text:
Adams v. Preston/Opinion of the Court

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

The facts in the case were complicated, and not to be understood by a brief narrative. The reader is therefore referred to the opinion of the court, in which they are historically related.

It was argued by Mr. Taylor for the appellant, who also adopted a brief filed by Mr. Steele, and by Mr. Benjamin for the appellees.

I. A mortgage in the State of Louisiana, when duly inscribed in the register of mortgages, in the parish where the debtor has his domicil, will affect or bind the slaves of the debtor, no matter in what part of the State such slaves may be employed.

C. C., 453, 454, 458, 461, 3246, 3247, 3248, 3250, 3216, 3238.

C. M. Hyams v. McH. Smith, 6 An., 363.

Patin v. Creditors, 9 L. R., 71.

Hooper v. the Union Bank of La. et al., 10 R. R., 63; 11 R. R., 20.

Cumming v. Bionalt, Curator, et al., 2 An., 794.

Crouch v. Lockett, 3 An., 121.

Bibb et al. v. Union Bank, 3 An., 324.

Spencer v. Amis, 12 An., 127.

Voorhies v. De Blanc, 12 An., 864.

II. No mortgage of any kind existed in favor of the heirs of Hampton upon the slaves, which are the object of the present action, on the 2d day of February, 1841, when they filed their intervention in the suit then depending in the Parish Court of New Orleans, wherein the syndics of the creditors of Thomas Barrett were plaintiffs, and Robert Bell was defendant, or at any time thereafter, nor did any privilege exist on them in favor of the heirs of Hampton; and these slaves were then affected by and subject to the judicial mortgages resulting from the judgments duly recorded against Thomas Barrett in the parish of New Orleans, where he had his domicil.

C. C., 3333.

Transcript, 104 to 108.

C. C., 2216, 3246, 3247, 3248, 3250, 3238, 3289, 3317, 3318, 3290.

III. The proceedings had in the case of the Syndics of the Creditors of Thomas Barrett against Robert Bell, in the Parish Court of New Orleans, upon the intervention of the heirs of Hampton, filed therein, were and are, so far as to the mortgage rights of the Union Bank on the property of the insolvent Barrett, res inter alios acta, and can have, in law or equity, no effect in sheltering the slaves in question from pursuit, when the object is to subject them to the operation of the judicial mortgages which existed in favor of that bank, at the time of making such intervention. Neither was there anything in the proceedings in the case of Thomas Barrett v. his Creditors which could have had any such effect.

Bullard and Curry's Dig., 479, and seq., secs. 44, 10, 11, 12, 44, 45, 46, 15, 16, 31, 35.

Brown v. Kenner, 3 M. R., 278.

Saul v. Creditors, 7 N. S., 425.

Rivers v. Hemstack, 2 R. R., 187.

Egerton v. Creditors, 2 R. R., 201.

Corion v. Millaudon, 3 An., 664.

Gravin v. Lafon, 7 N. S., 613.

Pandelly v. Creditors, 9 L. R., 387.

Morgan v. Syndics, 4 L. R., 174.

Morgan, Dorsey, & Co. v. their Creditors, 19 L. R., 84.

Suc. of A. Petayvin, 10 R. R., 118; 1 An., 92.

C. C., 1169, 1170.

Robert v. Creditors, 2 An., 535.

Lee v. Creditors, 2 An., 994.

West v. Creditors, 3 An., 532.

Williams v. Nicholson, 5 An., 720.

I. The bill must be dismissed, for want of proper parties. This objection was taken in the court below, and is insurmountableThe bill prays to annul a judgment rendered in a suit between the syndics of Thomas Barrett and Robert Bell, and the heirs of Wade Hampton intervening; yet neither of the original parties to that suit is before the court, and only one out of the three intervening parties.

It seeks to set aside a sale made by Barrett's syndic and Robert Bell to the three heirs of Wade Hampton; yet none of the vendors are before the court, and only one of three purchasers is made party.

The bill attempts to excuse the want of parties that it admits to be necessary, by averring them to be beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

This excuse cannot avail.

Shields v. Barron, 17 Howard, 130.

Corion v. Millaudon, 19 Howard, 113.

II. The Parish Court of New Orleans was vested by law with full power over all the property ceded by the insolvent, and over the respective claims of the creditors. This jurisdiction has been exercised, and the regularity of the proceedings and legality of the action of that court cannot be reviewed in this court, which has no jurisdiction over the settlement of insolvencies in the State courts.

Any error or illegality in the proceedings of the Parish Court should have been corrected by appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Tarver v. Tarver, 9 Peters, 174.

Gaines v. Chew et al., 2 How., 619, 644.

Fonvergne et al. v. City of New Orleans, 18 How., 471.

That the law of Louisiana vested in the Parish Court full and exclusive jurisdiction over the property surrendered, and the distribution of its proceeds amongst the creditors, is too clear to admit of dispute.

Insolvent Law of Louisiana, 1817.

Insolvent Law of Louisiana, 13th March, 1837.

Act of Louisiana Legislature, 1826.

All the property previously owned by the insolvent becomes vested in the creditors, represented by the syndic as their trustee.

Schroeder v. Nicholson, 2 L. R., 354.

Morgan v. Creditors, 7 L. R., 62.

Dwight v. Simon, 4 An., 492.

And all creditors who are parties to the insolvent proceedings are absolutely prohibited from seeking remedies in any other court, even of the State of Louisiana, than that in which the insolvency is pending.

Jacobs v. Bogart, 7 Rob. Rep., 162.

Marsh v. Marsh, 9 Rob. Rep., 46.

Tyler et al. v. Cred's, 9 Rob. Rep., 373.

And not only is this so, but previously-existing suits in other courts are all required by law to be transferred to the court having jurisdiction of the insolvency, and to be there cumulated with the insolvent proceedings.

Code of Practice, art. 165, sec. 3.

III. If, however, it be pretended that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the complainant's demand, on the ground of the frauds charged in the bill, the answer is, that those frauds are denied in the answer, and not one scintilla of proof has been offered in support of them.

The allegation that it was a fraud to claim a mortgage, because, in complainant's opinion, the effect of the mortgage had expired by lapse of time, without renewal of registry, is not worthy of serious refutation.

No attempt was made to prove any of the fraudulent combinations charged in the bill, and indignantly denied by the answer.

Indeed, the charge of fraud appears to be entirely abandoned, as not a word is said to support it in the elaborate brief filed by the counsel for appellant in this court.

IV. Should it be decided by the court that the foregoing points are not sustainable, and that the merits of the controversy between the parties are open for examination, then it is contended, in behalf of appellees:

1. That complainant has no such mortgage rights as are alleged by him, because these mortgages were cancelled many years before he acquired the judgments assigned to him.

These mortgages were cancelled by consent of complainant's assignor.

Independently of this consent, they were cancelled by the syndics by virtue of power vested in them by law, and this was done on the 2d June, 1841.

Act of 1817, sec. 31.

It is true that this act directs the proceeds of the property to be kept subject to the same rights in favor of mortgagees as they had on the property itself; but this mandate of the law, as to what is to be done with the proceeds of sale after the mortgage has been cancelled, cannot affect the legality of the erasure and cancellation ordered before the sale 'in order to effect it.'

These mortgages claimed by complainant were also ordered to be erased and cancelled by judgment of the court, rendered contradictorily with the Union Bank more than four years before the transfer by the bank to the complainant.

It is true that this last fact is not averred in the answer, and was not made a question by the pleadings, but it was proven by the record evidence introduced by complainant himself at the trial, and is conclusive against him.

The complainant seems to think that because the law provides that mortgages cease to have effect after a lapse of ten years from the registry, unless the registry be renewed, it is therefore in the power of a mortgagee to revive a mortgage legally cancelled and erased by the ex parte act of reinscribing it on the books of the mortgage office. No argument can be needed on such a pretension. If, however, the position of the complainant is misapprehended by us, we seek in vain for any other basis of his assertion in the bill, that he still holds the mortgages erased before his purchase of the judgments.

Observe, in the transfer from the bank to Hagan, the bank does not profess to sell any mortgage claims; does not pretend that there then, in 1849, existed any inscription of the judgments, but simply transfers its claims without any warranty. The idea on which this suit was brought is plainly an afterthought, and the suit itself purely a speculation in litigation.

Again: The appearance and action of the bank in the concurso or meeting of creditors, and fixing the terms of sale of the property, was a legal waiver of any right to follow the property, and an agreement to look alone to the proceeds in the hands of their agents, the syndics.

Egerton v. Creditors, 2 Rob., 201.

Saul v. Creditors, 7 N. S., 446, 447.

Finally, the sale of the property by order of court in the artition suit extinguished the mortgages, and left the parties entitled to them no other recourse than to claim the proceeds of the sale. The law is the same in probate and insolvent sales.

Fabre v. Hepp, 7 Annual, 5.

Gilmore v. Menard, 9 Annual, 212.

Williamson v. Creditors, 5 Martin, 620.

Kohn, Syndic, v. Marsh, 3 Rob. R., 48.

2. That the rights of the Union Bank, as judgment creditors, were finally settled in the Parish Court; and that the judgments therein rendered for the application of the proceeds of the sale to the payment of Hampton's heirs, and the judgments finally homologating the accounts of the syndics, are final and conclusive adjudications of the subject matter of this suit, and form res judicata against complainant.

Morgan v. Creditors 4 La. R., 174.

Ory v. Creditors, 12 La. R., 121.

Lang v. Creditors, 14 La. R., 237.

Smith v. De Lallande, 1 Rob. R., 384.

Egerton v. Creditors, 2 Rob. R., 201.

Corion v. Millaudon, 3 Annual R., 664.

And it makes no difference that the price was not actually paid to the syndics, but retained by Hampton's heirs in satisfaction of their claim, as this was their legal right.

Goodale v. Creditors, 8 La. R., 302.

Rodriguez v. Dubertrand, 1 Rob. R., 535.

Robert v. Creditors, 2 Annual, 535.

3. That complainant's claim is barred by prescription. It is important to remark that the complainant does not allege any recent discovery of the frauds charged in the bill, nor ignorance of the alleged frauds at a date immediately after they were committed, nor any difficulty in discovering them as soon as committed, if due diligence had been used.

Under these circumstances, the suit to annul the judgments and decrees of the Parish Court is barred by the lapse of one year.

Louisiana Code of Practice, 607, 613.

And the mere lapse of time, long acquiescence, and laches of the complainant and assignors, from the sale in 1841 till the filing of the bill, in 1853, coupled with the fact that the complainant is a mere assignee of a right to file a bill in equity for fraud, form a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the bill.

2 Story's Eq. Juris., sec. 1520, and authorities there cited.

Prosser v. Edmonds, 1 Younge and Coll., 481.

Ward v. Van Bottelen, 2 Paige Ch. R. 289.

Warsham and al. v. Brown, 4 Georgia R., 284.

The complainant's right to enforce his mortgage, even if it were valid, is prescribed by the lapse of ten years.

C. C., 3495, 3374, sec. 6; 3508, 3444.

Lawrason v. Minturn, 11 L. R., 256.

