See BAIL.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5, 6.
CRIMES, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13.
EVIDENCE, 3, 4.
JURISDICTION, 11.
SLAVE TRADE, 4.
TRIAL, 1, 2.
TREASON.

INFORMER.

See INTERNAL REVENUE, 18, 19.

INJUNCTION.

1. By virtue of the 2d section of the
Act of March 2d, 1833, (4 U.E. Stat.
at Large, 632,) and the 50th section
of the Act of June 30th, 1864, (13 Id.
241,) the proper Court of the United
States has power to prevent, by in-
junction, the imposition of an illegal
tax under the latter Act. Cutting v.
Gilbert,
259

2. Where the remedy at law is ade-
quate, an injunction is always refused.
It will be granted to prevent a multi-
plicity of suits and vexatious litiga-
tion, where the right has been estab-
lished at law; and, where the right
is plain, and the remedy at law is
not adequate, it will oftentimes be
granted without even a trial at law.

id.

4. A person who is not the owner of
the fee of the land in a street in the
city, over which the track of a horse
railroad is about to be laid, but is
only an abutting proprietor, owning
up to the line of the street, must show
special damage sustained, or likely
to be sustained, by him, differing in
kind from that affecting every other
lot-owner on the street, in order to
support an individual action by him-
self to restrain the laying of such
track. Osborne v. Brooklyn City R. R.
Co.,

366

10. In regard to granting an injunction,
it is regular to proceed against de-
fendants who have been served with
process or notice, and are before the
Court, although other defendants
have not been served.

See ATTACHMENT, 2, 3.
CORPORATION.
EQUITY, 3 to 5, 23.
NAVY YARD, 2, 3.
PATENT, 4 to 7, 51.
PRACTICE, 9.
RAILROAD, 3.

INSOLVENT LAW.

id.

1. A discharge of a debtor, under a
State insolvent law, does not dis-
charge a debt due by him to a per-
son who resides in another State at
the time the insolvent proceedings

1. Animal charcoal or bone-black, pro-
duced by the process of burning bone,
or exposing it to the action of fire, in
the same manner that wood is ex-
posed to the action of fire, to pro-
duce vegetable charcoal, and bone
dust, produced by the process of
pulverizing or grinding bones or
pieces of bone, whereby they are re-
duced to small fragments of no regu-
lar or uniform shape or size, are
"manufactures of bone," within the
description of an Internal Revenue
Act taxing "manufactures of bone,"
Schriefer v. Wood,

215

6. A person who, having a license as a
banker, under the 1st subdivision of
the 79th section of the Internal Rev-
enue Act of June 30th, 1864, (13
U. S. Stat. at Large, 251,) receives
stocks, bonds, &c., for sale for others,
and sells them, charging the custom-
ary compensation, as a banker, and
also loans money on stocks, bonds,
&c., and sells such securities on ac-
count of the borrowers, and deducts
from the sales the money loaned,
with interest, and the customary
charges as a banker, is not liable to
the tax of 1-20th of 1 per centum,
monthly, on such sales, under the
99th section of the Act, which im-
poses such tax. on brokers, and
bankers doing business as brokers.
Clark v. Gilbert,
330

7.

A person who purchases in his own
name stocks, bonds, &c., for others,
and advances his own money, and
takes the transfers in his own name,
and holds the stocks, bonds, &c., as
security for the repayment of the
money, and, on its repayment, de-
livers the securities as per agree-
ment, or, in default of repayment,
sells them to reimburse himself, and
who also purchases and sells stocks,
bonds, &c., for others, under certain
stipulations as to risk, losses, and
profits, is doing the business of a

10. Reasons assigned for refusing the
privilege of bonding in this case. id.

11. Under the 48th section of the In-

ternal Revenue Act of June 30th,
1864, (13 U. S. Stat, at Large, 240,)
as amended by the 9th section of the
Act of July 13th, 1866, 14 Id., 111,)
where personal property is seized,
because it is found in the place or
building, or within the yard or en-
closure, where the articles or raw
materials previously mentioned in
that section are found, the fraudu-
lent intent or purpose of the person
in the possession, or having the con-
trol, of such personal property, does
not constitute an element of the
ground of forfeiture. United States
v. 1 Still,

403

20. An action for money had and re-
ceived is maintainable against a Col-
lector of Internal Revenue, for duties
or taxes erroneously or illegally as-
sessed and collected, when the pay-
ment has been made under protest,
and with notice of an intention to
bring a suit to test the validity of
the claim. Nelson v. Carman, 511

21. The Act of March 2d, 1833, (4 U.

S. Stat. at Large, 632,) providing for
the removal into the Courts of the
United States of cases arising under
the revenue laws, brought in the

8. A suit against an Assistant Treas-
urer of the United States, in a State
Court, to recover the value of certain
bonds issued by the United States,
which, when they came into his hands
from the plaintiff, he, under instruc-
tions from the Treasury Department
of the United States, retained, on the
ground that they were unlawfully put
into circulation, as against the party
to whom they were issued, is not a
suit which can be removed into this

Court under the 3d section of the Act
of March 2d, 1833, (4 U. S. Stat. at
Large, 633,) which provides for the
removal into this Court of a
"suit
commenced in a Court of any State
against any officer of the United
States, or other person, for or on ac.
count of any act done under the rev-
enue laws of the United States, or
under color thereof, or for or on ac-
count of any right, authority, or title,
set up or claimed by such officer, or
other person, under any such law of
the United States." Vietor v. Cisco,
128

12. Where a vessel was carrying, under
a charter party, a cargo that was the
property of the United States, and the
general owner, through the master,
retained the possession and naviga-
tion of the vessel, and the master, at
a port of distress, executed a bottom-
ry bond on both vessel and cargo:
Held, on a libel filed on such bond, in
Admiralty, against vessel and cargo,
that the Court had jurisdiction of the
case as regarded the vessel, but that
the cargo, being the property of, and
in the possession of, the United States,
was not subject to seizure or attach-
ment, nor could a suit be instituted
against the Government in respect to
it. The Othello,
342