COUNTERFEITING—Continued.
need not aver an intent to pass the coin as true, nor an intent to
defraud. United States v. Peters, 494.
1. The jurisdiction of any court, over either the person or the sub-
ject matter, may be inquired into whenever any right or benefit
is claimed under its proceedings; and want of jurisdiction will
render its judgment unavailable for any purpose. Gray v. Lar-
rimore, 542.
2. In applying this rule, the only difference recognized between
courts of superior and of inferior jurisdiction is, that, with refer-
ence to courts of superior or general authority, jurisdiction is
presumed until the contrary appears; but with reference to
courts of inferior or limited authority, the jurisdiction must be
affirmatively shown by parties who claim any right or benefit
under their proceedings. Ib.
3. Query, whether a circuit court within a State whose laws allow
parties to examine each other upon a given cause of action or
defense, ought to entertain a bill of discovery, merely in aid of
such cause of action or defense? Home Ins. Co. v. Stanchfield, 1.
4. A circuit court has power, in a proper case, to issue a mandamus
requiring State or municipal officers to proceed with the levy and
collection of a tax. United States ex rel. Lansing v. Treasurer
5. When such a mandamus has, in the lawful exercise of the jurisdic-
tion of the court, been issued, but the officer to whom it is di-
rected will not or cannot execute the duty commanded, the court
may appoint its marshal to execute such duty and collect the
tax. Ib.
6. A national bank, organized and located in one State, may bring
an action in the circuit court sitting within another State,
against a citizen of the latter State. Manufacturers National
Bank v. Baack, 232.
7. For the purpose of sustaining such a power to sue, it may be
presumed that the individual members of the national bank are
citizens of the State wherein the bank is located, within the
meaning of Art. III. § 2 of the Constitution, and section 4 of the
Judiciary Act of 1789. Ib.
8. A circuit court has jurisdiction of a suit by a citizen of another
State against a corporation created by the State in which the
court is held; notwithstanding the corporation also holds char-
ters from other States. Minot v. Philadelphia, Wilmington, &c.
R. R. Co., 323.
9. A circuit court has jurisdiction, upon a proper bill filed by a
stockholder of a national bank, to enjoin the officers of the
bank from misapplying its funds to the prejudice of the stock-
holder's interest therein, by acts which are not warranted by
the charter, or amount to a breach of trust. Shoemaker v. Na-
tional Mechanics' Bank, 416.
10. The admiralty jurisdiction of the district court in revenue cases,
extends only to seizures for forfeitures under duty laws, as con-
ferred by section 9 of the judiciary act of 1789, 1 Stat. at L.
76. The payment of duties can only be enforced by proceed-
ings on the common law side of the court. United States v.
Five hundred boxes of Pipes, 500.
COVENANT.
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
By a creditor's bill it appeared that the judgment debtor had as-
signed certain assets, which complainant sought to reach, to a
national bank, made a defendant, as collateral security for a
loan, and had afterwards, but before the Bankrupt Act of 1867
took effect, made a general assignment to trustees for the bene-
fit of creditors. The bill charged that the loan made by the
bank was void for exceeding the corporate powers, and that
the bank therefore acquired no title to the assets received as
collateral. The general assignment was not assailed. Held,
on demurrer, that the bill showed no right in the complainant
to relief from the assets in question; for, if they did not vest in
the bank by the assignment attacked by the bill, they must
have vested in the trustees under the general assignment. Stew-
art v. National Union Bank of Maryland, 424.
1. The district-attorney of the United States has no absolute power
to dismiss a criminal charge while an examination of the ac-
cused is proceeding before a commissioner. United States v.
Schumann, 523.
2. After indictment found, and before trial commenced, the dis-
trict-attorney has absolute power to enter a nolle prosequi. But
while the charge is under examination, either before a commis-
sioner or the grand jury, he attends only as counsel of the gov-
ernment, to present the evidence against the accused; and has
no control over the course to be pursued. Ib.
3. The powers and duties of commissioners, in criminal cases,-ex-
plained. Ib.
Where both of the colliding vessels are in fault for the collision,
the aggregate damages sustained by the two should be shared
equally between them. The Magenta, 495.
COLLATERAL SECURITY.-The phrase "collateral security" imports
a security additional to the personal obligation of the borrower.
Shoemaker v. National Mechanics' Bank, 416.
FOREIGN PORT.-A tug, engaged in towing vessels between Lake
Erie and Lake Huron, is not a vessel bound to "a port in any
other than an adjoining State," or to "any foreign port," with-
in the meaning of section 5 of the act of 1790, 1 Stat. at L.
133,-prescribing the kind of contract to be entered into be-
tween master and mariner. The John Martin, 172.