4. That the original inscriptions of the mortgages claimed by Hampton's heirs were valid, and that the registry of the sale from Leroy Pope to Barrett created a privilege in their favor, and operated as a valid reinscription of the original mortgages.

C. C., 3315, 3316.

Mallard & Armistead v. Carpenter, 6 Annual R., 397.

Sauvinet v. Landreaux, 1 Annual R., 220.

Ells v. Simms, 2 Annual R., 251.

Bonaffe v. Lane, 5 Annual R., 227.

5. And that the heirs of Hampton were legally and rightfully recognised as entitled to the privilege accorded by law to partnership creditors in the partnership assets.

C. C., 2806, 2794.

Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

We have given our best consideration to this record, in connection with the minute statement made from it by the counsel of the complainant, without having been able to find any cause for the reversal of the judgment.

The plaintiff sued the defendants, John S. Preston and Caroline M. Preston his wife, as the joint possessors of one hundred and thirteen negroes, and their increase, to subject them, and the revenues which had been derived from their labor, to the payment of certain judgments which the plaintiff says he owns, as the assignee of the Union Bank of Louisiana.

Those judgments had been obtained by that bank against Thomas Barrett, a resident of the city of New Orleans. He alleges that Barrett was the owner of the slaves when the judgments were obtained, and that, by reason of that fact, and the bank's assignment to him, he had a judicial mortgage upon them, their increase and revenues, to pay the judgments.

The suit was brought in the third District Court of New Orleans, when the defendants were sojourners there; and being cited to answer, they appeared. Being citizens of the State of South Carolina, they removed the cause to the United States Circuit Court for the eastern district of Louisiana, in which it was filed on the chancery said of the docket. There the defendants filed a dilatory exception, in bar of the action against them; which being overruled, they were required to answer. And they did so.

They neither admit nor deny the original validity of the judgments against Barrett, nor the assignment of them to the plaintiff; and they admit that the one hundred and thirteen slaves had belonged to Barrett; but giving at the same time their narrative of the manner in which Barrett had acquired title to them, and the judicial proceedings under which they bought the property. They state, in their answer, that Wade Hampton, of South Carolina, being the owner of Whitehall plantation, in the partish of St. James, in Louisiana, sold it on the 8th April, 1829, to Leroy Pope, for $100,000, payable in twenty years from the first day of January, 1830, with interest at six per cent. per annum, payable annually. That the seller took from Pope a mortgage on the plantation, and also an obligation that he would add to the plantation seventy working hands, and mortgage them to Hampton, with their increase, to secure the payment of Pope's purchase and interest. Pope, on the 23d of February following, complied with his obligation, by mortgaging seventy working hands and thirty-one children to Hampton. He was then a resident of the parish of St. James.

Pope, two years afterwards, on the 18th March, 1833, sold the plantation and slaves to Thomas Barrett, of New Orleans, for $151,034. In payment, Barrett assumed to pay the debt of $100,000, and the accruing interest annually, to Hampton, and received the property, subject to the rights of Hampton upon the plantation and slaves. Two days afterwards, Barrett conveyed one-half of his purchase to Robert Bell, with an agreement that Bell's interest should be considered as having attached from the day of Barrett's purchase. Barrett failed to pay the interest; and Hampton being dead, his heirs brought suits for it, and these judgments were obtained against him in January, 1838, March, 1839, and April, 1839. The judgments were recorded in New Orleans, where Barrett lived; but the mortgages and conveyances given to Hampton, and his conveyance of the plantation, were recorded, when they were executed, in the parish of St. James, where the slaves were, and where Pope and Bell both lived.

Barrett became embarrassed, and applied for the benefit of the insolvent laws of Louisiana, on the 12th May, 1840. In the schedule of property surrendered to his creditors is found an item of Whitehall plantation and one hundred and fifty slaves, valued at $210,000, subject to the bond for $100,000, and the interest due thereon.

A meeting of Barrett's creditors was hold on the 15th June, 1840. Syndics were elected by them, with general discretionary powers, particularly with the power to sue for the partition of any property whatsoever held and owned by the insolvent jointly with others, and to claim partition in kind or by sale; also, to appoint agents for the disposal of property out of New Orleans. Amongst the creditors at this meeting who elected the syndics was the Bank of Louisiana, by its representative, its president. In October, after this meeting of the creditors, the heirs of Hampton intervened in the insolvent proceedings, claimed their rights under the mortgages upon Whitehall and upon the negroes; and they took a rule upon Magoffin and Margan, the syndics of the creditors, to show cause why the plantation and negroes should not be sold, and the proceeds applied to the payment of their claim. The rule was made absolute, by a judgment recognising their right as mortgagees, and ordering a sale of the property.

At a subsequent meeting of the creditors, at which the Union Bank of Louisiana was again represented by its president, the creditors gave to the syndics a power to raise all mortgages recorded against the insolvent on any estate owned by him alone, or jointly with other persons, which had been surrendered to his creditors, with authority to make partition of the same with the co-proprietors, either amicably or judicially.

Upon the petition of the syndics to the judge of the Parish Court of New Orleans, that act of the creditors was homologated, and the syndics were authorized by the court to do all which it empowered them to perform, by the votes of the creditors who appeared or who were represented at the meeting.

In conformity with such powers, the syndice instituted a suit, alleging that Whitehall plantation and slaves had been purchased for the joint account of Barrett & Bell, and that an action of partition was necessary, to enable them to liquidate that special partnership. They also asked that the proceeds of the crop made on the plantation might be deposited in bank, subject to the order of the court; that an inventory and appraisement of the property should be made, and returned into court; and that such proceedings might be had as would lead to a prompt and final settlement of the partnership.

Bell united in this petition, and declared himself to be a creditor of the partnership; prayed for a settlement of its affairs, and for the allowance in his favor of a lien on the partnership property, for such sum as might be found due to him.

The heirs of Hampton intervened in this partition suit, stating their claims upon the property as mortgage creditors; and insisted that the property should be sold, subject to the assumptions, by whoever might become at the sale vendee, for the payment of their claim, principal and interest.

On the 6th of February, 1841, the court gave a judgment, sustaining the claims of Hampton's heirs, and directing the sale of the property, with the condition, 'that the vendees should assume the payment to Mary Hamtpon, John S. Preston and wife, and John L. Manning and wife, of $100,000, payable on the 1st of January, 1856, with six per cent. interest from the 1st of January, 1841; and, further, that it should be taken as a term and condition of the sale, that the purchaser should specially mortgage and keep mortgaged the plantation to the intervenors, and the eighty-one slaves described in the inventory, to them and their heirs and assigns.'

The property was advertised and sold by the sheriff, pursuant to this judgment; was bought by the heirs of Hampton for $116,000; was paid for by surrendering to the sheriff the bond of Leroy Pope for $100,000, and by applying arrears of interest due on that bond to the payment of $16,000. An account was filed a few days afterwards, by the heirs of Hampton, of the whole amount due them, and after giving credit for the $116,000, and there was still remaining due $11,248.11 1/2.

A rule was then taken on both the plaintiff and defendants, by the heirs of Hampton, for them to show cause why the account should not be approved, and their demand against the partnership of Barrett & Bell be liquidated, at the sum of $11,248.11 1/2; and why the same should not be paid out of any money belonging to the partnership.

Upon the rule a judgment was rendered on the 23d April, 1844, according to its purport, declaring that, after having credited the account with $116,000, there was still due to the heirs of Hampton, by the partnership of Barrett & Bell, the sum of $11,248.11 1/2, and a judgment was passed in their favor for that sum, against Mrs. Caroline Bell, the heir of Robert Bell, and J. B. Hullen, who had been elected the syndic of the creditors in the place of Magoffin and Morgan. A representative of the Union Bank was present, and voting for Hullen.

A final judgment was afterwards rendered, settling all matters in dispute between the parties to the suit. The proceeds of the crop were appropriated to the payment of legal charges; and, that being insufficient for that purpose, the heirs of Hampton were required to pay $2,020.51, in satisfaction of them-it being declared that the legal charges were higher in rank than their privilege upon the copartnership fund. The heirs paid the amount, and that was a final settlement of all the matters in controversy between plaintiff, defendants, and intervenors.

Contemporary with the proceedings in the partition suit, the matters connected with Barrett's insolvency were concluded in the same court.

Among other acts done by the syndics, Magoffin and Morgan, was their petition to the Parish Court of New Orleans to be discharged from their office of syndics in the insolvency of Thomas Barrett and Thomas Barrett & Co. They annexed to their petition an account of the collections and disbursements which had been made by them since their last account had been filed. They showed that they were, as syndics, parties to a number of suits, which were still pending; refer particularly to the partition suit instituted by them, and still pending, against Robert Bell, as the partner of Barrett; pray that the creditors of the insolvent may be ordered to meet to elect other syndics, on account of their not being able to act longer in that capacity, as their private affairs compelled them to leave the State of Louisiana.

The court gave an order upon this petition, that the parties interested show cause, within ten days from the publication of the order, why the accounts of the syndics should not be homologated, why the funds stated by the syndics should not be distributed in accordance therewith, and why the syndics should not be discharged. And it further ordered, that a metting of the creditors should be held on Wednesday, the 9th May, to elect another syndic in place of Magoffin and Morgan.

Such a metting was held. James B. Hullen was elected by the creditors sole syndic, with all the powers which had been conferred by the creditors at former meetings upon Magoffin and Morgan. They were then discharged by the court from their functions as syndics, upon their paying the balances in their hands to the parties entitled thereto, reserving to themselves, however, whatever claim they might have on the sale of the Whitehall plantation; and James B. Hullen was confirmed as sole syndic of Barrett and Thomas Barrett & Co. This order was given by the court on the 20th May, 1842.

Seven days after the meeting of the creditors had been held, pursuant to the order of the court, Christopher Adams, jun., president of the Union Bank, filed a paper in the court, acknowledging himself to be fully cognizant of all the proceedings of the meeting; that he was present at it; that the bank was a creditor; that Hullen had been unanimously elected by the creditors sole syndic, in place of the former syndics, on the same terms and conditions that they had been, with the same powers which the creditors had conferred upon the former syndics. And further shows, that at the meeting on the 9th May, 1842, he had voted for the dispensation of Hullen from giving the security required by law to be given by syndics.

