text:
Green's Administratrix v. Creighton/Opinion of the Court

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi.

The bill was originally filed by Daniel Green, a citizen of the State of Arkansas, against Fletcher Creighton and Jonathan McCaleb. Whilst the proceedings were pending, McCaleb died, and a bill of revivor was filed against Fletcher Creighton, his executor.

In 1836, Wheeler C. Green died in Mississippi intestate and without issue. His personal representatives were Daniel Green, Reuben Green, and Sally Smith. In 1837, the latter two conveyed their interest in the estate to Daniel Green, who thus became the sole claimant.

In October, 1836, letters of administration were granted to Albert Tunstall, who gave as sureties upon his bond, Amos Whiting, George W. Summers, and Eli West.

In 1837, Whiting died, and letters of administration upon his estate were granted to his widow, Maria L. Whiting, and George Lake. In 1839, Maria intermarried with J. M. Rhodes, who thereupon became administrator of said Whiting in right of his wife.

In March, 1839, Green instituted proceedings against Tunstall, as administrator, in the Probate Court of Claiborne county, and at June term, 1841, obtained a decree for $61,194.76; and it was further ordered, that the administration bond should be put in suit in any court having cognizance of the matter.

So far, Green's remedy was against Tunstall personally, and those who represented Whiting, the surety upon his bond.

In October, 1841, Lake and Rhodes and wife were removed from the administration by the Probate Court; and Fletcher Creighton was appointed administrator de bonis non of Whiting, who gave bond in the penalty of $100,000, with Jonathan McCaleb as surety.

Green had therefore to look to Tunstall personally, and Creighton as the administrator of Whiting, and McCaleb as the surety of Creighton. The bill alleged that a large amount of assets of the estate of Whiting came into the hands of Creighton.

In August, 1843, Tunstall died insolvent, without having paid any part of the money which he had been decreed to pay by the Probate Court.

The bill stated that a large amount of the assets in the hands of Creighton were at interest with McCaleb, his surety.

In 1844, Creighton, on citation for that purpose, made another and further administration bond, with Jonathan McCaleb as his surety, in the penalty of one hundred thousand dollars.

In 1848, Green filed his bill against Creighton and McCaleb. The prayer of the bill was, that the claim of the complainant against the estate of Amos Whiting, as surety of Tunstall, who administered on the estate of Wheeler C. Green, may be established by decree of this court, and against said Creighton, in his capacity as administrator de bonis non of said estate, to the amount of the liability of said Amos, for and on account of said Albert Tunstall, as administrator of W. C. Green. Also, that said Creighton and Jonathan McCaleb may admit assets in the possession of Creighton sufficient to pay the claim of complainant, or set forth in his answer a full account of all the assets, &c., of the estate of said Amos Whiting, which have come to the hands or knowledge of said Creighton, or of any other person within his knowledge.

That said Creighton may be decreed to pay to complainant such sums of money as may be decreed against the estate of Amos Whiting, or against said Creighton in his character as administrator de bonis non, if sufficient assets shall be found in his hands for that purpose; and if not, then for such amount as said Creighton shall be found liable for; and in case said Creighton shall not be able to pay such sum or sums on account of said insolvency, then that said Jonathan McCaleb may be decreed, as his surety, to pay it for him. The bill concludes with the general prayer for relief.

The defendants demurred to this bill, but the demurrer was overruled, and they were required to answer. Answers were accordingly put in, which entered into the merits of the case; but as the opinion of this court did not touch upon that branch of the subject, it is unnecessary to do so in this report.

One part of the answer must be inserted, because it raises one of the questions decided by this court, viz: the pendency of the proceedings in insolvency.

Further answering, these defendants aver that the estate of the said Amos Whiting was reported to be insolvent to the March term, A. D. 1841, of the Probate Court of Claiborne county, and was then so declared by said court, and commissioners appointed to receive and audit claims against the said estate; and that, by reason of various delays in relation thereto, the same still remains open for the proof of claims; and these defendants insist that the complainant is bound to make out his claim in the Probate Court in the manner required by the laws of the State of Mississippi, and has no right to maintain this suit to establish said claim against the estate of Whiting; and they pray that they may be allowed to rely on the same as a plea in bar to said bill; and they further insist that, in any event, the complainants can only be entitled to such a dividend upon his claim as the estate of said Whiting may pay.

This cause having come on to be heard at the May term, 1855, of said court, and the same having been argued and submitted, on the nineteenth day of May, 1855, on final hearing on bill, bill of revivor, answers to original bill and bill of revivor, exhibits, and proofs, and the same having been taken under advisement by his honor S. J. Gholson, the judge presiding on said final hearing, and the court, being now sufficiently advised in the premises, doth see fit to order, adjudge, and decree, and it is accordingly so ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that said bill and bill of revivor be and the same is hereby dismissed, and that the complainant pay the costs to be taxed, ordered, adjudged, and decreed, on this, the twenty-sixth day of January, 1856.

The complainant appealed to this court, his administratrix, Eveline C. Green, having become the party on the record.

It was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Freeman for the appellant, and Mr. Yerger and Mr. Wharton for the appellee. Only those parts of the arguments will be noticed which relate to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in the present aspect of the case.

The counsel for the appellant stated the case with more particularity than the above summary, and then continued:

Tunstall died insolvent; the money could not be made out of him. Amos Whiting, his surety, had died in 1837, and the only way to establish his liability, as surety for Tunstall, to pay the amount of Tunstall's defalcation to the estate of Green, was to proceed against the administrator of Whiting. But it is said that Whiting's administrator is not liable in equity to account until judgment had been first obtained against him at law. To this I reply, that it was the duty of Whiting, as surety of Tunstall, to see that he administered the estate of Green according to law. He neglected this duty; the Court of Probate had full jurisdiction to ascertain and decree the amount of Tunstall's indebtedness to the estate of W. C. Green, as administrator of the same; this decree was had in accordance with law, as shown by the pleadings and proofs, and the amount of this decree could have been forced out of Tunstall by attachment and imprisonment, if he had been possessed of the means to pay it. The decree of the Probate Court was therefore a lawful and final assessment of the damages against Whiting's principal in the administration bond, by the only tribunal in the State of Mississippi having jurisdiction of that subject, and must therefore be regarded as conclusive evidence of the amount of Whiting's liability for Tunstall, and with which his estate is chargeable.

1 Phillips's Ev., 246.

7 Howard's U.S. Rep., 220.

2 Lomax, 458, 459.

2 J. J. Marshall, 195.

But if this were not so, the answers of defendants admit that Tunstall inventoried the estate of W. C. Green at upwards of $20,000, no portion of which was ever accounted for in the Probate Court. The inventory at eight per cent. would now amount to $52,000, and, in any event, he would be liable for this amount, or the increase of the sixteen slaves and the value of the bricks made on the brick yard of the estate of Green. There is no other claim established against the estate of W. C. Green. If, then, the amount of the damages have been so decreed as to be binding on Tunstall, why is not the same conclusive as to the amount of damages against his surety? Because, say they, the administration bond affords a remedy at law. If true, that does not reach the question. Bonds of administrators are the bonds of trustees in equity, and the surety is liable for the amount, in whatever tribunal the principal is liable. The jurisdiction of this court over executors and administrators is not affected by the Constitution and laws of Mississippi-its jurisdiction is not derived therefrom nor limited thereby, but only by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and these confer upon this court the same jurisdiction over administrators as that of the chancery courts of England.

9 Peters, 632, 658.

3 Wheat., 212, 4 do., 108.

5 Mason, 105.

3 Mason, 165.

3 Leigh, 407.

2 Blackford, 377.

1 Har. and J., 232.

Mumf., 368; 5 Rand, 319.

Stewart and Porter, 133; 1 Sto. Eq. Ju., 515, secs. 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, and 552.

Jeremy's Eq. Ju., 537, 538.

4 Johns. Ch. Rep., 619.

3 Johns. Ch. Rep., 56, 190.

Taylor and Benham, 5 How. U.S., 233.

Rule 51 of this Court.

From these authorities, it is evident that this court has full jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, the objects of which are to obtain a discovery of assets in the hands of the administrator, not inventoried, and to reach equitable assets of the estate in the hands of his surety, Jonathan McCaleb, and others, and to marshall the assets of the estate of Whiting, if the administrator does not admit sufficient assets to pay complainant's demand. 1 Story, Eq. Ju., 601, 602, sec. 543, 'a creditor may file his bill for the payment of his own debt, and seek a discovery of assets for this purpose only.' If he does so, and the bill is sustained, and an account is decreed to be taken, the court will, upon the footing of such an account, proceed to make a final decree in favor of the creditor, without sending him back to law for the recovery of his debt, for this is one of the cases in which a court of equity, being once in rightful possession of a case for discovery and account, will proceed to a final decree on all the merits.

1 Story, Eq. Ju., pp. 603, 604, sec. 546.

The defendant, Jonathan McCaleb, is not only a surety on the bond of Creighton, but is charged with having in his hands equitable assets of the estate of Whiting, which a judgment against Creighton would not reach, and this fact is admitted by the answer of defendants. Creighton is alleged to be insolvent, and the charge is not denied. McCaleb, his surety, has money of the estate which Creighton refuses to collect; he is therefore a proper party, for all these reasons.

Story Eq. Pl., p. 212, sec. 178.

5 Gill. J., 432, 453.

10 Gill. J., 65, 100.

2 Rand., 398, 399.

In the case of the Ordinary v. Snooks, it was held that the Probate Court was the proper tribunal to assess damages on an administration bond-5 Halstead, N. J., 65; 1 do., cited as above. But a court of equity has jurisdiction of a bill, by a distributee or legatee against an administrator and his sureties, or either of them alone, on their bond, without any previous suit at law.

6 Calls. Va. Rep., p. 21.

2 Rand., 483.

2 J. J. Marshall, 198.

3 Monroe, 354.

4 Munford, 296, 457; 2 Bibb., 276.

2 Hen'g and Mumf., 8; and Rule 51 of this Court.

These cases are conclusive on the points of jurisdiction alike upon principle and as precedents.

The counsel for the appellee stated their argument in support of the decree of the court below, dismissing the bill, as follows:

We hope to be able to make it very clear to your honors that the purpose of the complainant in filing this bill was to relieve himself from the necessity of pursuing the only course which, under the operation of the Constitution and laws of Mississippi, it was competent for him to pursue, as well as to evade the force and effect of decisions of the High Court of Errors and Appeals, made in this very cause, and between the same parties.

First, then, what has been adjudicated by said High Court of Errors and Appeals in this very cause and between the parties to this record?

It will be borne in mind that this suit is an attempt to enforce the decree of the Probate Court of Claiborne county, Mississippi, which was rendered in the plenary proceedings instituted in that court by by complainant herein against Tunstall, the administrator appointed by that court, of Wheeler C. Green. The case is first brought to the attention of the said High Court of Errors and Appeals, in Green, administrator, appellant v. Tunstall et al. 5 How. (Miss.) R., 638.

