3 Wall. 673-686, 18 L. 111, UNITED STATES v. JUDGES OF CIRCUIT COURT.

Appeal and error.- Under act of 1864, appeal lies to Supreme Court, in cases where appeal pending in District Court, from decree of board of land commissioners as to California land titles, was transferred to Circuit Court, p. 675.

Cited in Ex parte Zellner, 9 Wall. 247, 19 L. 666.

Miscellaneous.- Cited in Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall. 337, 18 L. 550, Reese v. United States, 9 Wall. 19, 19 L. 544, and San Francisco v. United States, 4 Sawy. 583, F. C. 12,316, all respecting further litigation, settling San Francisco land titles.

3 Wall. 687-688, 18 L. 29, MERRIAM v. HAAS.

Appeal and error.-Motion to dismiss appeal denied, though ap pellant had already collected the amount of the decree appealed from, p. 687.

Miscited in Bolling v. Jones, 67 Ala. 514.

3 Wall 688-703, 17 L. 268, UNITED STATES v. DASHIEL Judgment.-Levy of execution on personal property sufficient to satisfy the execution extinguishes the judgment, if the title to the goods is changed, or the debtor deprived of his property; otherwise if levy is on debtor's hands, p. 699.

Cited and principle applied in Johnson v. The State, 80 Ind. 225, holding judgment not satisfied where property levied on was incumbered for more than its value; Dehority v. Paxon, 115 Ind. 126, 17 N. E. 260, holding judgment not satisfied where sale of property fails to produce sufficient to pay debt; Touhey v. Touhey, 151 Ind. 463, 68 Am. St. Rep. 235, 51 N. E. 919, holding that irregular sale of property will not extinguish judgment; Lustfield v. Ball, 103 Mich. 21, 61 N. W. 341, holding that levy on personalty will not satisfy judgment where officer is unable to get the property; Wood v. Conrad, 2 S. Dak. 409, 50 N. W. 904, holding that levy on real estate does not extinguish the judgment; Fry v. Manlove, 1 Baxt. 260, 25 Am. Rep. 777, holding there was no satisfaction, where judgment was annulled; Cravans v. Wilson, 35 Tex. 57, holding sheriff's return does not estop creditor from proving value of property seized less than that returned in the levy; Walker v. The Commonwealth, 18 Gratt. 46, 47, 98 Am. Dec. 642, 643, holding that plaintiff may abandon a levy against the sureties only, and sue out new execution; Hyde v. Rogers, 59 Wis. 159, 17 N. W. 129, holding that mere seizure is not satisfaction. Cited in 58 Am. Dec. 351, 355, 356, note on satisfaction of judgments by levy, col lecting authorities.

Distinguished in Lindley v. Kelley, 42 Ind. 308, and McCabe v. Goodwine, 65 Ind. 297, in Indiana a levy on real estate creates a presumption of satisfaction.

Execution. Where sheriff has begun to levy under the execution, it is not defeated by a writ of error issued thereafter, p. 702.

Cited and principle applied in Freeman v. Dawson, 110 U. S. 270, 28 L. 143, 4 S. Ct. 98, holding that proceedings under a levy of execution relate back to time of seizure; Capen v. Doty, 13 Allen, 265, if mortgaged land has been taken on execution, payment of mortgage will not defeat a subsequent sale; Blair v. Compton, 33 Mich. 449, court dividing as to whether stay of execution vitiates a completed levy.

Appeal and error.- Partial satisfaction of a judgment received prior to service of the writ of error is no bar to it, p. 703.

Cited and principle applied in Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 8, 27 L. 348, 2 S. Ct. 29, Morriss v. Garland, 78 Va. 235, accepting amount awarded, is no admission that decree is not erroneous; Paine v. Woolley, 80 Ky. 574, appeal is not maintainable upon a judgment fully satisfied; Beals v. Lewis, 43 Ohio, St. 223, 1 N. E. 643, by accepting principal and legal interest, party did not waive his right of appeal as to alleged usurious interest. Cited in Tyler v. Shea, 4 N. Dak. 382, 50 Am. St. Rep. 662, 61 N. W. 470, by accepting a benefit under the judgment, the party waived his right to appeal. Cited, without particular application, in Dunham v. Randall, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 267, 32 S. W. 721.

8 Wall. 704-713, 18 L. 247, GRAHAM v. RAILROAD CO.

Equity. A decree, however broad its terms, must be construed in connection with the pleadings, so one in favor of a creditor, declaring absolutely void the debtor's agreement with another creditor, was held, under the circumstances, to avoid it only as to himself, and not as between other parties, pp. 710, 712.

