16. In an action of ejectment, in a
State Court, against three defendants,
two of them, being citizens of New
York, made default. The third an-
swered, and the cause was at issue.
More than 10 months afterwards, the
third, being a citizen of Pennsylva-
nia, petitioned for the removal of the
cause into this Court. The plaintiff
was a citizen of Massachusetts: Held,
(1.) The removal was not one pro-
vided for by subdivision 2 of § 639 of
the Revised Statutes, because the
plaintiff was not a citizen of New
York;
(2.) The removal was not applied for
in time, under § 3 of the Act of March
3d, 1875, (18 U. S. Stat. at Large,
471,) because several terms of the
State Court had been held, after the
joining of issue, at which the cause
could have been tried, if noticed for
trial by the defendant, and there was
no obstacle to its being so noticed,
although the petition was filed before
the commencement of the term for
which the cause was first noticed for
trial. Forrest v. Keeler,
522487, Commissioner of Patents,
629, Suit by Assignee,
639, Removal of Causes,
1789, September 24th, Judiciary, 1, 2
1789, September 24th, Removal of
1832, July 13th, Patent,
1836, July 4th, Patent,
303, 443, 462, 485, 5073281, Internal Revenue, 325, 326,
1864, June 3d, National Banks, 259, 260 | § 4,412, Supervising Inspectors,
444
1851, March 3d, Limitation of Lia-
bility,
222, 223, 226
1853, February 26th, Costs, 2574234, Navigation Rules,
4405, Supervising Inspectors, 94,
117, 121
106,
117, 121
327, 328, 331
3894, Illegal use of Mail, 554, 555
4233, Navigation Rules, 94, 100, 106,
111, 112, 118, 121
101
1867, March 2d, Bankruptcy,
$ 4884, Patent,
4887, Patent,
5254916, Patent,
744917, Patent,
1867, March 2d, Military Districts 9, 10 § 4917, Patent,
After the Court decided Cooper v.
The Town of Thompson, (13 Blatchf
C. C. R., 434,) the Court of Appeals
of New York decided, in Horton v.
Town of Thompson, (71 N. Y., 513,)
that the Act of the Legislature of
New York, passed April 28th, 1871,
(Lws of New York, 1871, chap. 809,
p. 1838,) validating the irregularities
of the commissioners in issuing the
bonds of the town, was unconstitu-
tional, and, after that decision, this
Court, in an action between the par-
ties to this suit, adhered to the for
mer decision of this Court. In the
present case this Court adhered to
its former decisions, there being no
difficulties in the way of a review of
the case by the Supreme Court. Per-
rine v. Town of Thompson,
The case of The County of Warren
v. Marcy, (97 U. S., 96,) followed, as
conclusive against a defence predi.
cated on The People ex rel. Kilbourne
v. Benedict.
id.
3. Where a plaintiff has the legal title
to coupons, he can sue upon them,
although he bought them merely
with the object of bringing suit upon
them in this Court, and intending, if
he collected them, to pay over a por
tion of the recovery to some other
id.
person.
4. Coupons payable to bearer are prom-
issory notes, within § 1 of the Act of
March 3d, 1875, (18 U. S. Stat. at
Large, 470,) and the holder of them
is not an assignee, but acquires his
title by delivery.
id.
See CRIMINAL LAW, 12, 15, 17.
See CARRIER, 1 to 5.
COLLISION, 9 to 12.
1 G., trustee under the will of J., of
property, to receive its profits, and
pay the same to B. during his life,
with remainder over to the plaintiffs,
turned over the property absolutely
to B., who lost it. The plaintiffs
brought this suit against L., the ex-
ecutrix of G., claiming not only that
she had assets belonging to the estate
of G., but that G. had conveyed to
her, she being then his wife, without
consideration, property of his own,
more than was a reasonable provision
for her in view of his violation of
said trust, and probably intending to
defeat such liability, which she un-
derstood: Held, that, in addition to
responding for the assets of the es-
tate, she must respond, and in this
suit, for the property so conveyed to
her. Beatty v. Hinckley,
2. The whole claim is one against the
estate of G., in her hands as execu-
trix, and the bill is not multifarious.
1. Where a rebate of duties is made in
regard to goods respecting which
damage is awarded for a breach of a
contract of affreightment by a ves-
sel, the vessel cannot have credit,
against the amount of damage, for
the amount of the rebate. The Eroe,
16
See ADMIRALTY, 4.
CARRIER, 1 to 5.
NEGLIGENCE, 1.
|