It was then and there held, that 'the Probate Court has not jurisdiction which will enable it to proceed against the sureties in an administrator's bond, on a plenary proceeding by bill. The sureties in the administrator's bond must be sued at law, after proceedings to fix the liability of the administrator.' It will be seen, from an examination of the report of the case, that a bill was filed in 1839, in the Probate Court aforesaid, against said Tunstall, administrator, and his securities on his bond, (it is the same thing denominated a plenary proceeding in this record,) for discovery of asserts, an account, and distribution. The defendants failing to appear and answer, pro confesso was taken against them, and afterwards a final decree for $44,403.35 execution was sued out, was superseded on Tunstall's petition. At May term, 1840, Tunstall filed a petition or bill of review to revise the decree of 1839, for several reasons; the only one needful to be stated being, that the court had not jurisdiction of said original bill, and that its decree was void. Green, complainant in this bill, demurred to the said petition or bill of review. Said decree was reversed as to the sureties, and the cause reopened as to Tunstall, and from that order an appeal was prosecuted. It is very true that one of the questions decided by the court had reference more particularly to the question, whether the sureties of an administrator could be called to account in the Probate Court, or whether they should not be sued after a final settlement by the administrator, and a decree to pay what might be found to be due, or to make distribution. Reference is made to the statute of Mississippi, authorizing the institution of plenary proceedings-Hutch. Code, 547, sec. 7-which provides, that whenever either of the parties, having a contest in the Orphans' Court, shall require, the said court may direct a plenary proceeding, by bill or petition, to which there shall be an answer on oath, (or affirmation;) and if the party refuse to answer on oath to any matter alleged in the bill or petition, and proper for the court to decide upon, the said party may be attached, fined, and committed, at the discretion of the court, and the matters set forth in said bill or petition shall be taken pro confesso, and decreed accordingly. Being liable only on the administration bond, not being officers of the Probate Court, the only recourse against the sureties is by action at law against them, after the liability of the administrator has been ascertained by proper proceedings in that behalf, and after a final settlement by him, and a decree of the court fixing the amount of his liability, and directing him to pay it. The same rule is held in Alabama and South Carolina, as may be seen by reference to the cases cited by the High Court, viz:

1 Porter, 70.

3 Stew and Port., 263, 348.

2 Bai., (S.C..,) 60.

1 Bai., (S.C..,) 27.

1 Nott and McCord, 587.

4 Nott and McCord, 113, 120.

It will be recollected that Whiting was only a security of Tunstall in his administration bond, and survived the grant of letters to Tunstall only about ten months. The defendant, Creighton, is administrator of Whiting and executor of defendant, McCaleb, who was a security on the bond of defendant, Creighton as administrator of Whiting. The case cited from 5th Howard, apart from being an adjudication between the same parties of the same subject matter, would be an authority upon general principles for the appellees.

The same arguments are offered, the same authorities, and some others, are cited by appellant's counsel in his printed brief in this case, which were urged by the learned counsel who argued the case from 5th Howard already cited, as may be seen from page 644 of the report of said case. Yet the High Court of Mississippi declare that they were authorities which did not apply to the case then before them, but related entirely to proceedings in the court of chancery, and jurisdiction was entertained on the peculiar grounds of the respective cases decided, and that the rule laid down in the cases from Alabama and South Carolina is not changed by the statute of Mississippi authorizing a joint action on the bond against an administrator and his securities for a devastavit; and they accordingly decided that the original decree of the Probate Court was unauthorized by law, and that the second decree was proper, and that the decree appealed from should be affirmed.

The next that we hear of these parties and of this litigation in Mississippi is in 7 Smedes and Marshall, 197.

From the report of the case there, it seems that appellant's counsel presented a claim to the commissioners of insolvency appointed upon the estate of said Whiting, which had been declared insolvent, amounting to $60,000, which was rejected by said commissioners, because unsupported by proof; that appellant thereupon filed his petition in the Probate Court, reciting the action of said court upon the plenary proceedings aforesaid, the decree thereon, and the order that suit be brought on the bond of said Tunstall, as administrator, against him and Whiting as his surety, for the payment of said decree, in any court having competent jurisdiction thereof-a copy of said bond and decree being all the evidence submitted to said commissioners in support of said claim-which was for the full amount of said bond, and that said evidence was sufficient, and prays that referees be appointed to audit said claim. They were appointed accordingly, and reported in favor of the allowance of said claim, embracing a copy of said bond in their report, as the evidence on which they based their said allowance. The administrator, Creighton, filed exceptions to the sufficiency and competency of the evidence. The exceptions were sustained, and said report set aside, to which said appellant filed a bill of exceptions, which brought the case before the High Court on an appeal from the decree vacating the allowance of said commissioners. The bill of exceptions recites that appellant relied on a copy of the bond of the administrator, and on the decree of the Probate Court rendered in the plenary proceedings aforesaid. The High Court decide, 'that in an action at law on the bond of an administrator, the bond is but inducement to the action, and no recovery can be had on it without proof of damages. It is only security for such damages as the parties interested in the estate sustained. To make it a valid claim against an insolvent estate, or against any one, it must be accompanied by proof of damages; if not so accompanied, it is not a claim. There must be proof that the condition has been broken, for it is only on such a contigency that a right of action accrues.' And again, 'instead of allowing the penalty of the bond as a claim, the referees should have allowed the amount of damages sustained by a breach of the condition.' Accordingly, they affirmed the judgment of the court below.

We again meet with this same claim in Green v. Creighton, (10 Smedes and Marshall, 159.) Now, however, the forum is changed, and, instead of proceedings in the Probate Court of Claiborne county, it is a bill filed in the Superior Court of Chancery of Mississippi: and we ask attention to the striking similarity of the prayer as set out in the report of the case, and the prayer of the present bill. The objects of the bill are very clearly specified in the opinion of the court, and are the same precisely, in legal intendment and effect, with the objects of this bill. An injunction had been granted to restrain defendant, Creighton, from paying a certain other claim against the estate of Whiting. The chancellor dissolved the injunction, and from that order an appeal was taken to the High Court of Errors and Appeals.

The following is the emphatic language of the court in affirming the decree of the chancellor:

'Nothing, certainly, is better settled in this court, than that the Court of Chancery does not possess the jurisdiction which it is here asked to exercise. The administration of estates, and the settlement of the accounts of the administrators, falls peculiarly and exclusively under the cognizance of the Probate Court. * *  * Suits upon the bonds of administrators pertain to the Circuit Court.'

In that bill, it was alleged that the administrators had practiced fraud in their settlements with the Probate Court-of which, however, no proof was offered or attempted; and the High Court held that, if the charge were established, a court of equity would have jurisdiction of a bill to set aside the settlements, and order new ones to be made in the Probate Court; but it could only entertain it for that purpose, and to that extent, and, having removed that obstacle out of the complainant's path, he would be remitted to the Probate Court, there to pursue his remedy against the administrator, as if no such fraudulent settlement had been made. They affirm that there was no evidence in the case before them to support the fraud charged. They also notice the objection taken by the appellant's counsel, 'that there was no demurrer to the jurisdiction of the court below, and that it was too late to raise the objection in the High Court, and decide that that rule is only applicable in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, not where there is an entire want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.'

We omitted to state, in its proper place, that in this case a demurrer was filed to the jurisdiction of the court, and that it was overruled, and the defendants required to answer.

The foregoing summary will serve to show that this is no new case in the courts of Mississippi, either in name or principle, and will also serve to show a reason for the change of forum.

Precisely similar, in all its features, is the case of Buckingham et al. v. Owen.

6 Smedes and Marshall, 502.

In that case, the appellee, Owen, filed his bill in the Superior Court of Chancery, reciting that on 28th February, 1840, he recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court against G. W. and B. Sims, administrators of M. Sims; that they resigned their letters of administration 2d July, 1839, and one J. R. Greer was appointed administrator de bonis non, who gave bond, with certain persons as securities, and took possession of the unadministered effects of said M. Sims, deceased; that he collected and appropriated to his own use a large amount of assets, and committed, in his said administration, a devastavit, for which he and his securities on his bond were liable to answer; that said Greer died in September, 1840, intestate and insolvent; that no one had administered on his estate; that in December, 1840, one R. Davis was appointed administrator de bonis non of said Sims, and reported the estate insolvent; that the debt to said Owen was still due. The bill prayed that the sureties on Greer's bond might be decreed to pay the judgment and costs. The defendants demurred, for want of jurisdiction. Their demurrer was overruled, and they appealed.

It will be seen, from the foregoing statement, the said original administrators, G. W. and B. Sims, had resigned some six or seven months prior to the rendition of the judgment. The judgment was, in point of fact, as it is indeed held by the court, a nullity. But the High Court proceed to remark, that even if it had been a judgment against Greer, the administrator de bonis non, 'we do not see upon what principle the jurisdiction of a court of chancery could be sustained in this State over the subject matter, after reviewing the authorities cited for the appellee, some of the very same cited by appellants in this case, particularly Spottswood v. Dandridge, 4 Munford R., 289.

They wholly deny the principle attempted to be established by them. They admit that, in some of the States of the Union, in suits against executors and administrators, courts of equity have concurrent jurisdiction with courts of law, and that it is upon that principle a court of chancery in Virginia exercises it; but they quote with approbation the language in 2 Rob. Pr., 38, showing the strong inclination of the Court of Appeals in that State to restrict parties to their remedy at law, when it is full and adequate, and referring to the case before cited by us, Green v. Tunstall, 5 Howard, 638.

They say that was 'a bill filed against the administrator and his sureties for a discovery and account of assets, and for distribution. The object was similar to that in view in this case, (Buckingham v. Owen.) The very authorities cited to sustain this bill were cited in the argument of that cause. The court decided that the remedy upon the bond was exclusively in a court of law.' So they held that the chancellor erred in overruling the demurrer; they reversed his decree, and dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction in the Chancery Court to entertain it.

The 4th article, sec. 18, of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, provides for the establishment of the Probate Court. Its language is, 'that a Probate Court shall be established in each county of this State, with jurisdiction in all matters testamentary and of administration, of orphans' business and the allotment of dower, in cases of idiocy and lunacy, and of persons non compos mentis.' In construing the powers of that court, derived from that clause of the Constitution, the High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi have repeatedly held that its jurisdiction was exclusive in reference to the matters committed to it. And thus the Superior Court of Chancery of said State has no jurisdiction whatever of the subjects confided to the Probate Court. Accordingly, on a bill filed in said Chancery Court to review, in a matter of administration, the proceedings of the Probate Court, it was held that the Chancery Court had no jurisdiction of the case, that it belonged exclusively to the Probate Court, and the bill was therefore dismissed.

Blanton v. King, 2 How. Miss. R., 856.

Carmichael v. Bronder, 3 ib., 252.