This narrative discloses the connection of the Hamptons with the proceedings of the syndics, and in the partnership suit which they had brought against Bell to settle his claim as a partner in the purchase of the Whitehall plantation and slaves. Thus matters remained for nine years, no one supposing that there was any irregularity in the judicial proceedings under which the heirs of Hampton had bought the property, the bank all the time acquiescing in the result. Indeed, nothing was done without the knowledge of the bank; everything that was done was with its approbation. The record shows that every step taken by the syndics for the settlement of Barrett's insolvency was in conformity with the powers which the creditors had given to them. But nine years after the final and conclusive settlement of the whole matter in controversy, the president and directors of the bank assigned to the plaintiff in this suit five judgments, which the bank had obtained against Thomas Barrett in 1838 and 1839. Upon this assignment it is that the plaintiff now claims that these judgments were a mortgage upon the Whitehall plantation and slaves. He alleges that all the proceedings in the Parish Court of the parish and city of New Orleans, in the matter of the insolvency, were irregular; that the disposition of property surrendered by Barrett for his creditors, and the creditors of Thomas Barrett & Co., 'were irregular, insufficient, null, and void,' and had been procured by fraudulent combination between the heirs of Hampton with Bell, and with the syndics of the creditors, for the purpose of defrauding the Union Bank particularly. He also alleges that the Union Bank has not been a party to the suit of the syndics, and that neither the bank nor himself are in any way bound by its proceedings. And the fraud with which he charges the defendants is, that they claimed as creditors of Barrett, under the mortgage which Leroy Pope had made to their ancestor, Hampton, when the plantation was bought from him, and which Barrett assumed to pay when he purchased from Pope, well knowing at the time that the efficacy of the inscription of the mortgages upon both plantation and slaves had expired, according to law, without any renewal of the registry of them. The defendants deny, in their answer, the fraud charged, or fraud of any kind, in their intervention in the proceedings in insolvency. No attempt was made to prove it; consequently, the plaintiff's whole case depends upon his assertion that there are irregularities in the suit, and in the rendition of a judgment, and under which the heirs of Hampton purchased the property at sheriff's sale, which made that judgment a nullity. The plaintiff is the assignee of the Union Bank, and the argument in support of his claim as assignee is, that he is entitled to a judgment, subjecting the property to the payment of the judgments which the bank had obtained against Barrett, unless the mortgages of the bank were extinguished by the sale made by the sheriff to the heirs of Hampton, and unless the settlement between the syndics, Robert Bell, and the heirs of Hampton, upon the judgments rendered in the cases of the syndics and Bell, are res judicata.

These positions are in themselves an abandonment of the charge of fraud, originally made, and for no other purpose than to give to the Circuit Court jurisdiction of the case against the defendants, and without which the court could not have taken jurisdiction. With what propriety, then, can this court now be called upon to review a judgment of the Parish Court of New Orleans for any irregularity or illegality in the proceedings of that court, if either existed, when there could have been an appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for its correction? This court has never done so in any case in which the subject matter of a suit, being within the jurisdiction of a State court, upon the allegation that its judgment had been given contrary to the law of a State. See the cases of Fonvergne et al. v. City of N. O., 18 Howard, 471; Gaines v. Chew et al., 2 Howard, 619, 644; and Tarver v. Tarver, 9 Peters, 174. The Parish Court of New Orleans had, by law, full power over all the property ceded by the insolvent, and over the claims of each of the creditors. It exercised its jurisdiction, and the legality of its judgment cannot be questioned by thid court. Besides, the courts of the United States have no jurisdiction over the settlement of insolvencies in the State courts. The Parish Court had not only jurisdiction, but exclusive jurisdiction, over the property surrendered, and the distribution of it among the creditors of the insolvent. By the laws of Louisiana, the property surrendered becomes vested in the creditors, represented by the syndies as their trustee. Schroeder v. Nicholson, 2 Lou. R., 354; Morgan v. Creditors, 7 Lou. R., 62; Dwight v. Linn., 4 An., 492. And the creditors of an insolvent who become parties to the insolvent proceedings are prohibited from seeking remedies in any other court of the State of Louisiana. Jacobs v. Bogart, 7 Rob. Rep., 162; Marsh v. Marsh, 9 Rob. Rep., 46; Tyler et al. v. Creditors, 9 Robinson. It is also declared, in the Civil Code, (art. 165, sec. 3,) 'that, in all matters relative to failures, all suits already commenced, or which may be subsequently instituted against the debtor, must be carried before the court in which the failure has been declared;' and 'where a party claims from the syndics goods which had been surrendered by an insolvent, the suit may be brought before the court where the concurso is pending.' 2 Robinson, 348.

The want of jurisdiction, then, in the courts of the United States, to review the proceedings of the Parish Court of New Orleans, in a case of insolvency, is, of itself, sufficient to prevent the court from giving to the plaintiff a decree in this suit.

There are, however, other grounds sufficient, to be found in the record, from which we have concluded that the plaintiff has neither an equitable claim against the defendants in this proceeding, nor any right, under the law of Louisiana, to subject the property in controversy to the judgments of which he is the assignee. But we shall confine ourselves to the discussion of one of them.

The judgments of the Union Bank, if they ever had at any time mortgage rights against the Whitehall plantation, and the slaves upon it, better than the mortgages given by Leroy Pope at the time of his purchase, and which were assumed by Barrett when he bought the property, and which were equally obligatory upon Bell, when himself and Barrett formed their particular partnership in respect to that property, those judgments had been legally cancelled before they were assigned to the plaintiff by the bank. It will be found, at pages 20 and 21 of the record, that the assignor of the plaintiff united with the other creditors in giving to the syndics the power to raise all mortgages granted by or recorded by Thomas Barrett, or Thomas Barrett & Co., on any real estate owned by Barrett, jointly with other persons, and surrendered by him to his creditors, with power also to effect partitions of the said property with his co-proprietors, either amicably or judicially, &c., &c.

The creditors, too, authorized the syndics, or either of them, to vote, deliberate, and give their opinion for them, at any subsequent meeting of the creditors of Barrett, or Thomas Barrett & Co. And the powers so given to the syndics were homologated by the judge of the Parish Court of New Orleans. Under such a power, the syndics might have erased the judicial mortgages of the bank in the fair and bona fide discharge of their relation to the creditors as their trustees, and the bank would have been bound by their action. But they proceeded, according to law, to have the judicial mort gages of the bank cancelled; and they were cancelled on the 1st of February, 1841. This cancellation was made by the syndics, in conformity with the thirty-second section of the act of February, 1817, entitled, 'An act relative to the voluntary surrender of property, and to the mode of proceeding, as well for the direction as for the disposal of debtors' estates,' &c., &c. The erasure and cancellation of mortgages may be made in Louisiana, by consent or by order of the court. Articles 3335, 3336. In this instance, the erasure was made by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction; when by the latter, it has the effect of a res judicata. 7 Rob., 382, 518; 11 Rob., 171. After the erasure so made, there can be no subsequent reinscription of a mortgage. That which was made in 1848 revived no lien upon the property which the bank's mortgages may have had before they were erased. But there was another erasure of the bank's judicial mortgages in a suit brought by Barrett against it, before its assignment was made of its judgments against Barrett to Hagan, the plaintiff. Rec., 83, 88, 94, 99, 103. It was done by a court having competent jurisdiction, and it concluded the right of the bank to convey its judgments to the plaintiff as judicial mortgages, though they might be transferred as judgments to entitle the assignee to a participation in any unadministered proceeds made from the sale of the property surrendered by the insolvent for his creditors. But neither the reinscription of 1848, nor the assignment to the plaintiff, could have the effect to give to the plaintiff any claim upon property of the insolvent which had been sold under the judgment of a court having jurisdiction in insolvency. The property now claimed by the plaintiff, as subject to his assignment, had been recognised by the judgment of the Parish Court to be subject to the claims of the heirs of Hampton; had been ordered by the court to be sold by the sheriff; had been sold by him, and adjudicated to the purchasers; and the consideration money of the purchase had been accounted for by the sheriff to the syndics of the insolvent, and by them accounted for to the court, in strict accordance with its order, nine years before the bank made an assignment to Hagan. The sale could not have been in any way subject to the judicial mortgages of the bank, nor could it in any way affect the property purchased by the defendants. Indeed, there can be no doubt that, after the appearance of the bank in the concurso of the creditors, and its acquiescence with them in fixing the terms for the sale of the property of the insolvent, it must be taken as a waiver by the bank of all its rights to pursue it for the payment of its judgments against Barrett, the insolvent, and that it would look to the proceeds of its sale, as the other creditors did, for the satisfaction of their respective claims. Egerton v. Creditors, 2 Rob., 201; Saul v. Creditors, 7 N. S., 446, 447. Without pursuing the discussion further, we have concluded that the bank, when it assigned its judgments to the plaintiff, had no mortgage lien on the Whitehall plantation and slaves to transfer; that the language of the assignment, interpreted by the acknowledged acts of the bank in the insolvency, cannot mean any such transfer, and that the judgment and sale under the partition suit barred the bank from making such an assignment, and the plaintiff from any such claim as he has made in his bill.

We direct the affirmance of the decree of the Circuit Court.

title: Adams v. Preston/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Adams v. Preston/Opinion of the Court

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


text: Howland v. Greenway

title: Howland v. Greenway


text: Talk:Howland v. Greenway

title: Talk:Howland v. Greenway


text:
Howland v. Greenway/Opinion of the Court

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

It was a libel filed in the District Court, sitting in admiralty, against the barque Griffin and her owners, by Greenway and Dickson, on a contract of affreightment. The circumstances are stated in the opinion of the court.

The District Court passed the following decree:

This cause having been heard on the exceptions to the commissioner's report, and argued by the advocate for the respective parties—

On reading the report of George F. Betts, Esq., United States commissioner, to whom the above matters were referred, by which there is reported due the libellant, on the bill of lading referred to in the libel, the sum of sixty-nine hundred and eleven dollars and fifty-two cents, on motion of Messrs. Weeks & De Forrest, proctors for the libellants, it is ordered that the report be in all things confirmed, and that the libellants recover in this action against the barque Griffin, her tackle, &c., the amount reported due, with interest thereon from the date of the report, together with their costs to be taxed, and that the said barque, her tackle, &c., be condemned therefor. And on like motion it is further ordered, that out of the proceeds of the stipulations of the claimants for cost and value, when paid into the registry of this court, the clerk of this court pay to the libellants or their proctor the amount reported due, together with their taxed costs. And on like motion of Messrs. Weeks & De Forrest, proctors for the libellants, it is further ordered, that unless an appeal be taken to this decree, with the time limited and prescribed by the rules and practice of this court, that on payment into the registry of the court of the amount of the stipulations for costs and value, that the clerk distribute the proceeds in satisfaction of this decree.

This decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court, and the owners of the barque appealed to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Halstead for the appellants, and by Mr. Gifford for the appellees, upon which side there was also a brief filed by Mr. De Forrest.

The bill of lading stated that the boxes were to be delivered at the ship's tackles to Greenway & Co., at Rio de Janeiro, or their assigns. Abranches was in Rio, a partner in a commercial house there, who purchased the goods. Being examined as a witness, he said that he knows that the said one hundred and thirty-two boxes did form part of the 'Griffin's' cargo, as he, witness, saw them when discharged from the vessel into the custom-house; that said boxes contained furniture, and were addressed to his house, and each package bearing the mark of the firm, M. O. Abranches & Co., and the countermark G. & Co., and were also numbered.

