59 L. R. A. 425, 54 C. C. A. 213, to point Circuit Court has concurrent jurisdiction with State court, State statutes confer original jurisdiction; Ellis v. Davis, 109 U. S. 498, 27 L. Ed. 1010, 3 Sup. Ct. 335, Levi v. Columbia Ins. Co., 1 McCrary, 38, 1 Fed. 212, Donahue v. Roberts, 1 McCrary, 113, 1 Fed. 449, and Keys Mfg. Co. v. Kimpel, 22 Fed. 467, erroneously; Perrin v. Lepper, 72 Mich. 552, 40 N. W. 904, not in point; Houts v. Shepherd, 79 Mo. 144, in discussion as to acts of administrator which will be considered fraudulent as to estate.

14 Wall. 258-270, 20 L. Ed. 807, THE VAUGHAN AND TELEGRAPH.

Bill of lading properly indorsed and sent to consignees, who on the receipt thereof make advances on cargo, gives sufficient title to permit consignees to maintain libel against carrier for loss of cargo.

Approved in The Habil, 100 Fed. 124, holding consignee may maintain action in rem in admiralty for injury to interest; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Mounts, 44 Okl. 363, 144 Pac. 1038, holding bill of lading stands as substitute and represents goods described therein, and its transfer passes transferrer's title to goods described; Balfour v. Wilkins, 5 Sawy. 438, McCants v. Wells, 4 S. C. 387, and The Director, 13 Sawy. 186, 34 Fed. 66, as authority for holding the legal property in a cargo is in person to whom bill of lading is made or indorsed; Richardson v. Hutchinson, 20 Fla. 24, bill of lading raises presumption of property in person for whose use or account consignment is made.

Distinguished in Bonds-Foster Lumber Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 53 Wash. 308, 101 Pac. 880, holding one who accepts assignment of contract which by express terms is made nonassignable acquires only cause of action against assignor; Robinson v. Memphis etc. Ry. Co., 9 Fed. 141, holding carrier not liable on receipt and bill of lading issued by its agent when no goods in fact were received for shipment.

Passing of title by delivery to carrier for transportation to consignee or vendee. Note, 22 L. R. A. 429.

Measure of damages for cargo lost in transitu by collision is value of cargo at time and place of shipment.

Approved in The Oceanica, 156 Fed. 307, applying rule where tug negligently injured tow; Guibert v. British Ship George Bell, 5 Hughes, 175, 3 Fed. 585, market price at destination cannot be considered, no matter how near vessel may have approached; The Steamship Aleppo, 7 Ben. 131, Fed. Cas. 158, but allowance should be made for expenses, charges, insurance and interest.

Distinguished in The Scotland, 105 U. S. 36, 26 L. Ed. 1005 (affirming s. c. sub nom. Dyer v. National Steam etc. Co., 14 Blatchf. 489, Fed.

Cas. 4225), giving rule where cargo has no ascertained value at place of shipment.

Lost profits from tort as damages. Note, 52 L. R. A. 63.

Interest on sum allowed as damages. Note, 18 L. R. A. 453.
Rate of interest allowed in case of marine tort as affected by place
of occurrence or suit. Note, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 967.

Decree for damages suffered to a cargo at time when gold was at a large premium, held proper where it made judgment payable in notes sufficient to equal their then value in gold, although at time of final decree the premium of gold over the notes was small.

Approved in Simpkins v. Low, 54 N. Y. 184 following rule; Isett v. Caldwell, 101 Pa. St. 35, holding where interest on note payable in gold is paid in depreciated notes at a rate deemed by parties equivalent to gold, the excess paid above the legal rate is not to be considered usury; Bridges v. Reynolds, 40 Tex. 218 and Hus v. Kempf, 10 Ben. 365, Fed. Cas. 6944, both arguendo.

When and to what extent courts will recognize different kinds of money, both being legal tender. Note, 87 Am. Dec. 127.

Special obligations for payment in gold or silver. Note, 29 L. R. A.
523.

Form of judgment and procedure for payment in coin. Note, 29
L. R. A. 596.

14 Wall. 270-279, 20 L. Ed. 828, THE CAYUGA,

Rules of navigation prescribed by Congress or by the decisions of the courts should not be followed when their observance would produce the very mischief they were intended to avert.

Approved in The Umbria, 166 U. S. 420, 41 L. Ed. 1062, 17 Sup. Ct. 616, following rule; The Columbia, 23 Blatchf. 271, 25 Fed. 845, where a situation is plain to a vessel, she is bound to deal with it as it exists, not as it ought to have been; to same effect are The Aurania and Republic, 29 Fed. 104, 105, 108, 114, and The Non Pareille, 33 Fed. 526, cases of collision where damages were divided between vessels because both were in fact at fault, although in each case rules of navigation had been observed by one of vessels; New York Harbor Towboat Co. v. New York etc. Ry. Co., 148 N. Y. 580, 42 N. E. 1088, arguendo.