Again. When the Probate Court has full jurisdiction of a matter, its judgment is final, and cannot be distrubed, unless fraud is charged and proved.

Stubblefield v. McRaven, 5 S. and M., 130.

The utmost that a court of chancery can do is, where fraud is charged against a settlement of an administrator in the Probate Court, to set aside the settlement made in the Probate Court, and direct a new settlement there. Its jurisdiction does not extend beyond that, as was held between the parties to this record in 10 S. and M., 159.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

The intestate of the plaintiff, as an heir of Wheeler Green, deceased, and claiming, by assignment of the remaining heirs, the entire estate, filed this bill against the defendant, in his capacity of administrator of Amos Whiting, deceased, and of executor of the will of Jonathan McCaleb. He states, that Albert Tunstall became the administrator of the estate of Wheeler Green by the appointment of the Court of Probate of Claiborne county, Mississippi, in 1836; that he gave bond for the faithful performance of his duties, with Amos Whiting as his surety; that Tunstall received a large amount of property belonging to the estate, and committed a devastavit; that in the year 1841, his intestate summoned Tunstall before the Probate Court to make an account, and upon that accounting he was found to be indebted to him, as heir, sixty-one thousand one hundred and ninety-four 76-100 dollars; which sum he was required to pay by the decree of the court, and authority was given to prosecute a suit on the administration bond. The bill avers that Tunstall and Whiting, his surety, are both dead, and that all of his other sureties are insolvent. It charges that the defendant, Creighton, as administrator of Whiting, has assets in his hands for administration, and that a portion of the assets is in the hands of McCaleb, who is the surety of Creighton on his bond to the Probate Court, as administrator of Whiting.

The object of the bill is to establish the claim of the intestate and his representative, arising from the judgment against Tunstall and the breach of his administration bond, on which Whiting is a surety, against the administrator of Whiting and his surety, and to obtain satisfaction from them to the extent of the assets in their hands belonging to that estate, and for this purpose they seek a discovery of the assets, and account and payment.

The defendants appeared to the bill, and allege that the estate of Whiting has been regularly administered, and that returns have been made to the Probate Court of Claiborne county, Mississippi, of whatever property came to the hands of the administrator, Creighton, whose character as administrator is admitted, and that he was then engaged in administering the estate under the laws of Mississippi; that the estate had been reported to the Probate Court as insolvent several years before this suit was instituted, and that commissioners had been appointed by that court to receive and credit the claims; which commission was still open for the proof of claims. They contest the validity of the judgment recovered against Tunstall, and the truth of the account preferred against them, and deny the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to entertain this bill. The connection of McCaleb with the bond of Creighton is admitted, and also that a portion of the money of the estate of Whiting had been deposited with or lent to him. Upon the hearing of the cause on the pleadings and proofs, the bill was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and by the agreement of the parties the record has been made up so as to present that question only. None other will, therefore, be considered. In the organization of the courts of the United States, the remedies at common law and in equity have been distinguished, and the jurisdiction in equity is confided to the Circuit Courts, to be exercised uniformly through the United States, and does not receive any modification from the legislation of the States, or the practice of their courts having similar powers. Livingston v. Story, 9 Pet., 632.

The judiciary act of 1789 conferred upon the Circuit Courts authority 'to take cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and * *  * the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State.'

The questions presented for inquiry in this suit are, whether the subject of the suit is properly cognizable in a court of equity, and whether any other court has previously acquired exclusive control of it. The court has jurisdiction of the parties. In the Court of Chancery, executors and administrators are considered as trustees, and that court exercises original jurisdiction over them, in favor of creditors, legatees, and heirs, in reference to the proper execution of their trust. A single creditor has been allowed to sue for his demand in equity, and obtain a decree for payment out of the personal estate without taking a general account of the testator's debts. Attorney General v. Cornthwaite, 2 Cox, 43; Adams Eq., 257. And the existence of this jurisdiction has been acknowledged in this court, and in several of the Courts of Chancery in the States. Hagan v. Walker, 14 How., 29; Pharis v. Leachman, 20 Ala. R., 663; Spottswood v. Dandridge, 4 Munf., 289. The answer of the defendant contains an assertion that, prior to the filing of the bill, the estate of Whiting was reported to the Probate Court of Claiborne county as insolvent, and thereupon that court had appointed commissioners to audit the claims that might be presented and proved, as preparatory to a final settlement, and that the commission was still open for the exhibition of claims.

But of this statement there is no sufficient proof. Neither the report nor any decretal order founded on it is contained in the record, and the proceedings referring to one are of a date subsequent to the filing of the bill.

The question arises, then, whether the fact of the pendency of proceedings in insolvency in the Probate Court will oust the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States. In Suydam v. Brodnax, 14 Pet., 67, a similar question was presented. A plea in abatement was interposed in the Circuit Court in Alabama, in an action at law against administrators, to the effect that the decedent's estate had been reported as insolvent to a Court of Probate, and that jurisdiction over the persons interested and the estate had been taken in that court. This court declared that the eleventh section of the act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, carries out the constitutional right of a citizen of one State to sue a citizen of another State in the Circuit Court of the United States. 'It was certainly intended,' say the court, 'to give to suitors having a right to sue in the Circuit Court remedies coextensive with those rights. These remedies would not be so, if any proceedings under an act of a State Legislature to which a plaintiff was not a party, exempting a person of such State from suit, could be pleaded to abate a suit in the Circuit Court.'

In Williams v. Benedict, 8 How., 107, this court decided that a judgment creditor in a court of the United States could not obtain an execution and levy upon the property of an estate legally reported as insolvent in the State of Mississippi to the Probate Court, and which was in the course of administration in that court. The court expressly reserve the question as to the right of a State to compel foreign creditors, in all cases, to seek their remedies against the estates of decedents in the State courts alone, to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States.

The cases of Peall v. Phipps, 14 How., 368, and Bank of Tennessee v. Horn, 17 How., 157, are to the same effect.

The case of the Union Bank v. Jolly, 18 How., 503, was that of a judgment creditor who recovered a judgment against administrators, who subsequently reported the estate of their decedent insolvent. After administering the estate in the Probate Court, it was ascertained that there was a surplus in their hands. The creditor had not made himself a party to the settlement in the Probate Court; and the administrators contended that his claim was barred.

This was a suit in Mississippi. This court determined that the creditor had a lien upon the assets thus situated.

Thus it will be seen, that under the decisions of this court, a foreign creditor may establish his debt in the courts of the United States against the representatives of a decedent, notwithstanding the local laws relative to the administration and settlement of insolvent estates, and that the court will interpose to arrest the distribution of any surplus among the heirs. What measures the courts of the United States may take to secure the equality of such creditors in the distribution of the assets, as provided in the State laws (if any) independently of the administration in the Probate Courts, cannot be considered until a case shall be presented to this court.

The remaining question to be considered is, whether the debt described in the bill entitles a plaintiff to come into a court of equity, under the circumstances. It is well settled, that no one can proceed against the sureties on an administration bond at law, who has not recovered a judgment against the administrator. 5 How. Miss. R., 638; 6 Port., 393. But this rule is not founded upon the supposition that there is no breach of the bond until a judgment is actually obtained. The duty of the administrator arises to pay the debts when their existence is discovered; and the bond is forfeited when that duty is disregarded. The jurisdiction of a court of equity to enforce the bond arises from its jurisdiction over administrators, its disposition to prevent multiplicity of suits, and its power to adapt its decrees to the substantial justice of the case. Moore v. Walter's Heirs, 1 Marsh. R., 488; Moore v. Armstrong, 9 Porter, 697; Carew v. Mowatt, 2 Ed. Ch. R., 57.

In this case, the original debtor, Tunstall, has died insolvent. Whiting, his surety, has died insolvent. A portion of the assets belonging to the estate of the latter is in the hands of the surety of this administrator. A discovery of the amount and nature of the assets in hand, and their application to the payment of the debt, are required, if they are subject to the application.

We conclude that the Circuit Court was authorized to entertain this suit, and that the decree dismissing the bill is erroneous.

Decree reversed.


text: Talk:Green's Administratrix v. Creighton/Opinion of the Court

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1866

 INDEX. oxv Howoiian I tlatada, SuquicemeftniaZ C. bration 0/ Diacouerv o/-contd. silver liC-Oent pieces to be coined in commemoration of ___________ _ H otDIJiian National GVlJ.rd, deficiency approt>riation for officers of, an4 !ilipwos, members of, lor tr&lnlDg pay ________________ _ payment directed to officers and Fili- f:J26TarmstroBot (talk)!_tTarmstroBot (talk)_ TarmstroBot (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_ Howu, R. B., Chief Boot.1DIJin,iVolJf/, appointment as ensign authorized, for meritorious services in salvage of Ships S-4 and 8-51- _________ _ to be an additional number _______ _ H owuviUe and Cannelton Bridge Company, may bridge Ohio River, at Cannelton, Ind ________________________ _ Hawthorne, Nev., 198 929 365 1228 1228 1431 deficiency appropriation for naval am- munition depot______________ 908 Har.?x:::wers in Tezas, c· of, prevented from harvestil!~ crop in 1925, by quarantine against hoof and mouth diseaae to be examined and settled by Comptroller GeneraL _________ 1159 allowance not to exceed amount paid by act of Texas 1egiBlature_ ____ 1160 appropriation for paying allowed claUns_______________________ 1160 maximum to be paid agents, etc., for services__________________ 1160 exacting, etc., sum in excess, un- lawful_______________________ 1160 penalty for violations___________ 1160 Hayward Indian Hospital, Wis., • appropr;ation for construction, etc_ ___ 1582 Hayward. Wis., appropriation for Indian school at__ 219, 1580 Head Ta:e, etc., appropriation for refunding illegally collected _______ ~ ___ __ __ __ 107,1137 Headstones/or Soldiers' Graves, etc., 0 appropriation for ________________ 354,1375 deficiency appropriation for furnishing, soldiers' graves in Europe_ ____ 37 forfurnishing ________ 43,50,936,938,1620 authorized to be erected over graves of soldiers of Confederate Army ___ .. 1307 Healing Arts Practice Act, D. C., 19f8, meaning assigned to terms used_______ 1326 "Disease" _______________________ 1326 "The healing art"; not including dentistry, podiatry, optometry, pharmacy, nursing____________ 1326 "To nractice"; "Commi s si~ n"; f. Board"; .. Drugless healing"; "School" ________ ___________ _ 1326 practicing, without license, or registry, forbidden____________________ 1327 otherwise than as licensed or regis- tered________________________ 1377 commission on licensure to practice the healing ar~ created__ _________ 1327 composition; omcers; powers, etc___ 1327 applications for licenses and registra- tion to be considered by_______ 1327 may be issued by outstanding li- censes to practice, etc_ ________ 1327 examination to determine profes- sional fitness_________________ 1327 Healing Am Practtc. A~ D. C., 19S8- Paae. Continued. commiasion on liceneure to pr&etice, ap- plications to licenses; certifying of, to proper eT&m;D~__ 1328 license to iuue 00 favo report of board_____________________ 1328 may appoint examiners, employees, lleCure quarters, purchase sup- plies________________________ 1328 boards of examiners; in basic ICiencee, medicine and osteop- athy, chiropractic, naturopathy, midwifery, and druglesa healing to be appointed by____________ 1328 qualificatioD8, etc., gf members of boards ______________________ 0 1328 duties, etc., of examining boards______ 1328 board of examiners in basic aciencee; qualifications, etc_____________ 1328 applicants for licenses to be referred tOI as to ability to apply the sCIences to the healing art_ _ ___ 1329 examination and report to the com- miBBion_______ _______________ 1329 certification by commission to other boards for profeBBional fitne88_. _ _ 1329- no license to, if reported not quali- fied; except.ioDS_ _ ____________ 1329' board of examiners in medicine and osteopathy; qualifications, etc__ 1329> composition of, examinations, etc___ 13291 certify to commission of applicants foundqualified _________________ 1330 applicants not intending to limit practice to drugless healing method, referred to___________ 133~ if qualified in basic ICiences______ 1300 provisions for determining fitn6118 of ap- o plicants for licenses by druglesa 'niTarmstroBot (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Zb:qiiiilifi~iio,,'to: l::g eligibility of graduates of representa- tive school, etc_______________ 1331 action on applications intending to limit practice to drugless Dlethods_____________________ 1331 board of examiners, qualifications, etc__ 1331 applicants referred to, for determining fitness for licenses, etc_________ 1331 regular terms of examinations by the boards______________________ 1331 publication of notices thereof_______ 1331 nature and extent of examinations to be prescribed___________________ 1332 to be in writing; identity of person not to be knoWD______________ 1332 similarity of questions; standard rule for credits, etc__ ______________ 1332 uniformity in examinations________ 1332 questions to be submitted to commis- sion by the boards ___________ _ preparation, distribution, etc., 01 ___ _ method, etc., of holding examinations__ ratings of examinees from reports of board_______________________ 1333 1332 1332 1332 consideration by commission; qualified afPlicants to receive licenses_ __ 1333 record 0 reports open to inspection_ ___ 1333 numbering and classification of licenses_ 1333 persons desiring to practice, to apply for authority so to do_ __ _________ 1333 form, etc., of applicatioDB__________ 1333 fees required for licenses; practition- ers excepted__________________ 1333