The counsel for the appellants insisted that the testimony shows that the omission of the boxes in the open manifest was observed by Greenway & Co., in time to supply the omission, and avoid all difficulty; and (so far as it may have any bearing upon a view of the whole case) that the same is true in reference to Abranches & Co. The consignees failed to notify the master of the omission. It could then have been supplied by the master, and all difficulty avoided. The supplying it then would be the same in effect as if it had been supplied by the master before delivering the manifests to the custom-house officers. On this open manifest the master could then have supplied the omission. It was on this only that he could have ever before supplied it. The other was sealed. The omission by the consignees, after discovering the error in time to have it corrected, to notify the master of it, was a gross failure of duty as consignees, and is proof of intended fraud.

The boxes were sold by order of the custom-house.

We are nowhere told when and how the omission first came to the knowledge of the custom-house, nor when the goods were seized, nor when they were sold.

They were purchased by Abranches & Co. We are nowhere told how they were sold, whether all in a lump at one bidding, or how; and are nowhere told the amount of Abranches's bid on which they were struck off to him.

The end was, that the consignees refused to pay the master any freight at all collected by them, on any of the cargo; and besides that, have brought this libel to the whole value of the one hundred and thirty-two boxes.

What could more strongly give the character of fraud to the omission of the consignees to notify the master of the omission at the time when it could have been supplied by him?

One other fact in this connection. The consignment to Greenway & Co. was changed.

As to the value of the goods at Rio, the only evidence is, the answer of Magalhaen, the shipping clerk, and the answer of Abranches.

There was a regular invoice of the goods sent to Greenway & Co.; that invoice contained a list of the goods and invoice price.

We submit that this testimony of the value was insufficient. It was, in the nature of things, impossible for us to give any proof whatever of the value. The chairs and furniture were enclosed in boxes; how many boxes contained chairs, and what kind of chairs; and how many contained tables, and what kind; and how many other furniture, and what kind, it was impossible for us to show. The boxes contained 2,613 cubic feet, freight fifteen cents per foot. A space eighteen feet square by eight feet high would contain 2,592 cubic feet, within twenty-one feet of the cubic feet in these boxes. How could chairs and furniture, that could be in these boxes, be worth $5,000 or $6,000? There is no evidence that the chairs and furniture contained in the boxes were worth that. Abranches says the boxes were seized, &c. But in his answer to the fifteenth interrogatory he says the contents of the boxes were purchased, &c.; and in his answer to the sixteenth interrogatory he says the value of the contents of cases (boxes) was, &c. And Magalhaen, in his said answer to interrogatory sixteen, 'value of the contents of the boxes.' The invoice, spoken of by this witness, in his said answer, and by Edward T. Davison, in his deposition, and by Abranches, was not put in evidence.

As to damages. This libel is in a cause of contract; and the libel prays damages for the non-delivery of the goods, near end of libel. The actual damage to the libellants is the measure of damages to be awarded.

If they had bought the boxes at the sale, and then delivered them to Abranches, the only damage they would have sustained would be the amount they bid them off at, and that amount reduced by the amount of freight on the boxes, for they paid no frieght on them.

But they were struck off to Abranches. This fact proves that there was an understanding between them. It is not supposable that Greenway & Co. would permit Abranches to get the boxes at what they might be struck off for at such a kind of sale, and hold them without paying Greenway & Co. the cost of the goods, (if they were bought in New York with the money of Greenway & Co.,) less the amount paid by Abranches at the sale by the custom-house. So that, in either of those cases, the damage to Greenway & Co. would be the amount given to get the goods from the custom-house by buying them at such a sale. Hence, the care taken not to let it appear what the boxes were bought for at the sale.

If the chairs and furniture were bought in New York with the money of the Abranches, the effect would be that Greenway & Co. would lose nothing but commissions.

If the libellants have presented their case in such a way that they cannot recover on the only proper ground on which a recovery can be had, and if they have not given to the court the means of ascertaining what should be recovered on that proper ground, they cannot recover anything.

By the 155th article it is provided, that when it is found that the vessel brought more goods than is specified or contained in the manifest, and not declared by the captain, such goods will be seized and divided among the seizors, &c. How did it happen that the boxes were not opened by the seizors, to see what was to be divided among them; and that the boxes and contents were sold, without opening the boxes, and sold all to one man, and, as we have a right to say from the testimony, sold at one bidding? It is proof of the fraud, before stated, at the beginning, and of collusion between the consignees and the custom-house officers, and (if it were necessary to say so) proof that Abranches was a party to the collusion.

The court, we trust, will not permit these consignees to make a speculation out of a case such as the testimony shows this to be, and where no fraud could have been intended, the boxes and every article of cargo being actually delivered into the custom-house.

Again, the charge in the libel, that the said boxes or goods were confiscated by the Brazilian Government to its use, is wholly unsustained. There is no evidence that they were subject to such confiscation, and if they were so subject, there is no proper evidence of any act of confiscation by the said Government.

The laws of the port of Rio do not authorize the seizure of goods after they have been discharged into the custom-house for omission of entry in the manifest.

The goods were bought by Leland & Davison, of New York, for account of Abranches & Co., and were marked to Abranches & Co., and the duties were to be paid by Abranches & Co., as is shown by their actually paying a portion of the duties, and they got the goods by paying what they were struck off to them for. That amount, less the freight and duties, (for he says, in the answer to the same interrogatory, that the duties which had been paid were afterwards returned, and it is clear that no freight was paid,) would be all the damage they could have suffered.

In this view, we submit that Abranches & Co. were the persons to bring an action, and not Greenway & Co.

The counsel for the appellees made his points partly dependent upon the law, and partly upon the facts, as they are taken from the brief of Mr. De Forrest.

I. The ship was bound by the bill of lading to deliver the goods to the consignees.

The general rule is, that the delivery must be to the consignee in person; and this rule is always applicable, unless some other mode of delivery is sanctioned by the usage of trade or express contract.

Angell on Carriers, secs. 297, 298.

1 Parsons Mar. Law, p. 153.

3 Comstock, 325, Price v. Powell, et cases cited.

17 Wendell, 305, Gibson v. Culver.

II. In the case of sea-going vessels, the usages of most ports make a delivery on the wharf, with reasonable notice to the consignee, a sufficient delivery. If the consignee cannot be found, or declines to receive the property, the carrier is not justified in leaving it on the wharf, even after notice. It is his duty in such a case to place it in a proper and safe place, where the consignee can obtain it.

15 Johnson, 42, Ostrander v. Brown.

1 Denio, 45, Fisk v. Newton.

Angell on Carriers, sec. 300.

1 Pars. Mar. Law, p. 155, note.

III. In the present case, the goods were never delivered to the consignees.

1. It does not appear that Greenway & Co. ever received notice from the master that the goods were being discharged, or that they were ever invited to receive them. On the contrary, the testimony shows that the goods were landed on the custom-house wharf, and deposited in the custom-house, and were there seized before any attempt was made by the master to make delivery, and while they were still in the custody of the officers.

2. It does not appear that Greenway & Co. had any information from any quarter that the goods were being discharged. The first notice given to them was that of the seizure.

3. The partial payment of the duties was made by Abranches & Co., who had agreed with Greenway & Co. to pay the invoice cost, with freight, commissions, and duties, and under the expectation that no obstacle was in the way of the delivery of the goods.

This prepayment, in anticipation of an expected delivery, was certainly no waiver of the right to demand it, and in any event the acts of Abranches cannot prejudice the rights of Greenway & Co.

4. The proceedings taken by the master to obtain the release of the goods made it very manifest that he did not at that time think of charging Greenway & Co. with the consequences of his neglect, or of claiming that the delivery had been consummated.

5. Finally, the witnesses all concur in asserting that the goods were never delivered to Greenway & Co. The onus of showing the contrary is on the ship.

IV. The clause in the bill of lading, stating that the goods were 'to be delivered at the ship's tackles,' does not vary the obligation of the carrier to make such a delivery as shall give to the consignee the actual possession of the property.

1. The object of this clause is to indemnify the vessel against possible expenses incurred beyond the ship's side, and before actual delivery to the consignee-e. g., lighterage, expenses of permits to discharge, wharfage, &c.

2. A deposit on the wharf, alongside the ship, certainly would not be a good delivery, without notice.

The clause in question cannot control the explicit contract to deliver to the consignees.

V. The non-delivery of the goods not having been occasioned by the expected perils, the ship and owners are clearly liable for their value.

1. Even if the seizure had been the arbitrary and merely capricious act of the Brazilian Government, the failure to deliver would not have been excused.

1 Campbell, 451, Gosling v. Higgins.

10 Q. B. R., 517, Spencer v. Chadwick.

10 Ad. and Ell., N. S., S.C..

4 Mann and G., 954, Evans v. Hatton.

2. But the seizure was directly occasioned by the culpable neglect and omission of the master. He first omitted to make up a correct manifest at the port of starting; and though having all the leisure of a long voyage to review his papers, and full opportunity on his arrival at Rio to make known the omissions, he neglects to do so, and thus insures the seizure and confiscation.

VI. Even if the goods had come into the possession of Greenway & Co., the ship would not have discharged herself. Her duty was to deliver possession clear of all claims and liens incurred by the fault of her master and owners. Anything short of this would not have been the delivery contracted for under the bill of lading.

VII. The commissioner did not err in his computation of the damages.

The value of the property at Rio was sworn by Abranches to be $6,000, and the invoice value at New York was stated by Magalhaen to be between $5,000 and $6,000, which, with the addition of freight, &c., harmonizes the testimony.

The claimants had the opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Davison, who purchased the goods in New York, but they deliberately refrained from doing so.

VIII. This court will not on this hearing consider any exception as to the admissibility of any of the depositions or exhibits.

IX. The decree of the Circuit Court should be affirmed, with costs.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a libel, in the District Court of the United States for the southern district of New York, against the barque Griffin and her owners, on a contract of affreightment by the appellees. The lebel stated, that in November, 1852, at New York, there was shipped on that barque, of which the appellants are owners, one hundred and thirty-two boxes of chairs and furniture, to be delivered at the ship's tackles at the port of Rio de Janeiro, to the appellees, according to the terms of a bill of lading. That the regulations of the port of Rio de Janeiro require the owner or master of a vessel arriving there, to submit to the officers of the customs a manifest of the cargo on board; and that cargo not mentioned in the manifest cannot be passed through the custom-house, but is liable to seizure and confiscation for that omission.

That the master of the barque omitted to enter the said consignment on the manifest rendered by him on his arrival, and in consequence the boxes were seized and confiscated, and so were lost to the consignees. The libellees answer that the goods referred to in the libel were discharged in accordance to the bill of lading, under the laws and regulations of the port, and under the order of the proper Government officers, and went into the custom-house under the direction of the libellants, they paying the duties thereon.

That after the delivery at the ship's tackles of the said shipment, the consignees became responsible for their safety; and that they were not confiscated or forfeited to the Government, nor abandoned by the consignees to the owners of the ship. Upon the pleadings and proofs, a decree was rendered against the libellees in the District Court, which was affirmed in the Circuit Court, on appeal.

It appears from the testimony that it is the duty of a master of a foreign vessel, upon her arrival at the port of Rio de Janeiro, to deliver to the proper officer, (Guarda Mor,) upon his visit to the vessel, his passport, manifest, and list of passengers. He is required, 'at the end of the manifest,' to make such 'declarations or statement for his security by adding any packages that may be omitted or exceeded in his manifest, giving his reason for such omissions; no excuse will afterwards be admitted for any omissions or error.'

