off against its claim certain money and notes of the bankrupt deposited with it, but instead takes a bankrupt's check for the money and hands over to sheriff the proceeds of the notes to be by him levied on, the transaction as to the money and notes is also invalid as a fraudulent preference.

Approved in In re National Lumber Co., 212 Fed. 929, 129 C. C. A. 448, holding where bank knowing insolvency of bankrupt, began with him accumulating money and paid off its note, such transaction constituted preference; Knoll v. Commercial Trust Co., 249 Pa. 200, 201, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 988, L. R. A. 1916A, 683, 94 Atl. 751, 752; In re Starkweather & Albert, 206 Fed. 800, both holding it to be unlawful preference for bank to accept bankrupt's check in payment of note instead of charging it against his account; Tomlinson v. Bank of Lexington, 145 Fed. 826, 76 C. C. A. 400, where concern had agreement with bank as to overdrafts, deposits applied to such overdrafts not preferences which must be surrendered before bank could prove notes against bankrupt's estate; Martin v. Toof, 1 Dill. 211, Fed. Cas. 9167, Alderdice v. State Bank, 1 Hughes, 56, Fed. Cas. 154, and Blair v. Allen, 3 Dill. 109, Fed. Cas. 1483, a bank holding an indorsed note may set off same against general deposit account of maker; Schrenkeisen v. Miler, 9 Ben. 65, Fed. Cas. 12,480, arguendo.

Distinguished in New York Co. Bank v. Massey, 192 U. S. 146, 48 L. Ed. 380, 24 Sup. Ct. 201, holding deposit subject to check by insolvent creates debt and is not such transfer as will create preference under bankruptcy act of 1898, preventing setoff by bank; In re Percy Ford Co., 199 Fed. 336, holding when bank at time of bankrupt's assignment held his notes not due at said time, bank's claim on notes were debts provable in bankruptcy proceedings; Lowell v. International Trust Co., 158 Fed. 783, 86 C. C. A. 137, holding fact that accounts assigned by bankrupt more than four months prior to bankruptcy were collected within four month period does not entitle trustee to recover such collections.

Setoff by bank of deposit against debt due bank by depositor as voidable transfer under bankruptcy law. Note, 15 Ann. Cas. 308.

Setoff in bankruptcy. Note, 55 L. R. A. 54, 55.

Acceptance of depositor's check by bank for obligation due it, as affecting right to set off obligation against deposit. Note, L. R. A. 1916A, 686, 688, 689.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Utah. Assn. of Creditmen v. Boyle Furniture Co., 43 Utah, 533, 136 Pac. 576, as to allowance of interest on preference but held inapplicable.

14 Wall. 98-109, 20 L. Ed. 804, THE THAMES.

Bill of lading, delivered to shipper, not the one retained by ship, will be considered as only true evidence of contract entered into between ship and shipper.

Approved in The Eva D. Rose, 151 Fed. 705, holding in absence of charter-party, bill of lading delivered to shipper is taken as best evidence of contract of affreightment; Beasley v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co., 27 App. D. C. 602, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1048, 1053, holding that attempt to hold freight for charges exceeding those stated in bill of lading is at peril of carrier; Espey v. Blanks, 9 Fed. 432, holding parol evidence. inadmissible to alter terms of bill of lading; The Saugerties, 44 Fed. 629, holding vessel cannot be compelled to deliver goods on the master's copy of bill of lading while the original bill is outstanding; Dyer v. Fredericks (Appendix), 63 Me. 593, arguendo.

Distinguished in Robinson v. Memphis etc. Ry. Co., 9 Fed. 141, holding carrier is not estopped from showing that no goods in fact were delivered for transportation.

Bills of lading. Note, 38 Am. Dec. 408.

Where bill of lading provides goods are to be delivered to order, ship becomes bound to deliver to no one who has not shipper's order, and it is no excuse where goods have been delivered to wrong party that indorsee of bill was unknown.

