Rule of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, adopted since the publication of the sixth volume of these Reports.
Issues, whether of law or fact, and appeals, in this Court, may be noticed for trial or hearing, and placed upon the calendar, by either party; and either party noticing the same may, when the cause shall be called, move the trial or hearing, and take verdict or judgment, or order to dismiss the suit for not going to trial, as the Court shall direct.
1. Under the 5th, 6th and 10th sections
of the Act of August 6th, 1846, (9
U. S. Stat. at Large, 59,) and the Act
of March 3d, 1857, (11 Id., 249,) and
the two sets of Circular Instructions
issued by the Secretary of the Treas-
ury on the 27th of May, 1857, and
the Act of July 17th, 1862, (12 Id., 1.
593,) and the Circular of the Treas-
ury Department of October 27th,
1862, and the Act of May 2d, 1866,
(14 Id., 41,) and the Act of June 14th,
1866, (Id., 64,) and the Circular of
the Treasury Department of Novem-
ber 10th, 1866, moneys of the United
States placed in the hands of an as-
sistant quarter-master in the United 2.
States' army, for disbursement by
him as a disbursing officer of the
United States, and deposited by him
with an assistant treasurer of the
United States, continue still to be
moneys of the United States. Mor-
gan v. Van Dyck,
2. Such assistant treasurer is not liable
in assumpsit to such depositor for
such moneys.
id.
1. Where an injunction, restraining the
infringement of a patent, was issued
on a final decree in a suit in equity,
and a motion was afterwards made
for an attachment against the defend-
ant, for violating the injunction by
selling an article alleged to be an in-
fringement of the patent, and it ap-
peared that no such article had been
sold by the defendant prior to the
making of the decree, and it did not
appear that such an article existed
before the making of the decree, and
an issue was fairly raised, on the facts,
as to whether such article was an in-
fringement of the patent: Held, that
such issue could not be disposed of
on a motion, on affidavits, but must
be determined in a suit brought for
the purpose. Liddle v Cory,
See JURISDICTION, 3 to 5.
Under the bankruptcy Act of March
2d, 1867, (14 U. S. Stat. at Large,
517,) all property of a bankrupt, in
his actual possession at the time of
the filing of the petition in bankrupt-
cy, passes into the hands of the
assignee the instant he is appointed.
In re Vogel,
18
Where property that was in posses-
sion of a bankrupt when he filed his
voluntary petition, and was embraced
in the inventory to such petition, as
property assignable under the Act,
was afterwards taken by process in
replevin issued from a State Court,
by a creditor who had sold it to the
bankrupt, but claimed that, because
of fraud, the title to it had not passed,
the process stating that the bankrupt
claimed to have purchased the prop-
erty, and the bankrupt was adjudged
such, and an assignee was appointed:
Held, in a proceeding instituted by
the assignee against the creditor, that
the creditor must restore the property
or its value to the assignee, and that
the proper remedy of the creditor was
to apply to the District Court for
relief, or to institute a proper action
against the assignee in the District
Court or in this Court.
id.
The nature of the superintending or
revisory power given to the Circuit
Court over proceedings in bankrupt-
cy, by the 2d section of the bankruptcy
Act of March 2d, 1867, (14 U. S. Stat.
at Large, 518,) considered and stated.
In re Bininger,
4. The superintendence and jurisdiction
conferred upon this Court by the 2d
section of the bankruptcy Act of
March 2d, 1867, (14 U. S. Stat. at
Large, 518,) is revisory, and does not
|