That, 'when it is proved that the vessel brought more goods than are specified or contained in the manifest, and not declared by the master, such goods will be seized, and divided among the seizors, the master also paying into the national treasury a fine of one-half their value, besides the customary duties thereon.' It further appears, that the Griffin reached the port of Rio de Janeiro in January, 1853, and that her master rendered her passport, manifest, and list of passengers, and was required to make any statement or declaration in addition, and informed that no other opportunity would be afforded to him. The master answered, that he had no addition to make or declaration to record. The goods were discharged according to the custom of the port, under the direction and orders of the revenue officers, into the custom-house, and while there, and before the entry had been completed, they were seized and confiscated under the regulation before stated. In a petition by the master to the Brazilian Government for a remission of the forfeiture and penalty he had insurred, he says: 'That on the last voyage of the vessel a seizure was made of one hundred and thirty-two packages of furniture, more or less, on the ground that they were not entered in the manifest, and, although the petitioner acknowledges that the custom-house officers have acted according to the instructions of the department, still there are reasons of equity which render this seizure contrary to law.'

These reasons were, that the Brazilian consul at New York was a novice in his office, and had failed to give him accurate information, and had approved of a manifest full of mistakes; and that the master had acted in good faith, and was obviously free from any suspicion of a design to defraud the revenue. This petition was referred to the director general of the revenue, who returned for answer: 'That taking into consideration the quantity of the packages seized, (130 cases,) and the quality of the goods therein contained, (furniture,) and more particularly the circumstances which occurred before the seizure thereof, (the packages having been landed, and the duties paid,) there is no plausible reason to ascribe to fraud or bad faith the omissions of the said packages in the manifest of the vessel in which they were imported; but, on the other hand, the circumstance of the proof of fraud, or even of its presumption, is not essential in order to render the seizure a legal one in the present hypothesis. It is expressed in the case before mentioned, in the articles 155, 156, of the general regulations of the 22d June, 1836, that the simple fact of finding either more or less packages is punishable with the penalties therein decreed; and the seizure to which the petition refers having been made and adjudged in conformity with the provisions of the said article 155, I am of opinion that the decision of the custom-house ought to be confirmed.' The decree was entered accordingly. The testimony shows that the packages were sold by the inspector of the customs as forfeited, and that the consignees sustained a total loss. There is no testimony to show that they contributed to produce this result. It was the duty of the master of the barque to acquaint himself with the laws of the country with which he was trading, and to conform his conduct to those laws. He cannot defend himself under asserted ignorance, or erroneous information on the subject. It is the habit of every nation to construe and apply their revenue and navigation laws with exactness, and without much consideration for the hardship of individual cases. The magnitude and variety of the interests depending upon their efficient administration compel to this, and every ship-master engaged in a foreign trade must take notice of them.

The Vixen, 1 Dod., 145; the Adams, Edwards, 310. In the case before us, the master was informed of his duties upon his arrival at the port of destination by the officers of the customs, and his embarrassment and loss can be attributed to nothing but his inattention. The question arises, whether the appellants are responsible for the miscarriage of their master and agent. Their contract is an absolute one to deliver the cargo safely, the perils of the sea only excepted. Under such a contract, nothing will excuse them for a non-performance, except they have been prevented by some one of those perils, the act of the libellants, or the law of their country. No exception of a private nature, which is not contained in the contract itself, can be engrafted upon it by implication as an excuse for its non-performance. Atkinson v. Ritchie, 10 East., 533. In Spencer v. Chadwick, 10 Q. B. R., 516, the defendants pleaded, 'that the ship, in the course of her voyage to London, called at Cadiz; and while there, the goods were lawfully taken out of the ship by the officers of the customs on a charge of being contraband under the laws of Spain, without default on the part of the officers of the ship. The court affirm the rule, that when a party, by his own contract, creates a duty or charge upon himself, he is bound to make it good, if he may, notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, because he might have provided against it by his contract.' It was for the libellees to furnish the evidence to discharge themselves for the failure to perform their contract.

They insist that the delivery of the cargo into the custom-house under the order of the officers, and the payment of duties by the consignees, was a right delivery, and that the consignees are responsible for their safety afterward. We do not concur in this opinion. The delivery contemplated by the contract was a transfer of the property into the power and possession of the consignees. The surrender of possession by the master must be attended with no fact to impair the title or affect the peaceful enjoyment of the property. The failure to enter the property on the manifest was a cause of confiscation from the event, and rendered nugatory every effort subsequently to discharge the liability of the ship and owners.

The appellants complain that the proof does not support the decree in respect of the damage assessed. One witness testifies to the market value of the packages in Rio de Janeiro, and another approximates their cost in New York, and upon this testimony the assessment was made. It was competent to the appellants to introduce testimony in the Circuit Court, or in this court, upon that subject, but none has been submitted.

We should not be justified in concluding the decree to be erroneous under the circumstances.

Decree affirmed.


text: Talk:Howland v. Greenway/Opinion of the Court


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Boksburg

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Boksburg


text:
Kilbourne v. State Savings Institution of St. Louis

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the District Court of the United States for the district of Iowa.

It was an action brought by way of petition by the State Savings Institution in Missouri, against Edward Kilbourne, R. B. Foote, Coleman & Foote, Anson L. Deming, and Henry K. Love, citizens of the State of Iowa, upon a bill of exchange for $1,410.37, drawn by Coleman & Foote upon Edward Kilbourne, payable to the order of R. B. Foote, one hundred and twenty days after date, and which passed, by endorsement, to the State Savings Institution of St. Louis; afterwards, there were consolidated with this suit two others, one upon a bill for $1,526.23, and a third upon a bill for $3,000. The judgment of the court was as follows:

It is therefore considered by the court that plaintiffs recover of said Coleman & Foote and Edward Kilbourne, as principals, and R. B. Foote, A. L. Deming, and H. K. Love, sureties, the sum of $6,440 aforesaid, with their costs in this behalf expended, to be taxed by the clerk.

The defendants sued out a writ of error, and brought the case up to this court.

Mr. Blair and Mr. Polk, for the defendants in error, moved to dismiss the writ, upon the ground that it was merely sued out for delay.

Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.


text: Talk:Kilbourne v. State Savings Institution of St. Louis


text:
Kilbourne v. State Savings Institution of St. Louis/Opinion of the Court

No question was raised upon the trial of this case in the court below, for the consideration of this court, nor have the plaintiffs in error, by counsel or otherwise, made one here. The writ of error was obviously sued out for delay. We direct the affirmance of the judgment and ten per cent. damages

It is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed with costs and interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum.


text: Talk:Kilbourne v. State Savings Institution of St. Louis/Opinion of the Court


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bolan Pass

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bolan Pass


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1729

 1678 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 707. 1929. BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS Public Roads Bu. reau. Agricultural nomics Bureau . Department of Com- merce. Secretary's Office. Foreign and Do- mestic Commerce Bu- reau. For "Salaries and expenses, Bureau of Public Roads, 1929," $23,828 . BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECON OMI CS Ec o- For "Salaries and expenses, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1929," $208,719. For " Enforcement of United States Cotto n Futures Act and United Sfates Cotton Standards Act, 1929," $12,920. For " Enforcement of United States Grain Standards Act, 1929," $44,180 . For "Administration of United States Warehouse Act, 1929," $10,050. For "Enforcement of Standard Containe r and Produce Agency Acts, 1929, " $1,7 30. Total, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, $277,599. BU REAU OF HOME ECONOMICS Home Economics For "Salaries and expen ses, Bureau of Home Economics, 1929," Bureau. $10,756 . PLANT QUARANTINE AND CO NT ROL ADMINISTRATION P l ant Quarantine For "Salaries and expenses, Plant Quarantine and Control and Control Admin- istration. Admin istrat ion, 1 929," $60,76 0. FOOD, DRUG, AND INSE(,IICIDE ADMINISTRATION Food, Drug, and For " Salaries and expenses, Food, Drug, and Insecticide Admin . Insect icide A dminis- tration . istration, 1929," $79,863 . Total, Depart ment o f Agri cultur e, $2, 066,818 . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY For " Salaries, Office of the Secretary of Commerce, 1929," $22,600. Aeronautics branch : For "Aircraft in Commerce, 1929," $26,350 . Air nav igatio n faci lities : Fo r "Air navig ation facili ties, 1929," $29,700 . Radio division : For " Enforcement of wireless communication laws, 1929," $16,160 . Total, Office of the Secretary, $94,810 . BUREAU OF F ORE IGN AND DO MES TIC COM MER CE For " Salaries, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, 1929," $18 .630 . For "Promoting commerce in Europe and other areas, 1929," $6,012. For " Promoting commerce in Latin America, 1929," $8,800 . For " Promoting commerce in Africa, 1929," $1,020. For " Promoting commerce in the Far East, 1929," $7,180. For " District and cooperative office service, Department of Com- merce, 1929," $29,780. For " Enforcement of the China Trade Act, 1929," $600. For " Export industries, Department of Commerce, 1929," $46,200.

�


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bolas

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bolas


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1730

 SE VENTI ETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 707. 1929 . For " Do mestic commer ce, Depa rtm ent of Commerce, 1929," $18,920 . For " Compiling foreign trade statistics, Department of Com- merce, 1929," $21,040. For " List of foreign buyers, 1929," $2,744. For "Investigation of foreign trade restrictions, 1929," $3,440. Total, Bure au of Forei gn and Domes tic Co mmerc e, $164, 366. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS For " Salaries, Bureau of the Census, 1929," $69,690. For " Collecting statistics, Bureau of the Census, 1929," $25,300. For " Tabulating machines, Bureau of the Census, 1929," $2,260. Total, Bureau of the Census, $97,250. STEAMBOAT INSPECTION SERVICE For " Salaries, office of supervising inspector general, Steamboat tioS nte Sam bo oaat Inspection Service, 1929," $1,200. For " Salaries, Steamboat Inspection Service, 1929," $44,500. For " Clerk hire, Steamboat Inspection Service, 1929," $10,040. Total, Steamboat Inspection Service, $55,740. BUREAU OF NAVIGATION For " Salaries, Bureau of Navigation, 1929," $2,170. For " Adm easurement of vessels, 1 92 9," $ 100. For " Enforcement of navigation laws, 1929," $3,320. For " Clerk hire, shipping service, 1929," $2,920. For " Contingent expenses, shipping service, 1929," $120. Total, Bureau of Navigation, $8,630. BUREAU OF STANDARDS For " Salaries, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $53,146. For " Improvement and care of grounds, Bureau of Standards, 19 29," $1,43 1. For " Testing structural materials, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $17,058 . For " Testing machines, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $3,003. For " Investigation of fire-resisting properties, Bureau of Stand- ar ds, 1929," $2,1 13. For " Investigation of public-utility standards, Bureau of Stand- ards, 1929," $7,297. For " T esti ng m isce llan eous mat eria ls, Bure au o f St anda rds, 1929," $3~125 . For " Radio research, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $5,972. For " Color standardization, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $950. For " Investigation of clay products, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $2,370. For " Standardizing mechanical ap pliances, Bur eau of Standar ds, 1929," $1,877. For " Investigation of optical glass, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $1,900 . For " Investigation of textiles, and so forth, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $3,444. For " Sugar standardization, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $5,067. Fo r " Gauge standa rdization, Bu reau of Stand ards, 1 929," $2,3 93. For " Investigation of mine scales and cars, Bureau of Standards, 19 29," $888. For " Metallurgical research, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $3,474. Census Bureau. 1679 inspee Navigation Bureau. Sta ndar ds B ureau.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1731