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1867

 cxvi HetJIi", A". PrGd~ Act, D. C., 19B8- Continued. plellell~ pract'UoD8J'8 must apply for lI08tuIee_.~ ___________________ _ publieation 01 requirement________ _ applbtioDafor rilicelUling________ _ after five yean no Ucenses to be iaaued baaed 011 former Iaws_________ _ O8teopathy requirement. for present practitioners ________________ _ issue of licenses; for OIIteopathy' and surserYi for O8teopathy only__ _ chiropractic. requirements for present practitioners_________________ _ issue of UceDIIe8, etc ______________ _ drugless healing requirements for present practitioners ________________ _ proofrequUed___________________ _ issue of UceD85, etc______________ _ applications for licen1e8 without eDDl- ination, by State UceDSe8, etc. _ __ _ proof required ___________________ _ of reciprocity of State, etc______ _ issue of UceIl8ell, etc ______________ _ proof required of applicants after e:um- ination, as to age, character, and education___________________ _ licenae deferred until graduated from a registered school. ___ __ _ of graduation, training, etc., required under former law ____________ _ osteopathy requirements __________ _ drugl_ healing requirements______ _ conerore:;~=tiTarmstroBot (talk):r~=:: 31,lm____________________ _ midwifery requirements __________ _ suspension or revoking licenses by Dis- trict Supreme Court in equity __ petition to be filed; -"prooedure _____ _ appeal allowed to District Court of Ap~- determin6tion by District Supreme Court______________________ _ forbiddtu;t acts; ~!lg false evidence WIth COmmI8810n _____________ _ disclosing identity, etc., to examiner when given a number, etc_____ _ allowing another to impersonate him to obtain certificate, etc______ _ diacIosing in advance questions, etc., for applicants _______________ _ allo~ an~ther to impersonate him In practlce __________________ _ impersonati~ licensed person _____ _ altering, forgmg, etc., evidence with intent to evade provisions of this Act ________________________ _ unfair rating, etc., of applicant____ _ false swearing for evading, etc., pur- poses of this Act declared per- ~ury, and punishable therefor__ action if commission refuse license, etc_ hearings, etc.; assistance of. ______ _ District Supreme Court__________ _ reviewal by District Supreme Court, etc., if license denied _________ _ penalty for violations of Act________ _ suspension, etc., of licensed jleraon con- victed of felony by District Su-
 * preD!e Court________________ _

injunctIon by District Supreme Court for unlawful practice of healing art_________________________ _ INDEX. 1334 1334 1334 1334 1334 1334 1335 1335 1335 1335 1335 1335 1335 1335 1335 1336 1336 1336 1336 1336 1336 1336 1337 1337 1337 1337 1337 1337 1337 1337 1337 1337 1338 1338 1338 1338 1338 1338 1338 1338 1338 1338 HetJIi", Ana Prodioe Act, D. C., 1918- PIa Continued. injunctiOn by >District Supreme Court;, only after final judgment OD merits of the case___________________ 1839 procedure; ,remedy additional to arlmlD&l,proaecution, etc_______ 1339 license requirements not applicable to Government 8urseons, etc_ ___ __ 1339 practitioners under State, etc., li- censes, coming to visit specttied patients, for consultations, etc__ 1839 ~!!!\:c:TarmstroBot (talk)_TarmstroBot (talk)iTarmstroBot (talk) _ _ 1339 evidence of right to exemption to be filed; registry and certificate of___________________________ 1339 treatments exempt from provisions of Act; actual emergency cases____ 1339 ~, etc_____________________ 1339 use of Ciomestic remedies' conditions_ 1339 use of prayer, etc.; condltions______ 1339 sale o! dru~, etc., if refraining from diagnos~____________________ 1340 moneys received to be deposited as a special fund__________________ 1340 payment of expenses from; except of criminal prosecutions_ _ _____ __ 1340 present medical boards to deliver rec- ords to Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art_ ___ 1340 Board of Medical Supervisors to transfer balance to commission; use for expenses of the Act_____ 1340 enfo!CC!Dent by Di~trict authorities____ 1340 cnmmal proceedIngs______________ 1340 suspension of licenses, and injunc- tions________________________ 1340 annual report of commiB8ion, etc______ 1340 title of Act________________________ 1340 disposition of matters pending before Board of Medical Supervisors__ 1340 criminal prosecutions______________ 1341 inconsistent laws repealed_ __________ 1341 Health Department, D. C., appropriation for salaries_________ 667, 1284 forpreventingcontagiousdiseases_ 667,1284 amallpox hospital, etc ________ 668, 1284 assignment of bacteriologists__ 668, 1284 for isolating wards, Garfield and Providence Hospitals_______ 668, 1284 for tuberculosis and venereal diseases dispensaries _______________ 668,1284 for quarters of Clinics, including ~uipment--- 668 for diSInfecting service _________ 668, 1284 for drainage of lots, abatement of nuisances_________________ 668, 1285 for detecting food, etc., adultera- tions____________________ " 668,1288 for hygiene and sanitation, public sc l io o ~ ___________________ 66 8,1285 for laboratories, etc____________ 668, 1285 for dairy farm inspection _______ 668,1285 for enforcing food and drug violations, etc___________' __ __ __ __ _ __ 669,1285 for public crematorium, etc_____ 669,1285 containers, etc., for ashes of indi- gentpersons ______________ 669,1285 transferdirectedofm~rec6rds to District Supreme Court_ _____ 1285 for motor vehicles _____________ 669,1285 for child hygiene service; welfare stations__________________ 669, 1285

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1868

 INDEX. • cxvii Health Depar1mlflt, D. C .-C Ontinued. defiCienI12901:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk)_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC) TarmstroBot (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 1693 H8IJlUa Ofliar, D. C., directed. to transfer JDal'!'i- .e reoords in hie omee to Diatriel Supreme Cknut_~ ___________________ ~_ 1285 H /lanf191 in Lo.nd Rntriu, . appropriation far expeDsea, etc ____ 202, 1564 Hecht, J. L ., ~t .' may bridge Mississippi River, at Bet- - tendorf, Iowa________________ 759 time extended for bridldng Miasissippi River, at Betteniiorf, Iowa, by__ 1512 Helma, Ark., bridge a~thorbed ac1"Oll8 Misaisai,Ppi . River, at____________________ 762 time extended for bridging Mississippi Rive~at- 1529 Helma, Mrml., . a\>propriation for assay office aL __ 176,1041 H elun", Armv, appropriation for procuring, from Mines . Bureau ___________________ 338, 1361 Helium GOII, appropriation for operation of plants for' Army and Navy production of _______________________ 103,1133 for invest~ting resources arui con- servatIOn oL ______________ 103, 11~4 for acquirin~ plants, sites, etc., for production oL ____________ 104,1134 Helium, Navy, . appropriation for procuri~g, from Mines Bureau ___________________ 63~ 1 465 Hellenic Republic (see Greece) Hemlock Street NW., D. C., appropriation for p'ving, etc.]. Thir- teenth to Fourteenth i::!treetsj from g8l!Oline tax fund_ _______ 1270 Hemp, appropriation for investigating, for pulp manufacture ______________ 554,1205 Henderllon Bridge Company, time extended for bridging Kanawha River by, at Henderson, W. Va_______________________ 314, 1525 Hender8on, Ky., bridge authorized acroBB Ohio River, at_ 485 Henderllon I filet, Watlh., trestle, etc., in, legalized· __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ 1430 Henderson-Ohio Ril'er Bridge Company, may bridge Ohio River, at Henderson, ]{y-- use of tolls, designated ____________ _ otherfunds for retiring bonds, etc__ iBBue of bonds, etc _______________ _ 485 485 485 486 on redemption of bonds, etc., bridge to become property of Ken- tucky_______________________ 486 to be a free bridge on conveyance by Bridge Company to the State___ ~__ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ 486 Henderllon, W. Va., time extended for bridging Kanawha River, to Point Pleasant from. 314,1525 Hendrix, B. L., etc., may bridge Ohio River, at Mound Cuy, 111_____________________ 316 time extended for bridging Ohio River, Mound City, Ill., by__________ 1529 Henry A. Greene Memorial Association, authorized to erect memorial building, at Fort Lewis, Wash_ ___ ______ 1154 HW71 Barrad:a, P. R., . p .... construction authorized of· buildings, . etc., on~..i ________,_ .. .: ____ '____ • 1301 Henr71 Count7l, T6!"n'l .. ' bridge authoriJJea &Cro1llJ·· Teaneasee RiV8r,'in Stiew&tt CouDtyand__ 418 Hermann Bridge Company. . may bridge Missouri River, .t Her- mann, :r.Io-,--~--- .149 Hermann, MO'I • • bridge ~ut~ aclOBB Missouri Rlver~,at-- _, -,. . -- -- i49 Hernando TobGcco Com:pany, sale of Brooksville Plant Introduction, Qarden to, authorized_________ 427 Hero, Geqrge A.,ond A~'S. Hackett, time ex~nded. (or· bridging Mississippi River, between New Orleans and Gretna, La.• by____________ 193,1229 Hertford and Gates Countiu N. C.~ bridge authorized across Chowan River, in________'______ ·_ _ _ _ _ _____ ___ 1434 Hertford County, N. C., . . bridge authonzed &CroBB Meherrin River; . .in__________ .---_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ 1451 Hertfort) Pl~ NW., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., Oak to Ogden Streets; fl"i>m gasoline tax fund______-_____ ·__________ ' 653 Heyburn, Idaho, ' bridge acroBB Snake River, at, legaliSed_ 286 Hickey, J. F., etc., " may bridge Puglit'SOund; Wash., at the Narrows_____________________ 1403 Hickman, Ky., . bridge authori'*Cd aiclOBB MiBBissippi River,at__ ~ _____ ~ ___ ________ _ 321 time extended for bridging MisaiBBippi River,at ____________________ 1532 Higdon, B. L ., may bridge Perdido Bay, at Bear Point, Ala___________ ~_____________ 385 High Tem~aturu, appropnation for investigating methods . of measurement and control of__ "_' ___ " __ __ __ ___ _ .:: _____ 93,1123 Highgate Spring., Vt., ' appropriation for public buil<Ung_ _ _ _ _ 1042 deficiency appropriation for public building at ___ ~_,~ ____ ___ __ __ _ _ 921 Highway Bridge, D. C ., . appropriation for;operating expense~__ 65'1 for 'reconstructing floor system; un- mediately avanable _______ ~___ 657 deficiency appropriation for flooring, etc_________ --_______________ 16ag for maintenance, 1929_____________ 1692 Highway C0ft.8tr~ion (866 Public Roads Bureau). . Highways Conference, Second Pan Amer- ican, deficiency appropriation for expenses of partiCipating in, at Rio de Ja- neiro________~ ___•_____________.__ 912 amount authorized for participating in_ 403 Highways pepartment, D~ C., appropnatlOD for'salaries, etc______ 647,1264 for housing shops of, at Bryant Street station_ _ _ _ _ _________________ 1264 -deficiency appropriation for salaries, 1929________________________ 1692 Highways, Federal (see Federal Highway Act) •.