Approved in Atlanta Nat. Bank v. Southern Ry. Co., 106 Fed. 629, holding compress company liable for conversion delivering to consignors without knowledge of holder of bill of lading; Jeans v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 164 N. C. 236, 80 S. E. 247, holding where in action against carrier for refusal to deliver prepaid goods, marked in consignee's name and upon demand made, burden was on carrier to prove he demanded bill of lading and his refusal to deliver was based upon consignee's failure to produce it; North Penn. Ry. Co. v. Commercial Bank, 123 U. S. 735, 31 L. Ed. 290, 8 Sup. Ct. 270, a similar state of facts, though shipment was by rail; Wells-Fargo & Co. v. Oregon Ry. etc. Co., 12 Sawy. 525, 32 Fed. 54, holding carrier liable for goods delivered to parties other than those claiming under shipping receipt; Warner v. Illinois, 29 Fed. Cas. 259, holding carrier liable for so delivering goods that they were mixed with those of another party and lost; Walters v. Western etc. R. Co., 66 Fed. 868, 14 C. C. A. 267 (affirming 63 Fed. 393), holding carrier liable for goods delivered to purchaser from consignee, carrier not having required the bill of lading to be delivered up; Second Nat. Bank of Columbia v. Cummings, 89 Tenn. 617, 24 Am. St. Rep. 623, 18 S. W. 117, reaffirming rule.

To whom carriers may lawfully deliver property. Note, 9 Am. St.
Rep. 512.

Effect of bill of lading-As evidence of title, and parol evidence respecting. Note, 38 Am. Dec. 418.

Sufficiency of delivery of goods by carrier by water to terminate its liability. Note, Ann. Cas. 19.

Liability of carrier for delivering goods to wrong person. Note,

5 Ann. Cas. 100.

Delivery to imposter by carrier. Note, 37 L. R. A. 178.

To whom may delivery be made under bill of lading. Note, 38
L. R. A. 358.

Where consignee of goods or indorsee of bill of lading for delivery to order cannot be found, it is duty of carrier to retain goods until claimed, or store them for and on account of owner.

Approved in Arkansas etc. Ry. Co. v. German Nat. Bank, 77 Ark. 487, 92 S. W. 524, The Ravensdale, 75 Fed. 413, and Providence Warehouse Co. v. Providence etc. Ry. Co., 19 R. I. 425, 34 Atl. 740, all following rule; dissenting opinion in Clegg v. Southern Ry. Co., 135 N. C. 156, 47 S. E. 670, majority holding where railroad refused to deliver fruit to owner on his refusal to pay freight in excess of that due, and before discovery of error fruit frozen, fact that at time of demand bill of lading had not been delivered by consignee is no defense.

Indorsee of bill of lading may libel ship for failure to deliver goods, though he be but agent or trustee of goods for others, e. g., cashier of a bank.

Approved in The Director, 13 Sawy. 186, 34 Fed. 66, where holders of bill of lading were held entitled to maintain action for damages to cargo, although they did not have general property in.

Who may sue for loss or injury to goods shipped. Note, 38 Am.
Dec. 423.

Legal title to goods is in party to whom bill of lading is made or indorsed.

Approved in The Nimrod, 141 Fed. 217, where owners of tug contracted for repairs in name of company under which tug operated, but there was no corporation of that name, owners, as individual, could sue for breach of contract; The Habil, 100 Fed. 124, allowing consignee, assignee of bill, to sue in admiralty against vessel for injury to interest; Paxon Bros. v. Warfield, 6 Ga. App. 317, 65 S. E. 35, consignor who has disposed of bill of lading has no further right to control shipment; Washburn-Crosby Co. v. Boston etc. Albany R. R. Co., 180 Mass. 257, 62 N. E. 592, holding question open whether shipper retains general property after drawing on bank for full amount, attaching to draft bill of lading indorsed in blank; General Electric Co. v. Southern Ry., 72

S. C. 254, 110 Am. St. Rep. 603, 51 S. E. 696, where freight shipped under bill of lading with draft attached, bill of lading running to order of shipper, and to notify third party, carrier could not deliver without bill of lading; Balfour v. Wilkins, 5 Sawy. 438, Fed. Cas. 807, holding indorsee of bill of lading holds legal title to goods free from lien for demurrage; for opposite rule, see Neilsen v. Jesup, 30 Fed. 139, and The Nora, 14 Fed. 432, both holding indorsees may maintain action for wrongful delivery; Forbes v. Boston etc. Ry. Co., 133 Mass. 156, holding the indorsee of an inland bill of lading may maintain action against one who wrongfully converts goods; to same effect, Union Pac. R. Co. v. Johnson, 45 Neb. 64, 50 Am. St. Rep. 544, 63 N. W. 146; McCantes v. Wells, 4 S. C. 387, and National Bank of Chester v. Atlantic etc. Ry. Co., 25 S. C. 223, both holding bill of lading a negotiable instrument, and when indorsed and delivered transfers property in goods to indorsee; Bass v. Glover, 63 Ga. 746, and Ratzer v. Burlington etc. Ry. Co., 64 Minn. 247, 58 Am. St. Rep. 532, 66 N. W. 989, both holding carrier may exact production of bill of lading before making delivery of goods to consignee; Hallgarten v. Oldham, 135 Mass. 8, 46 Am. Rep. 434, arguendo.