 1680 Lighthouses Bureau. Fisheries Bureau. Patent Office. Mines Bureau. SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 707. 1929. For "High-temperature investigations, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $661. For " Sound investigation, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $889. For " Industrial research, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $13,627. Fo r " Testin g rail road s cales, and s o fort h, Bure au of Standa rds, 1929," $2,085. For " Standardization of equipment, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $12,123. For " Standard materials, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $824. For " Investigation of radioactive substances and X rays, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $2,201. Fo r " Utilization of waste products from the land, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $3,148. For "Inv esttg ation of autom otive engi nes, Bure au of Sta ndard s, 192 9," $1,83 3. For " Investigation of dental materials, Bureau of Standards, 1929," $421. Total, Bureau of Standards, $153,320. BUREAU OF LIGHTHOUSES For " Salaries, Bureau of Lighthouses, 1929," $8,820. For " General expenses, Lighthouse Service, 1929," $23,500. For " Salaries, keepers of lighth ouses, 19 29," $124 ,750. For " Salaries, lighthouse vessels, 1929," $63,660. For " Salaries, Lighthouse Service, 1929," $41,040. Total, Bureau of Lighthouses, $261,770. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY Survey . and Geodetic cc Party expenses, Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1929 " : For mag- netic work, $1,082 ; Federal, boundary, and State surveys, $450 ; obje cts no t othe rwise named, $200 ; in a ll, $1, 732 . For " Sa laries, Coas t and Geodet ic Sur vey, 1 929," $ 38,860 . Total, Coast and G eodeti c Surv ey, $4 0,592 . BUREAU OF FISHERIES " Sala ries, Bureau of Fi sherie s, 192 9 " : For commissioner's office, $14,200 ; field employees-Alaska service, $3,800 ; employees at large, $3,280 ; distribution (car) employees, $3,060 ; fish-cultural stations, $24,960 ; fish-rescue stations, $1,640 ; biological stations, $3,440 ; ves- sels, Atlantic coast, $1,280 ; vessels, Alaska service, $700 ; in all, $56,360. PATENT OFFICE For " Salaries, Patent O ffice, 19 29," $265 ,500 . BUREAU OF MINES For " General expenses, Bureau of Mines, 1929," $5,810. For " Investigation mines accidents, 1929," $22,680 . For " Mining investigations in Alaska, 1929," $300. For " Operating mine rescue cars and stations, Bureau of Mines, 1929," $11,160. For "Testing fuel, Bureau of Mines, 1929," $10,910. For " Mineral-mining investigations, Bureau of Mines, 1929," $6,470. For " Oil, gas, and oil-shale investigations, Bureau of Mines, 1929," $10,220. For " Oil-shale investigations, Bureau of Mines, 1929," $2,340.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1732

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 707. 1929 . 1681 For "Expenses, mining experiment stations, Bureau of Mines, 1929," $11,250. For " Care, and so forth, of buildings and grounds, Bureau of Mines, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1929," $5,980. For " Helium investigations, Bureau of Mines, 1929," $3,400. For " Econo mics of mi nera l ind ustri es, Burea u of Mines, 19 29," $16,018. Total, Bureau of Mi nes, $ 106,53 8. Total, Department of Commerce, $1,304,876. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OFF ICE OF THE SECRETARY " Salari es, offic e of Secr etary of the Inter ior, 1929 " : Office of the Secretary, $28,380 ; office of solicitor, $10,960 ; in all, $39,340. GENERAL LAND OFFICE For " Salaries, General Land Office, 1929," $44,000. For " Surveying the public lands, 1929," $25,000. For "Contingent expenses of land offices, 1929," $8,000. For " Protecting public lands, timber, and so forth, 1929," $14,000. Total, General Land Office, $91,000. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Interior Department. Secretary's Office. General L and Office. For " Salaries, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1929," $24,000. reau `aan Affa irs Bu- For "Purchase and transportation of Indian supplies, 1929," $6,550 . For " Pay of judges, Indian courts, 1929," $3,000. For " Pay of Indian police, 1929," $16,000. For " Suppressing liquor traffic among Indians, 1929," $980. For " Determining heirs of deceased Indian allottees, 1929," $1,000. For " Probate attorneys, Five Civilized Tribes, Oklahoma, 1929," $1,500 . For " Expenses of Indian commissioners, 1929," $900. For " Counsel for Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, 1929," $200. For payment of salaries of employees and other expenses of advertising and sale in connection with the further sales of unallotted lands and other tribal property belonging to any of the Five Civilized Tribes, including the same objects specified under this head in the Interior Department Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1929, $500, to be paid from the proceeds of sales of such tribal lands and pro perty. For " Industrial work and care of timber, 1929," $23,000. For " Expenses, sale of timber (reimbursable), 1929," $7,000. For " Irrigation, Indian reservations (reimbursable), 1929," $7,000. For " Indian schools, support, 1929," $141,000. For "Indian boarding schools, 1929 " : Fort Mojave, Arizona, $4,240 ; Phoenix, Arizona, $11,850 ; Truxton Canyon, Arizona, $2,740 ; Theodore Roosevelt, Arizona, $5,820 ; Sherman Institute, California, $12,440 ; Fort Bidwell, California, $2,150 ; Haskell Ins titut e, K ansas, $11 ,760 ; Mo unt Pleasant, Michig an, $6,480 ; Pipestone, Minnesota, $4,180 ; Genoa, Nebraska, $6,760 ; Carson City, Nevada, $6,280 ; Albuquerque, New Mexico, $9,930 ; Santa Fe, New Mexico, $6,590 ; Charles H. Burke, New Mexico, $7,090 ; Cherokee, North Carolina, $5,480 ; Bismarck, North Dakota, $2,300 ; Fort Totten, North Dakota, $4,910 ; Wahpeton, North Dakota, $4,230 ; Chilocco, Oklahoma, $10,720 ; Sequoyah Orphan Training School,

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1733

 1682 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 707. 1929 . $4,230 ; Euchee, Oklahoma, $2,000 ; Eufaula, Oklahoma, $2,420 ; Chemawa, Salem, Oregon, $10,820 ; Flandreau, South Dakota, $5,640 ; Pierre, South Dakota, $4,280 ; Rapid City, South Dakota, $5,340 ; Hayward, Wisconsin, $3,560 ; Tomah, Wisconsin, $4,760 ; in all, boarding schools, not to exceed $169,000. For " Indian schools, Five Civilized Tribes, 1929," $1,000. For " Education, Sioux Nation, 1929," $18,000. For " Conservation of health among Indians, 1929," $74,000. For support of hospitals maintained for the benefit of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota, $4,000, payable from the principal sum on deposit to the credit of said Indians arising under section 7 of the Act of January 14, 1889 (Twenty-fifth Statutes, page 645). For "Asylum for insane Indians, Canton, South Dakota, 1929," $4,000. For " Support of Indians and administration of Indian property, 1929," $57,000. Fo r " Fulfi lling treati es wit h Coeu r d'Al enes, I daho, 1929," $540. For " Fulfilling treaties with Bannocks, Idaho, 1929," $920. For " Fulfilling treaties with Crows, Montana, 1929," $1,100. For "Fulfilling treaties with Northern Cheyennes and Arapahoes, Montana, 1929," $1,000. For " Fulfilling treaties with Pawnees, Oklahoma, 1929," $1,000. For " Fulfilling treaties with Quapaws, Oklahoma, 1929," $240. For "Fulfi lling treati es wit h Siou x of di fferen t trib es, in cludin g S antee Siou x of Nebr aska, Nort h Da kota, and Sout h Dak ota, 1929 ," $17,000 . For "Fulfilling treaties with Confederated Bands of Utes, 1929," $2,000. Fo r " Fulfi lling treati es wit h Shos hones, Wyomin g, 192 9," S7 60. For "Admin istration, Quapaw Age ncy (reimbursable), 1929," $720. For general support of Indians and administration of Indian property under the jurisdiction of the following agencies, to be paid from the funds held by the United States in trust for the respective tribes, in not to exceed the following sums, respectively Arizona : Fort Apache, $4,000 ; San Carlos, $4,000 ; Truxton Can- yon, $1,000 ; in all, $9,000 ; Colorado : Consolidated Ute, $400 ; Idaho : Coeur d'Alene, $500 ; Fort Hall, $2,000 ; in all, $2,500 ; Minnesota : Red Lake, $1,000 ; Montana : Flathead, $2,000 ; Nevada : Western Shoshone, $1,000 ; New Mexico : Mescalero, $1,000 ; North Dakota : Fort Berthold, $100 ; Standing Rock, $1,500 ; in all, $1,600 ; Oklahoma : Otoe, $180 ; Ponca, $120 ; Kiowa, $3,500 ; Cheyenne and Arapahoe, $2,000 ; in all, $5,800 ; Oregon : Klamath, $4,000 ; Umatilla, $500 ; in all, $4,500 ; South Dakota : Lower Brule, $100 ; Utah : Uintah, $180 ; Washington : Colville, $3,400 ; Taholah, $300 ; Yakima, $2,400 ; in all, $6,100 ; Wisconsin : Keshena, $2,500 ; Wyoming : Shoshone, $3,000 ; In all, not to exceed $40,680. Chi ppew a In dians of For gene ral suppo rt, a dmin istra tion of p roper ty, a nd pr omot ion Minnesota. of self-support among the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minne- sota, $3,000 to be paid from the principal sum on deposit to the