�


text: Cage v. Cassidy

title: Cage v. Cassidy


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1869

 cxviii • INDEX. Hi/lAtDa". B"atem, D. C., P8nfICIMIIl hoP. . 8,,'""'0/, ' appropriation. for revision of plana.. _ 648, 1265 HiliUbraM, Jamea, name pl.., .n;n yeRo" lever honor rol! . aDd pN88l'ltedilOldmedaL_____ 1409 to receive '126 monthly _____ ~___ 1'10 HilI.boroufA Ba", . brid&e &eI'Ol8, at Tampa, FJa.,leplbed- 55 HillaborOUflh, Coumll, Fla., brid&e eonatructed Ily, across Hille- borough Bay, at Tam~ lepJiaed_ 55 Hingham, M...., ' deficlency .a ~prlation for ammuni- tion ;re~t, Ji~tJliIlg protectlon_ 908 Hinton, WGlm,fotfllf1' Lil/UteAGm, N4IJII gold medal awarded, for' aehleveznent In first succeuful· trans-Atlantic fiJght__________'_ _ __ _ _______ __ lUi8 HiatoritJGJ ~"D. C., . appropriation for tablets to mark __ 651,1268 Hobbs, Jamu D., . . payment "ut.horis/ild. to Harry Ward- man, Thomas P; Bones, and, . tor uae ofBlebclr.Building, D. C., ,ul{~r;:--TarmstroBot (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)t~ ,56 further least6ibuDding auth9rized_ _ 56 Hobokmt. N. J ., -. deficiency apprqpriation for post office, replacement of present fltruc- ture; 1J.n~ ad~from Shipping Board____ ~ __ __ __ __ _ _ ~_______ 1658 HodgenuiUe, Ky., improvement. etc., authoriaed of Abra- ham Lincoln National Park or BeserTAti,on,. near_____________ 1162 HogC~, appropriation for investigating, treat- ing,eCo--~-~-- 547,1197 Hogbac1c Irrigation Project, N. Me., appropriation for maintenance, etc., of, OD Navajo. Rese"ation; repay- ment___:_:.. _________ • __ " __ _ 213,1575 deficiency appropriation for diversion dam repair________'-_- 900 Holbroek &r«I Nil., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., Florida Avenue to Morae 8tteet; from gasoline tax fund_____________ 654 Holbrook T~ NB.,D. C., appropriation for paving; etc., west of Queen Street; from gasoline tax fund________________________ 654 HoUand <eee Netherlands). Home BCMWmiu, deficiency appropriation for further development of, among the ·Sta~,etc--- 1626 additional appropriations authorized for voeatlonal eduCation in States and TerritOries,of____ ~ ______ _ 1151 Home Et!O'Mfnw, AgricuU~ral, amount authorized in developing, in system of extension_ _ _________ 711 Home Et!O'Mfniu Bureau, Department 01 Agriculture, appropriation for Chief of Bureau, and office personneL ___________ 564,1215 for investigating utilizing farm prod- ucts itl the home___________ 664, 1215 deficiency appropriation for salaries, 1929________________________ 1678 Home lor Aged and Infirm, D. C., " 'P.... appropriation for 1Ial&rieIJ _________ 676, 1292 for maintenance ___________ . .; _ __ 676, 1293 for repairs, etc ___________ .. . ____ 676, 12W for additional ward buUdiDp, etc__ .. 1'293 Home lor I_abla, D. C., WuhiftQton, appropriation . for care of indigent patients __________________ 67" 12~1 deficiencyapproJlri.at!onfor_______ :. _ _ 892 Homeopathic Medical Ezaminer., D. C., BOGI'd oj, - '. record, etc., to be delivem to Commis- sion on LiceDBUre to Practice the Healing Art__________________ 1340 Homestead £awa, repeal of provisions extending, to Yellowstone National Forest___ 622 Homu,teada, appropriation for cla.ssiii.cation. etc., of lands within national fo1't1dts, etc., for__________ ~ ___ __ __ _ 664, 1204 lands of entrymen of, under Reclama- tion projects, subject to -State, etc.t. .taxes ____________ .___ ____ 439 Homeatead3, Enlarged, . appropriation for examining, - olMBify- ing, etc.,laDds suitable for__ 232,1595 Honduraa, _ appropriation for minister to _______ 66, 1096 Honolulu, H G.waii, appropriation for public building_____ 1042 deficiepcy appropriation· for public building at___________________ m Hood RilJef', Oreg., bridge &croBB Columbia River, at, Hoopa vTarmstroBot (talk)c~ij,;.;- 285 appropriation for. Indian school, im- provements__________________ 1578 Hoopa vaUellIndian Hoapital, Calil., appropriation for mainteI.1ance, etc., of. 220 1581 Hoopa Valley Indian Reaeroation, Calil., deficiency appropriation for part COBt of a bridge and road on________ 902 Bum authorized for half the cost of bridge and road on____________ 589 California, etc., furnish the balance, and Dlaintain both____________ 590 Hope and Help Mission, D. C ., appropriation for care of women and children under_________ :. . _ __ 676, 1293 Hopi Indian Hospital, Am., appropriation lor support, etc., 01. _ __ 1581 Hopi I1'Idian ReBeroation, Ari,., appi'opriation for miscellaneous irriga- tion projectson____________ 210,1572 for Chimopovy day school, construc- tion_________________________ 1577 Hopi I1'Idians, Ariz., . deficiency appropriation for water sup- ply on ~ations___________ 1617 for reimbursing, for livestock of, destroyed to prevent contagious ~___ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ___ 1638 Hopkina, Major E. 0., Arm" Quartermas- ter CorP8, credits allowed in accounts of, for ac- quiring Canadian properties._ __ 463 Hoquiam, Waah., deficiency appropriation for public building at___________________ 1658 board of inspector of hulls, and of boilers created at___ ___ _________ ___ __ 710 allowances_______________________ 710

