pose of showing that he, the principal, received and disbursed moneys during that period as navy agent, and to contradict his accounts current, in which he charged and credited himself as purser. Our conclusion is, that these several rulings are correct. 1. Unofficial letters of subordinate officers are not admissible in evidence, in controversies like the present, to contradict, nor even to explain the official adjustment of the accounts as shown in the duly certified transcripts; and if not, then it is clear that the letters were properly excluded as immaterial and irrelevant. 2. Diabursing agents are required to settle their receipts and disbursements with the accounting officers of the treasury, and their private books are inadmissible to control that official adjustment.
All of the exceptions are overruled, and the judgment must be
ADMIRALTY. See Practice, 20-22.
Things immovable, like a bridge, are not the subjects of proceedings in.
The Rock Island Bridge, 213.
AGENT. See Bailee, Gratuitous; Insurance, 2.
A citizen of the United States, and who, as such, was of course before the
admission of a foreign republic into the Union, an alien to that re-
public, and so, as against office found, incompetent to hold land there,
became, on the admission, competent, no office having been previ-
ously found. Osterman v. Baldwin, 116.
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW. See Evidence, 4.
AUCTION. See Public Sales.
A gratuitous bailee of money to whom it is given for the purpose of lend-
ing it on good and sufficient security, and who, lending it to a per-
son on property worth much more than the sum, and taking a prop-
erly executed mortgage, delivers the papers to his principal without
having placed them on record, is not responsible for a loss occurring
after the efflux of the term for which the money was lent, by non-re-
cording of the papers; the owner of the security having had abun-
dant opportunity to have them recorded himself. Turton v. Dufief,
The word held to be satisfied within the meaning of a recording act by
sheets of paper, not bound nor fastened otherwise than by being
folded together and kept in separate bundles; the sheets, however,
having been subsequently bound in separate volumes. Mumford v.
Wardwell, 423.
CALIFORNIA. See San Francisco, Pueblos.
1. Grants by Mexican governors of the public domain within the limits of
California, after July 7th, 1846, though antedated, are void. Stearns
v. United States, 589.
2. The proceeding in the District Court of the United States in Califor-
nia land cases on an appeal from the board of land commissioners, is
an original suit and the whole case is open. Grisar v. McDowell, 863.
8. An appeal from a decree of the District Court to the Supreme Court,
in such cases, suspends the operation and effect of the decree only
when, by a judgment of the Supreme Court, the claim of the con-
firmee in the premises in controversy may be defeated. Ib.
4. The decree of the board of land commissioners in such cases, or of the
courts of the United States, where it becomes final, takes effect by
relation as of the day when the claim was presented to the board of
land commissioners.
5. The statute of California which gives to mechanics a lien upon the
flumes or aqueducts" which they may have constructed or repaired,"
provided suit be brought "within one year after the work is done,"
construed and held to be confined to that part of the canal where the
work was done. Canal Company v. Gordon, 561.
CHARITABLE USES. See Massachusetts, 1.
COLLISION. See Practice, 20-1.
1. In settling the mere facts of a collision of vessels, on conflicting evidence,
the Supreme Court will not readily reverse a decree made by a Dis-
trict Court and affirmed by the Circuit Court. The Hypodame, 216.
2. When a steam vessel, proceeding in the dark, hears a hail before it
from some source which it cannot or does not see, it is its duty in-
stantly to stop and reverse its engine. Ib.
3. The captain of a steam propellor is not a competent lookout; though
the propellor be but a river propellor. The lookout should be a per-
son specially appointed. Ib.
4. Vessels navigating rivers which have a usage as to the sides which
ascending and descending vessels respectively shall observe, are
bound to observe the usage. The Vanderbilt, 225.
COMMERCIAL LAW. See Negotiable Paper.
1. To justify the sale, by the master, of his vessel, good faith in making
the sale, and a necessity for it, must both concur; and the purchaser,
to have a valid title, must show their concurrence. The Amelie, 18.
2. A justifiable sale divests all liens. Ib.
1. Where the government directed that settlers should be "confirmed"
in their "possessions and rights," and ordered a particular public
officer to examine into the matter, &c., - confirmation by writing
not under seal was sufficient. Reichart v. Felps, 160.
2. A probate court cannot by subsequent order give validity to sales void
by the laws of the State where made. Gaines v. New Orleans, 642.
CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION.
After return of nulla bona to an execution from the Circuit Court of the
United States against a municipal corporation of a State, bound to
levy a tax to pay its debts, mandamus lies from such Circuit Court
to compel the levy, even though the State court, after the judgment
obtained in the Circuit Court, and before the application for the
CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION (continued).
mandamus, have enjoined such levy. Riggs v. Johnson County, 166;
affirmed in Weber v. Lee County, 210, and in United States v. Council
of Keokuk, 514, 518.
1. A statute of a State, that the masters and wardens of a port within it
should be entitled to demand and receive, in addition to other fees,
the sum of five dollars, whether called on to perform any service or
not, for every vessel arriving in that port, is a regulation of com-
merce within the meaning of the Constitution, and also, a duty on
tonnage, and is unconstitutional and void. Steamship Company v.
Portwardens, 31.
2. A special tax on railroad and stage companies for every passenger car-
ried out of the State by them is a tax on the passenger for the privi-
lege of passing through the State by the ordinary modes of travel, not
a simple tax on the business of the companies, and is unconstitutional
and void. Crandall v. State of Nevada, 35.
3. Congress has no power to organize a board of revision to annul titles
confirmed many years by the authorized agents of the government.
Reichart v. Felps, 160.
4. A statute authorizing a chancellor to appoint a devisee of a life estate
in a trust for life, remainder over, to execute the trust, does not vio-
late the obligation of a contract. Williamson v. Suydam, 723.
CONTRACT. See Evidence, 10; Shrinkage of Soil.
1. In a contract to make and complete a structure, with agreements for
monthly payments, a failure to make a payment at the time specified
is a breach which justifies the abandonment of the work, and entitles
the contractor to recover a reasonable compensation for the work actu-
ally performed. And this, notwithstanding a clause in the contract
providing for the rate of interest which the deferred payment shall
bear in case of failure Canal Company v. Gordon, 561.
2. Where a party, who, by contract, has a right to have and take security
to have work finished by a certain day,-no penalty nor any right to
terminate the contract for non-completion, being reserved,-permits
the other side, after breach, to go on in an effort to complete the con-
tract, he has no right to compel him to complete it in a manner which
necessarily involves him in loss. Clark v. United States, 543.
CORPORATION. See Debtor and Creditor.
1. The act of March 3, 1863, concerning the Court of Claims, confers a
right of appeal in cases involving over $3000, which the party de-
siring to appeal can exercise by his own volition, and which is not de-
pendent on the discretion of that court. United States v. Adams, 101.
2. When the party desiring to appeal signifies his intention to do so in any
appropriate mode within the ninety days allowed by that statute for
taking an appeal, the limitation of time ceases to affect the case; and
such is also the effect of the third rule of the Supreme Court concern
ing such appeals. Ib.
|