Actual violence is not necessary to constitute duress. Moral compulsion by threats of injury by imprisonment, etc., is sufficient to invalidate a contract.

Approved in Burnes v. Burnes, 132 Fed. 493, where surviving partner threatened to administer estate as survivor unless corporation formed and stock divided between heirs, there was no duress; Jordan v. Beecher, 143 Ga. 147, L. R. A. 1915D, 1122, 84 S. E. 551, applying rule in action for cancellation of deed where criminal proceedings against husband induced wife to convey to husband's creditor; First Nat. Bank v. Sargent, 65 Neb. 601, 59 L. R. A. 296, 91 N. W. 597, upholding instruction defining duress; Fountain v. Bigham, 235 Pa. 46, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1185, 84 Atl. 135, in action on bond, threat of lawful imprisonment is not duress unless made for an unlawful purpose; Price v. Bank of Poynette, 144 Wis. 201, 128 N. W. 899, applying rule in action to recover value of personal property where bill of sale was signed under threats; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 111 Ala. 467, 20 South. 654, holding settlement of claim under policy, procured by threats of imprisonment, void; Kennedy v. Roberts, 105 Iowa, 528, 75 N. W. 365, refusing recovery on note procured by threats of arrest; Hatch v. Barrett, 34 Kan. 235, 8 Pac. 137, holding note procured by duress void in hands of bona fide holder; Tillman v. Ryan, 168 Pa. St. 492, 32 Atl. 90, granting recovery of money obtained by arrest of party.

Distinguished in United States v. Huckabee, 16 Wall. 432, 21 L. Ed. 464, holding no duress in sale of iron works to Confederacy after consultation and refusing recovery for seizure; Mason v. United States, 17 Wall. 74, 21 L. Ed. 566, holding change in contract for muskets, by government, without duress, and refusing recovery; Wood v. Craft, 85 Ala. 263, 4 South. 650, refusing to set aside conveyance for duress by third party where price was adequate, deed duly acknowledged, etc.

Contracts procured by threats to prosecute relative. Note, 26
L. R. A. 52.

Judgments were not liens at common law, but by United States statutes judgments of Federal courts have the same effect as judgments of State courts in the respective Federal districts.

Approved in Cooke v. Avery, 147 U. S. 387, 37 L. Ed. 213, 13 Sup. Ct. 345, holding Federal court has jurisdiction to try title to land, resting on validity of lien acquired by judgment of Federal court; Thompson v. Avery, 11 Utah, 234, 39 Pac. 835, holding judgment of fine in criminal action recovered by United States creates a lien, subject to statute of limitations.

Lien of Federal court judgment. Note, 47 L. R. A. 469.

Judgment liens confer a right to levy on land to the exclusion of other adverse interests subsequently acquired, but constitute no property or right in the land itself.

Approved in United States v. Merriam, 161 Fed. 306, 88 C. C. A. 349, under eminent domain statutes of Hawaii, judgment of condemnation must be filed and recorded before property vests in plaintiff; Hunter v. State Bank, 65 Fla. 206, 61 South. 499, where record showed beneficial interest in judgment debtor when in fact he only had qualified interest, those having beneficial interest not of record were estopped from asserting it; Meier v. Kelly, 22 Or. 139, 29 Pac. 267, holding lien attaches only to actual interest of judgment debtor in land, and determining rights in land; Borst v. Nalle, 28 Gratt. 433, holding land transferred to agent to facilitate sale not liable for agent's debts.

Estates and interests affected by judgment lien. Note, 93 Am. Dec.
347.

Estates and interests to which judgment liens attach. Note, 117
Am. St. Rep. 777.

Rights and position of third parties in firm realty. Note, 28
L. R. A. 168.

12 Wall. 159-162, 20 L. Ed. 259, MILLER v. THE STATE.

Quo warranto to try title of railroad directors brought in name of State will not be advanced on Supreme Court calendar, under statute of 1870 giving preference to causes wherein a State is a party.

Approved in Spratt v. City of Jacksonville, 29 Fla. 178, 10 South. 735, refusing to advance a case not within the provisions of the court rules.

12 Wall. 163-164, 20 L. Ed. 260, WARD v. MARYLAND.

On error to State court after conviction for trading without a license where party is not in jail, cause will not be advanced on Supreme Court calendar, under statute of 1870 or thirtieth rule of court, on motion of plaintiff in error.