�


text: Talk:Cage v. Cassidy

title: Talk:Cage v. Cassidy


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1870

 INDEX. cxix Hora. Meal (,.. Equine Meat). Pap. Hor,u, Arm", appropriation lor purchue 01 ______ 834,1357 enClOuJ'aling breeding of riding_ 3M, 1857 . limit of eoatracts; purciliaee of, at . ~--______________ 334 standard required_______________ 334 purchase of native hol'lle8 for forces in Chlna_____________________ 334 no~e:'-01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)-TarmstroBot (talk) 334 deficiency appropriation for_________ 43, 1619 limitation on purchases of, and mules__ 245 HorBlls, Mulea, and A83u, provisions for humane treatment of cattle for export extended to_ __ 789 HorallY, Henry, etc., may bridge Des Moines River, at Cro- ton. Iowa____________________ 706 time extended for bringing Des Moines River, Croton, Iowa, by_______ 1535 Horticultural, etc., 1fWUtigationa, appropriation for ________________ 5~2, 1202 studies in condition of vegetables, etc., in transporting, storage, etc_ 552, 1202 deficiency appropriation for investigat- ing, etc., crop diseases_________ 1633 Horticultural E2:periment Station, Wyo., establishment of, directed for propa- gating trees, vegetables, etc., for diBtribution within semiarid lands, et.c __ __ __ __ ___ __ _ ~_____ 323 amount authorized for buildings, propagation, etc______________ 323 annual appropriationB authorized.._ _ _ 323 Horticultural Organizationa, exernl?t from income tax_____________ 812 Hospital Matrona, Army, ap~ropriation for pay_____________ 329, 1353 HOBpitala, Army, appropriation for construction, repair, etc., at POBt and generaL ___ 336, 1359 Hot Springs, Ark ____________ 336,1359 temporary camp, etc_________ 336,1359 new construction forbidden ___ 336, 1359 for restoring post, Jefferson Barracks, Mo_________________________ 336 deficiency appropriation for Walter Reed, D. C., additional facili- ties_ _ _ _____ __ _______________ 36 for construction and repair_______ 43,1619 nonsectarian ehaJ)e1 mav be erected on grounds of Medic&l Center, D. C_ 156 H OBpitala, etc., for Veteran.' Burllau, appropriation for, services, etc ____ 588,1246 use for. new hospitals, etc., for- bidden__A _________________ 588,1246 amount for improving, etc., facil- ities______________________ 588,1246 Ho.pitals, etc., for Veterans' Bureau Pa- tients, additional hospital, domiciliary, andout- patient diBpensary facilities, in Bureau hospitals, authorized for mentally afHicted WocJd War veterans_____________________ 715 Hospitala for Minera, additional grant of public lands for, to Arizo~_____________________ 1252 toUt&b. _________________________ 1252 Hot Springs, Ark., conveyance to, of lot for use of fire de- partment of the city___________ 959 may be sold by the city, for a new building, etc__________________ 959 54835°-29-PT 1--118 Hot Spring" Af'1c., Arm71 aM N tJfJf/ HOIpital, Pace. appropriation for oonatruction, repatra, etc_______________________ 336,1359 for suppl1fl1, etc________________ 840,1359 Hot Spring, NoUottal Park, Ark., appropriation for administration, etc_ _ 234, 1597 for paving, etc., ~e Avenue___ 1597 Hot Sp""", 8. DGk., appropriation for expenses, Volunteer Soldiers' Home ____________ 362,1354 deficiency appro~riation for Volunteer SOldiers' Home ____ 39,980, 1667, 1668 H01Ilton, Me., appropriation for public bui1ding__ ~___ 1042 deficiency appropriation for public' building at___________________ 921 Houae of Detention, D. C., appropriation for expenses_________ 666,1282 offenders, etc., over 17 years of age_ 666, 1282 location of, barred from vicinity of Capitol, etc ________________ 666,1282 deficiency appropriation for mainte- nanc~ etc____________________ 1629 HOUle of RepruentatillU, appropriationfor compensation of Mem- bers, Delegates, aJld ResIdent Commissioners ____________ 620, 1390 for mileage____________________ 520,1390 for Speaker!s office, preparing Digest of the Rules_______________ 620,1390 for Chaplaln_ . . ____ _____ _____ __ 620,1390 for Clerk of the House, clerka, etc________ ~ ________________ 620,1390 for clerks and janitors to cominlt- tees______________. :. ____ __. _ 621, 1391 codifying laws of District of Colum- bia. ______________ .: ~__________ 521 clerks under Clerk of the House after close of COngres8 ______ 522,1392 appointment and· duties of jani- tors' services under Doorkeeper at close of COngress ________ 622, 1392 for 8e~nt at Arms, deputy, etc_ 622, 1392 for police force, House Office Build- ing~________ .. _____________ 622,1392 for DOorkeeper, special employee, etc________________.~-- 522, 1392 messengers, laborers, etc______ 522, 1392 for superintendent of folding room, etc_______________________ 622,1392 forpages______________________ 522,1392 for superintendent of document room, Elmer E. Lew, etc__ 522,1392 for minority employees_________ 623,1393 for special employees___________ 623,1393 appointment of successors~ ____ 523, 1393 for office of maj<Uity t.oor leader _ 523, 1393 for clerks, etc., conference minor- ity_______________________ 523,1393 for messengers, majority and minor- ity caucus rooms_ ____ __ ____ 623, 1393 for postmaater, assistant, etc____ 523, 1393 for official reporters, etc ________ 623, 1393 for stenographers to committees__ 523, 1393 "during the session" to mean 121 days________________________ 523 "during the session" to mMt212 days__________________ ~:____ 1393 for clerk hire, Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners_ 523, 1393 for contingent expenses; materials forfolding ________________ 524,1394 for furniture and repairs ________ 524,1394 for p~cking boxes ______________ 524, 1394

�


text:
Cage v. Cassidy/Opinion of the Court

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi.

It was a bill filed by Robert H. Cage, in his lifetime, to stay execution on a forthcoming bond under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court.

The Circuit Court granted a temporary injunction in the outset of the case, but upon the final decree adjudged that the injunction be dissolved, and that Cassidy be permitted to sue out executions at law upon the judgments of the court, then restrained by injunction.

From this decree the complainant appealed to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Brent and Mr. Phelps for the appellant, and Mr. Bradley and Mr. McCalla for the appellee.

The principal point in the case being the effect of the Tennessee judgment, the argument upon that point only will be noted in this report.

The counsel for the appellant noticed this point as follows:

It further appears, that while the case was pending in the Tennessee State court, having competent jurisdiction thereof, for the purpose of abating and avoiding the note, and in defiance of the injunction of that court, Cassidy instituted a suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the State of Mississippi against Cage, and recovered judgment on this very note, which was in litigation between the parties in Tennessee, notwithstanding the effort of Cage to defend himself in the premises, when sued at law.

The pending of that suit in Tennessee constituted no legal defence to the suit brought in the United States court on this note, but it is available only in equity, especially now, (as shown by Cage's supplemental bill and the concession of the truth thereof,) that the Tennessee court has finally decreed the abatement of the amount of the note, and the fraud of Cassidy in obtaining the antecedent judgments on which that note was predicated, and which in fact constituted its only consideration.

It is rather inconsistent for the court to have overruled a demurrer to this supplemental bill, and afterwards to have dismissed the same bill when all its allegations were admitted except the one of fraud.

It certainly is inconsistent, unless fraud was the material inquiry, and even in that event the court had the conclusive evidence of this very fraud in the explicit ruling of the Tennessee court in its final decree, as shown in the admission of facts.

The Tennessee court therefore had jurisdiction; and if so, there can be no judicial inspection behind the decree, except by appellate power.

Grignon v. Astor, 2 How., 341.

10 Peters, 449; 2 H. and G., 42.

6 H. and J., 182; 4 H. and J., 394.

The true test of jurisdiction is, whether a demurrer would lie to Cage's bill in Tennessee.

Tomlinson v. McKay, 5 Gill, 256.

Even if this were a case of concurrent jurisdiction, the court first having cognizance has exclusive jurisdiction.

1. Md. Ch. Rep., 351, 295.

2 Md. Ch. Rep., 42; 7 Gill, 446.

Under the Constitution, that decree is just as conclusive in Mississippi as in Tennessee.

7 Cranch, 481; 3 Wheat., 234.

6 Wheat., 129; 13 Peters, 312.

5 G. and J., 500; 3 Gill, 51.

A recovery on same cause of action in a sister State, pendente lite, may be pleaded against further maintenance of suit, though this suit brought first.

7 Gill, 426.

Defendant at law, after judgment, may enjoin judgment on grounds not known or not available at trial in court of law.

Gott v. Caw., 6 G. and J., 309.

12 G. and J., 365.

Surely the abatement or cancellation of that note and its injunction from suit on grounds of mistake, or fraud, or failure of consideration, was a mere personal demand against Cassidy, and to be enforced anywhere he was found, on familiar principles of equity.

15 Peters, 233; 1 Wheat., 440.

1 Peters, 1; 4 Cranch, 306.

Here it is conceded that the Tennessee decree establishing fraud in Cassidy, throughout, was supported by evidence.

3 Peters, 210.

And fraud vacates the judgment as against the party.

Simms v. Slocum, 3 Cranch, 300.

Even after judgment on a note, the defendant may enjoin on ground of fraud in obtaining the note.

4 Peters, 210; 11 Peters, 63.

Jurisdiction once attaching, the court, to do complete justice, decides even a legal claim.

5 Peters, 264; 12 Peters, 178.

At law, the failure of consideration in a note must be total, and here it was partial, as conceded.

2 Wheat., 13.

Even if the note of Cage had been given to Cassidy, in his character of administrator, it was his mere personal chose in action, and his title of administrator would have been surplusage.

Graham v. Fahnestock, 5 Gill, 215.

The counsel for the appellee made the following points:The following points and authorities will present to this court the grounds on which the defendants rely to show that the decree of the Circuit Court, refusing the jurisdiction and dismissing the bill ought to be affirmed.

It is conceded that Cage is a citizen of Mississippi, and Cassidy of Kentucky.

I. The decree of the Probate Court, ascertaining the amount due by the administration, remains unreversed.

That court had exclusive and conclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of controversy.

Gildart v. Starke, 1 How. Miss., 450.

Griffith v. Vertner, 5 How. Miss., 736.

Provided the proper parties were before them, or due notice was given.

Hall, &c., v. Cassiday, 25 Miss., 48.

II. The court in Tennessee had no jurisdiction to settle the accounts of administrators deriving their authority from the State of Mississippi.

Vaughn v. Northup, 15 Pet., 1.

Bell v. Suddeth, 2 S. M., 532.

And the appearance of Cassidy could not give them jurisdiction, whether he had admitted or denied it.

There was no fraud charged, nor any contract or agreement set up in the Tennessee bill, which gave that court jurisdiction over Cassidy, so as to prevent his proceeding in the Federal court in Mississippi to coerce the payment of this note.

The Circuit Court in Mississippi had exclusive jurisdiction over that question, and was open to the complainant, Cage.

McKim v. Voorhees, 7 Cranch, 297.

III. The reversal of the decree of distribution in the Probate Court neither satisfies the equity between these parties, nor destroys the consideration which was the foundation of that note, because the amount ascertained by the only competent authority to be due, still stands a judgment, and, in the absence of creditors, belongs to the distributees of the estate; and

The note was given by Cage, with full knowledge of the circumstances, and when he might have resorted to his present application for relief, when he might have convened the parties in the Probate Court of Madison county, and have had the decree on the account opened, if there was jurisdiction to do so.

But there was no such jurisdiction, either in that court or in a court of equity.

Hendricks v. Huddleston, 5 S. and M., 422, 426.

Turnbull v. Endicott, 3 S. and M., 302.

Griffith v. Vertner, 5 How., 736.

The settlement of that account is final and conclusive.

IV. If Cassidy procured the decree for account by fraud, or especially if the consideration on which the note was given was fraudulent, and the note was given on false and fraudulent representations of Cassidy, these defences would have been good defences in the suit at law on the note. They were not set up. Cage therefore has, by his own laches, lost his equity, if he had any.

Nor does the pendency of the suit in equity in Tennessee excuse his neglect, for that was no bar to the recovery of Cassidy on the note in his suit in the Circuit Court.

There is no equity in the bill, and no error in the dismissal of it.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

R. H. Cage, the testator of the appellants, filed his bill in the Circuit Court, to be relieved from a judgment rendered there in favor of the appellee, (A. A. Cassidy,) in November, 1852.

The pleadings and proofs contained in the record disclose that the testator, in 1841, became surety to the Probate Court of Madison county, Mississippi, for William Douglass and William Hall, on their bond, as administrators of the estate of Henry L. Douglass, deceased. In 1848, their letters of administration were revoked; and Cassidy, the husband of Mary Douglass, the widow of Henry L. Douglass, and the guardian of Henrietta Douglass, their only child, was appointed administrator de bonis non.