When two steamers are running same way, the one astern sailing faster is bound to avoid a collision, but if sailing on intersecting lines, the ship which has the other on her own starboard must give way.

Approved in The State of Texas, 20 Fed. 256, holding one vessel cannot relieve herself from latter part of rule by crossing bow of other, and

thereby putting latter in position of an overtaking vessel; Meyers Excursion Co. v. The Kate Ross, 41 Fed. 828 (affirmed in 46 Fed. 873, 874), where under latter part of rule vessel whose duty it was to keep out of way was held at fault for collision; to same effect, The Zouave, 90 Fed. 443; The Commodore Jones, 25 Fed. 507, 508, where sailing rules 17 and 22 were under consideration; The Britannia, 34 Fed. 551, holding sailing rules must be construed and applied with reference to each other.

Restitutio in integrum is the rule in suits for damages occasioned by

collision.

Approved in the following for rule that damages should be allowed. for profits vessel would have made had it not been for detention: The Mary Steele, 2 Low. 372, Fed. Cas. 9226, The Freddie L. Porter, 2 Hask. 428, 5 Fed. 826, Missouri Riv. Packet Co. v. Hannibal etc. Ry. Co., 1 McCrary, 291, 2 Fed. 294, Missouri River Packet Co. v. Hannibal etc. Ry. Co., 79 Mo. 494, and The Margaret J. Sanford, 37 Fed. 152, the latter stating rule for ascertaining what earnings of vessel would probably be; The Potomac, 105 U. S. 632, 26 L. Ed. 1194, following rule; Memphis etc. Packet Co. v. Steamboat Yaeger, 2 McCrary, 166, 4 Fed. 928, holding expenses from port of departure to place of collision and return to port of repairs will not be allowed in damages; The C. P. Raymond, 28 Fed. 766, in discussion as to damage recoverable for freight lost as consequence of collision.

Measure of damages for injury to vessel caused by collision. Note, 45 Am. Dec. 59.

Lost profits from tort as damages. Note, 52 L. R. A. 65.

Owners of ferry-boat are entitled to demurrage for injuries to boat in a tortious collision, notwithstanding another boat kept for such emergencies was used in place of ferry while repairs were being made on it.

Approved in The Mary N. Bourke, 145 Fed. 911, 76 C. C. A. 441, allowing owner of vessel to set off, against cost of repairs, demurrage because of unnecessary delay in their completion; W. S. Keyser etc. Co. v. Jurvelins, 122 Fed. 222, 58 C. C. A. 664, considering gross yearly earnings together with demurrage stipulated in charter in fixing damages; The Providence, 98 Fed. 135, 136, 38 C. C. A. 670, following principal case, allowing demurrage, injured vessel laid up for repairs and replaced by another vessel; The Favorita, 18 Wall. 603, 21 L. Ed. 858, and New Haven Co. Mayor, 36 Fed. 718, 21 L. Ed. 859, both following rule; The Joseph Nixon v. The George Lysle, 2 Fed. 263, where vessel was held entitled to demurrage during time delayed while undergoing repairs; The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 129, 41 L. Ed. 946, 17 Sup. Ct. 517, and Huron Barge Co. v. Turney, 79 Fed. 111, where court holds further as to what

is best evidence of amount of damages to be allowed a vessel as demurrage; The Steamship Aleppo, 7 Ben. 132, Fed. Cas. 158, arguendo.

Distinguished in The Ferguson, 167 Fed. 235, holding no allowance of damages for negligent injury of floating drydock can be allowed for loss of use while being repaired; The Emma Kate Ross, 50 Fed. 847, 2 C. C. A. 55, where the question was as to the measure of damages where owners had hired another vessel to act in place of one injured.

14 Wall. 279-282, 20 L. Ed. 890, EASLEY v. KELLOM.

Bill of review may be maintained on discovery of agreement where its absence on trial was satisfactorily accounted for.

Approved in Acord v. Western Pocahontas Corp., 156 Fed. 996, bill of review held insufficient where only reason for nondiscovery was poverty and ignorance of parties and neglect of counsel.

Bills of review in federal courts for newly discovered evidence.
Note, 14 Ann. Cas. 197.

Bill of review for newly discovered evidence. Note, 30 L. R. A.
(N. S.) 1040.