Cited and principle applied in Barnes v. Chicago, etc., Ry., 122 U. S. 14, 17, 30 L. 1132, 1133, 7 S. Ct. 1050, 1052, holding that decree invalidated foreclosure only as to creditors subsequent to the mortgage, who assailed it in that suit; Linton v. First Nat. Bank, 10 Fed. 898, limiting the guardianship to particular estates, mentioned in petition and order; Bettys v. Milwaukee, etc., Ry., 37 Wis. 327, holding that averments under the statute cannot be rejected as surplusage; First Nat. Bank v. Knowles, 67 Wis. 392, holding that validity of trust deed could be tested in garnishment proceedings against trustee; Case v. Hicks, 76 Iowa, 40, 40 N. W. 77, holding party as principal, who did not show he was a surety in first action. Cited, without particular application, in Lockhart v. Horn, 3 Woods, 547, F. C. 8,446. Cited in dissenting opinion in

Wilhelm v. Caylor, 32 Md. 163, majority holding interlocutory decree left whole case open on final hearing; Mercier v. West Kansas City L. Co., 72 Mo. 492, maintaining that "heirs" was used in sense of children.

Distinguished in Stearns v. Lawrence, 83 Fed. 742, 54 U. S. App. 541, holding a finding of fact conclusive between co-defendants.

3 Wall. 713-743, 18 L. 96, GILMAN v. PHILADELPHIA.

Courts.- Rules of law should be fixed deliberately and adhered to firmly, unless clearly erroneous, p. 724.

Cited in Pittelkow v. Milwaukee, 94 Wis. 656, 69 N. W. 805, following a case it disapproved.

Commerce.- Congress has power to control for purpose of commerce all navigable waters of United States, accessible from a State other than that in which they lie, pp. 724-725.

Reaffirmed in The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 564, 19 L. 1001. Cited and principle applied in South Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U. S. 10, 23 L. 783, holding that Congress can close one of the channels of a navigable stream; Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U. S. 475, 26 L. 1146, holding United States not liable for forcing company to change construction of bridge; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 586, 590, 39 L. 1103, 1105, 15 S. Ct. 907, 908, holding that United States may remove everything obstructing the mails; United States v. Mississippi, etc., Boom Co., 1 McCrary, 605, 3 Fed. 552, equity will enjoin threatened injury to improvements on navigable river, authorized by Congress; The Tug Oconto, 5 Biss. 463, F. C. 10,421, holding steamtug employed exclusively within State not subject to seizure for want of inspection by Federal authorities; Hatch v. Wallamet Iron B. Co., 7 Sawy. 131, 133, 134, 6 Fed. 329, 331, 332, enjoining construction of bridge across the Wallamet under authority of State, which would obstruct navigation; Wallamet Iron B. Co. v. Hatch, 9 Sawy. 649, 19 Fed. 350, holding State could not authorize building of bridge across Wallamet, obstructing navigation; The City of Salem, 13 Sawy. 611, 37 Fed. 850, 2 L. R. A. 383, and n., holding that regulation limiting number of passengers applied to vessels plying between ports in same State; The Clinton Bridge, Woolw. 166, F. C. 2,900, holding that to regulate railroad bridge across a river is to regulate commerce; The Bright Star, Woolw. 272, F. C. 1,880, holding Congress has no control of commerce within a single State; Easton v. N. Y., etc., R. R., 8 Fed. Cas. 274, refusing to enjoin construction of bridge under authority of State, intercepting navigation; Canada So. Ry. Co. v. International B. Co., 8 Fed. 192, holding Congress could regulate compensation for use of bridge built by company, incorporated by Canada and New York, across navigable waters; United States v. Beacham, 29 Fed. 284, holding that indictment averred manslaughter on navigable waters; Decker

v. Baltimore, etc., R. R., 30 Fed. 725, holding Congress could authorize bridge, notwithstanding protest of State; Oyster Police Steamers of Maryland, 31 Fed. 766, holding State boats subject to inspection laws of United States; Hawkins Point Light-House Case, 39 Fed. 87, 88, allowing United States to take private property for a light-house; The Katie, 40 Fed. 487, 7 L. R. A. 62, and n., holding valid, act extending limited liability legislation to inland navigation; United States v. Keokuk, etc., B. Co., 45 Fed. 180, and United States v. Rider, 50 Fed. 409, secretary of war cannot declare a bridge authorized by Congress, an obstruction; Scranton v. Wheeler, 57 Fed. 813, 16 U. S. App. 152, holding Congress could take submerged lands in aid of commerce; United States v. Debs, 64 Fed. 745, 749, construing "commerce;" High Bridge L. Co. v. United States, 69 Fed. 324, 37 U. S. App. 234, refusing to allow consequential damages for condemnation of lock and dam; Texarkana, etc., Ry. v. Parsons, 74 Fed. 411, 40 U. S. App. 13, holding illegal, bridge not complying with authorizing act; United States v. North Bloomfield, etc., Co., 81 Fed. 248, and North Bloomfield, etc., Co. v. United States, 88 Fed. 674, 59 U. S. App. 394, holding Congress can prohibit hydraulic mining. Cited, without particular application, in Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 517, 24 L. 558.