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1734

 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. II. Cii. 707 . 1929 . credit of said Indians arising under section 7 of the Act approved January 14, 1889 (Twenty-fifth Statutes, page 645). For the support of the Osage Agency, including the same objects specified under this head in the Interior Department Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1929, $9,500, to be paid from the funds held by the United States in trust for the Osage Tribe of Indians in Oklahoma. For necessary expenses in connection with oil and gas production on t he Osa ge Res ervati on, in cludin g the s ame ob jects specif ied un der this head in the Interior Department Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1929, $3,900, to be paid from the funds held by the United States in trust for the Osage Tribe of Indians in Oklahoma. For administering the property of and promoting self-support among the Confederated Bands of Ute Indians, under such regula- tions as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, $3,000, payable from the principal funds to the credit of such Indians. Total, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Federal funds, $580,410. Total, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian funds, $64,580. BUREAU OF PENSIONS For " Salaries, Pension Office, 1929," $83,860. Fo r " Sala ries and e xpens es, Emplo yees' Ret ireme nt Ac t, B ureau of Pensions, 1929," $4,900. Total, Bureau of Pensions, $88,760. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION For "Rec lamat ion F und, spec ial f und," $2, 000, payab le f rom t he re clama tion fund. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY " Geological Survey, 1929 " : For salaries, $10,500 ; topographic surveys, $34,000 ; geologic surveys, $30,000 ; volcanologic surveys, $1,000 ; Alaskan mineral resources, $3,000 ; gauging streams, $23,500 ; classification of lands, $11,500 ; geologic and topographic maps, Uni ted St ates, $10,00 0 ; prepara tion of i llustrati ons, $1,9 00 ; m in era l leasing, $21,000 ; in all, 146,400. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE " National Park Service, 1928 and 1929 " : For salaries, $4,660, C rate r La ke N ati onal Par k, $ 850 ; General Grant National Park, $ 5 00 ; Gla cier N ationa l Park, $5,0 65 ; Grand Canyon National Park, $3,540 ; Hawaii National Park, $785 ; Hot Springs National Park, $6,320 ; Lafayette National Park, $1,355 ; Lassen Volcanic National Park, $460 ; Mesa Verde National Park, $1,115 ; Mount McKinley National Park, $740 ; Mount Rainier National Park, $3,370 ; Platt National Park, $1,080 ; Rocky Mountain National Park, $2,380 ; Sequoia National Park, $3,440 ; Wind Cave National Park, $760 ; Yellowstone National Park, $12,230 ; Yosemite National Park, $9,385 ; Bryce National Park, $795 ; protection of national monuments, $1,225 ; Carlsbad Cave National Monument, $260 ; in all, $60, 315. BUREAU OF EDUCATION For " Salaries, Bureau of Education, 1929," $15 .500. For " Education of natives of Alaska, 1928 and 1929," $9,500. For "Medic al rel ief in Alask a, 192 8 and 1 929," $6,000. For "Reindeer for Alaska, 1928 and 1929," $300. Total, Bureau of Education, $31,300. 1683 Vol. 25, p. 64. Osage Agency. Oil and gas produo tion. Confederated Band: of Utes. Pensions Bureau. Reclamation Bureau Ge ologic al Sur vey. National Park Serv. ice. Edu cation Bureau.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1735

 1684 SE VENTI ETH C ONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 707. 1929 Government in the Territories. Saint Elizabeths Hos- pital. Freedmen's H os- pital. Dep artme nt of Jus- tice. Attorney General's Office. Salaries. Miscellaneous ob- jects. Judicial. United States courts. GOVERNMENT IN THE TERRITORIES For " Salaries, governor and secretary, Territory of Alaska, 1929," $100. For " Contingent expenses, Territory of Alaska, 1929," $180. For " Salaries, governor and secretary, Territory of Hawaii, 1929," $400 . For " Contingent expenses, Territory of Hawaii, 1929," $100. Total, government in the Territories, $780. SAINT ELIZABETHS HOSPITAL For " Saint Elizabeths Hospital, 1929," $62,132. FREEDMEN'S HOSPITAL For " Freedmen's Hospital, 1929," $18,000. Total, Department of the Interior, Federal funds, $1,120,437. Tot al, Depa rtme nt, of t he I nter ior, Ind ian fund s, $64,580. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL For "Sala ries, Departme nt of Justice, 19 29 ," $ 97 ,0 00. MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE For " Protecting interests of the United States in customs matters, 1929," $9,040. For " Detection and prosecution of crimes, 1929," $95,660. For " Examination of judicial offices, 1929," $8,200. For " Enforcement of antitrust laws, 1929," $3,660. Total, miscellaneous objects, $116,560. JUD ICIAL For " Salaries, national park commissioners, 1929," $1,120. For " Salaries, Court of Claims, 1929," $5,744. Total, judicial, $6,864. UNITED STATES COURTS For " Salarie s, fees, and e xpense s of ma rshals, Unite d State s court s, 1929," $107,280. For " Salaries and expenses of district attorneys, United States courts, 1929," $84,640. For " Pay of regular assistant attorneys, United States courts, 1929," $75,700. For " Salaries and expenses of clerks, United States courts, 1929," $106,310 . For " Miscellaneous expenses, United States courts, 1929," $33,360. Total, United States courts, $407,290 . PE NAL A ND CO RRECT IONAL INST IrU'I ION renal, etc ., institu- For "Unite d Stat es pe nitent iary, Leaven worth, Kans as, 1929," tions. $28,000 . For " United States penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, 1929," $27,580. For " United States penitentiary, McNeil Island, Washington, 1929," $9,040.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1736

 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 707. 1929 . 1685 For " Federal Industrial Institution for Women, maintenance, 1929," $11,740. For "United States Industrial Reformatory, Chillicothe, Ohio, 1929," $10,320. For "National Training School for Boys, Washington, District of Col umb ia, 19 29," $14 ,140. For " Support of United States prisoners, 1929," $4,860. Tot al, pe nal and correc tional instit utions, $ 10 5, 68 0. Total, Department of Justice, $733,394. DEP ART MEN T OF LABOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY For " Salaries, office of Secretary of Labor, 1929," $16,070. BUR EAU OF LABOR STATIST ICS For " Salaries, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1929," $17,701. For " Miscellaneous expenses, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1929," $1,000 . BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION For " Salaries,' Bureau of Immigration, 1929," $6,880. For " Expenses of regulating immigration, 1929," $339,365. Total, Bureau of I mmigration, $ 34 6, 24 5. CHILDREN'S BUREAU For " Salaries, Children's Bureau, 1929," $7,229. For " Investigation of child welfare, Children's Bureau, 1929," $9,936 . To tal, Chi ldre n's Bure au, $17,165. BUREAU OF NATURALIZATION For " Salaries, Bureau of Naturalization, 1929," $8,438. re Natnralization Bu- For " Mis cellaneous ex penses, Burea u of Naturaliz ation, 1929," $92,717. To tal, Bur eau of N atur aliz atio n, $101 ,155. WOMEN'S BUREAU For " Salaries and expenses, Women's Bureau, 19 29," $6, 257. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE For "Employment service, Department of Labor, 1929," $12,200. Total, Department of Labor, $517,793. NAVY DEPAR TMENT SALARI ES For " Salaries, office of Secretary of the Navy, 1929," $9,000. For " Salaries, General Board, Navy Department, 1929," $600. For " Salaries, Naval Examining and Retiring Boards, 1929," $540. For " Salari es, co mpensa tion board, Navy Depart ment, 1920," $1,000 Departmen t of La- bor. Secretary's office. Labor Statistics Bu- reau. Immigration Bureau. Childr en's B ureau. Women's B ureau. Employment Serv- ice . Navy Department. Salaries.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1737

 1686 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CII. 707. 1929. For " Salaries, office of naval records and library, 1929," $600. For " Salaries, office of Judge Advocate General, 1929," $10,220. For " Salaries, office of Chief of Naval Operations, 1929," $4,300. For " Salaries, Board of Inspection and Survey, Navy Depart- ment, 1929," $1,120. For " Off ice of Direct or of Naval C ommunications, 1929," $4,500. For " Salaries, Office of Naval Intelligence, 1929," $1,200. For " Salaries, Bureau of Navigation, 1929," $33,960. For " Salaries, Hydrographic Office, 1929," $33,080. For "Salaries, Naval Observatory, 1929," $9,000. For " Salaries, Nautical Almanac Office, 1929," $2,300. For " Salaries, Bureau of Engineering, 1929," $18,500. For " Salaries, Bureau of Construction and Repair, 1929," $23,500. For " Salaries, Bureau of Ordnance, 1929," $10,200. For " Salaries, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, 1929," $42,000. For " Salaries, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, 192 9," $3,4 00. For "Salaries, Bureau of Ya rds and Docks, 1929," $14,000. For "Salaries, Bureau of Aeronautics, 1929," $16,860. Total, Salaries, Navy Department, $239,880. BUREAU OF NAVIGATION Nav al Hom e, Phi la- Naval Home, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania : For pay of employees delphia. at rates of pay to be fixed by the Secretary of the Navy, $12,640, which shall be paid out of the income of the naval pension fund. Hydrographic Office. Nav al Acad emy. Marine Corps. Civil employees. Post Office Depart- ment. Salaries. HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE Branch offices : For services of necessary employees, $2,700. NAV AL OBSE RVA TOR Y Naval Observatory. For " Contingent and miscellaneous expenses, Naval Observatory, 192 9," $400. NAVAL ACADEMY For " Pay, Naval Academy, 1929," $12,250. MARINE CORPS "Pay of civil employees, Marine Corps, 1929," Office of Major General Commandant, and adjutant and inspector, $3,560 ; office of paymaster, $1,380 ; office of the quartermaster, $4,200 ; in all, $9,140. Total, Navy Department, $277,010. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT OUT OF THE POSTAL REVENUES For " Salaries, office of Postmaster General, 1929," $15,680. For " Salaries, Post Office Department buildings, 1929," $37,183. For " Sa laries, offic e of Fi rst As sistant Postma ster G eneral, 1929," $31,320 . For " Sala ries, o ffice of Seco nd Assi stant Postmas ter Gen eral, 1929," $17,160 . For " Sal aries, office of Thi rd Assi stant Postmas ter Gen eral, 1929," $48,500 . For " Salaries, office of Fou rth Assistant Postmaster G eneral, 1929," $27,000. For " Salaries, office of Solicitor for the Post Office Department, 19 29," $5,9 80.