In 1849, the Probate Court cited the administrators to account, and upon their non-appearance rendered a decree against them for $6,822.87, and subsequently ordered, that payment should be made to Cassidy and wife and Henrietta Douglass-one moiety to each, being their legal share; and in default of payment authorized a suit on the administration bond. In 1850, suits were instituted on the bond against Cage, the surety, in the Circuit Court, by Cassidy and Henrietta Douglass; but no suit was commenced against the principals, who resided in Tennessee. Judgments were rendered in 1851 against Cage, for the amount of the decree; and these were settled by his giving a note to Cassidy for their amount, payable one year after date, and by paying the costs.

During the year 1851, Cage visited Tennessee, with a view to have a settlement between Douglass and Hall, his principals, and Cassidy, and to obtain an indemnity from those who had induced him to sign their bond. His negotiations were unproductive; and he filed a bill in the Court of Chancery, in Sumner county, Tennessee, to which Cassidy and wife, Henrietta Douglass, and Douglass and Hall, and others, were made parties.

In this bill he stated his relation as surety, and his legal claim to be exonerated from his obligation, and from his impending danger of loss. He insisted that his creditors, the distributees, and his principals, the administrators, should adjust their accounts, and that the balance should be settled. He charged that he had not made defence a gainst the judgments in Mississippi, because the defendant, Cassidy, had assured him that he was not to be vexed or injured, and the suit was simply to serve as an instrument to bring his absent principles to a fair settlement. He charges that the account stated in the Probate Court was erroneous, within the knowledge of Cassidy, who had procured it, and that the balance was subject to credits that he knew to be just. He obtained an injunction against Cassidy, requiring him not to transfer his note or to commence any suit upon it pending the injunction.

The several defendants answered the bill; and in 1854 the cause came on for a hearing upon pleadings, proofs, orders, and a report upon the administration accounts.

Before this time the administrators had obtained a writ of error upon the judgment rendered in Probate Court; and in January, 1853, this judgment was annulled by the Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi.

The defendant, Cassidy, in 1852, notwithstanding the injunction in Tennessee, commenced a suit upon the note of the surety, (Cage,) in the Circuit Court, and in November, 1852, recovered a judgment for the full amount, and sued out execution for its collection. Thereupon Cage filed the bill for injunction and relief with which the proceedings in the cause before this court were commenced.

In this bill he charges that the account as stated in the Probate Court is unjust. That Cassidy was aware of the injustice of the charges when they were made. That he had quieted the mind of the plaintiff, by assurances that he meditated no harm to him; but merely expected to bring the administrators to a fair settlement by that course, and only expected to hold the claim against him for that purpose. He specifies the errors in the account, and the efforts he had made to bring the parties to a settlement, and the pendency of his suit in Tennessee. Cassidy answered the bill, taking issue upon some of the material averments.

Thus the cause stood when the Court of Chancery in Sumner county, Tennessee, rendered its final decree in 1854. The court declared that the settlement in the Probate Court, the judgments in the Circuit Court on the bond, and the execution of the promissory note by Cage in liquidation, were superinduced by the promises and assurances of Cassidy to Cage, that he was not to be held personally, but they were to be used to bring the principals to a fair accounting. That Cassidy knew that the statement of the account in the Probate Court was erroneous, and unjust to the administrators, and that the recovery of the judgment on the note of Cage was a breach of the injunction, and a fraud upon him.

The court finds, that instead of a debt of $6,822.87, as reported against the administrators in 1849, there was only due the sum of $850.37. It charges against this sum the costs paid by Cage in the litigation to which he has been subjected, and required the remainder to be paid into court; and thereupon entered a decree against Cassidy, enjoining him from proceeding further upon the judgment in the Circuit Court on the note.

This decree was presented to the Circuit Court in Mississippi, in suitable pleadings, and was considered by that court under a stipulation of the solicitors of the respective parties to this effect: 'It is admitted that proof before the Chancery Court of Tennessee was sufficient to establish the state of accounts of Hall and Douglass, as administrators of H. L. Douglass, in Mississippi and Tennessee, as decreed by the chancellor in the Tennessee case, filed in this cause as an exhibit. This agreement is made, in order to dispense with obtaining a copy of the proof before the Chancery Court of Tennessee, or retaking the depositions of the witnesses. In other words, all that is intended to be admitted hereby, and that is admitted, that the decree of said Chancery Court was supported by the proof.'

Upon the hearing in the Circuit Court, that court determined that the injunction which had been granted in the preliminary stage of this cause was improvidently allowed, and that the bill must be dismissed. From this decree this appeal is taken.

The natural limit of the obligation of a surety is to be found in the obligation of the principal; and when that is extinguished, the surety is in general liberated. In some codes, the obligation of a surety cannot extend beyond or exist under conditions more onerous than that of his principal. The obligation of the administrators, Douglass and Hall, has been ascertained by the decree of the Court of Chancery in Tennessee, upon proof, conceded to be sufficient, and has been fully discharged by its order. Notwithstanding this, the appellee (Cassidy) seeks to enforce a judgment for nearly ten times the amount of the debt found to be due in that decree, and now discharged. It is apparent that the effort is unconscionable, and can only be allowed under the influence of some inflexible and imperious rule of the court, that deprives the appellants of any title to its interposition. But the Court of Chancery of Tennessee, upon sufficient proof, has declared that the surety had been 'lulled into security' by the delusive promises of his creditor, and that he has been the victim of artifice and circumvention; that the judgment against him was obtained in contempt of the injunction of the court, and that the assertion of any right under it would be fraudulent. This decree remains in full force and effect.

These circumstances furnish additional motives for the intervention of the equitable powers of the court for the relief of the appellants.

It is the opinion of this court, that the decree of the Circuit Court is erroneous, and must be reversed. The cause is remanded, with directions to the Circuit Court to enter a decree perpetuating the injunction.

title: Cage v. Cassidy/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Cage v. Cassidy/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1871

 en INDEX. Hmue oJ ~--COl)tinued. p.... appropriation for miMeIJanooue item._ ~ for reimburaing stenographera to oom.. mitteee {or tranaCribing heaJI., ~ ______________________ 624, 1394 for reporting, other than special and seleehommittee heuinp_ ., _ 624, 1394 for special and select cOlDDlitteea. &2~, 1394 for tel8lJ'&Ph aDd telephone aerv- ice_______________________ 524, 1394 for statioDery__________________ 624. 1394 for postage stamp8 _____ ~--- __ _ _ 624,1394 for automobile for Speaker______ 524, 1394 for foldiuc ____________________ 624, 1394 for desiK!)ated services rendered to the Clerk _________________ 524, 1394 for William Tyler Page, Clerk, for oompiling, etc., oonteaMld elec- tion oa8tl8____________________ 524 for recording, etc./ political state- menta, by CierI[ of the Bouse __ 1394 defioiellcy ap])roj)riation. for children of R. Y. Thomas, junior______ 3 for widow of Maurice E. Crum- packer _____________ .. _ __ __ _ __ 3 for widow ofLadUlas Luaro_______ 3 for widow of Walter W. Magee_____ 3 for widow of A. E. B. 8teohe.ns_____ 3 for widow of William N. '9"aile______ 3 for widow: of James A. Gallivan____ 884 for widow of Martin B. Madden;. _ _ _ 884 for widow of Thaddeus C. Sweet____ 884 for widow of Thomas 8. Butler_ ____ 1607 for widow of Louis A. Frothingham_ 1607 for widow of·Henry R. Ra~hbone __ • 1607 for widow of Thomas L Robey_____ 1607 for widow of Edward J. King. _ __ _ __ 1623 for widow of William A. Oldfield____ 1623 for widow of John Jacob Rogers____ 1623 for stationery__ __________________ 3 forfokUDg_______________________ 3 for codifying, etc." lawe of District of Columbia; reappropriation__ for Committee on Appropriations, usistant clerka increase in pay_ for Committee on Ways and Means, revising customs administration 3 3 laws______.__________________ 3 for contested election e~1lBe8 __ 884, 1623 for 8peaker's Office, additional clerk_ 884 for sergeant at Arms' Office, cashier and messenlJ8r, additional pay__ 884 for journal, reading, and tally clerks, additional pay_______________ _ waries fixed at $5,000 a year____ _ for contingent expenses ___________ _ for telegraph and telephone service__ for automobile for ~ker________ _ for motor vehicle for Clerk's office__ _ for misce1laneoUII items___________ _ for Postal Telegraph COmpany ____ _ for Walter L Price_______________ _ 885 885 885 885 885 885 885 885 885 for Committee on Public Lands, ex- for ~!s:ittee---R;;W-of-th; 885 Laws, expenses completing Code of District of Columbia Laws___ _ 1608 for preparing and editing laws__ _____ 1608 for reports of committee hearings_ ___ 1608 for special and select committees___ __ 1608 for acquiring site and constructing new office buildingfor__________ 1608 for father of Charles L. Faust_ ______ 1623 HotUJe 01 Repres~ntlnued. 1'&&8 . acquiring site. a,?d constructi~ new . ,'" office buildinll for, authorized___ 1071 CoJpmittee 08 Agneulture, authorized toholcl. meetings, h8$ringl, etc., in preparation of farm relief five mt!tl~:ct-Oi:~bOappo_~t;d 1624 on Commission on airports___ ___ 1698 on Insular Reorgani8atlon _______ .__ 1700 members of Ways and Means Com- mittee reelected to Seventy-flrst COngresa, authorized to hold hearings on revision of Tariff Act of 1922_____ .____________ 1607 minority leader of, to serve on COm- cission for Enlarging Capitol Clrounds_____________________ 421 salaries of officers and employees oft..to be paid D9cembel' salaries, J.Ie- camber 20, 1927__ ____________ 1 December salaries, December 20, 1928.____________ "___________ 1027 six Members of, to serve on committee at unveiling of memorial to Wilbur and Orville Wright, at Kitty Hawk, N. C ., for first suc- eessful airplane flight at Kill Devil Bills___________________ 1020 subcommittee of the Judiciary Commit- tee to investigate whether United Statee district judge Francis A. Winslow has been gqilty of high crimes and misdemeanors_______ 1325 powers to take testimony, etc_ ______ 1325 to report to Committee of Seventy- sUbcomfi~:rt:Jlidie~ Commit: 1325 tee directed to inquire whether conduct of Grover M. Mosco- witz,ludge for New York east- em d18trict,has been guilty of acts deemed high crimes or mis- demeanors____________________ 1542 report of, to theJudiciary Committee_ 1543 submission to Congress discontinued, of reports of property in possession of designated officers__________ 995 sales of waste paper, etc___________ 995 three Members of, to be appointed on li:ashville Presidents Plaza Com- mission_____ __ __ __________ ___ 1020 two Members of, to serve on Pulaski Sesquicentennial Commission___ 1222 on commission to recommend legisla- tion for governing, etc., Samoan Ldands_______________________ 1253 to be selected for migratory Bird Con- servation Commission___ _______ 1222 HotUJ. Ojfice Building, . . appropriation for police force____ ___ 522, 1392 for elevator conductors _________ 525,1395 for care of grounds, etc_________ 526, 1395 for maintenance, etc____________ 526,1396 deficiency appropriation for mainte- nance, etc____________________ 4 House Ojfice Building, New, deficiency appropriation for acquiring site and construction of_______ _ 1608 preparing plans, employing archi- tectural, etc., services__________ 1608 amount available until expended__ 1608 sum authorized for desi~nated squares to be acquired as SIte for________ 1071