SOUND AND DISPOSING MIND AND MEMORY.-The definition of
a sound and disposing mind and memory," given by WASH-
INGTON, J., in Harrison v. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. Ct. 585,-viz :
that the testator must be capable of making his will, with
an understanding of the nature of the business in which
he is engaged, a recollection of the property of which he
means to dispose, of the persons who are the objects of his
bounty, and of the manner in which it is to be distributed be-
tween them; that it is not necessary that he should view his
will with the eye of a lawyer, and comprehend its provisions in
their legal form; but it is sufficient if he has such a mind and
memory as will enable him to understand the elements of which
it is composed, the distribution of his property in its simple
forms,-approved, and applied as a proper test for determining
the capacity of a land owner to make a power of attorney au-
thorizing the conveyance of his lands. Hall v. Unger, 507.
VOYAGE. The term "voyage," as applied to vessels engaged in
foreign and inter-State commerce within the meaning of the
maritime law, is not applicable to a tug, making short trips from
one body of water to another. The John Martin, 172.
DEPOSITIONS.
EVIDENCE, 2.
EVIDENCE, 1; SEAMEN, 1-3, 8-10.
One who is entitled by the terms of a will, to a share of the proceeds
of land sold, as legatee, cannot be barred of his rights in respect
thereto, by an adjudication made in proceedings to which he is
not a party. Mathews v. Springer, 283.
1. The district-attorney of the United States has no absolute power
to dismiss a criminal charge while an examination of the accused
is taking place before a commissioner. United States v. Schu-
mann, 523.
2. After indictment found, and before trial commenced, the district-
attorney has absolute power to enter a nolle prosequi. But while
the charge is under examination, either before a commissioner
or the grand jury, he attends only as counsel of the government,
to present the evidence against the accused; and has no control
over the course to be pursued. Ib.
DISTRICT COURTS.
COURTS, 10.
1. The admiralty jurisdiction of the district court in revenue cases,
extends only to seizures for forfeitures under duty laws; as con-
ferred by section 9 of the judiciary act of 1789, 1 Stat. at L. 76.
The payment of duties can only be enforced by proceedings on
the common law side of the court. United States v. Five hun-
dred boxes of Pipes, 500.
2. It seems, where imported goods have been seized for an alleged
violation of the revenue laws, and a decision has been rendered
in favor of the claimant, that the United States is not deprived
of its lien upon the goods for the duties unpaid. Ib.
CIVIL RIGHTS; EVIDENCE, 4.
1. By the laws of Mississippi and Ohio, as they existed in 1858-59,
where an owner of slaves, residing in Mississippi, voluntarily
carried them to Ohio with the intent that they should thereby
become free, such slaves became free. And they could not lose
that status by returning, with their former master, to Mississippi
for temporary purposes. Mathews v. Springer, 283.
2. A devise of proceeds of real property, in favor of negroes formerly
held as slaves, but who have been emancipated, is valid. So
held, under the law of Mississippi, in reference to a case where
the emancipation was by the act of the owner. Ib.
1. A circuit court ought not to entertain a bill in equity filed by an
insurance company, after a loss has occurred under a policy
issued by them, to procure a decree canceling the policy and
enjoining the insured from bringing any action upon it, where
the bill is founded upon charges of fraud in obtaining the
policy, which, if true, might be set up in defense of an action at
law upon it. So held, where the policy contained a clause limit-
ing the time for suing upon it to twelve months from the date
of the loss; so that there was no danger of injury to the com-
plainant through any unreasonable delay to sue. Home Ins. Co.
v. Stanchfield, 1.
2. Although a loan made by a corporation appear to be in excess of
a limit imposed by statute, and therefore not enforceable, yet,
if it has been executed by the parties, a court of equity will not
interpose, at the suit of a creditor of the borrower, to cancel the
transaction and compel a return of the securities, but will leave
the parties where it finds them. Stewart v. National Union Bank
of Maryland, 424.
3. The general doctrine of courts of equity, relative to absent par-
ties, is, that if persons out of the jurisdiction are merely passive
objects of the judgment sought, or if their rights are merely
incidental to those of the parties before the court, then, inas-
much as a complete decree may be obtained without them, they
may be dispensed with. But if such absent persons are to be
active in the performance or execution of the decree; or if they
have rights wholly distinct from those of the other parties; or
if the decree ought to be pursued against them; then the court
cannot properly proceed, without their being made parties.
And the suit, so far at least as their rights and interests are
concerned, should be stayed; for to this extent it is unavoida-
bly defective. Gray v. Larrimore, 542.
4. All the partners, or their representatives, are indispensable
|