Approved in Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 539, 38 L. Ed. 814, 14 Sup. Ct. 876, dismissing writ of error where Federal question was first raised on motion for rehearing in appellate State court.

State discrimination against citizens of other States in commercial transactions, violates rights of equal privileges and immunities.

Approved in dissenting opinion in Ex parte Gemmill, 20 Idaho, 744, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 76, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 711, 119 Pac. 303, majority upholding constitutionality of sections 1475 and 1476, Revised Codes, requiring State and county printing done within State and county where required for use.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Howe Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 678, 679, 25 L. Ed. 755, 756, Range Co. v. Carver, 118 N. C. 335, 24 S. E. 354, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 539, 38 L. Ed. 814, 14 Sup. Ct. 876, all holding State tax on all peddlers valid.

12 Wall. 164-166, 20 L. Ed. 364, PROVIDENCE-WASHINGTON INS. CO. v. HUCHBERGERS.

Effect of misrepresentation in proofs of loss furnished under fire
insurance policy. Note, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 453, 455.

Insurance-Effect of false swearing in proofs of loss. Note, 32
L. R. A. (N. S.) 456.

12 Wall. 167-173, 20 L. Ed. 382, THE STEAMER SYRACUSE.

Towboat is liable for a collision caused by its negligence although by special agreement a canal-boat is being towed at her own risk.

Approved in The Oceanica, 144 Fed. 305, following rule; The W. G. Mason, 142 Fed. 913, 74 C. C. A. 83, where two tugs belonging to same owner were towing steamer under contract with such owner, and master of leader directed ship's movements, rear tug, whose movements controlled by own master, not liable in rem for stranding of tow through fault of leader; Cotton v. Almy, 141 Fed. 362, 72 C. C. A. 506, where lessees of houseboat at termination of lease undertook to deliver it at port other than named in lease at owner's request, they are liable for negligent towing; Winslow v. Thompson, 134 Fed. 549, 550, 551, 67 C. C. A. 470, holding acts of tugs in attempting to pull grounded vessel over bar negligence for which consignee who employed them was liable; The Somers N. Smith, 120 Fed. 576, holding tug not relieved even by agreement for consequences of failure to use reasonable care; In re Moran, 120 Fed. 558, holding agreement to tow without risk not exempting tugboat from liability for negligence; The Alabama, 114 Fed. 218, holding towboat liable, sheering towed barge across channel in path of outgoing steamer; dissenting opinion in The Oceanica, 170 Fed. 896, 96 C. C. A. 69, majority holding special agreement between tug and tow that latter should be towed at her own risk released tug from liability for negligence resulting in injury to tow; Compania de Navigacion la Flecha v. Brauer, 168 U. S. 120, 42 L. Ed. 405, 18 Sup. Ct. 16, holding steamship company liable for negligent loss of cattle notwithstanding exemption by bill of lading; The John G. Stevens, 170 U. S. 126, 42 L. Ed. 974, 18 Sup. Ct. 549, applying rule and enforcing lien for damages; Deems v. Albany & Canal Line, 14 Blatchf. 478, Fed. Cas. 3736, applying rule; The James Jackson, 9 Fed. 616, holding tug liable for negligent loss of oil barge by fire; The American Eagle, 51

VII-25

Fed. 1013, holding tug liable for loss of tow negligently tied up to dock during night.

Distinguished in The Oceanica, 170 Fed. 895, 96 C. C. A. 69, special agreement between tug and tow that latter should be towed at her own risk releases tug from liability for its own negligence resulting in injury to tow; M'Cormick v. Shippy, 119 Fed. 230, holding stipulation throwing risk occurring through master's negligence on owner instead of charterer valid.

Liability of vessels and owners for injuries caused by a collision.
Note, 45 Am. Dec. 56.

Although the law has not imposed on a towboat the obligations of a common carrier, it does require care, caution and maritime skill.

