223 U.S.

Case Disposed of in Vacation.

No. 211. MONEYWEIGHT SCALE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. FELIX C. MCBRIDE. In error to the Supreme Judicial Court of the State of Massachusetts. March 7, 1912. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles F. Morse and Mr. John M. Zane for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Edmund A. Whitman and Mr. Albert H. Meads for the defendant in error.

No. 429. PERFECTO DIMAGUILA AND BUENAVENTURA DIMAGUILA, APPELLANTS, v. THE INTERNAtional BankING CORPORATION ET AL. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. March 11, 1912. Dismissed with costs, on motion of counsel for the appellants. Mr. William Henry White for the appellants. No appearance for the appellees.

CASE DISPOSED OF IN VACATION.

No. 461. AGNES W. B. SHEPARD ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, V. THE CITY OF SEATTLE. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. July 31, 1911. Dismissed pursuant to the twenty-eighth rule. Mr. Thomas R. Shepard and Mr. Alfred J. Daly for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Harold Preston for the defendant in

error.

Order.

223 U. 8.

RIPLEY v. UNITED STATES.

UNITED STATES v. RIPLEY.

Nos. 498, 499. Motion to modify judgment, submitted March 18, 1912.— Decided April 1, 1912.1

Mr. William H. Robeson, Mr. Benjamin Carter and Mr. F. Carter Pope for Ripley.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General John Q. Thompson and Mr. Philip M. Ashford for the United States.

April 1, 1912. PER CURIAM: motion to modify judgment denied.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Monday, April 1, 1912.

The Chief Justice announced the following order of the court:

Order: It is ordered that rule 212 of the rules of practice of this court be amended by adding thereto the following section:

8. Every brief of more than 20 pages shall contain on its front fly leaves a subject index with page references, the subject index to be supplemented by a list of all cases referred to, alphabetically arranged, together with references to pages where the cases are cited.

1 For opinion of the court in this case see ante, p. 701. • For Rule 21 see 222 U. S. Appendix, p. 26.

INDEX.

ABANDONMENT.

See MINES AND MINING, 1.

ACCRETION AND AVULSION.
See RIPARIAN RIGHTS.

ACTIONS.

1. Against state officers; when maintainable.

Where a state officer receives money for a tax paid under duress with
notice of its illegality, he has no right thereto and the name of the
State does not protect him from suit. Atchison, Topeka & Santa
Fe Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, 280.

2. Same.

Where a state statute provides for refunding taxes erroneously paid
to a state officer, it contemplates a suit against such officer to re-
cover the taxes paid under protest and duress. Ib.

See ADMIRALTY, 3, 4, 5;

CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 5;
EQUITY, 2;
INJUNCTION, 2;

INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 11;
LOCAL LAW (ORE.);

NATIONAL BANKS, 1, 4;
TAXES AND TAXATION, 5, 6;

UNITED STATES, 2, 3, 4.

ACTS OF CONGRESS.

ADMIRALTY.-Act of June 26, 1884, § 18, 23 Stat. 55, c. 12 (see Ad-
miralty, 6): The San Pedro, 365. Rev. Stat., §§ 4283 et seq. (see
Admiralty, 3, 4): Ib.

CHINESE EXCLUSION.-Acts of August 18, 1894, 28 Stat. 372, c. 301,
and February 14, 1903, 32 Stat. 825, c. 552 (see Immigration, 2):
Tang Tun v. Edsell, 673.

Diplomatic anD CONSULAR OFFICERS.-Rev. Stat., § 1709 (see Con-
suls, 1): Rocca v. Thompson, 317.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.-Act of February 28, 1903, 32 Stat. 909,
c. 856, and act of February 22, 1901, 31 Stat. 767, c. 353 (see
751

District of Columbia, 1): New York Continental Jewell Filtration
Co. v. District of Columbia, 253.

FOREIGN COMMERCE.-Act of June 20, 1906, 34 Stat. 313, c. 3442 (see
Commerce, 2; Waters, 3): The Abby Dodge, 166.