14 Wall. 282-297, 20 L. Ed. 809, CITY OF LEXINGTON v. BUTLER.

Suits may properly be removed from State court to Circuit Court which could not have been commenced in latter court.

Approved in Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Sundry Ins. Cos., 108 Fed. 454, holding, since act 1887, no cause removable to Federal court, original jurisdiction denied; Claflin v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 110 U. S. 91, 28 L. Ed. 79, 3 Sup. Ct. 510, and Waterbury v. City of Laredo, 3 Woods, 374, Fed. Cas. 17,252, construing act of March 3, 1875, relative to jurisdiction of United States Circuit Courts; Hobby v. Allison, 13 Fed. 404, Rosenblatt v. Reliance Lumber Co., 18 Fed. 708, Bell v. Noonan, 19 Fed. 226, 227, and Glenn v. Walker, 27 Fed. 578, all following rule; Kansas City etc. R. Co. v. Interstate Lumber Co., 37 Fed. 6, holding under act of 1887, action pending in State court may be removed by defendant to Federal court, though neither party is resident of district; Board of Commrs. of Roads and Revenues v. Hurd, 49 Ga. 467, 15 Am. Rep. 683, Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U. S. 457, 30 L. Ed. 746, 7 Sup. Ct. 636, and Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S. 523, 39 L. Ed. 519, 15 Sup. Ct. 561, all arguendo; St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. McBride, 141 U. S. 132, 35 L. Ed. 661, 11 Sup. Ct. 984, holding if defendant appears and pleads in Circuit Court, he waives right to challenge jurisdiction on ground suit was brought in wrong district; Lawton v. Blitch, 30 Fed. 642, holding where cause has been properly removed to Federal court, it cannot be remanded to consent of parties; McDermott v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. 532, 3 L. R. A. 457, construing act of August 13, 1888, relative to removal of causes.

Distinguished in Venner v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 153 Fed. 413, holding that, although complainant could maintain suit in State court from which it was removed, under equity rule 94, unless he was shareholder of corporation at time of transaction of which he complains, or shares have devolved on him since by operation of law, in case stated, he could not maintain action in Circuit Court; Ferry v. Town of Merrimack, 18 Fed. 662, holding where non-negotiable instrument between citizens of same State is assigned to citizen of another, who brings suit thereon in State court, cause cannot be removed to Federal court; Central Trust Co. v. Virginia etc. Iron Co., 55 Fed. 773, holding Circuit Court for district of Virginia had not jurisdiction of action brought by New York corporation against New Jersey corporation, although principal place of business of latter is in Virginia.

Suits on negotiable instruments, transferable by mere delivery, are not within prohibition of eleventh section of Judiciary Act, forbidding suit in Federal court by assignee unless his assignor was also competent.

Approved in Thompson v. Perrine, 106 U. S. 593, 27 L. Ed. 300, 1 Sup. Ct. 568, and Chickaming v. Carpenter, 106 U. S. 666, 27 L. Ed. 308, 1 Sup. Ct. 622, holding where interest coupons are payable to bearer, right of holder to sue thereon does not depend on citizenship of previous holder; Cooper v. Thompson, 13 Blatchf. 437, Fed. Cas. 3202, holding holder of interest coupon is not an assignee of cause of action within meaning of act of March 3, 1875; Codman v. Vermont etc. Ry. Co., 17 Blatchf. 3, Fed. Cas. 2936, holding where promissory note is indorsed to bearer, no disability of bearer to sue as assignee could arise; Porter v. Janesville, 11 Biss. 67, 3 Fed. 619, holding assignee of municipal bond containing unconditional promise to pay a certain sum at certain time may bring action in Federal court; Halsey v. Township, 3 Fed. 366, 367, municipal bonds do not come within prohibition of act of March 3, 1875; to same effect, Adams v. County of Republic, 23 Fed. 212, as to county warrants.

Where corporation has power under any circumstances to issue negotiable securities, bona fide holder has right to presume that they were issued under circumstances which give the requisite authority; municipal bonds in bona fide hands, accordingly held valid.

Approved in Presidio County v. Noel-Young Bond etc. Co., 212 U. S. 77, 53 L. Ed. 410, 29 Sup. Ct. 237, holding as plaintiff took bonds before maturity for value and without notice that their validity was or could be impeached, a former judgment impeaching them does not preclude judgment in his favor; Quinlan v. Green County, 205 U. S. 420, 51 L. Ed. 864, 27 Sup. Ct. 505, in issuance of county bonds, compliance with condition that county should first be exonerated from prior subscription held presumed; H. Scherer & Co. v. Everest, 168 Fed. 830, 94 C. C. A. 346,