Title of holder of bill of lading on indorsement and transfer. Note,
38 Am. Dec. 420.

Rights and liabilities of assignees of bills of lading. Note, 105 Am.
St. Rep. 346.

Right of discounter of draft as to property covered by bill of lading
attached. Note, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 651.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Horrell v. Parish, 26 La. Ann. 9.

14 Wall. 109-112, 20 L. Ed. 764, MAHAN v. UNITED STATES.

Fourth and fifth rules of Supreme Court, regulating appeals from Court of Claims, were designed to enable a party to secure a finding of fact on any point material to decision in that court.

Approved in United States v. Driscoll, 131 U. S. clix (Appx.), 24 L. Ed. 596, where request for order upon Court of Claims for a finding was refused, that court not having been requested to make finding in accordance with Rules 4 and 5.

Failure of Court of Claims to find fact as party alleges it to be does not justify bringing all evidence on that subject before Supreme Court. Approved in Collier v. United States, 173 U. S. 80, 43 L. Ed. 621, 19 Sup. Ct. 331, holding findings of fact made by Court of Claims are conclusive.

14 Wall. 113-116, 20 L. Ed. 785, FOULKE v. ZIMMERMAN.

Probate in Louisiana of a will, of one who died domiciled in New York is valid till set aside by a Louisiana court, though decision of New York court on which Louisiana probate was founded has been reversed.

Approved in Tilt v. Kelsey, 207 U. S. 56, 52 L. Ed. 101, 28 Sup. Ct. 1, holding that the full faith and credit due probate proceedings of New Jersey court do not require that New York court shall be bound by former's decision on question of domicile.

Purchaser of Louisiana lands from devisee of a will probated in Louisiana as well as in New York, where testator died, is not affected by subsequent ex parte order of Louisiana court, to which he is not a party, setting will aside, on the strength of a collusive judgment to that effect in New York.

Approved in Estate of Crim, 89 Wash. 402, 154 Pac. 813, holding where executor before appointment sold stock of estate, and later will was admitted to probate and later declared void, sale was valid; Brown v. Brown, 7 Or. 299, holding where will was admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued, but will was subsequently set aside as void, all acts done by executors in due course of administration, before such revocation, are valid; Reeves v. Hager, 101 Tenn. 719, 50 S. W. 762, where title of purchaser from devisee under will regularly probated was held superior to that of heir who subsequently had will set aside.

Distinguished in Higgins v. Eaton, 188 Fed. 967, judgment of court. of testator's domicile as to his testamentary capacity held binding as to personal property in another State; Fallon v. Chidester, 46 Iowa, 592, 26 Am. Rep. 168, holding where one purchases property devised to his grantor by an invalid will, he does not occupy the position of a bona fide purchaser without notice as to lawful heir.

Validity of acts under letters probate afterward revoked or held invalid. Note, 21 L. R. A. 152.

14 Wall. 116-120, 20 L. Ed. 787, THE BRIDGEPORT.

Steamer which deviates three or four hundred feet from course usually followed by vessels in a port and collides with another vessel lying at a wharf, held liable for all damages caused thereby.

Approved in The Henry Steers, 226 Fed. 820, holding tug towing canal-boat liable for latter colliding and injuring barge lying in slip and out of channel; Island Transp. Co. v. Seattle, 205 Fed. 994, 995, moving vessel held liable in absence of showing of negligence on part of moored vessel; Galveston Towing Co. v. Cuban S. S. Co., 195 Fed. 712, 115 C. C. A. 438, holding evidence insufficient to exonerate tug which brought her tow into collision with vessel at pier; James Shewan