�


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bolbec

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bolbec


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1738

 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 707. 1929 . 1687 Fo r " Salaries, office of Chief Inspector , 1929," $11,100. For " Salaries, office of Purchasing Agent, 1929," $2,180. For " Salaries, Bureau of Accounts, 1929," $2,260. For " Mail bags and equipment, 1929," $60,000. Tota l, Pos t Offi ce Dep artmen t, $25 8,363. DEPARTMENT OF STATE For " Sala ries, Depart ment o f Stat e, 192 9," $10 5,460. For " Passport Bureaus, Department of State, 1929," $4,447. For "Immigration of aliens, Department of State, 1929," $2,524. Total, Department of State, $112,431. TREASURY DEPARTMENT Department of State. Tre asury Depart- ment . OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY For " Salaries, office of Secretary of the Treasury, 1929," $12,340. Secretary's Office. For " Salaries, office of chief clerk and superintendent, 1929," $55,161 . For " Salaries, Division of Supply, 1929," $12,940. For " Salaries and expenses, General Supply Committee, 1929," $10,260 . For " Salaries, office of Commissioner of Accounts and Deposits, 1929," $4,400. For " Salaries, Division of Bookkeeping and Warrants, 1929," $8,580 . Fo r " Public Debt S ervice, 1929 ," $14 6,500. Fo r " Salar ies, D ivisio n of A ppoint ments, 1929," $3,16 9. For " Salaries, office of disbursing clerk, 1929," $3,120. Total, Secretary's office, $256,470. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS Fo r " Collec ting t he rev enue f rom cu stoms, 1929," $542, 423 . Customs Bureau. BUREAU OF THE BUDGET For " Salaries and expenses, Bureau of the Budget, 1929," $8,000 . Budget Bureau. OFF ICE OF TREASURER OF UNIIBD STATES For " Salaries, office of Treasurer of United States 1929," $81,000. Treasurer's umee. For " Salaries, office of Treasurer of United States (national cur- rency, reimbursable), 1929," $18,000. Total, Treasurer's office, $99,000. OFFICE OF COMPTROTTItR OF CU RRENCY Fo r " Salaries, office o f Comptro ller of t he Curren cy, 1929, $16,080 . ofOffice eof Comptroller For " Salaries, office of Comptroller of the Currency, (national currency, reimbursable), 1929," $2,900 . Total, office o f Comptro ller o f Cur rency, $18,9 80 . BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE F o r " Collec ting t he Int ernal Revenu e, 192 9," $2, 036,12 0 . BU REAU OF PR OHIBI TION For " Enforcement of Narcotic and National Prohibition Acts, Int ernal Revenu e, 192 9," $5 89,010 . Internal Revenue Bureau . Prohibition Bureau.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1739

 1688 SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 707. 1929. CO AST G UARD Coast Guard. Engravingand Print- ing Bureau. Secret Service Divi- sion. Public Health Serv- ice. Bureau of the Mint. Super vising Arc hi- tect's Office. War Department. Secretary's Office. For " Sal aries, of fice of C oast Guar d, 1929," $21,260. For " Civilian employees, Coast Guard, 1929," $4,616. Total, Coast Guard, $25,876. BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING For " Salaries, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 1929," $63,330. For " Compensation of employees, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 1929," $232,278. For "Plate printing, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 1929," $75,120 . Total, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, $370,728. SEC RET SE RVICE DIVIS ION For " Salaries, Secret Service Division, 1929," $1,820. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE For " Salaries, office of Surgeon General, Public Health Service, 1929," $19,480. For " Pay, and so forth, commissioned officers and pharmacists, Publi c Heal th Ser vice, 1929," $6,60 0. For " Pay o f act ing a ssis tant surge ons, Publ ic He alth Serv ice, 1929," $15,640. For " Pay of othe r em ploy ees, Pub lic Hea lth Serv ice, 19 29," $98,670. For " Pay of personnel and maintenance of hospitals, Public Health Service, 1929," $322 .660. For "Fi eld in vestig ations of pu blic h ealth, 1929," $17,5 40. For " Interstate quarantine service, 1929," $2,080. For " Expenses, division of venereal diseases, Public Health Serv- ice, 1929," $3,780. Total, Public Healt h Serv ice, $ 486,45 0. BUREAU OF THE MINT For " Salaries, office of Director of the Mint, 1929," $2,600. For " Salaries and wages, mint service, major institutions, 1929," $47,000 . For " Salaries and wages, mint service, minor institutions, 1929," $4,180. Total, Bureau of the Mint, $53,780. Orr iCE OF SU PERVIS ING ARC HITECT For " Salaries, Office of Supervising Architect, 1929," $23,580. For " Op eratin g forc e for public build ings, 1929," $295,1 25. Total, Office of Supervising Architect, $318,705. Total, Treasury Department, $4,807,362. WAR DEPARTMENT-MILITARY ACTIVITIES OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF WAR For " Salaries, office of Secretary of War, 1929," $13,499. GENERAL STAFF CORPS General Staff Corps. For 11 Salaries, office of Chief of Staff, 1929," $10,180.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1740

 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SEss. II. CH. 707. 1929 . 1689 ARMY WAR COLLEGE For "Army War College, 1929," $3,918. Army War College. AD JUTANT GE NERALS DEP ARTMENT For " Salaries, Ad j utant General's office, 1929," $90,022. Adjutant General's For "Administrative expenses, World War Adjusted Compensa- Department . tion Act, War Department, 1928 and 1929," $10,440. For " Command and General Staff School, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1929," $840. For " Military post exchanges, 1929," $2,280. Total, Adjutant General's Department, $103,582 . INSP ECTOR GENER AL'S DEPAR TMENT For " Salaries, office of Inspector General, 1929," $1,560. FINANCE DEPARTMENT For " Salaries, office of Chief of Finance, 1929," $15,760. For " Finance Service, 1929," $62,618. Total, Finance Department, $78,378. QUARTERMASTER CORPS For " Salaries, office of Quartermaster General, 1929," $48,000. For " Clothing and equipage, 1929," $110,000. For " Incidental expenses of the Army, 1929," $320,290. For "Army transportation, 1929," $159,974. For " Barracks and quarters, other buildings and utilities, 1929," $150 ,000 . For " Construction and repair of hospitals, 1929 ," $ 4,000. Total, Quartermaster Corps, $792,264. SIGNAL CORPS For " Salaries, Signal Office, 1929," $6,120. For " Signal Service of the Army, 1929," $36,788. For " Seacoast defenses, signal, 1929," $2,410. For " Se acoast defens es, ins ular p ossessi ons, si gnal, 1929," $456. For " Seac oast def ense s, P anam a Ca nal, sig nal, 1929," $280. Tota l, S igna l Co rps, $46,054. AIR CORPS For " Salaries, office of Chief of Air Corps, 1929," $12,980. For "Air Corps, Army, 1929," $219,889. Total, Air Corps, $232,869. MEDICAL DEPARTMENT For " Sal aries, office of Sur geon G eneral, 1 929, " $1 5,68 0. For " Medical and Hospital Department, 1929," $22,500. Total, Medical Department, $38,180. BURE AU OF IN SULA R AF FAIR S For " Salaries, Bureau of Insular Affairs, 1929," $3,260. CORPS OF EN GINEERS For " Salaries, Office of Chief of Engineers, 1929," $5,240. For " Engineer depots, 1929," $4,314. Inspector General's Department. Finance Depart, ment. Quartermaster Corps. Signal Corps . Air Corps, Medical D epa rt- ment. Insular Affairs Bu. reau. Engineer Corps.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1741

 1690 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 707 . 1929 . Ordnance Depart- ment. Chemical Service . Chief of Infan try. Cavalry School . Field Artillery School. Chief of C oast Artil - ler y. For " Engineer School, 1929," $740. For "Engineer operations in the field, 1929," $4,344. For "Military and surveys and maps, 1928-December 31, 1929," $6,400. For " Seacoast defenses, Engineers, 1929," $9,030. " Seacoast defenses, insular possessions, Engineers, 1929," $1,996. For " Seacoast defenses, Panama Canal, Engineers, 1929," $1,000. Total, Corps of Engineers, $33,064. ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT For " Salaries, Office of Chief of Ordnance, 1929," $31,480. For " Ordnance Service, 1929," $34,450. For " Manufacture of arms, 1929 and 1930," $1,800. For " Automa tic ri fles, 1929 a nd 193 0," $1, 000. For " Tanks, 1929 and 1930," $1,500. "Field Artillery armament, 1929 " : For acquisition and test of cannon and equipment, and so forth, $4,900 ; alteration and mainte- nance of artillery, and so forth, $9,500 ; and acquisition and test of subcaliber guns, ammunition, and equipment, and so forth, artillery practice, $2,750 ; in all, $17,150. For " Proving grounds, Army, 1929," $1,285. For " Rock Island Bridge, Rock Island, Illinois, 1929," $160. For " Testing machines, 1929," $140. For " Repairs of arsenals, 1929," $5,000. For "gauges, dies, and jigs, for manufacture, 1929," $525. For " Seacoast defenses, ordnance, 1929," $5,000. For " Seacoast defenses, insular possessions, ordnance, 1929," $2,500. For " Seacoast defenses, Panama Canal, ordnance, 1929," $2,500. Total, Ordnance department, $104,490. CHEMI CAL WARF ARE SERVI CE War fare For " Salaries, office of Chief of Chemical Warfare Service, 1929," $3,668 . For " Chemi cal Warfa re Se rvice, Ar my, 1 929," $36 ,000. Total, Chemical Warfare Service, $39,668. CHI EF OF INF ANT RY For " Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia, 1929," $1,080. For ~` Tank Service, 1929," $1,200 . Total, Chief of Infantry, $2,280 . CHIEF OF CAVALRY For " Cav alry S chool, Fort Riley, Kansa s, 192 9," $52 0 . CHI EF OF FIELD A RTILLER Y For " Field Artillery School, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, 1929," $480 . CHI EF OF COAST A RTILLER Y For " Salaries, office of Chief of Coast Artillery, 1929," $1,056 . For " Coast Artillery School, Fort Monroe, Virginia, 1929," $380 . For " Seacoast defenses, Coast Artillery, 1929," $2,120 . F or " Seaco ast defen ses, insu lar posse ssions, C oast Art illery, 1 929," $940.

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1742

 SEVENTIETH C ONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 707. 1929. 1691 For " Seacoast defenses, Panama Canal, Coast Artillery, 1929," $1,570 . Total, Coast Artillery, $6,066. MILI TARY ACADEMY For " Pay of Military Academy, 1929," $15,520. For " Maintenance, United States Military Academy, 1929," $6,512 . Total, Mi litary Academy, $22,032. M ILI TIA BUR EAU For " Salaries, Militia Bureau, 1929," $9,870. Total, military activities, War Department, $1,542,214. WAR DEPARTMENT-NONMILITARY ACTIVITIES QU ARTERMAS TER CORPS For " National cemeteries, 1929," $19,915. For "Antietam battle field, preservation, 1929," $120. For " Monuments or tablets in Cuba and China, 1929," $60. For " Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, 1929," $300. For " National monuments, War Department, 1929," $660. Total, Quartermaster Corps, $21,055. SIGNAL CORPS For " Washington-Alaska military cable and telegraph system, 1929 and 1930," $6,300. CORPS OF ENGINEERS For "Expenses, California Debris Commission, 1929," $340. PANAMA CANAL For sanitation, Canal Zone, Panama Canal, including the same objects specified under this head in the War Department Appropria- tion Act for the fiscal year 1929, $52,000. For civil government, Panama Canal and Canal Zone, including the same objects specified under this head in the War Department Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1929, $4 .400. Total, Panama Canal, $56,400, to be available until expended. To tal, non mili tary act ivit ies, War Dep artm ent, $84,095. Total, War Departm ent, military and nonmilita ry, $1,6 26,3 09. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GEN ERA L EX PEN SES " Executive office, District of Col umbia, 1929 " : For executive office, $6,800 ; purchasing division, $3,700 ; plumbing inspection divi- sion, $2,300 ; building inspection division, $7,500 ; in all, $20,300. For " Care of District Building, District of Columbia, 1929," $6,900 . For "Assessor's office, District of Columbia, 1929," $17,000. For " License bureau, District of Columbia, 1929," $1,000. For " Collector's office, District of Columbia, 1929," $2,700. For "Auditor's office, District of Columbia, 1929," $7,000. 548 35'-2 8--PT 1-11 0 Military Academy. Militia Bureau. Nonmilitary activi. ties. Quartermaster Corps. S ignal Corps. Engineer Corps. Panama Canal. Dis tri ct of Col um- bia. G eneral expen ses.