Approved in The Hardy, 229 Fed. 986, where steamer undertook to tow barge, which was lost through parting of hawser, tow failed to prove loss resulted from negligence of tug; The Defender, 208 Fed. 839, where tow ran aground on bank of river, tug responsible for her stranding on opposite bank caused by manner in which she was pulled; Consolidated Coal Co. v. Knickerbocker Steam Towage Co., 200 Fed. 844, towing company was negligent in undertaking towage of loaded coal barge through river where dredger had been at work; The Teddy Roosevelt, 192 Fed. 999, launch liable for injury to scow rigged as pile-driver which was tied to wharf at unsafe place, when it was impossible to proceed farther; The E. V. McCaulley, 189 Fed. 829, in libel for loss of cargo, tug was liable for navigating to place of danger instead of safety where it was necessary to seek shelter from storm; The Blue Bell, 189 Fed. 827, tug was not liable for loss of part of raft which broke loose in the night owing to manner in which it was constructed; Southern Towing Co. v. Egan, 184 Fed. 277, 278, 106 C. C. A. 417, tug which undertook heavy tow, was reckless in failing to seek harbor under the circumstances; J. T. Morgan Lumber Co. v. West Kentucky Coal Co., 181 Fed. 274, loss should be divided where evidence showed tugs were negligent but tow owners were also in fault; The Britannia, 148 Fed. 499, holding tug liable for loss of scows where it had but one hawser which parted three times; The Naos, 144 Fed. 296, where charterer employed tug to tow vessel and detained tow until full tide, both charterer and tug liable for grounding of tow; Alaska Coml. Co. v. Williams, 128 Fed. 366, 63 C. C. A. 92, holding steamer acting as tug liable for loss of tow due to failure of former to return to aid of tow after line parted; The Temple Emery, 122 Fed. 181, 182, holding capsizing of dredge and pile-driver due to tug starting with unwieldy double tow; The Somers N. Smith, 120 Fed. 571, holding tug liable for stranding of schooner towed through narrow and dangerous channel; In re Moran, 120 Fed. 566, 567, holding tugboat not liable on account of breaking of hawser

or the use made thereof; Adams v. Carey, 60 Or. 162, 118 Pac. 557, applying rule in owner's action for compensation, where charterer of tug not liable for damage to tow, paid sum in settlement of damages to tow to prevent threatened libel and delay of tug; The John G. Stevens, 170 U. S. 126, 42 L. Ed. 974, 18 Sup. Ct. 549, holding towboat liable for negligently bringing tow into collision with third vessel; The Adelia, 1 Hask: 508, Fed. Cas. 79, holding towboat liable for injury to tow by striking rocks; Deems v. Albany & Canal Line, 14 Blatchf. 478, Fed. Cas. 3736, holding towboat liable for loss of tow through negligent collision; The Stranger, 1 Brown, 284, Fed. Cas. 13,525, holding tug not liable for injury by sudden unexplained sheering of tow; The James Jackson, 9 Fed. 616, holding tug liable for negligent loss of oil barge by fire; The American Eagle, 54 Fed. 1013, holding tug liable for loss of tow negligently tied up to dock during night; The Minnie, 87 Fed. 784, holding tug liable for injury to vessel at anchor by bringing her tow into collision; Brady v. Jefferson, 5 Houst. 81, holding tug owners liable for injury to third vessel by collision with long tow; dissenting opinion in Brady v. Jefferson, 5 Houst. 86, majority holding tug liable for injury to third vessel by collision with long tow.

Although the master of a vessel could not have prevented a collision at the moment it occurred, this will not excuse him if he could have avoided it by timely measures of precaution.

Approved in The Adventuress, 214 Fed: 838, yacht liable for collision with launch lying at moorings, where master of yacht had-selected her anchorage without due precautions; The Inca, 130 Fed. 42, holding tug liable for grounding of tug on known obstruction where he did not warn bark which was badly steered; The Minnie, 100 Fed. 133, 40 C. C. A. 312, holding tugboat liable, master seeing anchored schooner but failing to change course; Deems v. Albany & Canal Line, 14 Blatchf. 478, Fed. Cas. 3736, holding towboat liable for loss of tow through negligent collision.

Towboat is liable for collision in attempting to tow a long string of canal-boats through a crowded harbor when a strong tide was running. Approved in Berry v. Ross, 94 Me. 277, 47 Atl. 514, affirming judgment for personal injuries alleged due to improper handling of tow by tug; The Brooklyn, 2 Ben. 550, Fed. Cas. 1938, holding towboat liable for loss of tow in harbor when strong wind was blowing.

In admiralty, an omission to state some facts which prove to be material, but which cannot have occasioned any surprise to the opposite party, will not be allowed to work any injury to libelant if he had no design in omitting them.

Approved in Argo S. S. Co. v. Buffalo S. S. Co., 223 Fed. 598, 139 C. C. A. 113, applying rule where material fact omitted from pleading