Hulley v. Chedic, 22 Nev. 145, 58 Am. St. Rep. 736, 36 Pac. 786, holding it error to direct general verdict and render judgment thereon in equity case; Ramsey v. Hart, 1 Idaho, 424, where the case was held to be an action at law.

Effect of substituting one person for another as defendant-Pleading, practice, form of judgment, etc. Note, 1 Am. St. Rep. 801. Decree in equitable proceeding by creditors to recover property fraudulently assigned should not be for damages but for an account, and transferee will usually be entitled to rebate for amount justly due him.

Approved in Lippincott v. Shaw Car. Co., 34 Fed. 574, where mortgagees of property of insolvent corporation were entitled to share ratably in proceeds of foreclosure; Randolph v. Allen, 73 Fed. 30, 19 C. C. A. 353, holding that damages could not be recovered in creditors' suit; Harrigan v. Gilchrist, 121 Wis. 252, 99 N. W. 942, arguendo.

Distinguished in Hinton v. Ellis, 27 W. Va. 425, where judgment for amount received in fraud of creditors was upheld. ·

Whether territorial legislature may legalize verdict rendered by threefourths of jury, undecided.