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1872

. . INDEX. CXXl HOUH 0:fJi,u Building, NetD-Continued. PaP. sum authorized for designated. Bq!1AreII to be !O<Juired; subject to BOIlM OfBoe Building CODlDliariOD_____ 1071 f~ CODStruction of buildings, etc., on the site___________________ 1071 plansadopted._ _ _ __ _____________ 1071 contracts authorized_____________ 1071 em.ployment of outside prof... 8lonal services_ _______________ 1071 under control of Architect of the CapitoL____________________ 1071 determination by COIllDlission of area to beacquired________________ 1071 br purchase or condemnation______ 1072 disburgements____________________ 1072 Hounng Curporation, United Stales, appropriation for salaries; pay restric- tion ______________________ 580, 1237 for contingent expenses _________ 580, 1237 for printing and binding for _ _ ___ 580, 1238 for expenses of collections, etc ___ 580,1238 for o~rati!1g, etc., Government hot!ll, Washington, D. C .; pay re8tnc- tion______________________ 580,1238 for maintenance of unsold property__ 580, 1238 for expenses of sold property _ _ __ 580, 1238 no prior appropriations to be used for these purposes_________ 580,1238 deficiency appropriation for housing for war needs____________ 932,1616,1621 for paying judgment for, by Virginia Eastern District COurt_______ __ 1615 H01Dard University, D. C ., appropriation for maintenance_____ 242,1606 for equipment! repairs, etc______ 242, 1606 for chemistry DUUding __________ 242, 1606 for women's dormitory, addition____ 1606 deficiency ap,propriation for additional dornutory____________________ 904 for expenses__ __ ________ __________ 1671 annual appropriations authorized for aid in construction, maintenance, etc.,of_______________________ 1021 Hubbard, H. Warren, deficiency appropriation for contested election expenses______________ 884 H ueneleld, Ehrenfried Gunther von distmguished flying cross to be _pre- sented to, James C. Fitz Mau- rice, and Herman Koehl for first airplane nonstop flight from Eu- rope to North America________ 482 Hughes, Charlu Evans, appomted as a Regent of Smithsonian Institution___________________ 1 Hugo, Okla., terms of court at____________________ 1518 H UmacaD, Porto Rico, contract authorized for repairing cus- tomhouse at_ _ _ _ _ ____________ 596 Hungary (see also Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928), appropriation for minister to_______ 65,1096 for expenses determining claims against, by Claims COmmission_ 74, 1105 deficiency appropriation for expenses, Claims Commission___________ 913 provisions for settlement of awards by Tripartite Claims Commission, of claims of Americans against__ 262 Hungary-Continued.' p..... proviaions for I6ttlement of awards by WarClaima Arbiterd claims 01. 'nloQonals of, against United. States _____________________ 263-265 Hur,t Terrace NW., D.C., appropriation for grading, Fulton Street northw,:l.rd _________________ '- _ 655 Hutchings! John H., etc., may bndge Missouri River, at Rulo, Nebr________________________ 390 time extended for bridging Missouri River, at Rulo, Nebr., by______ 1524 Hydraulic Bngineering, ... appropriation fot. standardiziDg appa- ratust.,.etc., used in__________ 92, '1122 Hydrographic l1ureau, International, appropriation for annual contribution__ 7~1 11~ for expenses of attending delegates__ 91.1 11:.r1 Hydrographic Conference, InlernGtional, appropriation for expeD868 of attendiug Navy Department delegatesto__ 624 Hydrographic Offj.ce, Navy DepGrlmenl, appropriation for civilian employees, Navl DepartDlent _________ 642,1470 for additlOnal employees___________ 642 for printing and binding for _____ 643,1471 for contingentexpenses _________ 643,1471 for materials, etc _______________ 643, 1471 for pilot charts, etc_____________ 643,1472 for expenses, branch offices______ 643, 1472 for employees, branch offices ____ 643, 1472 deficiency appropriation for expenses_ 24 for branch offices, salaries, 1929____ 1686 Hygiene, etc., Public School8, D. C ., appropriation for expenses, etc., under Health Department ________ 668, 12815 tlDle requirement of chief inspec- tor________________________ ~__ 668 division of employees.._ ____ ___ ___ 668 fordentalclinics________________ 668, 1285 Hygienic Laboratory, Public Health Service, appropriation for maintenuC6.. ___ _ '173, 1039 deficiency appropriation for mainte- tenan08____________________ 48, 1619 I. Idaho, construction lepized of bridge across Snake River by. at Heyburn __ _ at Idaho Falls___________________ _ granted easement to designated lands in Nez Perce Indian Reservation, for propagation of fish and game_ lands for fish culture_____________ _ payment required; minerals re- served_____ ~ ________________ _ desJ~tTarmstroBot (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_:01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_i~: lands deeded by, to be patented to city of BuhL ___________________ _ may bridge Snake River, near Indian Cove_______________________ _ near Swan Valley ________________ _ Idaho Fall" Idaho, construction legalized of bridge across Snake River, by Idaho, at_____ _ Idaho National Fore8t, lands added to_____________________ _ Ignacio Indian Boarding School, Colo., appropriation for enlargement, etc ___ _ 286 117 1022 1142 1142 1142 644 111 111 117 415 1578

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1873

 INDEX. illinoia, PaP. may aoquire, after oompletiol!! bridge aoroea Illinois River, at urafton_ 604 Mi88iaBippi River, at Bettendorf, Iowa________________________ 760 at Carondelet, Mo______ ~________ 605 at Che.ter____________________ 284,291 Ohio River, at Cairo, 111___________ 196 at Golconda, I1L_______________ 320 at Mound City, 111- ___ ___ __ ___ __ 316 at Shawneetown, I1L____________ 479 Wabaeh River, at McGregors Ferry, 111_____ .____________________ 480 may bridge Little Calumet River, at AshlaDdAvenue, Cook County, 111__________________________ 1510 Rock River} at Dixon_____________ 63 time. erlendect for bridging MiSBiaslppi River, at Savanna, by Iowa. and_ 297, 1158 Wabash River, at Mount Carmel, by Indiana and_______________ 384, 1094 IUin0i8 Northern Jtulicial DilJtrict, vacancy in office of additional judge for, to be filled_______________ 974 IUin0i8 River, bridge authorized across, at Grafton, Ill__________________________ 604 at Peoria, 111_ ____________________ 392 IUiMia Riller and Tribv.taneB, project for flood control of, to be sub- mitted_______________________ 538 Imboden, Ark., bridge authorized across Spring River, at___________________________ 1093 Immigrant Stations, appropriation for remodeling, etc_ _ 107, 1137 I mmigranta, appropriation for investi~ating trans- portation of, on ShIpping Board v~____________________ 585, 1243 Immigration, deported alien excluded from admission, and if attemptin~ to do 10, guilty of a felony; punishment for_____ 1551 alien ordered deported, having left United States, considered law- fully deported________________ 1551 subject to exclusion from admission, employed upon a vesselLU'l'iving, not permitted to land__________ 1551 restrictedadmISSio~.r,.:ons deported anti seeking ..on within one year, unleas readmiasion con- sented to by Secretary of Labor_ 1551 prohibition against master, etc., of a vessel knowingly bringing in ex- cluded alien until time when en- titled to ?e8pply for admission__ 1551 alien entering United States at other than at designated time or place, eluding examination, or willfully making false statements, etc., guilty of a misdemeanor; punish- ment for_____________________ 1551 under II"lntence to imprisonment not to bedeported until aftertermina- tion thereof. _ _____ __ __ _____ __ 1552 detailed record of aliens convicted to be . notified to Secretary of Labor__ 1552 Immigration Act 0//914., Amendments, additional nonquota immigrants; wom- an who lost citizenship by mar- rying an alien, but unmarried when visa applied for__________ 1009 Immigration Act of 1914., AmMWlmenta- p .... Continued. additional nonquota immigrants; un- married minor child, or wife of a citizen, or husband of citizen by marriage prior to June 1 1928__ 1009 quota preferences, effective .tune 1, 1928________________________ 1009 visaa issued each year_____________ 1009 available for 50 per cent of the year's quota of each nationallty______ 1009 fathers, mothers, etc., of citizens who are 21 years of age or over__ 1009 if quota 300 or more, to agricultur- ists, their wives and dependent children unde:- 18_____________ 1009 remainder of quota available to un- married children, or wives of per- manentalien residents_________ 1010 portion not required for, to be speci- fied c1888eB available to other quota immigrant._____________ 1010 month of issue for preference rights_ _ 1010 annual quota ratio of admissions de- ferred to 1929________________ 400 exemption of American Indians born in Canada, from provisions 01_____ 401 Immigration Bureou, Department oj Labor, appropriation for Commissioner Gen- eral, and office personneL ___ 107,1137 for expenses, enforcing immigration lawB;contractlabOr________ 107,1137 for Chinese exclusion ___________ 107, 1137 for refunding head tax, etc______ 107,1137 for coast and land border patroL 107, 1137 for purchase, etc., vehicles, outside District of Columbia_______ 107,1137 coast and land border patroL __ 107, 1137 for remodeling, repairing, etc., im- migratiOD stations_____________ 107 deficiency appropriation for refunds to Laredo, Tex., First State Bank and Trust COmpany___________ 23,23 for e~r::us::aTarmstroBot (talk):TarmstroBot (talk)_iiTarmstroBot (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)o~ 44,47, 907,934 1618, 1621, 164~ 1671 for Ellis Island, N. Y______________ 934 for salaries, 1929_________________ 1685 allotment for land and border patrol, 19aO,reduced________________ 1647 immigration inspectors divided into grades and salaries____________ 954 promotions_ ___ _____ ______________ 954 above grade 3_ __________ _______ 954 allowed traveling expenses on change of stations, etc________________ 954 transfer of families, household effects, etc_ _______ ________ ___ 954 Immigration, Commi8Moner General oj, appropriation for, and office personneL _. 107, 1137 Immigration oj Aliena, appropriation for expenses regulating, under Department of State___ 67,1098 for expenses regulating _________ 107,1137 deficiency ap\>ropriation for expenses, regulatmg____________________ 44, 47 for expenses regulating, under De- partment of State__________ ~__ 48 Imperial County. Cali/., rlght of way over designated public lands granted to, for highway purposes__ __ __ ____ ____ ______ _ 249 descriptIOn, conditions, etc_ ________ 249 tract excluded_ ______________ __ _ 250 reversion lor nonuser______________ 250