IMMIGRATION ACT of February 20, 1907, § 19, 34 Stat. 898, c. 1134
(see Immigration, 4, 6): United States v. Nord Deutscher Lloyd,
512. Section 36 (see Immigration, 1); United States v. Wong You,
67.
INDIANS.-Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, c. 119, and act of
February 28, 1891, 26 Stat. 794, c. 383 (see Indians, 4): Fairbanks
v. United States, 215. Act of January 14, 1889, 25 Stat. 642, c. 24,
and act of April 24, 1904, 33 Stat. 589, c. 1786 (see Indians, 3, 4,
5, 6): Ib. Act of March 3, 1893, 27 Stat. 612, c. 209, and act of
June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, c. 3 (see Indians, 2): Jacob v. Prichard,
200. Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 716, c. 1375 (see Indians, 9):
Lowe v. Fisher, 95. Act of April 26, 1906, 34 Stat. 137, c. 1876
(see Indians, 9): Ib.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.-Act of February 4, 1887, 24 Stat. 379,
c. 104 (see Appeal and Error, 5; Interstate Commerce, 10, 12, 13,
14, 17; Jurisdiction, A 4): Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Albers
Commission Co., 573; United States v. Miller, 599. Sections 8 and
9 (see Jurisdiction, E 4): Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Wallace,
481. Carmack Amendment to Hepburn Act of June 29, 1906,
34 Stat. 584 (see Carmack Amendment; Interstate Commerce, 2,
3): Ib. Wilson Act of August 8, 1890, 26 Stat. 313, c. 728 (see
Interstate Commerce, 6): Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Cook
Brewing Co., 70. Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, 35
Stat. 65, c. 149, as amended April 5, 1910, 36 Stat. 291, c. 143
(see Employers' Liability Act): Second Employers' Liability
Cases, 1.
JUDICIARY.-Rev. Stat., § 709 (see Constitutional Law, 20): Etna
Life Ins. Co. v. Tremblay, 185; (see Jurisdiction, A 1): Ferris v.
Frohman, 424; (see Jurisdiction, A 2): Graham v. Gill, 643; (see
Practice and Procedure, 4): Cedar Rapids Gas Light Co. v. Cedar
Rapids, 655. Rev. Stat., § 860 (see Evidence, 4): Powers v.
United States, 303. Act of March 2, 1901, 31 Stat. 953, c. 812
(see Jurisdiction, C 3): Cuebas v. Cuebas, 376. Act of April 12,
1900, 31 Stat. 85, c. 191 (see Jurisdiction, C 1): Ib.

MINES AND MINING.-Rev. Stat., § 2324 (see Mines and Mining, 2):
Clason v. Matko, 646.

NATIONAL BANKS.-Rev. Stat., § 5136 (see National Banks, 6, 7, 8):
Miller v. King, 505. Rev. Stat., § 5198 (see National Banks, 1,
3): McCarthy v. First National Bank, 493.

NORTHWEST TERRITORY.-Ordinance of July 13, 1787, 1 Stat. 52 (see

Eminent Domain, 1, 7; Local Law [Ohio]; States, 2): Cincinnati
v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 390.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.-Act of July 1, 1902, § 5, 32 Stat. 691, c. 1369
(see Philippine Islands, 1-6): Diaz v. United States, 442.

PUBLIC LANDS.-Rev. Stat., § 452 (see Statutes, A 8): Waskey v.
Hammer, 85. Rev. Stat., § 2396 (see Jurisdiction, A 2): Graham'
v. Gill, 643. Act of June 3, 1878, § 2, 20 Stat. 89, c. 151 (see
Mandamus, 2): Ness v. Fisher, 683.

RAILROAD LAnd Grants.-Act of July 27, 1866, §§ 3, 18, 14 Stat.
292, c. 278 (see Public Lands, 5): United States v. Southern Pacific
R. R. Co., 565. Acts of March 3, 1871, § 23, 16 Stat. 573, c. 122;
July 27, 1866, 14 Stat. 292, c. 278; July 6, 1886, 24 Stat. 123,
c. 637 (see Public Lands, 4): Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. United
States, 560. Act of July 6, 1886, 24 Stat. 123, c. 637 (see Public
Lands, 5): United States v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 565.

TARIFF ACT of March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 488, c. 121 (see Customs Law,
4): Latimer v. United States, 501. Act of July 24, 1897, 30 Stat.
151, c. 11 (see Customs Law, 4): Latimer v. United States, 501;
(see Customs Law, 10, 13): United States v. Citroen, 407. Act of
July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 151, c. 11 (see Customs Law, 6): United
States v. Baruch, 191.

TERRITORIES.-Rev. Stat., § 1857 (see Mines and Mining, 2): Clason
v. Matko, 646.

ADMIRALTY.

1. Libel in; sufficiency of averments.

Where the act of Congress, under which forfeiture is sought, does not
apply to territorial waters, the libel must aver that the acts were
done outside of the territorial limits of any State. The Abby
Dodge, 166.

2. Libel in; amendment of.

Under the circumstances of this case it is proper to allow the Govern-

ment to amend the libel to present a case within the statute as
construed in this opinion. (The Mary Ann, 8 Wheat. 389.) Ib.

3. Limitation of liability; exclusiveness of proceeding for.
The limited liability proceedings under §§ 4283 et seq., Rev. Stat., is
in its nature exclusive of any separate suit against an owner on
account of the ship. The monition which issued after surrender
and stipulation for value requires every person to assert his claim
in that case. The San Pedro, 365.

4. Limitation of liability; exclusiveness of proceeding for.

One having a claim for salvage against a vessel whose owners have in-

VOL. CCXXIII-48