United States.- National government possesses only delegated powers, the States all but such as have been surrendered, p. 725.

Cited in Hall v. Wisconsin, 103 U. S. 11, 26 L. 305, holding contract between individual and State is protected by the Constitution; Craig v. Kline, 65 Pa. St. 410, 411, 3 Am. Rep. 644, 645, upholding State law regulating floating of logs on Susquehanna.

Commerce.- Congress has power to keep public navigable waters free from any obstruction to their navigation, interposed by the State or otherwise, p. 725.

Cited and principle applied in Newport, etc., Co. v. United States, 18 Fed. Cas. 125, construing strictly party's right to recover against United States for changing bridge; United States v. Bellingham, etc., Co., 81 Fed. 661, 48 U. S. App. 449, to bring obstructions in navigable waters within a State within Federal cognizance, a statute is necessary.

Navigable waters.- After the Revolution, the States held absolute right to all navigable waters and soil under them, subject to rights surrendered to general government, by the Constitution, p. 726.

Cited and principle applied in Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 23, 38 L. 340, 14 S. Ct. 556, reasserting rule; Woodman v. Kilbourn Mfg. Co., 1 Abb. (U. S.) 164, 1 Biss. 552, F. C. 17,978, holding State could authorize the construction of public improvements on navigable stream; Nichols v. Boston, 98 Mass. 42, 93 Am. Dec. 134, holding

party gained prescriptive right to wharf against Commonwealth; J. S. Keator L. Co. v. St. Croix B. Corp., 72 Wis. 89, 7 Am. St. Rep. 854, 38 N. W. 539, holding either State could authorize the construction of a boom within its own territory.

Commerce. As to subjects of commerce calling for uniform rules or national legislation, the power of Congress is exclusive, the others may be regulated by the States in absence of legislation by Congress, pp. 726-727.

In the Federal courts the following affirm and rely upon this holding: Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 240, 20 L. 626, holding valid State statutes regulating pilotage; Case of State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 279, 280, 21 L. 163, holding unconstitutional State tax on freight transported from State to State; Farmers & M. Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 34, 23 L. 199, holding national bank not affected by usury law of a State; Henderson v. Mayor of N. Y., 92 U. S. 272, 23 L. 549, holding invalid, State statute imposing burdensome condition on shipmaster as prerequisite to landing of passengers; Inman S. S. Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 242, 24 L. 121, holding State tonnage tax on vessels entering port, invalid; Foster v. Master, etc., of New Orleans, 94 U. S. 248, 24 L. 123, holding invalid State statute in relation to survey of hatches, etc.; Wisconsin v. Duluth, 96 U. S. 387, 24 L. 672, refusing to interfere with improvement of harbor inaugurated by Congress; Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U. S. 503, 505, 24 L. 1116, 1117, holding that enforcement of police regulation was no interference with right of patentee; County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 701, 26 L. 241, holding same as principle case; Packer Co. v. Catlettsburg, 105 U. S. 563, 26 L. 1171, holding that town could erect wharves and collect wharfage, etc.; Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg, 107 U. S. 702, 27 L. 588, 2 S. Ct. 741, holding State in absence of national legislation could make special regulations for wharves; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 268, 29 L., 620, 6 S. Ct. 586, and Dunne v. People, 94 Ill. 129, 34 Am. Rep. 219, both holding State could regulate military bodies not authorized by United States; Morgan v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 465, 30 L. 242, 6 S. Ct. 1119, upholding quarantine laws of Louisiana, imposing fee on vessels examined; Western Union T. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 357, 30 L. 1189, 7 S. Ct. 1128, holding that no State can regulate the delivery of messages in other States; Williamette Iron B. Co. v. Hatch, 125 U. S. 8, 15, 31 L. 632, 634, 8 S. Ct. 815, 818, until Congress act respecting navigable stream wholly within the State, the latter has plenary power; Bowman v. Chicago, etc., Ry., 125 U. S. 480, 31 L. 705, 8 S. Ct. 696, holding invalid State law forbidding common carriers to bring intoxicating liquors into the State, without a certificate, etc. (see dissention opinions, pp. 512, 522, 31 L. 716, 720, 8 Ct. 708, 713); Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 23, 32 L. 351, 9 S. Ct. 11, upholding State statute forbidding manufacture of liquors, even for transportation to another State; Stout